Wikipedia:Peer review/August 2013

This page contains the Peer review requests that are older than one month, have received no response in the last two weeks, are not signed, have become featured article or featured list candidates, or did not follow the "How to use this page" principles in some way. If one of your requests has been moved here by mistake, please accept our apologies and undo the archiving edit to the peer review page for the article.

---

Waveguide filter

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am looking to get this article to FA and need a thorough review for that level of quality. Comments on understandability and the appropriateness of the level of technical detail are particularly welcome.

Thanks, SpinningSpark 23:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Old Church of St Nidan, Llanidan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is about a closed church in Anglesey, Wales, that was largely demolished over a century ago. Despite that - or perhaps because of it - there's rather a lot to say about it. It's been a GA for 18 months; Eric Corbett has recently given it an extensive copy-edit (for which I am very grateful) but before I take it to FAC, I thought I would see what other people thought could be improved in this article. Thanks in anticipation, Bencherlite^Talk 14:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

This is a delightful article, and I can find practically nothing to quibble at, but I'm doing my pernickety best:

• Foundation and construction
  • Perhaps someone determined to find ambiguities might ask why Messrs Downam and Ashton passed by sale, though no sane reader would actually misunderstand.
  • Opening sentence of third para: I'd either replace the semicolon with a comma or change "pointing" to "point". As it is, you're short of a main verb.
• Replacement and demolition
  • "the old church required significant repair" – I try to follow the advice of Fowler and Gowers to avoid the adjective "significant" unless something is actually signified. You want "considerable" or some such here, I think.
  • "In his view the only part of the church…" – a long sentence that could perhaps do with breaking up.
• Structure
  • "whilst the east window…" – I agree with Gowers: "whilst is an unnecessary word, and many people, including all Americans, pass blamelessly from cradle to grave without using it." A semicolon would do the job more concisely.
• Infobox: you use "ft" here but "feet" in the text. Is this deliberate? Wholly unobjectionable, but I just mention it.

It was, I may say, exceedingly difficult to find this handful of utterly unimportant quibbles. I enjoyed the article extravagantly, and chuckled at Jones's elegant crack about the east window, a line I intend to steal and recycle. – Tim riley (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Later – I so enjoyed the article that I have revisited it as an after-dinner treat. Forgive a single quibblette more:

• Foundation and construction
  • "earlier records have been lost, therefore the date…" – "therefore" is not a conjunction, and you either need "and" before it or a semicolon.

I promise to shup up now. Please let me know when you take the page to FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No need to shut up. All suggested tweaks adopted, with the exception of the ft/feet infobox thing: {{infobox church}} suggests using the abbreviated form in the infobox, presumably as a charitable attempt to keep the number of characters in the infobox to the bare minimum.... If you are of a nervous disposition, I suggest that you don't look at all the bloated parameters that has... Brianboulton would love it (not)! Thank you very much. Bencherlite^Talk 20:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because to have reviews and comments for further edition to be submit for Featured Article Nomination. I request you to kindly review the article.

Thanks, Mongolkhun (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Blowing from a gun

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get feedback, particularly on the structuring and language used in the article, prior to taking it to GA. Other comments are also most welcome!

Thanks, Arildnordby (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Citizen Kane

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it appears to be in very good shape and is obviously an important page in the Films category. I have not personally edited it but I would like to see the ball rolling on it. I would suggest a Peer Review that is specifically geared towards FA status and that gives suggestions to improving the article for any users who see the page. I would also suggest adding any maintenance tags within the body of the article. I may work on this page in the future but I would imagine that I'm not alone there so we might as well set things up for anyone to improve this article.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

For starters, you could fix the Citation Needed templates and the refs followed by unsourced chunks of text. igordebraga ≠ 01:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

{{doing}} Ping me if I have't responded in a day or two. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Overall, it's a fairly solid base, but from my eyes it needs some hefty work to get to FA.
  • The lead section seems to jump around a lot; ideally, it should mirror the actual structure of the article, so it's odd that it goes into details about its accolades and impact, then jumps back to its premise, development, and initial reception (and then more impact.)
  • On the subject of media: File:Citiza kane.jpg doesn't seem to significantly add to the article per WP:NFCC; the same goes for File:Rosebud-Pine.jpg. File:Writing Kane.JPG does not give any evidence the photo was published without a copyright notice and thus is in the public domain. File:Citizen Kane deep focus.jpg is too poor and low-res an image to actually convey the focus aspect of the shot, thus is doesn't seem an effective fair-use case.
  • There's a lot of unsourced content throughout, both expressly tagged with {{cn}} and that which isn't. Among the major sections:
    • The home release info, including details on transfer and dates of releases
    • Bits of Hearst's response sound a bit sensationalist (particularly the closing paragraph)
  • Some content is apparently duplicated (such as the offer to buy off the print from RKO, which is mentioned in the "pre-release controversy" section and again in the "Hearth's response" section immediately after.)
  • What does this line mean at the end of the special effects section? A loud, full-screen closeup of a typewriter typing a single word ("weak"), magnifies the review for the Chicago Inquirer.
  • I'd say the article relies a bit too much on large amounts of block quotes instead of summarizing and paraphrasing the content.
  • As is often the issue with these sections, the "Popular culture" section is a mess. Auctions aren't really "pop culture", and a random reference to The Simpsons doesn't make a coherent section. It needs to be expanded and clarified or cut altogether.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Travis Tritt

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to GA. I feel the last GA reviewer was overly nitpicky and declined the GA for spurious reasons. To my eyes, the article contains everything that it should; all the sources check out; and all relevant info is in its place. I would like to know what else it would need added or removed before re-sending to GAN.

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Priyanka Chopra filmography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback regarding comprehensiveness, grammar and writing. I would like to see constructive comments for its further improvement required for FL.

Thanks, —Prashant 16:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Bollyjeff

The intro seems incredibly long. It is way longer than most filmography articles I have seen, although I have not seen a great deal of them; but some have only a single sentence. Since much of it is repeated from the main article, and this is supposed to be a list, I would say that cuts are needed here. Although now looking at Wikipedia:Featured_lists, some do have a fair amount of text, but they usually do not list the earnings for many individual films. Try to emulate these. BollyJeff | talk 02:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done: Removed earnings and trimmed the lead a bit.—Prashant 03:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to remove budget and gross from the filmography, because it is not really that important for her, is causing sorting problems and is incomplete anyway. You could leave director if you want, but since this is its own article now, I think it would be okay to put back notes/awards and add other awards besides Filmfare and National Awards, which is more important for her than budget etc. If you look at some Hollywood actor filmographies, they are full of other awards. Good sources are still needed though. BollyJeff | talk 14:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Then you'll say to not include sales of albums/singles in her Discography article (hopefully one day will be created) Right? Because there are no such articles on Indian artists. I think it's fine to have budget and gross and By the way all sources are reputed and notable. For her awards, there is an another article.—Prashant 22:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

I'll put some thoughts in here over the next day or so. It's in pretty good shape, but needs work in a few key areas. The ones I raised at the previous FLC were:

• The sorting on the budgets needs to be done properly. Sorted on budget, Andaaz (at 80 million) comes in as more expensive than Don 2 (at 700 million), while the 1.4 billion of Ra.One is shown as the cheapest. I suspect that this is because you have it in a conversion template. Why not just show the raw figure (no symbol etc) and the US$ conversion alongside?

 Done: Changed to Crore now.—Prashant 02:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It still doesn't work. 14 and 140 both come before 25, for example. I don't know how to fix it; just saying. BollyJeff | talk 03:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've had a little play around and think you may need to drop the INR template into a sort one. For Bluffmaster box office, you'll need to do: {{sort|310 million|{{INRConvert|31|c|0}}}}. This will allow you to keep the INR symbol, and conversion and still have a sold sort. - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done: Used this for sorting.—Prashant 13:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop saying done without even checking; it still odes not work. Anyone can see that! BollyJeff | talk 13:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

My mistake: try {{sort|310000000|{{INRConvert|31|c|0}}}} and break out the figures into the long version. That should be okay. - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done: Added and lets hope it works this time.—Prashant 22:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not done, because it doesn't work. You need to test it yourself before saying its done. - SchroCat (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Replaced convert template with raw figures.—Prashant 18:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Minor sorting issues on the titles. When a film is The Heroes..., it should sort under Heroes. Try using {{sort|Hero: Love Story of a Spy|''[[The Hero: Love Story of a Spy]]''}} for this entry.

 Done: Adopted it for sorting this title.—Prashant 02:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Use the same sort template for role and director names: these should sort on the surname {{sort|Roy|Mrs. Sonia Roy}}, for example.

More to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done: Adopted it for sorting the names of her characters and directors.—Prashant 02:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The lead is still way too wordy and bloated. I've done four complete career histories of British actors involving their stage, TV, film, radio and record outputs, all for actors who had a literal lifetime of professional work of over 50 years each; all the lists are FLCs. The word count on their leads are:

• Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record: 314
• John Le Mesurier on stage, radio, screen and record: 404
• Bernard Lee on stage and screen: 235
• Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record: 354

I've also done David Niven on screen, stage, radio, record and in print (currently an FL candidate) which has a 364 word lead. In comparison, Chopra rolls in at a whopping 724 words for a film career that has only been going twelve years. Have a look at the leads on the five articles I've listed and see how they are structured and what they are describing. The Chopra lead could lose a couple of hundred words and be better for the readers to understand the career to date. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done: Trimmed a bit. But, FYI I have developed the article on the lines of Christian Bale filmography (an FL and has a long prose).—Prashant 14:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Tables now OK, I think, but I'll give them another going over at FLC In terms of the text:

• In IndEng, is it "program" or "programme"?

 Done: Corrected.—Prashant 16:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "her performance in Yakeen received rave reviews". This moves over into WP:PEA and I don't think it's supported by the source (which only refers to "a good performance" and not to any other reviews)

 Done: Tweaked.—Prashant 16:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nope: same as the critic comment below. - SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done: Cited a review for it.—Prashant 07:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• What is a "serial sprouse killer"?

 Done: Re-worded.—Prashant 16:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Chopra's portrayal was highly praised by film critics": 1) loose the "highly"—too peacock. 2) You've shown one review, so it was praised by one critic: do you have a source that says it was praised by many?

One review is enough to prove it much like the main article.—Prashant 17:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really: if that's the case you should say the critic x praised her performance, or use a direct quote, saying "xxx of xxx considered her performance as.....". You're telling us that critics praised her: that gives the impression that most or all of them did, which you have not proven: you've shown us one - what about the rest.

 Done: Cited a source which says she received rave reviews.—Prashant 07:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not happy about the lead, but I'm not entirely sure why. I'll have another look later - probably at FLC again. - SchroCat (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those last couple of edits. I think it's pretty good as it stands, but wait for another week or so to see if you get another copy editor passing through who can improve it further. Drop me a line when it comes up for FLC and I'll have another look through again. - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Schrod this was already much improved. I've made a number of edits myself and have condensed it down to a length which I think flows better and covers what needs to be covered. In my opinion this is now just about ready.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think those edits are very good and the article has improved a lot. Thanks.—Prashant 17:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the recent work on the lead makes it much better; it's tighter, easier to read but still covers everything that needs sorting. I suggest you close the PR and go to FLC. A quick note, Prashant: if you ask people on their talk pages to come to FLC, only ask once and do not chase or remind them, as you did to Cassianto. That will only ever backfire on you and you will lose reviewers. - SchroCat (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I got it. Thanks. —Prashant 02:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank You everyone, who participated in the PR and the article has improved significantly.—Prashant 02:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

---

1988–94 British broadcasting voice restrictions

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it forward to an FAC nomination at a future date, and wondered what may be needed to get it there. It passed GA less than two weeks ago, so I wouldn't take it forward for a while, but believe it has the potential to reach FA status. Most importantly, is there anything else I should add to it? Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

---

British Airways

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a good article in a strong position, and I'd like to nominate it for featured status soon. I'd like to have it checked to see that it is ready to be nominated and to see what changes might need to be made.

Thanks, Cloudbound (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Peer review User:Mtaylor848

Opening statement

• The statement compares BA to other UK airlines in terms of size (in its various measures), how does this compare to other world/European flag carriers or Oneworld members?
• The Conservative government are mentioned but which one and why no link. Perhaps a link to the second Thatcher ministry. Done
• 'One world, the third largest alliance'; i.e. the smallest  Done
• 'IAG third largest airline', behind whom?
• The mention of the Olympic flame isn't noteworthy enough in the context of the airline to be in the opening statement. It should be reserved for the history section. Done

History Broadly speaking this section if well written, to my mind at FA standard, however it leaves me with one question. What became of British Asia Airways. There's a mention of its formation but none of its subsequent history of current status. Nor is there a link. Done

Corporate Affairs is this the best section for the cargo airline?

It's kept in the same section as the other subsidiaries. I'm not sure how well it would work to have it anywhere else, but I'd like to split it out as a separate article. Cloudbound (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Destinations No issues although most detail is on another page. Would the destination map be better placed here? Done

Fleet I can see no issues with this section. It's perhaps one of the more comprehensively written of such sections. Perhaps this could be used as a model for some airline pages where much information is missing.

Marketing Perhaps I'm not best place to review this section, but no issues stand out to me.

Cabins This seems well written to me, I have no information to the contrary.

Incidents and accidents The only point I'll make here is that the picture used, while of the most recent incident is probably not the most notable. What else is available? Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look and it's the best image we have. Cloudbound (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I'll make a start on the article tomorrow. Cloudbound (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added some updates for you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Christopher Nolan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've listed this article for peer review hoping I will get some feedback and maybe even solicit copyedits from other editors. Any help is appreciated.

Thanks, Sammyjankis88 (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sammyjankis! I put a few minutes into this article, and I came up with a few things to work on. Some of them might be kind of nit-picky, but I hope it gives you lots to work with. I have to run now (real life is calling), so I was only able to make it through the "2000s" section, but I really hope I can give this a little more time later on today or maybe tomorrow.

While we're at it, I've recently listed a PR request for Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of Mormonism. If you get the chance, would you pop on over there and PR it also? Thanks!

In summary section:

• Explain to the reader just WHY he's considered so innovative (cinematography, storytelling, what?)

• Closely related to this, tell us about his signature style - what sets him apart from the rest and/or why he's been so successful commercially.

• "...and with his long-time film producer Emma Thomas, he would screen 35 mm feature films during the school year and use the money earned from ticket sales to produce 16 mm films during the summers.[13]" - I don't think this contributes much to the strength of the article. Interesting, yes, but not encyclopedic.

• "Larceny was funded by Nolan himself, but shot using the society's equipment. " Same issue as above.

• "The film is a remake of the 1997 Norwegian film of the same name, but features a different backstory for the protagonist, giving the film a different way of presenting the moral paradox of the character, which also leads to a different set of interpretations and answers than what the original film offers." This is a long and unweidly sentence and I'm not quite sure how to break it up and still preserve the author's original meaning.

• "Nolan also worked on The Keys to the Street, based on a novel by Ruth Rendell. He adapted the book into a screenplay, which he originally planned to direct for Fox Searchlight, but decided to make Batman Begins instead..." This doesn't really flow well.

• "The film revived the franchise." How?

• "Batman Begins also heralded a trend of darker genre films..." what does this mean? Did it start the trend, or was it simply a part of an already growing trend?

Overall:

• Only one picture? This article needs two or three pictures of Nolan, plus screenshots under his "directoral style" of his signature stuff (action shots would be best). Fair-use them if you have to.

—Trevdna (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Civilization

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… There is some disagreement about the direction of the article. I think it should be about civilizations whereas others see it more as a dictionary entry defining the word having an extensive etymology. Thanks, Bhny (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Gamal Abdel Nasser

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for Featured article review soon. Since the last peer review in 2009 and GA and A-class reviews in 2010, I have significantly expanded or revamped large parts of the article and it could use an additional review before FAR. The particular sections are: Lead, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Assuming the Presidency, Nationalization of Suez Canal, Suez Crisis, Pan-Arabism and socialism, Influence on the Arab world, Revival on pan-Arab stage, War of Attrition and later life, the entire Legacy section and Personal life.

Thanks, Al Ameer son (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial Peer Review

Great work on the article it has grown a lot since last time I checked it. I just have a couple of questions that I raise while reading the article if there is information about it please do provide it.

• How did Abdel Nasser manage to get educated even though this was only for the elite as far as I remember?

What I've gathered from Aburish is that Nasser's father worked in the civil service and was forced to move from town to town and that Nasser's family was on the margin's of Egypt's small middle class at the time. He also writes that his mother Fahima was the daughter of a well-off coal merchant and that she spent all of her "forty dollar monthly income (a substantial sum then) she received from her family to educate her four children," citing Lacoutre (1973 p. 20.) I'll try to add more about this in the article. Aburish also writes that "All his biographers (Lacoutre, Nutting, Stephens, Mansfield, Tikriti, Abdel Malek, Stewart, Wynn, Woodward and 18 others) agree that he spent most of his spare time reading ..." Aburish himself states "the most telling part of his personality was his ability to maintain scholastic continuity despite the many moves from school to school." --Al Ameer 23:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• How did he manage to secure a meeting with the Secretary-of-State even though he's just 19 and not well known.

Aburish writes "... he accepted the need for a wasta, and he mysteriously managed to see the secretary of state, Ibrahim Kheiry Pasha, who sponsored his second attempt at entering the Obassia Military College.[14]" His footnote cites Anouar Abdel Malik, Egypt's Military Society (Arabic) (Cairo, 1982). p. 206. Do you think we should allude to the apparent fact that he landed this meeting "mysteriously" or no? --Al Ameer 23:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Please wikilink Ibrahim Kheiry Pasha. What is the secretary of state position? Is that the foreign minister?

Highly doubt he was foreign minister. This source from 1939 describes Ibrahim Kheiry Pasha as the "Under-Secretary of State for War." That would make much more sense. I could wikilink him, but there's no article on the guy and I've found very little on him online. It seems he was one of the less important government officials at the time. Of course I only have access to western sources. --Al Ameer 23:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Was he turned down from school because he needed a wasta or did he have bad grades since he only spent "45 days" in school a year at times.

Aburish says it was the wasta. The source says he missed 45 days in his last year of secondary school. It doesn't say he skipped school often during other years. Don't know anything about grades. Unfortunately, I don't have too many sources at my disposal that really discuss his early life. --Al Ameer 23:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• When did he join the military academy cause it's not clear whether it's 1937,1938 or 1939

1937. --Al Ameer 01:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Nasser, like most Egyptians, saw this as a blatant violation of Egyptian sovereignty" while this might be the common notion now it is not true. Crowds went in cheers to applaud the appointment of al nahas since he was unconstitutionally removed from his position earlier. Also Ali Maher was not the prime minister of Egypt at the time but Hussein Sirri Pasha and he resigned earlier that day. There's an article about that at Abdeen Palace Incident of 1942. While it's not detailed or comprehensive it should be wikilinked. It also marks the first military coup in the history of modern Egypt.

The Aburish source, which is used for this sentence, actually doesn't say "like most Egyptians" in those words, but he does say that the incident caused the Egyptian people to generally become disillusioned with the Wafd. He also says "The feeling among Egyptians that Farouk should have led a call to arms was widespread" and that Egyptian officers were particularly incensed, including Nasser, Naguib, Mohieddin, and Sadat. The article doesn't mention any support for el-Nahhas being reinstated, but either way I've removed that particular bit from the sentence. As for Mahir/Sirri Pasha, I assume Aburish just made a mistake. --Al Ameer 01:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll review the other sections soon but these are just few thoughts from the first reading.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• The first demonstration he joined what was it for? This source states it was for the cancellation of the 1923 consitution. He also went to prison for participating I think that is worth mentioning.

Done. --Al Ameer (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• The paper in which nasser appeared is also in that source I think it's worth being displayed in the article. The source is by Nasser's daughter and it details his early life and upbringing.

Done. --Al Ameer (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• One reference link is dead "Desouki, Khaled".

I replaced it with an actual article. --Al Ameer 18:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• One has an author but not mentioned "Safeguarding Nasser's legacy".

Done. --Al Ameer 18:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The Oxford companion to politics of the world" needs all its citebook parameters filled as well as the specific pages from which it was cited
• Same for "Land, Poverty and Livelihoods in an Era of Globalization"

Done. --Al Ameer 18:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.country-data.com/ does not seem like a reliable source.
• http://www.transnational-research.com/luxorlad.htm needs a template and I am not sure whether it is reliable as well.

Replaced. --Al Ameer (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Liberating Nasser's legacy" needs an author

Done. --Al Ameer 18:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Egypt candidate to seek election suspension" "publisher=" is showing

Done. --Al Ameer 18:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• In the external links section you should consider linking to the english version of nasser.org rather than the arabic one. I would also suggest reviewing what should be put there.

Done. Also, removed everything else from the section. Just a bunch of youtube clips, soundless CIA short clips of Nasser, the Philosophy of the Revolution which is already linked in the article and an opinion piece. If you have reservations about some of the links I removed, let me know. --Al Ameer 18:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• The writings section why is it that it says "including the following:" did he write any other books?

Clarified. To my knowledge, he only wrote three books. --Al Ameer 18:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think egypt.com is a reliable source which is used to state that nasser56 broke every box office record.

I clarified the statement (the Egypt box office record has since been broken). It did set the record at the time though. I've replaced the source with clearer RS. The article on the film itself has the potential to be substantially expanded. I might work on that at later time though. --Al Ameer 18:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• "From a legal standpoint Nasser had the right to nationalize the canal as long as he paid off its shareholders". Could you clarify that more cause I thought this was somewhat controversial.

That's all I think.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Some extra commentsDiaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC):

• There are some comments that weren't responded to in the previous peer review.

The main concern of the first peer review appeared to be be the reliance on Aburish. Whether or not this will be a problem in the FAR, I will try to replace it as much as possible. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• There is a todo list in the article talk page check what is still needed, add to it or clear it out.

Done, except for the video of his resignation, which I don't think I can a get a hold of and upload. As for the NAM, this was a very important aspect of Nasser's presidency, but I'm refraining from adding substantial amounts of material until we get started with Czar's copyedit (see below). --Al Ameer (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Please resolve the minor issues for links redirection and access date. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed except for a couple of access dates which I will get to. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• You have two references with "Aburish 2004, p. 18"

Fixed. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• There is a picture with no description on commons or source and some have bare links which should have a proper title. One of the pics has a fb link as source which might result in a copyvio as it is not a reliable source and the link is dead as well. Please review all images as they are considered in the FAC.

I fixed some, replaced some. I'll finish up with the rest of the images soon. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Check out Wikipedia:DASH#Dashes as some dashes don't conform with it.
• All his children are wikilinked in the personal details section. If they are not notable don't wikilink them. Otherwise I suggest creating stubs for them.

Done. Might create an article on Hoda later. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sulayman Hafez should have a stub as it is wikilinked twice in the infobox. Being a deputy prime minister and minister of interior he is notable.

Done. --Al Ameer (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• There were many posters of nasser whenever protests are done in Egypt for example the 25 January revolution contained many pictures of him as well as the 2013 June coup. I think this deserves a mention in the legacy section.

In the legacy section we have a passage that discusses the phenemenon in Egypt and the Arab world during the Jan. 25 revolution. I'll try to add something about the ongoing demos, but I've mostly found blogs that currently discuss it. I have come across some RS that compare Sisi with Nasser (not really a good comparison). If you have any articles I could use, it would be great if you can give me the links. I'll keep looking in the meantime. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the finest articles on Wikipedia I think and certainly deserves being a FA.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your collaboration in writing this article, Diaa. I appreciate all of your latest suggestions and your review. There are still a couple of concerns that I haven't addressed yet, but by the time this entire peer review/copyedit is finished, I'll have dealt with them. It's been several years since we started work here and I hope we could finally get it through FAR. Cheers, --Al Ameer (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Review from czar

I'll add notes from my copyedit here. To keep things tidy, please only respond in-line where necessary, and otherwise respond below my review. This will most likely take a few days, so feel free to reply here as I add preliminary notes. If possible, wait until after I finish editing to do any surgery. And here we go

• Things I did not (at least yet) do: did not verify lede or infobox within article, did not spot check footnotes, did not copyedit sources, standardize for Brit/American (article uses both, I prefer the latter, though I imagine Brit is more popular in Egypt—your call)
• Lede: "far-reaching" needs to be qualified in the text, possibly additionally cited within the lede if controversial phrasing
• The prose length (98 kB) is nearly twice the maximum recommended length (50 kB). This isn't necessarily bad, it just means you will lose readers in a single article. I'll suggest a few parts to break summary-style.
• Alternatively, I can take out my machete and do that editing as I go, leaving whole paragraphs scorched in my wake, and relocating whole paragraphs to new subarticle ghettos. The cutting won't be pretty, but the prose will be. And history will call it very utilitarian. Let me know what you'd like, or I'll just use my better judgment.
• Every other presidential FA I've seen has every or nearly every sentence footnoted. If you disagree with the intent, my perspective is that you never know who will stuff whole unsourced sentences into a paragraph in the future, and if sourced, such a sentence makes the first split of the paragraph look attributed to the said source. This is an easy way around that.
• Lede: removed "inauguration" since it wasn't mentioned in the text
• Lede said Suez Canal Co nationalization was "welcomed by the Egyptian people" but article says Arab world, so I changed it
• (That part in-article needs more sourcing—can't rely on a single source as the barometer for the Arab world's reaction)
• same for "iconic figure" and "symbol of Arab dignity"—more sourcing to reinforce an outstanding claim
• didn't see source for Nasser as symbol of "freedom"
• From a skim, I don't seen enough evidence for the legacy claims summarized in the lede. This isn't to say they're not true, but they need more careful sourcing in the article. (E.g., is he a symbol because of his pan-Arab, anti-imperialist efforts, or are they just correlated without cause)
• "housing provisions" should be clarified in lede and article (for whom, what kind of housing?)
• what is a "cultural boom"? Is it like a golden age? Explain.
• what is a "direct relationship"? That he appealed to the people's interests? That he set up systems of direct democracy? That he gave the people bread and circuses but no progress?
• Why were the 1956 referendum margins so extreme?

Early life

• distilled background section into relevant affiliations, other parts can be excavated into personal life section where necessary—I didn't see the dad's youth as immediately relevant, though I'd like to work the lineage into the Personal life section if you don't like it in the new paragraph. Would be nice to add how his parents met, could work that into the marriage sentence (not a big deal, though).
• ✓clarify "tribal inclinations" (what does it mean?)
• ✓"that of most Egyptians"—clarify this too (does it mean most Egyptians don't have that sense of personal loyalty? in what era? is it true?)
• rephrased section so as to remove confusing cross-referencing of names (guidelines recommend using surnames only after first mention, which is difficult in family sections), also switched Gamal → Nasser
• Why was he sent to Cairo (twice)? Did it have to do with giving him stability? Or him getting into trouble?
• It may be helpful to make the footnotes list-defined—makes it easier to read the prose
• Also consider archiving the weblinks with webcitation.org or archive.org for posterity
• "According to most of his biographers": "most" is weasely unless there is a survey of all of his biographers, changed to "three", then removed the phrase altogether since it has consensus between the biographers
• removed grandfather and uncle's names as not pertinent to the story
• when did he return to Alexandria after private boarding school? to attend secondary or for another reason?
• WP uses British quotation, where the punctuation almost always goes outside the quotes
• "Nasser headed an anti-British demonstration of his fellow students in Cairo" → "Nasser led a student demonstration against British rule": is this change okay? what was anti-British about it?
• list of literary references would be better if it spoke to how it influenced his thinking

Military career

• ✓He enrolled in law school but failed? How?
• ✓Do you know which law school?
• Why did he want to join the military if he was anti-gov?
• ✓Why was the Italian coup never executed—what happened? Also why did he plan this? It seems out of color from his military training. If he had ambitions at this time, they should be enumerated, if known
• "not reacted against this attack" → all direct quotes need to be directly sourced
• also move the periods inside the quotation marks only if the periods are included as part of the original quote
• ✓"at his office in Cairo" → whose office?
• ✓why did the Egyptian gov't refuse his transfer?
• ✓"1947–49": use en dashes for date ranges
• ✓add [sic] to Margolis quote if he spells Falujah with two Ls
• ✓why were his actions honorable at Falujah? What about it made him a hero?
• Would be helpful to outline his beliefs on why he was determined to topple the monarchy—there are only a few examples thus far, but it would be good to sum his feelings
• ✓What about the Israeli occupation of Eilat was embarrassing?
• ✓This section's mention of Hussein Sirri Pasha can be trimmed to only tell the parts that pertain to Nasser (unless this part is necessary for understanding the attack on Sirri Pasha later, which it doesn't seem to be)

Revolution

• ✓Who "talked of"?
• ✓"Sirri" or "Sirri Pasha" when using his surname?
• Did Nasser ever make good to the woman he injured when going after Sirri Pasha?
• Did the public know Nasser was waging this assassination campaign, or when did it come out?
• ✓Was the six-point program public or private? Do you have a picture?
• Was Zakaria a Free Officer? I said he was, for clarification
• ✓large chunks are unsourced in this section—highly recommend distributing the footnotes to each sentence for posterity
• prose is really, really good in this section

Road to presidency

• ✓Is this audio file public domain? What category do you put it in? (Should be specified as rationale on file page)
• "the communists" is referenced a few times—does this refer to a conglomeration of Egyptian communist parties? If it's a single one, it should be linked and given a capital C as a proper noun. If not, it's fine as is.
• what were Nasser's political ambitions at this time? Did he want to be president? Did he not care? Just wanted to see his agenda through? Why did he want parliamentary elections when the rest didn't—how would he respond to them? (This would be my major criticism of the article, albeit not a large criticism because it's very good: what was Nasser thinking? Article's doing a lot of telling instead of explaining what and how he thought manifested in his actions. Granted, this is hard to do.)
• Why did the RCC go along with Naguib's kidnapping? How did Nasser unilaterally decide and act on deposing him?
• I added the word "both" to show that the positions were separate—verify?
• ✓"Large numbers of citizens": how large? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?
• How did relations between Nasser and Naguib work after Naguib was reinstated?
• What gave Nasser such broad power after the assassination attempt? Public support? Should be mentioned
• ✓Was Qutb's sentence actually commuted? Wasn't he in jail until the 60s, then released, then returned less than a year before being put to death?
• ✓"one of the largest political crackdowns in the history of Egypt" should be directly cited as a controversial statement
• ✓can the first picture in Assuming the presidency be cropped or better explained? It's hard to count from the left
• How did N gain control of state media? Force? Persuasion? Support?
• ✓1955 RCC appointed him president of what—the RCC or the single political party?
• ✓were his military forces actually too weak to confront Israel, or did he decide it wasn't a good idea? Was it his "inability" or more of a "lack"?
• $320 million in whose dollars? I formatted for USD, but change accordingly
• How did Nasser make a case for the single-party system? Did the people actually approve?
• How was the constitution approved with a 99% majority? Did dissenters just not vote? Did they not exist? What happened?
• ✓Why did the RCC resign? It makes it seem like they've accomplished their purpose, but since they dropped their military titles as well, it's almost like they failed at something.
• ✓Sections that can be trimmed: the roll call of Nasser's friends at the end of the section, and some parts in how the crackdown worked
• Shouldn't non-aligned movement get its first mention somewhere around here?

Nationalization of Suez Canal

• picture of dam or area would be nice here
• ✓unless his cabinet relations are important here, we can move the discussions over the date of his decision to another article. If anything, we want to know how much of his decision was opportunity vs. planning.
• ✓"lost" digging the canal how? to death? worth clarifying
• "prevent Nasser from achieving his stated aim of annexing the Sudan": never explained how this was an aim of Nasser's—I thought he wanted to give them independence?
• "any British-French invasion begin with" → "any British-French invasion would begin with", right? He's guessing how the invasion would go?
• "Nonetheless, his prestige at home and among Arabs" → "Nonetheless, Nasser's prestige at home and among Arabs", right?
• ✓Consider removing Ismailia line, unless it has some importance I don't see

Pan-Arabism and socialism

✓*"Nasser was not a supporter of communism": should be sourced

• ✓So were they actually trying to overthrow Hussein?
• ✓"belonging to all the Arabs": was this his position? Verify my changes
• Was Hussein just scared, or was it justified? Unclear as is

The sources (Aburish, Dawisha (in this article) and Dann, Anderson (Sulayman al-Nabulsi's article) cannot say that Nasser or his regime was behind it for sure, but the details of April 1957 in Jordan could be found in the al-Nabulsi article. I might start a separate article on it later.

• ✓same as before, I think this section needs more direct sourcing, but you can leave it to FAC if you want. I'm used to FAC requiring a footnote at least every two sentences, though.
• ✓bought media outlets how? Magnates buying out stations to influence their messaging, or starting new companies to spread the message, etc.?
• ✓bribery claims should be directly sourced as controversial
• ✓"challenge Israel" how? Makes it sound like the Palestinians relied on him to be strong for them, but is it supposed to mean he had enough clout to take them to task, or to stand up for them, or to negotiate/"go to bat" for them?
• "Together, they formed": who is they? I said Nasser supporters
• ✓change of political party is unclear—he abolished one party for another? How did that work? What about the single-party system? What were the ramifications? I changed the language, if you could verify
• ✓What is the difference between the National Union and the National Assembly
• ✓Crackdowns against other parties necessary to add? How about whether they ever stopped, instead?
• ✓"after the events in Jordan": what events? specify
• ✓missing sense of time. when did Nasser say it would take five years and keep that date close to when he changed his mind
• confirm that he became the president the day the UAR was born
• ✓pic of guys on couch needs date
• ✓clarified Quwatli as Syrian pres, but is he still the pres now that it's the UAR, or just former pres?
• why didn't they want to integrate Yemen?
• ✓"King Saud was allegedly planning on having him assassinated": why is this alleged? changed it, but correct if the sourcing doesn't back it up
• quote box needs year, also is it a personal translation or from the book ("which" should be "that")
• (I started using inline tags to make the process easier, where the tags would be self-evident)
• "most serious Arab enemy": reconsider word choice re: "serious"—what does it mean? What kind of enemy?
• how did the Lebanese partisans react to Nasser's abandonment? How was the fight going for them before the withdrawal?
• dont know whats motivating nasser at this point—does he have popular support? what about in Iraq while he's playing coup-maker?
• who led the Syrian Army at the end of the UAR? Were they previously mentioned?
• Faisal Saudi leader should be clarified from Faisal from Iraq
• I had no idea Nasser was so involved with the beginning of the PLO

Modernization efforts and internal dissent

• why the shift to Islamism?
• "The Muslim Brotherhood consequently sentenced Nasser to death.": what? how?
• "Strait of Tiran; the issue": was this his semicolon? I'd change otherwise
• did Nasser want war as a ploy to unite the region?
• "Nasser eventually began changing positions from avoiding war to giving speeches claiming war was inevitable" sentence doesn't make sense in context of the previous one
• Did Nasser imprison Qutb himself? How was he involved
• Was Qutb actually conspiring with the Saudis? Should be mentioned, not just Nasser's accusation

Six-Day War

• Why did he say he was fighting for the Palestinian people? What made him say or think this when he was weak?
• "former Syrian prime minister Amin al-Hafiz": was he former at the time too? what was his role then?
• "accepting its inevitability": verify this rephrase (and if true, why did he fluctuate? instability? image?)
• Worth mentioning why Israel attacked
• "armor" → "armored units" (to avoid jargon), correct if wrong
• ✓"two days earlier": didn't he resign on 8 June? Two days earlier would have been 7 June.
• "Many cried in open sympathy with Nasser's position.": rephrase, also not sure what type of crying or decrying
• "enabled him to arrest a large number": how did it enable him, and why did he arrest the officers?
• ✓why did Amer's home village call him a hero?
• ✓why did the three bigger countries get the subsidies? why is this worth mentioning?
• ✓what is "we shall fight" about the image?
• what happened in this "meeting" where Amer was arrested?
• why did Amer kill himself?
• was he actually planning a coup? Any accusations should try to be verified, if possible. The article paints Nasser as sort of paranoid by this point, and we have no way of knowing whether it's justified because we don't know the truth of the situations. (Granted, this could just be history.) Also if it is true, they were not "arbitrarily" arrested.
• did N personally have a role in arranging Amer's suicide? Otherwise should not be implied
• removed "ambiguously" from the resolution 242 sentence, as it adds more issues than it alleviates
• "the move" is ambiguous: Nasser's move or Israel's move or the UN's move? I picked Nasser, but verify
• "a sign that he wanted to negotiate the Palestinian issue, removing it from the top of his agenda": unclear what this meant (esp. "Palestinian issue")—I rephrased, please verify
• "While his traditional Arab enemies (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) still conspired to reduce his prominence or remove him altogether": doesn't quite add up since the Free Princes worked with him and Jordan's King tried to save his ass quite a few times. Were they really traditional enemies? If so, needs to be reflected in the article, and could use direct citation. Also if only SA and J are interested in removing him, perhaps should say that instead of "traditional Arab enemies", for brevity's sake, or switch to "such as SA and J".
• "partly because of financial dependence on Arab states of the Persian Gulf": unclear who depended on who and why they all maintained good relations for it
• what does "rejectionist front" mean? rejecting his policies? clarify
• what are "recent moves"? the un resolution? amer's suicide? what else?
• this last paragraph could probably be summarized to avoid the rephrasing issues

War of Attrition and later life

• At this point, I'm seeing how the article can be trimmed, and it'd be in moving the bulk of his presidency into an article about his presidency (or into Nasserism/pan-Arab articles) and giving summary-style of how these sections of his life fared (such as taking five paragraphs and leaving the bulk of details out for two paragraphs of essentials). The reality is that it's interesting enough to read and the prose is good, so there really isn't a reason to go that route unless the FAC reviewers complain. Nasser's life was so eventful that the comparison to Khrushchev isn't far off, and I'd be comfortable advocating for the 85k (though I can also see easily ceding if someone has clear recommendations on shortening sections).
• Little on how the people who lived in the Sinai felt about Nasser (ironically, this paragraph addresses the people's reaction, though I see how such a request strays farther from Nasser's bio )
• "partly because of financial dependence on Arab states of the Persian Gulf"
• "demanded the institution of political reforms": ? (actually, i just scrapped it)
• "a third of which was held by high-ranking members": a third of the previous positions or the cabinet altogether afterwards? i rephrased, verify
• war resumed in march 1969 but when did it previously end?
• is RCC "comrades" a term that reliable sources use? It would better to use "officers" otherwise
• RCC in this section is a little ambiguous since it hasn't been used in a while and since the Iraqi RCC was the last mention of the acronym. Consider rephrasing or reintroducing.
• wasn't explained why Israel never retreated from the Suez after the UN resolution said so
• "Sadat advised against it": what is it?
• "Boghdadi; he had since reconciled with the latter": which Boghdadi?
• "PLO's behavior in Jordan": what behavior?
• "despite protests from Nasser who issued condemnations against the hijackers": unclear. they hijacked without nasser's permission? or nasser asked them not to do it before? also the condemnation part is weirdly put in the same sentence. I removed this part and...
• I recommend summarizing the last paragraph of this section to be less expository and more summary that the Palestinian groups bothered Hussein, who reacted to the Dawson's Field hijackings with Black September, Nasser swooped into save the day with the emergency summit. I tried my hand at this, but you'll see that it made sourcing the statements harder

Death and funeral

• ✓citation for the public not knowing about the heart attacks
• is "al-Sawi Habibi" proper capitalization? (Not familiar with how al and el prefixes work)
• ✓"began at the RCC headquarters": wasn't the RCC long gone?
• ✓were the jets ceremonial or for security? isn't it called something if it's for a memorial?
• why didn't Faisal attend?
• ✓cite statements about people crying and fainting
• ✓not sure Soviet Premier counts as Western dignitary?
• ✓source every sentence here, for posterity

Legacy

• "upper world": clarify
• sympathizers/detractors comparison would work well at beginning
• "national economy was significantly reformed": the economy was reformed? rephrased
• ✓list of artists can be slashed, his legacy should be painted in broad strokes everywhere the details aren't absolutely necessary for knowing Nasser—Nasser administration article can cover the cultural impacts, but keep the bio on point
• why did Islamists deem Nasser a traitor?
• how did he display a bourgeoisie mentality? not mentioned prior
• watch the "many" and "most"—try to clarify
• "Pharoanic" → "Pharaonic", right?
• ADNP vs. ANDP
• "Nasser defined the politics of his generation.": move earlier in the subsection? don't want to mess with refs, since they aren't on the first sentence there ("Nasser's stature")
• How is Nasser taught in schools?
• direct quotes need direct citations
• Comparison with Sadat section can be greatly summarized to Sadat following Nasser's lead but actually differed in policymaking
• lots of usage of "far" here
• if keeping Sadat section, what's the counter to the line about angering the large segment of society? Was there much of a counterargument?
• three films, no?

Personal life

• what kind of classical music did he like? Classical Arabic?
• family credits and where-are-they-now would be best in a family tree subarticle, though not sure if necessary here
• see also links are not supposed to repeat from elsewhere in the article, but I don't think it's a big deal if lightly used
• external link has strange format

Misc. follow-up

• Margolis quote: what made the Egyptian performance at Faluja honorable? Honor usually refers to personal dignity, but is this honor for Arabs that the unit defended their cause even without support from its command? Clarify
• "Naguib was half-Sudanese and popular there, (and/but) felt that most Egyptians and members": it appears antithetical that he was popular in Sudan but opposed their self-determination, so "and" is awkward here. Would suggest rephrase or change to "yet" or "but"
• Is the Al-Gihad scan the actual page mentioned in the article? This is the association, so specify in the file descrip and caption (incl. year)
• "as its president until the holding of a presidential election" → "national elections", right?
• I don't know what percentage of this article was you, but whoever is responsible must be commended. While I can't speak to its balance, Nasser's story was fascinating, and even more compelling to read.

Czar review discussion

Discussion below (only comment in-line where absolutely necessary). Checking (✓) at the beginning of the items you've covered is okay too. I'll comment again once I wrap-up. czar · · 22:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Czar, I went to replace some info and distribute citations in the Military career section and got a little carried away with some copyediting. Besides that, I'll wait for you to finish the copyedit. As for some of your concerns above, I've added some more sources/citations to the Legacy section (including with "symbol" and "icon") and made some clarifications there. There's still more sources I will add, but I prefer to wait until you reach that section, if you don't mind. It might be easier this way. "Cultural boom" does refer to golden age, which I hope I clarified. If not, then again, I'll wait till we get to that section. "Direct relationship" in this case refers to Nasser's populist manner of governance with relatively powerless institutions. He attempted to appeal to the general interests of the people, but it wasn't a democracy by any means even though he was genuinely very popular during his rule. Of course he still had significant detractors, particularly towards the last years of his rule. While I do not doubt that the 1956 referenda were approved overwhelmingly, I have trouble believing in those margins, which I didn't include in the article. The source I used just says they were approved overwhelmingly. There could very well have been voting irregularities to say the least. Housing provisions means cheap housing in this case, I'll clarify with sources when we get there. Since we spoke about the article's huge size at my talkpage, I'll just wait until we gradually get through the copyedit before discussing it further. --Al Ameer (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

✓ Also I'll ce the changes as long as I remember, so you don't have to put it in the summary. czar · · 09:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Early life

• Actually I'm glad we're getting into lineage. I'm wary about saying Nasser's paternal lineage stems from the Hejaz, because Stephens says "According to local tradition the village got its name from the Bani Murr tribe which came from the Hejaz in Arabia and settled there presumably during the Arab conquest of Egypt." I think it would be a step too far to say Nasser's family had Hejazi lineage. The authors (Aburish and Stephens) are trying to say that Nasser's family possessed a combination of Arabian and Upper Egyptian characteristics that distinguished them from most other Egyptians. I couldn't get a clarification about "tribal inclinations" or "sense of personal loyalty" so I think we could get rid of that entire sentence and keep the stuff about Beni Mur in its respective article since its ultimately based on local tradition. Aburish writes "In other words their Arab and tribal inclinations and sense of personal loyalty differed from those of the average Egyptian. Their slogan is supposed to have been 'We never attack, unless attacked.' Furthermore, although his formative years were spent in Alexandria and Cairo, he considered himself the son of Beni Mur, and his thinking belonged to the countryside. The Saidis are proud, emotional and manly. So Nasser had that rare combination of tribal Arab and Saidi characteristics." If we could replace the sentence currently in the article with one sentence that you can extract from that passage, that would be great. Or we could just remove it completely. I'll leave that up to you.
• As for returning to Cairo twice, Aburish himself asks "But why was Gamal in Cairo anyway" about his first stay there. He says it was either because his mother was ill and unable to take care of him or that his parents "saw a special spark in him and decided to send him to the big city and a better school." So there's not much an answer there. As for the second time, I made a mistake. Nasser's dad and stepmother actually moved to Cairo in 1933 and Nasser joined them there. I made the correction.
• He returned to Alexandria from the boarding school to join his father who was transferred there. I know, there's a lot of moving back and forth, an important aspect of his early life.
• Your rewording of the "anti-British demo" sentence is accurate.
• As for quoting the literary works instead of the figures, I think I'll be able to do this, but it might make the section thicker. Should I go ahead and do so anyway?
• Also, should we mention that Nasser had a total of ten siblings, full and half? --Al Ameer (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

✓ on Hejaz removal, the intro is fine without more about origins speculations (especially as they more pertain to his father), and good idea to move it to the area's article, if you have the chance. On the literary figures, only mention the items that have an impact that is necessary to our understanding of Nasser as a person and figure, and woefully scrap the rest for the sake of space. Yes, definitely worth mentioning his half-siblings near where his father remarried (unless it was yet another wife?) ✓ on everything else. czar · · 09:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Other sections

• The sources that I have access to don't mention anything about Nasser ever contacting the passerby he wounded, nor am I sure if the public was aware of the campaign. I'm thinking no though, since I think it only came to light in Sadat's autobiography. I don't have a picture of the program, just the English translation provided by Aburish.
• "communists" is not in reference to the Party. Wherever it is I'll capitalize it.
• I've encountered a lot of trouble with the Sudan issue. I think the Jankowski source would be the answer to all my problems, but I can't access it currently. Aburish doesn't comprehensively describe the issue of Sudan and information from other sources are proving to be confusing, if not contradictory. Might need another day or two to get it straight.
• As for Nasser's intentions, political ambitions, motivations and outlook, I've tried to pepper them in throughout the article, but feared this was the opposite of what the FAR would look for (don't have much experience with FA's). I completely understand your criticism and will add more to the relevant sections tomorrow and the day after. For the record, the sources I have access to do provide the necessary information on this matter, so finding won't be a problem, but you will likely need to copyedit my additions.
• Relations between Nasser and Naguib after the first ousting attempt is apparently hard to come by. I'm sure the memoirs of the officers discuss, but I haven't found much in the sources.
• About Nasser's power after the assassination attempt, he had the backing of pretty much all of his RCC comrades before the incident, but gained a popular boost from the public and the press which gave him the necessary cover to go after Naguib and the Brotherhood. I feel like the article at least implies this, but I'll try to make it a bit more clear-cut.
• About your changes to the Bandung picture, I actually cropped it to only show the mentioned leaders, but the picture changes have been slow to take effect. When it does, my modified caption will make sense. --Al Ameer (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

✓ (reminder to check back on the Sudan issue/Jankowski source) Re: Nasser's feelings and motivations—if they're relatively stable, the article may not need more than one or two mentions. Realistically, I'm not sure the FAC will bring it up unless someone sees my comment and agrees. I'm not terribly experienced in FAC myself, but the reviews appear to be grab bags based on the reviewers who decide to participate, and the FAC really revolves around whomever does the source review. I'm happy to copyedit for you anytime—you're an excellent writer, a friendly communicator, and it's a pleasure to read your work. If I'm ever too busy, I'll let you know, but can make time for all reasonable requests. If I ever disappear or get sidetracked, just ping me and I'll get an email, which will remind me to let you know what's up. As I mentioned, I'm moving this weekend, so I'll be somewhat delayed over the next week. The Bandung picture caption edits were more because the counting from the left was unclear as to whether it was the bodies as they sat next to each other or physically in the picture. If you prefer your edit, feel free to revert whenever and wherever you'd like. I see my above comments as advice, and you're welcome to use it (or not) as you please. I'm not personally verifying the fixes, so the checkmarks are more for your own tracking. I'll watch the page and ce whatever comes in through the FAC. And, of course, I'm around for questions/advice/clarification and whatnot. Take care czar · · 09:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help and advice, it's proved very useful. I've trimmed some sections and have actually been rewriting some passages as I try to replace Aburish with other sources. I'll to address all your concerns as best I can. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• The reactions of Arab dignitaries to Nasser's death were interesting, and (I think) worth keeping if source-able. czar · · 05:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Did Gaddafi faint due to emotions or heat? If the latter or unclear, it's not worth adding, though I'd leave the first part about the crying (ostensibly due to emotion). czar · · 06:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Did Amer or Nasser create the "state-within-a-state"? unclear as is czar · · 06:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• You may want to consider nomming this for milhist A-class, when you're ready. Will make the jump to FAC easier with their backing czar · · 06:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Recently read that Gamal Mubarak's given name is from the Nasser namesake. May be interesting to add in Legacy if the story checks out. czar · · 04:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I will go for A-class review after this. Also I restored the Arab leaders' reactions and yes Gaddafi fainted from shock. The Amer-Nasser rivalry in 1961-62 has become more clear to me per different sources than Aburish. I would add the Gamal Mubarak bit, but I think I just want to trim the article down as much as possible. I've confirmed it with other sources, but it's best if we just add it to the article on G. Mubarak. If it was Hosni Mubarak who was named after Nasser, I would feel differently. I'm thinking about getting rid of the section "Comparison with Sadat" and just moving some stuff from that section to "Criticism" since they sort of cross. The article is just too big as is. What do you think? --Al Ameer (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Is Aburish not reliable as you thought, or you're just trying to diversify? I mentioned in the review that I'm all for cutting the "Comparison with Sadat" section into a summary. I'd try summarizing it as concisely as possible (a sentence or two) and then adding whatever embellishments you find necessary. I don't think it needs more than a few sentences, definitely not its own section. Haven't had a chance to review recent edits—will most likely wait until late next week. Also, I'm not as concerned about the length as I was previously. Milhist will confirm, though. Not worth stressing over length before the review, especially when the content is so good. I named the sections in the review that I thought could be cut, and I more or less trimmed as I went. You can chop down to ~85k between killing two sections and your current rate of cutting. I wouldn't worry. czar · · 06:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm working through the Arabism section now and will hopefully be done trimming in a couple days. As for Aburish, I'm trying to diversify, although in some areas he's just not as specific as other sources. Still find him reliable though. I used him a lot when I first began editing the article because his book was the only comprehensive source on Nasser that I owned. My personal resources on Nasser has expanded a bit (Aburish is still the only full-on bio) and google books has become more useful to me when I'm looking for specific things. --Al Ameer (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC) --Al Ameer (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I don't know how I missed your Sadat suggestion. Must have overlooked it in my skim. --Al Ameer (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Lhasa de Sela

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This biography of a famous singer has been at GA level for 17 months. I would like some other opinions on whether it can be taken to WP:FAC. Are the references good enough? Is the prose clean and engaging enough? Is there any glaring gap in the coverage? Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Stephen Lynch (politician)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I took this article on a U.S. Congressman to FAC but it attracted no attention, so I would welcome any input here before I give it another shot.

Thanks, Designate (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Elgin Cathedral

This peer review discussion has been closed.
PR before FAC. figure that I might as well get some regulars in here, and get all the ducks in a row.

Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Blackwater fire of 1937

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article is pretty new....started on June 29th and there isn't much more information out there about the event. Looking for a few editors to do a run through and see what this may need to go to FAC.

Thanks, MONGO 18:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Ugog Nizdast This is the first time I'm taking part in a peer re→view so please excuse me. These are at first glance and haven't check anything else.

From first para in lead,

• "Fifteen firefighters were killed when a dry weather front shifted the winds 90 degrees causing a sudden increase in wind speed and change of the fire direction, resulting in a firestorm." ...can it be made more clearer? I had to read it 2-3 times before I finally understood it.
• The first thing which came to my mind was what was the reason why so many died, could that be elaborated in a short sentence?
  • From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Opening_paragraph, "should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it", currently the paragraph does not mention the circumstance which caused the tragedy (like the above point)? The rest of the lead does summarise the important points so it's fine..I think.
• Simplify "died during the fire and six more died shortly thereafter of severe burns and respiratory complications"

• Also the lead does not mention HOW to fire was caused? (Here: lightning?)

  Thank you for commenting....I have made some adjustments for word flow and clarity. When you get a chance let me know how it reads for you now. The first sentence indicates that the fire was caused by lightning which I linked for emphasis. I adjusted the next few sentences to better explain how the weather change trapped the firefighters.

About the rest of the article

• Some Section titles could be renamed: Location-> something like Area description, even "Early 20th-century firefighting" and "Dry front causes a blowout" could be made more shorter and simpler. Section titles without repetition of words from the page name sound better, remove the word 'fire' in the other titles.

  Retitled two sections...good suggestions. I will see about a new title for the Early 20th century firefighting section.

Section "Location"

• Could this sentence be compressed and redundant wording removed? I kept reading, "Blackwater creek originate...Blackwater creek flows...Blackwater Canyon consists...Slopes of Blackwater Canyon"

  Eliminated some of the redundant wording...still working on the wording.

• gradient of 20 to 60 percent -> could use a endash.
• "The region has an upper montane mixed-conifer forest dominated by Douglas fir. The forest was dense and mature with heavy fuel loads from dead and downed trees and ladder fuels of dead limbs which extended to the ground." maybe Douglas fir tree and could it be simplified more?

I could continue further, if you have found my suggestions useful. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Working on the issues and appreciate you taking the time to review the article!--MONGO 13:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I'm learning too. Additional small fixes, do you prefer me fixing a few of them myself or posting all of them here?

I got it...I appreciate you pointing them out.

• In the lead, there is a mention of temperature but no units, I think you need to put the F template which converts it to Celsuis here, following this consistency throughout the rest of the article. Make sure you do all changes in terms, units etc throughout the article for consistency.

  Good catch...I completely missed that!

• Remove "the" from the starting, WP:MOS for lead, emphasis the removal of articles like 'the' over there and especially the bolded title at the start.

  Looked over MOS and see what you mean...I have rewritten the lead sentence and adjusted the second. Having Blackwater fire of 1937 bolded in the lead and then having the date, August 1937 seemed redundant anyway. I looked over the specific policy guideline on this matter on formatting first sentence...let me know what you think about this now when you have time.

Done I think it's fine now.

I see where you were trying to go with the opening sentence but I added The as the first word since it had to be there to precede the opening noun. But then I restored my earlier adjustment which clearly indicates when the event happened, how it happened and where.--MONGO 01:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• References - Why not try to find some news agency sources from their archives, all I see are mostly firefighting related ones.

  I'm not a big fan of news sources for things of an older historical perspective. There are a few newer sources and one is used regarding the the 75th anniversary of the fire in 2012.

• See also - Any incidents which are international and of the same scenario or era that can be added here? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  I found only one article that was of an international appeal from the same era and added that. Sadly, I know there must be numerous others that happened but we lack the articles on those and the information now is hard to locate.--MONGO 14:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I will give a more thorough read and see what comes up, may take a while. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever we can do to give it more of an international perspective is fine but it might be wisest to keep the See also section abbreviated.--MONGO 01:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed minor stuff like "paving the way for" (idiom), "help firefighters understand fire behaviour" seemed excessive, repeated use of some words and split up some long sentences with commas&emdash;see if they are in the right context and improve these if you have a better solution. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That looks fine..thanks.

• In the first section :-"mature with heavy fuel loads" simplify? Shouldn't 10 am rule be in inverted commas? It's a term, confirm this in the MOS.

  I italicized this but not sure if that best.

  • "65 firefighters from the USFS, CCC workers from the National Park Service, Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) and members of the CCC Company 1852 from" not mentioned numbers of the other groups, can it be made to sound better and consistent?

    There are mentions of the numbers of firefighters that were on the fire at various times but the actual numbers deployed in stages isn't available. Having some this line of work I could make viable estimates based on the number of crews but I can't cite myself as an authority.

• Sections "Firefighter deployment" and "Firefighters trapped" can be made to sound better and simpler?

  I'll see what I can do.

• Second section:Explain the term "dry weather front" or use a link? Shouldn't 1pm be 1:00pm? I'm not sure about this...didn't find anything in MOS.

  I think 1pm is the proper format.

• Section "Firefighter trapped" first para, is it possible to simplify since it's quite important. Same section third para - can it be worded more neutrally and clearly? it sounds a little like a story. Ranger Post and all - Why not introduce with full name? since the word 'ranger', 'mop up personnel' may not be familiar to everyone.

  I changed to their first names...good point! I also linked to Dry line.

• Section "Recovery" remove blank space and reduce the size of the image?
  • "These were of Clayton and his crew, reported by the lone survivor, of Clayton's crew who was wearing only his shoes, was badly burned and later died" Improve? and the Relevance of "ultimately they had to pass straight through the fire camps where other CCC firefighters were stationed."? seems not needed here.

    I completely reworded this and its much better now.

• Aftermath section -> "Additionally, the management at the fire were all very experienced with forest fires" sounds odd.
  • "He indicated that due to the distances involved in getting enough manpower to combat the fire while it was still relatively small, the fire wasn't contained enough to prevent the rapid spread that occurred when the weather front approached." something is wrong with the flow and indication of cause-effect in this sentence, which confused me at first glance and "A later review of 16 fatal fires, from the Blackwater fire in 1937 through 1956," simpler wording?

Looked at the page view statistics, other than a spike in viewings on the 4th July (I-day?) after you made it, the average daily viewings per day seem to be less than even 100; the projects say it's mid importance though. Better try to link it more with the rest of the related articles that you find and check the "what links here" option too. Being unfamiliar with this topic, I'm not sure if these low viewing numbers are normal. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The spike in page view stats was due to the article having a DYK blurb. I do not think the page view stats matter. Since this was one of the greatest loss of wildland firefighters in U.S. history and the worst in Wyoming history it probably is mid or even high level importance to the two WikiProjects associated with the article.--MONGO 11:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Will have more time in next few days to work in some more wording issues.--MONGO 15:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ugog....still slowly working on things here...been sidetracked a little but will have more time to refocus by Saturday. I appreciate your thoughtful comments here.--MONGO 15:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Most welcome, I'm glad to be of some help. Take your time, when it's done, I'll take a look at it one more time. Another reviewer would be helpful though. Great work in raising this article from almost nothing! Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Last comment: I've quickly skimmed through the main references it heavily relies on, although didn't do much fact-checking or verifying, I came across something which could be added. Those four sources, explained what made it such a great tragedy, for example: "Not since 1910 have so many lives been lost on a single national forest fire event" and many other such statements. Being unfamiliar with the topic, the main thing which I kept searching for while reading was, what sets this tragedy apart from the others? though I did get an idea why after finishing it, but maybe something can still be done. Perhaps you could add emphasis or expand it even more in the final sections (also lead), to catch the reader's attention? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent review. I may not have adopted all the points you made but the vast majority of suggestions you presented were very helpful. Thank you!--MONGO 19:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Crystal Palace, London

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review after performing some tidy-up and reorganisation of it. It still feels a bit short, but many related topics have their own pages that it would be inappropriate to duplicate, so advice on getting the amount of content for the article right would be appreciated. I'd like to gradually move the article towards GA status so any advice on where the article is falling short of the standards would be appreciated too.

Thanks, SheffGruff (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Boson

• Some statements still need references (see citation-needed tags).
• Since this is a British topic (and the article uses DMY date format), I presume it is intended to be written in British English. The expression "named for" is used. That should perhaps be changed to "named after".
• Images: The captions that do not contain compete sentences should not end with a period/full-stop.
• I don't think London districts need their own climate sections, and I can't think why this particular area should have one. I would suggest just linking to Climate of London (which might need its own article)?
• The Stambourne Woods section contains the phrase "Victorian Villas" (both words capitalized). I presume this is not a proper name and the second word should be lowercased.
• In the Music section, it may be preferable to replace "Spring" with a month, per WP:SEASON.

--Boson (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Hzh

• I think what's written about the boundaries of Crystal Palace needs to be improved. At the moment it is confusing and ambiguous, for example, I don't know what "the wider area" of Crystal Palace means. To me, Crystal Palace means the immediate areas around the park. The Crystal Palace electoral ward seems to cover a wider area then what is considered the Crystal Palace area (it looks to take in most of Anerley), except for the north and north-west parts of Crystal Palace which are in other boroughs. If you take Anerley and Penge to be distinct from Crystal Palace, then the southern edge of Crystal Palace would simply be just the few streets immediately adjacent to the Crystal Palace Park (Anerley and Penge West stations are very close to the Crystal Palace Park). I'm also not sure why it says Crystal Palace "straddles at least three postcode districts", I can't think of any other postcodes other than the three that would be considered Crystal Palace.
• Some copy-editing and rephrasing are necessary.
• I would agree with Boson that the climate section is unnecessary (it's more appropriate for a distinctly separated town or city).
• Perhaps a section on various amenities such as museum (although I only know of the Crystal Palace Museum) and libraries. There is also the Crystal Palace Park Farm.
• The Sport clubs section would be better re-titled Sports and then mention the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre.
• Move the Local government section down. Also I don't know about the advisability of listing names here unless someone is going to regularly update the list.
• I don't know if Stambourne Woods is considered part of the Crystal Palace or not (seems more like Upper or South Norwood), but I suppose if defining the boundaries of Crystal Palace is vague enough it can be included.

-- Hzh (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Hurricane Emilia (1994)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

This should qualify for an Featured Article as i think that the article is already well written and i have improved upon it (not to mention it was already a good Article), the storm is a classic example of a category 5 hurricane in the pacific, it being the third strongest Central Pacific storm, and it has no unsourced info.and oh this storm is part of a Good topic.

Thanks, BlueTropicalWave (Talk) 03:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm worried if this even passes GA if reassessed. The first link's already dead.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 20:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No, this should not qualify as a featured article. I have the following concerns.

• "Hurricane Emilia was the fifth tropical cyclone, second Pacific hurricane, and the first major hurricane of the 1994 Pacific hurricane season. " boring. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Changed it so that it mentions that the tropical cyclone was, at the time, the strongest of its kind in the Central Pacific. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• "It was the third most intense tropical cyclone in the central Pacific Ocean, attaining a minimum central pressure of 926 mbar (27.34 inHg) on July 19—only Gilma and Ioke reached lower pressures in the basin." false, CPAC is not a basin from a wiki standpoint. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed the mention of 'basin' and reworded some of the other details. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Why is the lead so short? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. Though it isn't a policy but a general guideline, per WP:LEADLENGTH, an article with 15,000 characters (Emilia has 12,848, even with inline citations) should only have a lead of one to two paragraphs. Granted, Emilia was a strong, Category 5 hurricane, but lack of impacts nullify such overarching length requirements for strong storms. Also the hurricane's rather normal, usual uncontradicting synoptic history makes long leads simple rehashes of content. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Why doesn't it cover much impact? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the principal researcher, but I added some of the impact into the lead. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• "On July 14, an area of low pressure was detected in the Intertropical Convergence Zone 2,110 miles (3,400 km) east-southeast of the Hawai’ian chain.[1] It was traced to a tropical wave that left the African coast on June 29.[1] " mention that first. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Flipped the sentences around. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Did the wave show signs of organization in the Atlantic?

Not that I know of, probably not, because it was not mentioned. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• when did the wave enter the Caribbean Sea? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not in the report for the season. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• When did it enter the basin? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This is also not in the report for the season, and thus does not need, or rather, cannot be stated without WP:OR. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• No need to source stuff at every sentence! Do it when the information ends. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Merged references that were extra and unnecessary.

• When did it attain winds of say 55 knts? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

55 knots is not even an important barometer for tropical cyclone intensification, so sorry, no.

• Why don't you use discussions in the MH? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave this comment and the other intensification change-qualms to an editor who is willing to pick this up, after all, I'm just doing this as a service for the original peer-review requester, who was banned for sockpuppeting. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• When did Emillia develop an eye? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• When did it become a Cat 2? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• When did it become a Cat 3? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• When did it become a Cat 4? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Any structural changes during its explosion? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Maximum sustained winds increased from 115 mph (185 km/h) on July 17 to 160 mph (260 km/h) late on July 19, which was a period of 42 hours.[3] " compare pressures not winds. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Also, link to rapid deepening somewhere. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Got it. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• " An upper-level trough in the westerlies caused the cyclone to turned northwest on July 21" link to trough (meteorology) YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Linked. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• "to turned" to "to turn"

Fixed the random suffix. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• ", and the threat to Hawai’i increased.[3][4] " this is not MH, it is preps? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• when did Emillia weakened into a Cat 3? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed. "Threat" with no substance does not satisfy inclusion into articles. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Later, Emilia began to weaken for the final time." please re-write this sentence. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Reworded.

• When did it weaken into a tropical storm? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• " On July 22, Emilia continued to weaken, and it passed within 150 nmi (170 miles) of the Big Island.[4] " don't use nmi. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Adjusted.

• "Initially, forecasts significantly underestimated the intensification of Emilia,[1] which was one of three tropical cyclones to attain Category 5 status in the central Pacific during the season.[3] On July 16, a 72-hour forecast misjudged the strengthening of Emilia by 41 m/s (92 mph).[1] Later, winds at 72 hours were 31 m/s (69 mph) too high when the cyclone began to weaken.[1]" how is this preps? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• " On July 16, a 72-hour forecast misjudged the strengthening of Emilia by 41 m/s (92 mph).[1] " do not use meters squared. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Later, winds at 72 hours were 31 m/s (69 mph) too high when the cyclone began to weaken.[1] " same here. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• "This led to high confidence in the forecasts,[7] resulting in a lack of watches or warnings.[3] " say "tropical cyclone watches and warnings". YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Nonetheless, a high surf advisory was issued for the south and east coasts of all islands.[8]" "Nonetheless" to "Nevertheless". YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Any shelters opened? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Any of the preps were due to fears of another Iniki. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Despite the storm's offshore anture, wells of 6–10 feet (2–3.3 m) were reported near the Puna and Ka‘ū coasts.[9]" "anuture"? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Waikiki Beach in Honolulu reported a 5 ft high (1.5 m) surf." no need for "a". YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• " Surf was lower along the Kona and Kohala coasts" please try to avoid back to back uses of "surf". YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• "[10][3]" order the refs numerically. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Some minor roof damage was caused by the winds.[3] " cut one of the first two words out. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• "Emilia is one of the most intense tropical cyclones on record in the Eastern Pacific, with a lowest " don't link to Pacific Ocean. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• " In the CPHC warning zone, only Gilma " what year? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The storm was the subject of a disagreement between the Central Pacific Hurricane Center and the National Hurricane Center. " to "The storm was the subject of a disagreement between the CPHC and the NHC." YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Specifically, they debated Emilia's peak strength in relation to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale (SSHWS)." to "Specifically, they debated Emilia's peak strength in relation to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale (SSHWS). "
• "However, the NHC considered Emilia to be a high-end Category 4 with maximum winds of 135 knots (250 km/h), in both its "best track"[13] and its preliminary report.[14] " Link to HURDAT and tropical cyclone report respectively. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• "List of tropical cyclones" why is this in the see also? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, may I ask why you want to get this featured? It's short and not of much interest. Despite it's intensity, it is unlikely to be brilliant to outside readers, hence strong diffculty to be featured. After all, no one cares about the EPAC. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The user who requested this has been blocked, so not sure if it should continue. Yellow Evan, since you regularly deal with Pacific tropical cyclones, I'd personally leave it up to your decision if this should stay open more. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in leaving it open. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Lou Groza

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to find ways to improve it further with a view to possibly nominating it for FA. Any suggestions, whether general or specific, would be much appreciated. Does the article cover the subject in a comprehensive way without going into unnecessary detail? Are the ref formats and other layout aspects okay, or could they be updated/improved? Any other ways the article could be made better? No suggestion is to big or too minor.

Thanks, Batard0 (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

---

2013 North India floods

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article in general can be improved further and also because it is a highly notable article.

Thanks, Suresh 5 (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll list some specific comments below. Overall, the flow needs to be made more coherent. Right now there are a lot of facts and figures thrown in haphazardly through the article. The intro should give a better idea of the overall situation. Particularly the Death and Damage section needs to be given a more logical structure, starting with some overall information, and then listing specifics. As it is it jumps around and it is very confusing. Also, some attempt should be made to be more comprehensive. Right now it seems that certain areas are given more attention than others. Overall, has a lot of potential with some care to not get bogged down in the details. Please contact me if you have any questions. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• There are certain random numbers and names that are bolded in the text, "5700", "Gobindghat". They should not be.
• Ideally the title of the article should be used in the first sentence and bolded.
• "5,700 people were "presumed dead." [3] This total included 934 local residents" - it is not clear why the distinction has been made, and most of all why local residents is so low. It should be made clear before this sentence why this is so. The following sentence deals a bit with this, but the order should be reversed, and explained more explicitly for people who might not know the context.
• "more than the benchmark rainfall during a normal monsoon" - this seems jargony, and could be made clearer
• "This caused the melting of Chorabari Glacier at the height of 3800 metres, and eruption of the Mandakini River" - clarify. does it not usually melt? Why is the height important? is "eruption" the right word for what happened in the river?
• "which led to heavy floods near Gobindghat, Kedar Dome, Rudraprayag district, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Western Nepal, and acute rainfall in other nearby regions of Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and some parts of Tibet" - this should be broken into at least two ideas. The floods did not lead to acute rainfall.
• Paragraph starting "The upper Himalayan territories of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand" should be split. It deals with several unrelated ideas. The sentences about "heavy rainfall" and the city of Dehra Dun should be dealt with in the previous paragraph, and should be put in context so that they aren't just random factoids.
• " damaged several houses and structures" - surely more than "several" houses and structures were damaged? Possible to get a specific figure?
• "heavy rains resulted in large flashfloods and massive landslides" - this doesnt' flow with previous sentence. they should be combined in a more logical sequence or restructred
• Basically the "Death and damage" section should be made more structured and flowing. At the moment there are a lot of random bits of information thrown in without a lot of order or structure.
• "When the flood receded, satellite images showed one new stream at Kedarnath town" Is this really that important?
• "and death toll in the state " - missing article. (the) - quite common in this article, and should be copy edited.
• "Nepal" section - this seems to be dealing with Nepalese visitors to India, not Nepal as such. IMO not an appropriate section here.
• "Rescue operations" - the tense used is not consistent. Standardize, either on past tense.
• "Rescue operations" - WP:Overlink IMO, and overly focused on logistical details. Should give more of an overview, and less focus on the types of helicopters used, and specific casualty details.
• "Prime Minister of India undertook an aerial survey of the affected areas and announced 1,000 crore (US$170 million) aid package for disaster relief efforts in the state" - name the PM, and it should be "announced a 1,000 crore) aid package...
• "The US Ambassador to India extended a financial help of USD $150,000 " - not "a financial help" rather "financial aid"
• Is the US the only foreign government to offer aid?
• "The Government of India also cancelled 9 batches, or half the annual batches of the Kailash-Mansarovar Yatra, a Hindu pilgrimage" - to me it isn't self explanatory what a "batch" is in this context...
• "Government agencies and priests of Kedarnath temple were planning mass cremation of the hundreds of victims, after one week of tragedy" why is this not under the Kedarnath section?
• "unscientific developmental activities " - can development activities really be "unscientific"? unsustainable perhaps?
• "as termed by certain environmentalists" - perhaps argued by? Maybe name the environmentalists?
  

---

Mario

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in seeing what would need to be done to get it to Good Article status.

Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

---

The Evil Dead

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I decided to take over the GA nomination after the main contributor decided to retire. The article has been copyedited twice, and I wonder what else could be done for a possible FA promotion.

Thanks, igordebraga ≠ 02:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by NRP

It needs another round of copyediting by someone with EN-5 skills. In particular, there are some grammar problems that use the construction "with <noun> <verb>ing", such as "with Campbell being run over" and "with Campbell running down a hill". You can get some helpful tips from User:Tony1/Noun_plus_-ing. There's also some passive voice used, but WP:MOS tells us not to obsess over fixing that. So, it's probably fine. Other than that, I don't see any obvious areas that need improvement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Doing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  

---

List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for the United States

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is heavily based off two hockey FLs, List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada and List of Men's World Ice Hockey Championship players for Canada (1977–present). Looking for any constructive criticism before I submit it to FLC.

Thanks, Anthony (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Rejectwater

• Problems with notes:

Note 8 has unknown parameter error

Note 20, 21, 25, 26, 29 are all dead links.

Note 18 and 22 are the same.

The Podnieks & Szemberg ref links don't seem to work the same as the USA Hockey 2010 link.

Note 24, 31, 32, 33, and 35-41 are all notes without a source.

• Might it work better overall to combine notes and references into a single reference list? I'm not seeing, for instance, how Wallechinsky is used in the text. It isn't linked anywhere. Having a unified refs section would address at least a few of the problems listed above as well. Or maybe keep the notes and references as two sections, but only use notes for things like 35-41, with each note having a numbered reference using the reflist template? I just find how it is now to be confusing. Most of the notes are references, and most of the references are not referencing anything specific, at least not that I can tell.
• LA84 Foundation external link is dead.
• Redlinks- all these players are notable, just without Wiki articles yet?
• Based on experience, I can guarantee this won't pass FLC unless it complies with MOS:DTT. Caption texts, scope=col, scope=row all pop out at me. I am not an expert in this by any means, however, so please don't consider that to be an exhaustive list. I know it goes for all the tables, however, including the key tables.
• Alt text. Every single image has to have an alt text. See WP:ALT.

Rejectwater (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

---

The Script

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know on which parts of the article needs improvement since I'm working on this to become a GA. I replaced a couple of references already and is in the process of expansion. Any advice would be helpful :)

Thanks, Hallows ^AG (talk) 08:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, here's my 2p worth SheffGruff (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC) :

Overview: Generally the article's contents focus on details of the three albums, with a series of often rather dry facts about them w.r.t sales, chart positions or awards. If the independent content is out there, then the biography section could really do with being expanded as the human interest side of things is what will make the article more rewarding to read. Even though there's a seperate article on it, more of the details from MyTown should be included in this article to provide a story. If you can find the sources, it would be worth adding content to the album sections from interviews with the band about said album.

Infobox "associated acts" listing for Will I am, BoB should be removed as per Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts - One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song should be avoided. The reference for will.Ia.m is missing in the body text though and should be moved into there. The one off single rule probably extends to the inclusion of Justice as well but as there is no reference to this (which is also a problem) so I cannot be sure. MyTown should stay as The Script were spun out of this band.

Biography: "Danny O'Donoghue and Mark Sheehan have been best friends since they were 12 growing up in Dublin." poor English - consider "since they were 12 and grew up together in Dublin" for example. The section mentions that they "got a record deal until the company dropped them". This should state when they got a record deal, who it was with, and when/why it was dropped. Everyone who has a record deal has it until they get dropped!

Los Angeles, not "the Los Angeles".

"learned to play drums when he was just eight and he had been playing sessions from the age of fifteen" is not very encylopaedic - it doesn't give the reader any clue as to how good he was at eight years old and it is not unusual for people to start learning instruments at a young age. "started to learn from the age of eight" would be more appropriate. There's also no reference telling the reader when he started to learn, that he was a session musician at 15 or how much money he was (or wasn't) earning from it.

2008-2010 The Script: I seem sceptical that RTE2 FM, Today FM and Jo Whiley all have an identically named "Single of the Day" radio feature and it isn't sourced - except by a dead link. Most (daytime) BBC Radio 1 presenters rarely "heavily support" bands beyond playing whatever is on the A/B/C playlists - which they are required to play.

The article makes a claim an album was an "instant success" in Irish singles chart, but doesn't provide any facts, figures or references to support this. The same paragraph then goes on to talk about a chart entry at number 40, suggesting a not so instant success, until you get to the end of the sentence and realise it was referring to Russia. Some re-working of this paragraph is needed.

"They played among big stars including Enrique Iglesias and Anastacia." - "Big Star" is not encyclopaedic. There is also no need to describe the concerts at NY Citi Field as "historic". MOS:OPED

2010-11 Science and Faith: Second paragraph contains no references despite lots of contentious claims about ticket sales and how quickly they sold. Also includes the phrase "to date" which doesn't help with Wikipedia:RELTIME

Paragraph 3 mentions BRMB which will be meaningless to anyone that hasn't had the misfortune of picking up West Midlands TV adverts for a certain radio station. It also makes various claims that they "will perform at...." (using future tense) despite the fact that the section heading time window cuts off at 2011 (now 2 years ago) and thus these dates are most certainly in the past.

Biggest indoor crowd of 18,300 is not backed up by a reference and is contentious. Should also be the "largest" crowd IMO.

Images: Article is generally lacking images - much of the article covers the albums, so album cover art would be appropriate if it could be reproduced within wikipedia's copyright restrictions. Photos of the band members would also be helpful.

Audio: As this article is about a band some audio clips are essential. Again this is fraught with copyright issues but as per the Radiohead article it can be done - see for example File:Radiohead - Creep (sample).ogg.

Page is missing a "See Also" section, which could be used to link to the band "Mytown".

Template at bottom of page: Includes Mytown in the category of "Other Albums" but this was an album by a different band and doesn't belong in a "The Script" template. Inclusion of the band in the "related articles" area is suitable but the album is not.

Technical tools:

• Final BBC News reference in the "2008–10: The Script" section should use a proper cite tag inside of a plain URL in the ref tags.
• Independent reference number 31 "script find a voice" should be cite news not cite web.
• Alejandro link should be in a cite tag but is also probably not considered to be a reliable source as it is a linked in page. Find an independent source confirming he played keys if possible.
• Images (including those in infoboxes) should make use of the alt tag for the blind/text only browsers as per: WP:ALT
• Link to 90210 doesn't point to the specific article, but to a disambiguation page.
• Links to Mark Sheehan and Glen Power should be removed as they point back to this page.
• 7 Dead links according to http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=The_Script that need removing or redirecting to an internet archive site.
  

---

List of nature reserves in Barnet

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a failed FL candidate. I have dealt with the concerns raised in the FL review and I would like to cover any further issues before re-submitting.

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: On first reading it I found it hard to see anything further that needs to be done. The list is very well presented, and looks a model of its kind. Just a few minor points:

• The links on the grid references all go to the same place, and I have no idea what I am supposed to do when I get there – if anything.

This should be the standard Wikipedia way of showing locations, the same as the coordinates at the top right of articles on places. Clicking on the grid reference gives you a choice of maps and you select one to see the reserve's location. I have added brief instructions to note f (on the grid references), but please advise if I have misunderstood and there is a problem I have missed.

• You should check out "p" and "pp" in the references. At least one (69) is faulty.

Done

• Ref 43 returns Error 404

Dead reference replaced.

• Ref 47 returns Error 404

Dead reference replaced.

I honestly can't see anything else. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your helpful comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you've resolved everything. Please ping me if you decide to take this to FLC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Soda tax

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems decent, but not yet good enough to be a good article candidate. It's only start class, for example, and as someone who has worked considerably on it I want it to become as good as possible.

Thanks, Jinkinson (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Autism omnibus trial

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I know there is a lot of room for improvement, and I would do it myself but I'm not all that experienced on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Jinkinson (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The lead of this article needs to be trimmed down to properly summarize the article and the excess material moved down into the body of the article. Additional WP:RS sources are needed but they can wait until the material is moved. --Daffydavid (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Daffydavid. I have shortened the lead, and was wondering if you could tell me exactly which sources the article uses that are unreliable. Jinkinson (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Generally court transcripts are considered primary sources and thus require a secondary source to validate them. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the 3 cases tried in these hearings were on three different issues. 1- thimerosal and mercury, 2 - mercury alone, 3 - thimerosal alone. I could be wrong about this since I haven't had time to look it up but if this is the case then more info is needed to clarify this. Also the information in this article seems to center primarily on Cedillo with very little info on the other 2 cases. Fleshing these out would be helpful. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean "thimerosal and MMR", "MMR alone", and "thimerosal alone" since otherwise you would be repeating yourself. Jinkinson (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, didn't notice that but you understood anyway.--Daffydavid (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have also added WP:LAW to this project with the hope that there might be some input into this peer review. From my point of view, I believe this article could be improved if some sections were combined to reduce the odd layout of the article. Some thoughts:

• Could combine Plaintiff's experts, Plaintiff's representation and Proposed mechanism to make a more discursive structure.  Done
• Plaintiff's claims and judges' conclusions could be split to a Plantiff section and Judges' conclusions merged with the rulings to  Done
• Second set of cases and Reactions merged into an "Impact" section.  Done
• Article could also include a picture.
• Of whom does "special masters" describe?

I hope this helps. Kind regards, LT90001 (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

OK I have reworked the article considerably, and in doing so have done most of the things LT910001 suggested. I was wondering, though, what should I include a picture of? Because this article used to have a picture in it, but Daffydavid removed it. Jinkinson (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it and I have removed it again. The article is about the trial not the court itself. Would you include a picture of the courthouse seal if it was an automobile class action lawsuit against a major manufacturer? No, you would include a picture of the vehicle involved.--Daffydavid (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, sorry that this review got lost in the ether. I've made some changes myself to the layout to make this article more readable. An image might include an image of the people involved, or even the courthouse where the verdict was delivered, to give the article some flavour. I'm still not entirely clear as to whom "special masters" describes. Do you mean "affected children", or is this a legal term? Suggest you wikilink to disambiguate the meaning. Other than that, the article's looking pretty good now. Most parts are well cited and I hope this experience was educational =P per your original intent. Would you consider this PR concluded? Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I am closing this peer review per here (WP:PR), as this article is now a GA candidate. LT910001 (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Sarnia

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the last two peer reviews have been archived by the bot before being finished. Please continue here. Thanks to all who are helping!

Thanks, There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: My comments up to the "Climate" section are included in the previous review. I will continue to post here as time permits. I'm sorry it's taking so long, but this is a busy time. Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Brian. I have already corrected all the things you brought up previously up to "Climate," including getting rid of the big, white space caused by the photos. I am kind of fond of most of the photos because I took most of them myself as a resident of Sarnia. Of course, I didn't take the ones from space! Chris Hadfield did. I look forward to your new comments. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

My screen is still showing an ugly white space between the Climate text and the table, caused by the "Algorail" image. While I can understand your reluctance to delete photos you've taken youself, I'm afraid that when they distort and squeeze the text, you have to be prepared to bite the bullet if you are serious about FA ambitions for the article. The "Algorail" image is marginal to the article, and could be dropped with no noticeable effect on the article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It hurt, but  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

More comments

Demographics

• The word "Additionally" is inappropriate. Three population figures are given. You need briefly to explain why this is so; the links, particularly that for Census Agglomeration, are not helpful. Removed the extra figures and the sentence containing "additionally."  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Predominantly" is probably insufficient to describe the 94% of the population who are white; perhaps "overwhelmingly"?  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "median" should be linked.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Economy and Infrastructure

• Remove capital from "infrastructure" in section heading  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The petrochemical industry is the main economic force in Sarnia." Unnecessary summary introduction - the significant information is in the following sentence. Removed sentence.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Polymer Corporation" previously referred to as "the Polymer Corporation". Removed the "the."  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Government of Canada" - unnecessary linking Removed link  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Lanxess's Sarnia facility is the only one which currently makes the material" - point made in previous sentence ("the sole producer") Removed the sentence  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Do not place "see also" links in the middle of your text. Should be at start of section as a hatnote. Moved it.  Done !!!!
• Be consistent in spacing (20 MW and 97MW) Added space.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The University of Western Ontario established a Research Park in Sarnia as part of its expansion" Again, an unnecessary summary preceding the substantive sentence. And the same again with "Bio-based industries are locating in Sarnia." Rewrote one sentence and removed the other.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Retail and Hospitality

• Lower case "h" in "hospitality"  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "fourteen stores including an art gallery" - you're including an art gallery as a store? Changed the phrasing.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• I think the term is "convenience" store rather than "convenient". And there is a wikilink Changed and added link.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Transportation

• The first paragraph has little or nothing to do with Sarnia. You say: "The Blue Water Bridge links Sarnia's neighbouring village of Point Edward to the city of Port Huron in the United States of America", so there does not seem to be a justification for including this information here. Rephrased.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• All the information in the second paragraph is cited to one source: this. This is an inadequate source for the information in the paragraph, which covers bus, special charter and air services as well as the Toronto-Sarnia rail link. Added additional cites and removed the phrase Care-A-Van.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Health Care

• Again, watch capitalisation per MOS: "Health care"  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Spell "HIROC" out  Done

Music, Theatre, and Arts

• link International Symphony Orchestra I already linked it in the lead section, but linked it here to per your suggestion.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Likewise Michael Learned. What does the verb "headlined" mean? If it means she headed the cast in a theatrical production you should make this clear. Both  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• What is a "Ribfest"? Added a description.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Second paragraph: the source for this is basically an advertisement and would not be acceptable as a RS for FA purposes (incidentally, it doesn't mention a "Gallery Lambton"). You need to find a more reliable source (local papers perhaps?) for this information. Removed text for which I could not find substantiation and added other citations.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• I suggest that you remove trivial information such as the organisation of coach tours (cited to a coach company's advertisement) Added citation about the incorporation and the Board of Directors.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Brian. I removed the part about the tours, but I wanted you to know the cited website was not a commercial, for-profit company's site. It was the non-profit website of the Celebration of Lights itself, which offers free tours through the Sarnia-Lambton Economic Partnership. If you feel that this information was unnecessary, so be it, but I wanted you to know I did not link to an advertisement. All in all, however, your comments were very clear and I have fixed all the issues you mentioned. Thank you again for the help. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Awaiting More Comments

Hi, Brianboulton,

Now that you're back, would it be possible for you to give me your next set of comments on Sarnia before the bot archives this peer review? Thanks ahead of time! There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It won't be archiving just yet (these coments make sure of that) - and yes, I'll be on to it shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Brianboulton! You're a pal. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Final notes

Film industry

The information here is quite trivial. Is it really surprising that a town the size of Sarnia has occasionally featured in films? None of the incidents described here strike me as being noteworthy. Removed  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Attractions

• " A company called ActiveFit Outdoor Fitness Equipment installed the equipment in the late summer of 2011." This is not encyclopedic information, and looks like advertising. You should delete this sentence.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Seventeen of 18 events scheduled to take place in Centennial Park in the summer of 2013 have found alternate venues, however, so the effect on local businesses is expected to be minimal." This is overdetailing of no long-term value. Of what interest will this information be to a reader in, say, five or ten years' time? Suggest delete.

Deleted  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Are the casino operations really worth a specific mention? Surely most towns have similar facilities? I'd get rid of this, and the stuff about slot machines. Deleted  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As a result of these cuts, if you carry them out, and some prose trimming that I have carried out, you should consider merging the short paragraphs that will result.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Fries under the bridge

This information may be worth a single sentence somewhere, but to give it a complete subsection is absurd. This is an encyclopedia article about the town, not a tourist brochure or some kind of publicity blurb for the town. I suggest you drastically shorten this and absorb it into the "Attraction" material.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I will finish this later tonight. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Sports

Again, the tone is wrong, with hyped-up language stressing the successes of the town's teams and the later achievements of a former player. Wording like "Sarnia also boasts..." is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I simply don't have the time to rewrite the section, but something altogether more modest and less journalistic is necessary.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Government

• "Right now" needs to be replaced by something time-specific. e.g. "In 2013..."
• I don't see the point in giving all these names, which in years to come will be completely meaningless—or will need to be changed every

time there's an election.

I will keep track and change them as elections happen. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Sarnia—Lambton": the m-dash is a mistake inherited from the WP article. The correct form is a hyphen, thus "Sarnia-Lambton".  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Education

• What is "French immersion" education? Explained that it is a school where all communication and classes are in French.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Could you give an idea of the level and breadth of education attainable at Lambton College? Does it, for example, offer degree courses?  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Media

• I don't think you need to give the radio frequencies of the four stations  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• "... the city does have a community channel, TVCogeco,[178] on Cogeco." I think a little more explanation is needed here, especially of what is meant by "on Cogeco"  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Notable people

• I don't know what standard you are applying for "notable". If it is Wikipedia's definition of notability, that's a very low bar. In the non-WP world, is a retired NFL referee really a celebrity? However, maybe these people really are acknowledged and respected in the town, so you needn't pay too much attention to me on this one.
• You should make it clear that Mike Weir is a golfer, and perhaps link the Masters tournament  DoneThere can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There, done at last! This review has extended over several weeks, and I have done my best to be as helpful as possible. I really don't have any more time to spend on it, so it's over and out from me, and the best of luck with the article, wherever you want to take it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Final Thanks to Brianboulton

Ok, Brian, I truly appreciate all your help and have implemented 99% of your changes. I am confident now when I resubmit the article for FA consideration. I will let you know how it goes. Thank you very much, again, for the help! There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Wetherby (Linton Road) railway station

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am working on this article and a few related articles. In recent years I have confined most of my work to Commons so am a little unfarmiliar with some of the new templates and such, hence I am requesting a peer review (if nothing else to give me some guidance, but also because I feel I have been able to flesh this article out owing to the many resources available).

Thanks, Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the main areas of work needed is in the area of referencing. The existing references are inadequate as they do not give full details so you can find the item in question. For example reference 14 just says "The Barwicker" what is this a book, journal, web site?. Keith D (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added what I have available in the way of references and added some suggestions for further material which could help. There are still a number of areas which could do with extra citations, in particular the closure section. The mention of the East Coast Main Line in the closure section is puzzling as its construction predates the Cross Gates line. Sustrans leaflets are mentioned a number of times without any details. Page numbers are needed for the Backtrack article and the Rogers book. Finally, I don't think the two sections at the end giving the list of stations for each of the lines is too useful. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The trackbed is either protected or built on, it can't be both. I removed the stations.

---

Armenian Genocide

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to hear your recommendations on what can be added to the article and what should be removed to make it as concise as possible. I doubt anyone can make this article a GA or an FA, however, I'd like to improve the article towards the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in 2015.

Thanks, Երևանցի ^talk 04:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Conquest of the Western Turks

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it as a Featured Article. The article is currently a Good Article, but may still need improvement.

Thanks, Typing General (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Always good to see articles on this part of the world!

Worth getting it copyedited - there are a range of minor bits that will need fixing before a FA review, e.g.:

• "The Tang Dynasty (June 18, 618 – June 1, 907), successors of the Sui Dynasty, was a cosmopolitan Chinese dynasty and one of China's most expansive empires." a dynasty is a group of people; an empire is a geographical polity.

• Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• "The battle of Irtysh River was fought along the Irtysh River near the Altai Mountains." - repeats Irtysh River twice in close succession

• Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Capitalisation of "king" - check how the MOS wants this used, but I think you need a few more capitals.

• Only capitalized where king acts as an official title.--Typing General (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Neither of qaghans were able to successfully exert control." - missing word

• Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• "The king of Kucha fled with his soldiers to the kingdom of Aksu. After a forty-day siege, the ruler was captured " - which ruler?

• Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Check that you've defined all the key phrases - e.g. a "qaghan" is...? Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Qaghan has been defined.--Typing General (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review.--Typing General (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Vazgen Sargsyan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need it to be reviewed by other users, so I'll be able to further improve the article. It might also need some basic grammar check. If they are minor, don't hesitate, please fix them yourselves.

Also, please tell me wherever I go too far from the person this article is about, however, note that most of the stuff that may seem to have nothing to do with him is necessary for the reader to better comprehend and see the whole picture.

Thanks in advance, Երևանցի ^talk 04:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Artur Boruc

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like a view on how the article currently stands and how it can improved.

Thanks, ShugSty (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Coming from WP:POLAND: looks good, I'll pass it as B-class if the req cites I've added is fixed (please ping me on talk for a B-class review if this is done). Pl wikipedia has more (if unreferenced) to say about his early career, I'd suggest this to be verified and translated w/refs for a GA level assessment for comprehensiveness. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Required citations added and article has now been upgraded to B-class by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here, who I thank for the time spent checking over the article and advice given. ShugSty (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Grace Sherwood

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because those of us who have worked on it recently, User:Wehwalt, User:Montanabw, and myself would like a thorough, in-depth, review to ensure it meets wiki's high modern standards for FA level articles in all regards. We'd especially invite thorough close paraphrasing/copyvio reviews and copyediting.

Thanks, PumpkinSky talk 01:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Good story. Is her statue based on a contemporary image of her; or conjecture? Is the sculptor notable enough for an article? Why is the birthplace "possibly England" and not "possibly Scotland"? ("United Kingdom" may be better). Please add coordinates for locations such as her farm, the statue, Witchduck Road, etc. (these can be in footnotes if you wish). I've added some categories to the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Any image of her is conjecture. There is no known painting or drawing of her from her time, just written descriptios. I will change birthplace. Don't know how to get coords and while I know the area of the farm, it's exact location is not known to me.PumpkinSky talk 11:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Here you go: Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many places you want coordinates for, but for example Sentara Bayside Hospital is at (36.868,-76.131) - pop those into Google Maps and you can see N Witchduck Road as the south boundary of the hospital. The statue is at (36.866,-76.132) and you can zoom in at those coordinates and see it on Google Maps. Following N Witchduck Road to the northeast brings you to Witch Duck Bay at (36.881,-76.117). Let me know if you want more. --RexxS (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rexx! The statue is a little down the road from the north end of Witchduck Road, which ends at the point where the boat was rowed out to duck her. Witchduck Road is many miles long. The spot her farm and grave are on is now held by some nature conservancy and they have the police fine you if you try to get on the property, so I can only narrow down the location to within a few square miles. Plus people that know exactly where it is are not eager to give up the info. I'm trying to get a release for the photos of her house and grave, taken about 25 years ago. The farm and grave are within 1-2 square miles of the intersection of Princess Anne Road and Pungo Ferry Road, I'm fairly sure on the eastern side of PA Road at that intersection. That's not enough for an exact location, just close to it. Oh, and the house is now fallen down and the grave plowed and overgrown. PumpkinSky talk

36.866139,-76.131811 puts the map marker in satellite view dead on the statue. That's in the infobox. The bay coords are fine and in a efn note.PumpkinSky talk 21:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Zooming in on street view in Google Maps shows there's a sign about 40 feet to the west of the statute, right by the pavement on Independence Boulevard, "K 276 THE TESTING OF GRACE SHERWOOD" with some text that's too small for me to read. That's another item that's mentioned in your text - now we know what the title of the marker is! --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd uploaded a pic of that historical marker, but it was deleted as non free 3 years ago.PumpkinSky talk 22:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding coordinates. To reiterate my other points:

• Please make clear that the statue based on conjecture, not a contemporary image of the subject
  • That's in the body already, says no known real image of her exists or some such. PumpkinSky talk 17:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• If you can find out who it was modelled on, please add that
  • Haven't ever seen that. PumpkinSky talk 17:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Consider making the sculptor's name a red link (or starting a stub article}
  • already looked at that. Not enough secondary source info on him for a stub. I've never seen the sense of making a red link in such as case PumpkinSky talk 17:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Please clarify why the birthplace "possibly England" (where her father was born) and not "possibly Scotland" (where her mother was born). If it's not possible to do so, then "United Kingdom" may be better.
  • Agree with Wehwalt below, that's very tenuous. On a GOOD note, I will put in two more map coords later today. PumpkinSky talk 17:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Upon reference to the sources, I don't find the UK connection strongly supported, and so I've stricken it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

United Kingdom would be anachronistic anyway, since the action in this article happens pre-1707.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Place of birth reads almost as if Princess Anne County was possibly in England ;)
• Link Virginia the first time.
• Witchcraft: can you reword the first sentence to not make it start with "That there were witches was taken for granted by the American colonists"? "The American colonists took ..."?

That's all I found, good reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done those, though a bit differently than suggested in one case.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you! What do you think of a link to Witch trials in the early modern period, and expanding that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Added as hatnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Note on spelling

• Even in Virginia Beach, it's spelled both Witch Duck and Witchduck, but note the road is officially Witchduck Road.PumpkinSky talk 22:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is the first section of a fairly detailed review which will probably spread over the next couple of days:

Lead

• It's not a good idea to refer to her "final" trial before mentioning that she had previously been tried twice.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• The second paragraph mentions her trials in 1697 and 1698 without referring to their outcome. How did these trials end? (The main text is not clear on this point either.) Presumably she remained at liberty, so you should not move straight from the 1698 trial to "Freed from her imprisonment..."
  • I've added detail to clarify this points to both the lead and body, plus added a new book ref. Pls review. PumpkinSky talk 00:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• "recognizing her knowledge" → "in recognition of her knowledge"
  • done. PumpkinSky talk 23:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal life

• There is a fragment of broken reference following the words "from England"
  • already fixed. PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• "See Hume 2008 p. 85" needs to be made into a proper citation.
  • already fixed. PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Also, something very odd has happened at the end of the first paragraph. Presumably this, too, is supposed to be a citation.
  • already fixed. PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• The information "White received a land grant in the Pungo area" needs elaboration. When, and from whom did he receive the grant? Was this the reason for his travelling to America?

I've deleted that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think that the invented legends about about Grace and her eggshell voyages, etc, belong in this part of the article. The section is headed "Personal information", and mixing these fantasies with factual information about family background, etc., is confusing.

Moved to a suitable point elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• "poor but respectable": the "but" implies that poverty is not normally respectable. I would make this "poor, respectable..."
  • already done by someone elsePumpkinSky talk
• "Forty percent of the landowners in the region owned less than 300 acres (120 ha)..." I think you mean less than 300 acres each; this has to be made clear, as does the 10% owning over 1000 acres each.
  • done PumpkinSky talk 23:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• I think this section should be retitled "Family background", and end with the information "When James died in 1701, Grace inherited his property". The rest of the information belongs later in the article, either in the "Aftermath" or "Legacy"sections. Otherwise it is very disconcerting to the reader to be suddenly reading about Grace's death.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Witchcraft and Virginia

• "As Virginians viewed religion as a private relationship with God..." This seems a very glib assertion - that all Virginians, as distinct from New Englanders and others, viewed their religion in this way. It may be more appropriate to say that religious fervour was less evident in Virginia, and perhaps indicate briefly why this was the case.

I've recast it in terms of the preaching.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• The information in the second paragraph seems to be a continuation of the point made in the first paragraph (why New England was more prone to persecute suspected witches}, and the paragraphs would be better combined

I've tried to take the New England influence out of the second paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Virginia’s political and religious leaders chose to prosecute offenses they felt might threaten the social cohesion of the colony, such as fornication, gossip, and slander. They preferred to ignore those, such as witchcraft, that might tear it apart". Another bold assertion, offered without explanation. Why would Virginia's leaders choose to behave in this way?

Upon reference to the source, I do not see that the connection to witchcraft is explicitly stated, and I've deleted the sentence. The passage appeared to have been based on Newman, at p. 12, rather than the stated source. I still don't see it in full even there, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Although few Virginia records survive from that era,[8] at most, only 19 witchcraft cases were brought there during the 17th century, all but one of which ended in acquittal". There seems to be a possible contradiction here. If few records survive, how can we know that "at most" there were only 19 cases brought to trial in the 17thC?
  • reworded. Pls review.PumpkinSky talk 00:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that the aboard-ship hanging of Katherine Grady is particularly relevant.

Struck.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• The last paragraph: "Sherwood appears to have been the only accused..." etc is premature and should be in the paragraph dealing with her trial
  • done PumpkinSky talk 23:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

More tomorrow Brianboulton (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Up to date I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

More:

Initial accusations

• "The court issued no written conclusions": In plain language, does this mean that the court rejected the charges? This needs to be explicit.
  • Refs says "no findings". I've quoted the source. PumpkinSky talk 00:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• "...but the Sherwoods..." - more of an "and" than a "but" connection, I think
  • Changed. PumpkinSky talk 00:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• I am not a lawyer, but can a suit be dismissed "by mutual consent"? Surely it is only judicial authorities that can dismiss suits? I imagine that the intended meaning is that there was some out-of-court agreement between the disputing parties which led to the suit's withdrawal, and if so, the wording should be changed to clarify this.

After reference to the sources, I've tweaked to make it clear that the dismissal had the agreement of the parties, not that they dismissed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Again, the text is inexplicit about the outcome of the second hearing: "Sherwood was accused of bewitching her neighbor John Gisburne's hogs and cotton crop, and her husband initiated another action for defamation, which did not succeed."
  • Sherwood lost the Gisburne and Barnes suits. I've tried to clarify this. PumpkinSky talk 00:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Do we know why Sherwood's husband had to pay court related costs, particularly in the Barnes case where the charges read like an absurd fantasy.
  • It wasn't absurd to the people of the, to whom witchcraft was very real. The Newman ref has extensive detail on this. PumpkinSky talk 00:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Luke Hill's wife Elizabeth": who are these people? They have not been mentioned previously.
  • Refs only say they are neighbors, so I added that. PumpkinSky talk 00:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• " This lawsuit stemmed from personal disputes between Sherwood and the Hills, in contrast to the earlier accusations against her, which sought to cast blame for misfortune". I can't follow this reasoning. The Hills were blaming Sherwood's witchcraft for causing a miscarriage - is this not casting blame for misfortune?
  • But it is fairly obvious it was retaliation for the fight which resulted in the Hill's paying damages to the Sherwoods. I'm open to rewording. I've cut the sentence. PumpkinSky talk

Final trial

• I would drop the word "final" from the heading. The earlier "trials" – if indeed trials actually took place – were on different charges, and were not earlier stages in the same case. Since the section covers not only the trial but the sentece*A date should be provided at the beginning, rather than in the middle, of the first paragraph

Changed tentatively to "Ducking" but I imagine that may gather some objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The authorities empaneled two juries..." Which authorities? The legal structure within which this trial took place needs to be explained more clearly. I see later in the section reference to "the colonial authorities in Williamsburg", but no indication is given of the relationship between these authorities and the local court.
  • These cases were prosecuted on the county level, Princess Anne County. The county justices fell under the Virginia Colony's General Court. I've added "Princess Anne County" in front of "authorities". PumpkinSky talk 00:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Why has "Sherwood" suddenly become "Grace"?

Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that the trial took place "in the second Princess Anne County Courthouse, which had just been built in 1706" is somewhat trivial, and should be removed.

Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• What is an early warden?
  • I linked to churchwarden, cut early, and reworded. PumpkinSky talk 00:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Further confusion: why is the prosecution being conducted by a churchwarden before a jury from Lynnhaven Parish Vestry? Is it necessary to list all these names? I am afraid I cannot follow the process here.

The names are deleted for both juries. Criminal procedure in Virginia in 1706 doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to the sort I am familiar with from the late 20th and early 21st centuries, so I'm not sure why.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "At about 10 a.m...." On what date?

Dated.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "...to John Harper's plantation near the mouth of the Lynnhaven River (now a private residence)" First, who is John Harper? Secondly, the sentence needs rewording to avoid the impression that the mouth of the Lynnhaven River is now a private residence.
  • Someone fixed this already. PumpkinSky talk 00:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Again, I wonder at the necessity of listing names – the attendant women in this case.

The jury's names shall be kept confidential (perhaps one will condescend to appear on CNN).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Sherwood spat out under clear skies": Rephrase without the melodrama. This an encyclopedia article. This wording is only permissoble as part of a clearly attributed quotation.

Drama mellowed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• " Several women who subsequently examined her for additional proof found "two things like titts on her private parts of a black coller", and she was jailed pending further proceedings. I assume that "coller" means "colour" (sorry, "color") and it might be as well to clarify this. Also, an "and" conjunction is inappropriate. Either replace "and" with a semicolon, or split into two sentences.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• The last two sentences of the section would be more appropriate elsewhere in the article, rather than as a tailpiece to the "trial" section.

Moved.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "an reason not specified"? Is there nothing in the sources that throws further light on this transaction, or explains how she could pay someone 600 pounds of tobacco (an enormous quantity, more than a quarter of a ton) while presumably incarcerated?

I have corrected the typo.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's exactly what the source says. I can't decipher the old writing and abbreviations enough to answer the question: "Judgmt confest by Grace Sherrwood for paymt of 6001b tobo to Christor Cocke Due by an accomp & ordr that the Deft pay ye same to ye pl. with cost als Exco". suriving records only say the fine was assesed, not why nor if it was ever paid. I've tweaked the article. I can email someone the pdf file if they want it. PumpkinSky talk 00:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Although the length of her term of imprisonment is not apparently known, may we presume that by 1714, when she was recovering and paying taxes on her property, she was a free woman again? It would be helpful if this was made clear.

As I understand it, after 1706, she appears in records only three times: the 1708 matter, the 1714 paying taxes and the proving of her will in 1740. She could have a judgment against her while imprisoned, but paying taxes pretty much requires being free. That's what the sources are telling us. We don't know.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

• "a courtroom drama at Colonial Williamsburg" – do you mean "performed at Colonial Williamsburg"?

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The Governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine..." He is not the permanent governor. I'd reword this to: "During his term as governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine..." etc

I simply refer to him now as "Governor".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• " Danielle Sheets, co-biographer of Sherwood and co-author with Nash, Sheets' mother, played the part of Sherwood." I can't work this out.
  • Danielle Sheets is the daughter of Belinda Nash. Both are experts on Grace Sherwood. They co-authored the biography "A Place in Time: The Age of the Witch of Pungo". I've reworded this. Anyone feel free to further tweak. PumpkinSky talk 23:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• "reportedly still appears" - reported by whom?
  • Reworded. PumpkinSky talk 23:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to read through the article again, when the various outstanding fixes have been done – I did find the narrative quite muddled at times. Finally, can someone explain why the geographical coordinates of the Sherwood statue are thought to be "key information" requiring representation in the infobox, and indeed why three other sets of coordinates are thought to be necessary in the text, for other locations all in very close proximity?

Andy asked for geo coords. There are two close together and two others further away. I'm not tied to having them in or not having them in. Either way is fine with me. PumpkinSky talk 22:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be bothered if the statue's coordinates were moved from the infobox into the body of the article (though if the gravesite were located, its coordinates should be in the infobox). By including coordinates for places mentioned, we make it possible for people to find those locations in online mapping services; either so that they can visit, or so that they can see them using online services like Google Maps' satellite view or its rivals. They can also be downloaded as a set, and used n other software, or tools such as satnavs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm done now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Final thoughts:

I have read through the article again, and made a few minor fixes to the text as I went along. These can be checked in the edit history. The following are my outstanding concerns; they are mainly minor points for clarity or prose flow, though I am still unhappy with the "Initial accusations" section, as indicated below:

• "she was said to be tall, very attractive, and humorous" – said by whom? Should this read, say, "she was described in contemporary accounts as tall, very attractive, and humorous…"?

Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• "pants" is not a good word to use here. In the UK it means underwear.

Trousered.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• "unusual-for-the-time" is a very clumsy made-up adjective. Suggest replace with "unconventional"

Omitted instead. "unconventional" is used in close proximity, which was the issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The southeastern corner of Virginia, present-day Norfolk and Virginia Beach, saw more accusations of witchcraft than other areas." It should be made clear that Pungo is in this region of Virginia – otherwise this information doesn't seem relevant to this narrative.

Inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Re the "Initial accusations" section: rather than come up with a further list of questions and quibbles, I have redrafted the section in a way which I think clarifies points which are not clear in the present prose. Please consider this:

Sherwood was first charged with witchcraft in a court case held on March 3, 1697, in which Richard Capps alleged that she had caused the death of his bull with a spell. The court made no decision on this charge;[1] the Sherwoods then filed a defamation suit against Capps that was discontinued when the parties came to an agreement.[30] In 1698, Sherwood was accused by her neighbor John Gisburne of bewitching his hogs and cotton crop. No court action followed this accusation, and another action for defamation by the Sherwoods also failed.. In the same year Elizabeth Barnes, wife of Anthony Barnes, alleged that Sherwood had assumed the form of a black cat, entered Barnes' home, jumped over her bed, drove and whipped her, and left via the keyhole. Again the allegation was unresolved, and again the subsequent defamation action was lost. For each of the failed actions Sherwood and her husband had to pay court related costs.[1][11][30]

In 1705, Sherwood was involved in a fight with her neighbor, Elizabeth Hill.[31] Sherwood sued Hill and her husband for assault and battery, and on December 7, 1705 was awarded damages of twenty pounds sterling.[4] On January 3, 1706, the Hills accused Grace Sherwood of witchcraft, although she failed to answer the charge in court.[32] On February 7, 1706, the court ordered her to appear on a charge of having bewitched Elizabeth Hill, causing a miscarriage.[27]

• • Done PumpkinSky talk
• My point about starting what is now the "Ducking" section with a date, for narrative continuity purposes, does not seem to be addressed. However, the narrative picks up considerably in this section and generally reads well.

It has been now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• There are perhaps a few too many images cluttering this part of the article. The "Modern farmland" pic could easily go; I would enlarge the Witch Duck Bay image, and would shift it over to the left.
  • done. PumpkinSky talk 02:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Aftermath: It might be a good idea to preface the statement: "In 1714, she paid back taxes..." with something like: "She appears to have been released some time in or before 1714, as in that year she paid back taxes..."
  • Done PumpkinSky talk 00:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• "One legend says that her sons put her body near the fireplace and a wind came down the chimney and her body disappeared amid the embers, with the only clue being a cloven hoofprint." Needs revising to get rid of the double "and". I would begin "According to legend..." rather than "One legend says"

Played with.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I can live with whatever you decide to do about the coordinates. The odd lead tweak might be advisable, but I am too tired to look at this at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Cut one coord. FA Ezra Meeker has coords in the info box. PumpkinSky talk 02:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Joseph Smith

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is of high importance within the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism communities. It has been on the receiving end of some very bitter edit wars in times past (Smith was and remains a very controversial figure), but the fighting seems to have died down to a relatively stable state.

I personally just came back to it after a hiatus of several years, and reading through it, it looks like it has become a very strong article (GA). However, I'd like comments on how to improve it (preferably to FA status), specifically:

• How does this article read to someone who knows little about Smith and Mormonism?
• What are the main questions that you have that the article leaves unanswered?
• What do you read that seems extraneous, trivial, or unnecessary?
• Where and how can we improve the quality of the prose to brilliant (Requirement 1a on the FA requirements) without affecting the POV balance that has been so laboriously established?
• And of course, can you spot any grammar, citation, paragraphing, etc. mistakes that should be corrected?

Thanks, Trevdna (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Hyderabadi haleem

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the primary contributor and I think it has potential to become a featured article. The article is small, any advise on content enhancement will be highly valuable. Any other kinds of suggestion are welcome.

Thanks, Dwaipayan (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Article has few images, external images are not required (few are irrelevant too).
• Further reading section should be beneath "References"
• Hyderabad cuisine linked in article body WP:ALSO.
• Nutrition section does not have satisfactory data.
• External links need cleanup. --Tito☸Dutta 07:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review. Changes made.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review once again, expanded the section Nutritions, needs your advice it it is okay? Regards:)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Ugog Nizdast

Thanks for inviting me here. Nice work so far with this, and after reading it, here are things which I dug up. A dish which is a GA?...I really need to try it out. Anyway, let's get started.

• Regarding sentence formatting,
  • In this sentence, "In recognition of its cultural significance and popularity, in 2010 Hyderabadi haleem was granted Geographical Indication status (GIS) by the Indian GIS registry office, making it the first non-vegetarian dish in India to be listed as GIS (can this be removed and framed accordingly?)." -Leaving for Dwaip :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ghotni photo description needs to be refined (just a suggestion, not a mistake), can it also be mentioned in the article? -Fixed.
    • In infobox, "Creators: Chaush (...)" seems crude, how about "originated from the Chaush people" or something?-Fixed
    • When I first read it, I thought what does the term "connisuer chefs" mean here and their relevance, expand?-Fixed
      • Connisuer chefs, not sure regular readers might get this. I think it would be better to use another word in this case.
  • "Like Hyderabadi biryani, the preparation of haleem in Hyderabad has become an art form" is cited to Kapoor in lead, why not in the rest of the article? Otherwise citations usually are not needed in the lead. Also why not mention "Sanjeev Kapoor says it's an art form" if he is the only source saying so.-Fixed
• "Nutrition" section goes above "Popularity"? (again, suggestion)-Fixed
• Really small quibbles concerning duplicate links...-fixed
  • Nizam and ghee
  • GIS and other related links
  • WP:MOS says a reader should not be forced to click on a link, so can something more be mentioned about GIS?
• Can you get rid of space in section Preparation? It looks a bit jumbled up with the photo on one side and the portal on the other. Make it more compact.-Fixed --Omer123hussain (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty and made a small change. Will suggest more if needed. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Doubt: Does this article use Indian English? I just realised from this edit that it doesn't but I still at the same time see words like popularised not popularized...I'm confused. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• wow! I am so happy :) I get really elated when I come across such a good peer reviewer or copy editor, especially someone who has knowledge about India. Thanks a lot for your review. I have not been able to look at all the points you mentioned, but surely will do ( either Omer or I). And yes, we will definitely use your power in other articles/ reviews.

The article uses British English. So it is flavour, popularise etc. if you find something else, that's error, and needs to be fixed. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You are too kind and I'm grateful to be of help. I'm ironically a bad copy editor on my own (still learning), just ask anyone who has edited after me. I'll wait then for the you both to start (take your time...) and after that, I'll read it again to give final suggestions. British English eh? I believe there's a minor spelling left for you to fix (won't do it myself, see article latest history). -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, will work on suggestions you gave. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Some more -

• Though I doubt anything can be done better, the spacing around the "preparation" section still makes me uneasy. I mean the arrangement of the three images around it, but this article is small so let it be.
• Wording/phrasing related,
  • haleem provides a quick energy rush? does not sound encyclopaedic IMO.
  • slow-digesting and fast-burning ingredients? could it be made more technical and precise?
• "Main ingredients" in the infobox just mentioned only three of it, Gumbo article has also specified more.
• Hope you both are right about the "Hyderabadi haleem" capitalisation? I've seen an instance of Haleem...
• Sentence requires copy editing, make it shorter - In 2010 Hyderabadi haleem was awarded Geographical Indication status by the Indian GI registry office in Chennai. It became the first meat product of India to receive a GI certification.[12][28] This means that a dish cannot be sold as Hyderabadi haleem unless it meets the necessary standards laid down for it.

-Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the above errors. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

---

2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a very important season for WP:CBBALL. It chronicles a national player of the year's season as well as the 2013 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament runner-up team's season. This will be at WP:FAC in the next few months.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

---

History of public relations

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hoping to get a fresh pair of eyes on the page with a GA review in mind, while I work on the final "Modern Era" section. CorporateM (Talk) 02:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry to be a drive-by reviewer; I have only one comment. Bernays says in Propaganda that Walter Lippmann coined his famous manufacture of consent in 1922 but there's no mention of Lippmann anywhere in here. Is PR used for political ends not worth mentioning in this article about history (vs. the article about PR application)? Chris Troutman (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• I like the lack of references in the lede stylistically; the lede ought to be a summary of the referenced material in the body of the article; however, it might be better to add references in this form <ref name="autogenerated1971" /> to the lede thus linking the information in the lede to the referenced material in the body. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• I note that the article does not mention diplomacy, Confucius, or The Prince. Not that those subjects are part of the academic history of public relations. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Ulster Defence Regiment

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have received advice from another user that it could be raised to A Class with some extra work and the assistance of more experienced editors. A list of recommendations has already been created here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Ulster_Defence_Regiment.

Thanks, SonofSetanta (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

it's got linkrot issues... just ran checklinks, and 4 refs are deadlinks. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I will sort those 4 out today. They didn't come up with the tools I used. Thanks for identifying them. SonofSetanta (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Peer review/Lonestar/archive1

---

Sense and Sensibility (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see how near it is to FA status. I've been working on this one on and off for over two years, and would like to nominate it for FA soon. Any comments/suggestions would be appreciated (are there any major gaps, is the prose OK? etc.). Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 19:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

My goodness, I rarely come across a popular media article of such high quality! The writing is superb, the organization is excellent, and the amount of quality sources indicate a lot of research went into writing this article! I don't know how much of the work is yours, but the article's contributors have done some great work on it. I'm not here just to provide praise, as this is a peer review request. There's not much to say, and I could only find one problem after a full read-through, so I'm getting quite nit-picky;

• In the first sentence under the "Reception" section, I found that thee phrase "indicated critical acclaim" seems to cut the flow of the sentence by separating "which" from its subject, Rotten Tomatoes. Might I suggest that you simply delete it (as 98% seems to indicate critical acclaim all by itself), or find some other way to move it?

Excellent work. I think this is definitely ready for an FAC. Good luck!--haha169 (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review! I agree with your comment and have trimmed the "critical acclaim" part. Feel free to write here or ping me if you think of anything else! Ruby 2010/2013 05:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Viktor Kosenko

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the article has now been greatly expanded and needs to be reviewed for GA nomination. As I see it is well sourced, although a few things still need to be referenced. The lead section also needs to be expanded to cover the many passages of Kosenko’s life. Any comments or constructive edits are more than welcome.

Thanks, Krenakarore ^TK 22:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

I will start it off now and continue over the next few days if that's OK.

Lead section

• At two paragraphs, I think the lead section is too short. This will need extending.
  • Lead expanded.
• "Viktor Stepanovych Kosenko (Ukrainian: Віктор Степанович Косенко; 23 November [O.S. 11 November] 1896 – 3 October 1938) was a Ukrainian composer, concert pianist, and educator regarded by many of his contemporaries as a master of lyricism in the manner of Alexander Scriabin, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Sergei Rachmaninoff, as well as his compatriot Mykola Lysenko." -- That is a bit long. I would split it after "lyricism".
  • Sentence rephrased as for "lyricism".
• "A very talented artist..." Slipping into POV there slightly.
  • "Talented artist" goes for Smoliĭ-Onopriienko, notheless the sentence has been rephrased.
• "...he was also a leading figure among the broad-minded artistic collective of the 20th-century Ukrainian music, and whose legacy is filled with romantic feeling and intonations of Slavic folk songs." -- Says who?
  • "Broad-minded artistic collective" and "romantic feeling and intonations of Slavic folk songs" now referenced.
• WP:PEA - "famous".
  • "Famous" deleted.
• Redundancy of "alone"
  • "Alone" deleted.
• "...250 works in several styles... ." -- Could you elaborate?
  • "100 compositions for piano" and "250 musical works" now referenced and elaborated.

Please, more ! Krenakarore ^TK 18:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Zhytomyr

• There he authored countless piano pieces, over twenty romances, three piano, violin and cello sonatas, music for plays, his 21-minute one-movement Violin Concerto, Classical trio, 4 Children's Pieces for Piano, and the 11 Etudes in the form of old dances." -- Far to many commas. It makes for a lumpy, bumpy read.
  • Agreed! Sentence shortened.
• "Subsequently, in the period from 1919 to 1924, he dedicated almost all of his output to his wife Angelina..." -- Why?
  • Sentence re-written, explained and referenced.
• Could this section be expanded at all?
  • Yes, it has and will continue to be. Thanks for the clue!

Compositional debut

• "...which in no way was inferior to any other artistic circle of the capital." -- According to who? Boarder line WP:POV.
  • Sentence deleted, although it was already referenced.
    • No need to delete, if you could say who described it as this and put into the quote then we can keep it. Cassianto^Talk 16:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• "In September 1922, he gave his debut in the city of Zhytomyr..." -- Redundancy of "in the city of".
  • Redundancy deleted.
• Common place names should not be linked. Moscow is the link in question here.
  • Comply. Moskow, Kiev and overlinked Kiev Conservatory delinked.
    • I would leave the link for Kiev as I feel this might not be widely known. Cassianto^Talk 16:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Kiev linked.
• "During this period, Kosenko's piano works were published for the first time." -- How did they do in terms of success? Who published them?
  • We're talking about Soviet Ukraine here my dear, not Paris...:) ! Published by Musytschna Ukraina, but here I fall in assumption.
    • Never assume, could you find a source? Cassianto^Talk 16:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      • No, I can't.
• "In 1927, he was invited by..." -- New paragraphs should not start with a pronoun. Kosenko will need to be used.
  • Adjusted.
• "This same association invited him again in 1928 and 1929, being his performances always well received by the audience" -- Doesn't make sense.
  • That's what the reference says. Maybe to emphasize that his compositions were appreciated, otherwise the opposite would be mentioned too.
    • Try not to paraphrase. If you can word in your own words with this based in mind, then that would be great. Cassianto^Talk 16:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      • "being his performances always well received by the audience", deleted for now.
• Is there a link for Kharkiv?
  • Yes, in "Compositional debut".
• "program" -- BritEng?
  • No, "program" AmerEng! But if we need to write "kerb" instead of "kurb", it's ok too...:) !
    • Should be BritEng here as he was non-American. . Cassianto^Talk 16:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The program of the concerts included, along with traditional classical pieces, compositions by Ukrainian composers Borys Lyatoshynsky, Levko Revutskiy, Pylyp Kozytskiy, and himself." -- Again, this doesn't read well. I think its the "along with traditional classical pieces" which confuses things. Perhaps move this to a sentence of its own and elaborate a little on what the pieces were? Also, "himself" is redundant as we are talking about him in the first place.
  • "along with traditional classical pieces" deleted, together with "himself".
  • As for elaborating things a bit... I still need User:Boguslav's help to find references to statements I've deleted that can be found in the Ukrainian book I scanned from the National Library. Krenakarore ^TK 10:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

More soon.., -- Cassianto^Talk 22:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• Lead
  • A bit too much puffery here, with "regarded by many of his contemporaries as a master of lyricism" (who are these "many"?) and "very talented artist … a leading figure among the broad-minded artistic collective" – in whose opinion?
    • Lead expanded, though I believe it needs more. "Contemporaries" found in text: Levko Revutsky, Irina Miklashovskaya, Gaidai, Chaliapin, etc. "Very talented artist" now referenced as well as "broad-minded artistic collective".
  • "His vocal, chamber and symphonic works are also among the most famous instrumental pieces of that time" – This really won't do. In the first place, how can a vocal work be among instrumental pieces, famous or not, and in the second place, who could reasonably maintain that his oeuvre is "among the most famous" from the era of Bartók, Berg, Fauré, Holst, Janáček, Kodály, Prokofiev, Ravel, Schoenberg, Shostakovich, Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Webern et al.?
    • "Instrumental" and "Famous" deleted.
• Main text
  • The prose is generally clear enough, but you repeat rather too much from "Early life and education" in the "Influences and style" section.
    • "Prose" will get better as we progress. We'll be working on "Early life" and "Influences".
  • There is too much WP:OVERLINK throughout the article. As a general rule, one link from the Lead and one link from the main text should be your maximum for each linked article, though it's OK to add another link from image captions if you wish.
    • "Overlinks" now "delinked".
  • I see that Cassianto has added several tags requesting citations. I endorse all those requests.
    • Those reqquests referenced, more to come.

I hope you find these few comments useful. Tim riley (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The article is the sum of many users. Still learning, still having fun ! Krenakarore ^TK 18:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

---

1,000 Years

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I foolishly nominated it for a good article even though it was only C-class and still needed a lot of expansion. In essence, this article isn't very good now and I want to get some feedback from more experienced editors.

Thanks, Jinkinson (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed an article on a Sleater-Kinney album recently.

• Try to avoid citations in the lead. The lead should summarise the rest of the article, and so, in an article as uncontroversial as this, shouldn't need citations.
• Expand the references. Template:Cite web, Template:Cite news and Template:Cite magazine may be useful.
• Merge the influences and background section.
• Are the bands/people you mention worth redlinking? If they're notable, a redlink is not a bad thing.
• Cite your sources. "Tucker told The Portland Mercury that she was recording the album in April 2010, and said it was "definitely more of a middle-aged mom record, in a way. It's not a record that a young person would write." The origins of these songs lie in material Tucker wrote for live performances in early 2009 in Portland, after which many people encouraged her to make her own album." This seems to be uncited.
• Print magazines/newspapers should have their names italicised.
• You don't need to say "According to this... According to that..." as much as you do. Some things (like tour dates) can just be stated with a cite- you don't need direct quotes, you don't need in-text attribution.
• Start to work the details from the reviews in the box into the article's prose.
• Do you have any reviews for the tour?
• Did it chart outside the US? Also, where are the cites for the charts?
• "A moderately positive review was posted on Something Awful by Dennis Farrell, who bills himself as Corin Tucker's stalker. He compared the album to Backspacer, the Pearl Jam album, and praised "It's Always Summer" in particular as "a great example of the album's ability to bridge the gap between haunting and hopeful while being the sort of song that can embed itself into your skull and be the first thing you think of in the morning."" Really not suitable. I've removed it. Some guy who claims to be a stalker is probably the least reliable source I've ever heard of.
• Unnecessary capitals in the personnel section.

I think there's a good bit more expansion to go (there'll be plenty more sources out there) so it would be silly for me to give too complete a review, as the article will change plenty. However, I hope this, and the comments from the GA review, will help you get an idea of what needs to be done! I'll be happy to take another look through once you've expanded it a bit further/worked through these comments. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

One thing I see is how the Influences section could be more than a list. I've never seen an album article with a section like this in it, which makes me think that per J Milburn it needs to be merged perhaps with a section like "Background" or (when you get one) "Music and lyrics". The article should be more in-depth with influences so that people who've never heard the album can get a better understanding of why these are considered important enough to mention. How did these influences shape the sound of the record? How would you describe them to someone who's never heard the record? LazyBastardGuy 02:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

---

James Clerk Maxwell

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

This article is probably pretty close to WP:GA standard. It has had a few goes at FAC but never came close, but in the past few month I've made a few changes. I would like to know what people think has to happen before it will succeed at GA. Many thanks. James^x12345 17:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

I am ignorant about almost everything Maxwell is famous for, and my few minor comments below are wholly about the prose.

• Lead
  • "Maxwell proposed that light was in fact undulations in the same medium that is…" – trouble with tenses here? A "was" and an "is" seem to be uneasily yoked.

I think it still works the same way, so have changed that.

• • "Maxwell also helped … He is also known" – perhaps lose the first "also"

Done

• • "centennial" – unusual term in British English: "centenary" would be more usual

Changed to centenary

• Early life, 1831–39
  • "was born 13 June" – was born on 13 June?

Must be a mistake on my part

• • "first cousin of notable artist Jemima Blackburn" – as she is blue-linked perhaps you could lose the "notable" (QED) and turn the tabloidese phrasing into formal English by adding "the" instead

Done

• Education, 1839–47
  • "James' early education" – American form of possessive of a word ending in "s" – an unwelcome surprise in so British an article. Perhaps James's – as in St James's, St James's Park, St James's Palace etc.

I have added an "s", but as a James myself, I personally like the American version as well.

Point taken, but I think the revision looks better. Tim riley (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• • "his older cousin Jemima" – second blue link really wanted?

Done

• • "There is a "however" in each of the first three paras of this section. I'd be inclined to lose those in the second and third.

I've completely rejigged a paragraph, I'm not if it's any better.

Spot on, I'd say. Tim riley (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Edinburgh University, 1847–50
  • "polarized" and "polarizing" – elsewhere in the article you generally favour "–ised" and "–ising". Just checking that the zeds here are deliberate.

Changed. Despite being a Scot, you wouldn't know it from my spelling.

• • "by the famous scientist" – as with Jemima, perhaps the existence of a Wikipedia article relieves you of the need to use "famous"" – rather a peacockish term, some may think.

I'm not even sure he is "famous" as such.

• • Second para – titles of his papers: the first is in title case, the others in sentence case: is this deliberate? (Further sentence-cased titles later – Saturn's rings etc.) The authors of the Wikipedia article on On Physical Lines of Force doesn't follow your practice.

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Composition_titles, I'm going to change all of them to title case.

• University of Cambridge, 1850–56
  • "aside from some tutoring" – another phrase more American than British; perhaps "apart from…"?

Done

• • "Fortunately for Maxwell" – touch of editorialising here

No idea why that was there.

• • "he would die" – reads rather oddly: perhaps just "he died"?

Done

• • "she helped in his lab" – just a thought: is "lab" a touch informal for an encyclopedia article? Not sure, and I leave you to consider the point.

I would be inclined to say it is OK. "she helped in his laboratory" sounds a bit clumsy. Perhaps "she helped with laboratory work"?

If you're happy with your original wording then definitely ignore my comment. Tim riley (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• • "with his wife Katherine" – no need to tell us her name again

Done

• Later years
  • "He died in Cambridge" – the last person named before the "he" is Cavendish. Better make this "Maxwell died…"

Done

• Colour analysis
  • "for the earlier of which" – suggests one of two, but you mention several

Added paper to make clear.

• Kinetic theory and thermodynamics
  • "This approach generalized" – another stray "ized"

Searching for "z" in the article I found a few more strays.

• Control theory
  • "This paper is considered a classical paper" – repetition of "paper", and do you mean "classical" or "classic"?

Changed to "central"

• Legacy
  • A touch of WP:OVERLINK here – does, e.g., "mathematics" really need another link at this point?

Those are my few quibbles; I hope some of them are of help. I knew hardly anything about Maxwell, and am left open-mouthed with admiration of his sheer breadth of genius. I hope lots of other artsy types like me will read this article and learn. I have reviewed a few GA nominated articles from time to time, and this one seems to me to meet all the GA criteria. Best wishes for a successful outcome.

Trimmed

– Tim riley (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for you for taking the time to review this. I am pretty sure it's almost all correct, but some of the phrasing was a bit odd. A review from somebody with a good grasp of English almost certainly made it more readable. I'll put it up for a GA review and see what happens. Many thanks. James^x12345 19:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Japanese serow

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think I have enough source material to take this to FA, but I'm not an expert in animals, so I'm not really sure the best way to present the material, or what level of detail would be appropriate.

Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Jiangsu Sainty F.C.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I wish to nominate it for GA status. I seek suggestions as to how to elevate the article to that status, in terms of content.

Thanks, QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Night of January 16th

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for good article status and would like to have some more eyes on it first. I asked at a couple of related pages, but only got one response. I don't typically work on theater articles, so I'd especially appreciate feedback about whether I have the all right types of information, any format or style issues particular to writing about plays, etc. But any feedback is welcomed.

Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Gene Amondson

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article is current listed as a Good Article. I am wondering whether it can be successful in an FA review.

Thanks, William S. Saturn (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I took a quick glance at the sources in the article. I'm not familiar with The Lantern or Politics1. What makes them pass WP:V? --haha169 (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The Lantern is the newspaper for Ohio State University. Politics1 is a well respected political directory.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If you say so. Mr. Amondson had nothing to do with Ohio or Ohio State, and I am not familiar with Wikipedia policy regarding student newspapers. Better double-check that. As for Politics1, I still find using it an iffy-proposition; but if you think it will withstand FAC challenges, go for it. Best of luck! --haha169 (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If the Politics1 source was removed, I don't think it would do too much damage to the article, and could probably be replaced with Amondson's own website.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Fijación Oral, Vol. 1

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article passed its GAN a couple months ago, and my next goal is to bring the page to FAC. Please review this page based on that criteria, as it will surely make the eventual nomination a much smoother process. Thank you very much in advance! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Status

Lead

Issues: "It was released on June 3, 2005 by Epic Records." → Insert a comma after the release date and before "by Epic Records". "with her third studio effort" → Correction: Laundry is her fifth studio album. I'm not sure about the use of the word "effort". Doesn't really make much sense to use "attaining international success" and "effort" (meaning an attempt) in the same sentence. "Shakira opted to create a Spanish-language project for her follow-up record" → Before this, it should be noted that Laundry is, for the most part, an English record, or else this sentence won't exactly make sense. I'm also not too sure about the wording of this sentence, maybe use "for a follow-up record" instead and replace "create" with "release". "As co-producer, Shakira enlisted collaborators including Gustavo Cerati, Lester Mendez, Luis F. Ochoa, and Jose "Gocho" Torres." → Looking at the credits, she is the main producer of the album, and the others are credited as either a co-producer or an additional producer.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC) "The album additionally topped charts in Argentina, Germany, Mexico, and Spain." → "Internationally, the album topped the national charts of Argentina, Germany, Mexico and Spain." Link Best Latin Rock/Alternative Album to Grammy Award for Best Latin Rock, Urban or Alternative Album. The 2006 Grammy Awards should be linked somewhere. Latin Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Album and Latin Grammy Award for Album of the Year need linking as well to their respective mentions. "To date, it has sold approximately four million copies worldwide, and has become one of the best-selling Latin albums in the United States." → "The album has sold approximately four million copies worldwide and is one of the best-selling Latin albums in the United States."  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Completed all corrections up to this point. WikiRedactor (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC) "Five singles were released from the album." → "Five singles were released to promote Fijación Oral, Vol. 1." "Its lead single "La Tortura" was the only track to chart on the US Billboard Hot 100, peaking at number twenty-three. The follow-up singles "No", "Día de Enero", "La Pared", and "Las de la Intuición" enjoyed moderate success on the Hot Latin Songs, Tropical Songs, and Latin Pop Airplay component charts." → "While "La Tortura", the album's lead single, was the only track to chart on the US Billboard Hot 100, the follow-up singles "No", "Día de Enero", "La Pared" and "Las de la Intuición" enjoyed moderate success on the Hot Latin Songs, Tropical Songs and Latin Pop Airplay component charts." "In November 2005, Shakira released her fifth studio album, the English-language Oral Fixation, Vol. 2, five months after the first volume." → I'm not sure what to suggest, but this sentence needs some work. It is the second volume of the album, so that should be noted, as well as the fact that it is in English. "In December 2006, the albums were reissued as an expanded version titled Oral Fixation, Vol. 1 & 2". → "The two volumes were packaged together in a box set and released as, Oral Fixation, Vol. 1 & 2, in December 2006." "The projects were additionally promoted through the Oral Fixation Tour, which visited several countries throughout 2006 and 2007." → Should be a bit more specific about where the tour visited. Maybe also make a note about the live album release?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Completed all corrections up to this point. What do you think of the reworded inclusion of Oral Fixation, Vol. 2? WikiRedactor (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Looks good to me!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC) I'll have to step away from my laptop for a bit, so I'll address additional comments later on. Thank you again for your help! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC) My pleasure! No problem!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Background

Issues: Needs some corrections like we talked about for the lead. She actually worked with Luis F. Ochoa on her previous 3 albums.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC) All addressed. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure what's available, but I'd like to see more information added about both of the volumes in the background section. There's quite a lot of information in this article that I think could be added. It also states that she actually wrote 60 songs for Oral Fixation (not Laundry Service) and decided to make it into two albums because of the large amount.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC) I'll look into that, thanks for pointing that out. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC) No problem!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC) I pulled some more information from the references in the section, I'll look for some more sites that have relevant information. WikiRedactor (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Much better. One more issue here and we'll move onto the next section. "Shakira commented that the album artworks were inspired by Eve" → It's not necessary to say "Shakira commented". "elaborating that" → "with Shakira elaborating that" — Status (talk · contribs) 19:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Both corrected. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Brief comments by Erick

Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

*Images need alt text including the album cover. Done. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC) The image of her performing at the tour needs an alt too. Erick (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC) The four million sales needs an "as of" date. Erick (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Done. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC) It appears that link is broken, so I'll look for a replacement and add that information. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Righty-o. I'll let Zac carry on. :P Erick (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Tbhotch

Why the credits and personnel section is missed? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing that out, the section has been added. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by WonderBoy1998

• With all its own commercial success and yielding, and "La Tortura" getting a place in the best selling singles of all time, I think Fijacion has a legacy. I think you must put a "Impact and legacy" section or something similar. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate your suggestion, I'll make sure to include one. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I just went through the legacy section. It's very very impressively well written, but reads more like a Critical Reception section rather than a legacy one. I think you must add its commercial achievements. I'm sure you were planning too, but just in case ;) --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• WonderBoy1998 just pointed out something I noticed. I notice you mention the bundled set in the lead, but it's not found in the body of the article. It should probably be in the legacy section. Erick (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Good idea, I included the set in the legacy section. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

How's the progress going? Ready to nominate for FA anytime soon? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The copy-edit has just been completed, and since there haven't been any additional comments posted to the peer review, I think that we're almost ready for a nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Almost? I'd say you're ready for FAC! Let me know when you nominate it so that I can help out since I contributed to the article as well! =) Erick (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well then if you think we're good to go, then we can go ahead and nominate it! :-) WikiRedactor (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well what you waiting for? Close the PR and let's start the FAC! Erick (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

All taken care of! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

---

List of MAJCOM wings of the United States Air Force

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what areas may need improving before listing it for GA or A review.

Thanks, Lineagegeek (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have always been fascinated by "lost" or destroyed literary or musical works, hence my previous endeavours with The Temple at Thatch and Monteverdi's lost operas (I'd have done Thespis, too, if some bright spark hadn't got there before). So it was inevitable that I would eventuallly pick up on Sibelius's ill-fated Eighth Symphony, the existence of which was a matter of debate for decades. He was assumed to have destroyed it—if it ever existed; recently, Finnish musicologists have been finding fragments and sketches which appear to relate to this mythical work, and have even persuaded the Helsinki Phil to play and record them! They suspect there may be more to come. Is there a new Sibelius symphony lurking in the piles of music manuscripts being pored over? Would it be good or bad news if there was? Read all about it, here. Brianboulton (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

At the starting post

I am greatly looking forward to getting into this - but what immediately struck me was the pic at the top - wouldn't, e.g. Jean Sibelius 1939.jpg (which I personally feel also suggests something of Sibelius as facade/insitution/alcoholic(?) rather than the active composer he no longer was) be better as more of the period? or at any rate something rather later than 1913? There are a number available on WikiCommons. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

also I notice in a first readthrough Schneevoight cited twice, once saying "You have no idea how clever it is" (Speculation), once saying "You have no idea how brilliant it is" (Progress and Prevarication). (Presumably same qute in two versions?)--Smerus (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know which Commons page provides numerous portraits; the "Jean Sibelius" page offers a single pic, even older than the 1913 one. Also, there may be copyright issues on anything first published after 1923. On your second point, that is merely sloppy subediting on my part; I have removed one of them. I look forward to your further comments. Brianboulton (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean_Sibelius_1939.jpg looks OK for copyright.--Smerus (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Possible US copyright issues which I will check out. Meantime I've adopted it - it is so rare to see Sibelius actually smiling that it's worth it for that alone! Thanks for the suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A few comments from Tim riley

This is top-notch stuff, and I have very little to suggest.

• Background
  • "prone to bouts of alcoholism" – I don't think one gets bouts of alcoholism: one is or isn't an alcoholic, though one may have it under control better at some times than others. See helpful list of alternative terms from a glossary of the works of Wodehouse:
    • awash: see blotto
    • blotto: see boiled
    • boiled: see fried
    • fried to the tonsils: see full to the back teeth
    • full to the back teeth: see lathered
    • lathered: see lit, a bit
    • lit, a bit: see off-colour
    • off-colour: see oiled
    • oiled: see ossified
    • ossified: see pie-eyed
    • pie-eye: see plastered
    • plastered: see polluted
    • polluted: see primed
    • primed to the sticking point: see scrooched
    • scrooched: see sozzled
    • sozzled: see squiffy
    • squiffy: see stewed
    • stewed to the gills: see stinko
    • stinko: see tanked
    • tanked: see tight
    • tight as an owl: see under the sauce
    • under the sauce: see whiffled
    • whiffled: see woozled
    • woozled: see awash

• • You clearly have expert knowledge in this area, to which I unhesitatingly defer. I briefly considered "fried to the tonsils" (never heard that one) but in the end have rephrased to "heavy drinking". Brianboulton (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Hepokoski – I had no idea he was a Sibelius expert. I have been reading him on Verdi's Falstaff, which is lurking in one of my sandpits. Quite a contrast.
• Composition
  • "the writer and critic Olin Downes" – vague feeling of tautology here: a critic in those pre-radio days was necessarily a writer, though I admit a writer was not necessarily a critic

• • Yes - adjusted. Brianboulton (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Progress and prevarication
  • "Nothing transpired from this" – "transpire" does not mean occur, happen or result, but (OED) "to become known, esp. by obscure channels, or in spite of secrecy being intended; to 'get wind', 'leak out'."
  • "who led the Philadelphia Orchestra from 1936" – I think Ormandy was originally a violinist, but to an English eye "led the Philadelphia" was not what he did with a baton in his hand.

• • Both fixed Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Destruction
  • "the unthinkable – that…" – I think the MoS permits you to change the en-dash in this quote to the em-dash you favour in the rest of the article.
• Discoveries
  • "denigrated by musicologists" – was it really the dusty old musicologists or the thrusting young music critics?

• • Maybe both, but I've changed to the all-purpose "critics" Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• • "the Sibelius Rights Holders" – a body corporate? The capital letters are a bit unexpected

• • Capitalised in two sources (Sirén and Mellor) so I suspect it is a formally constituted body. Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Last quote box – a bit baffled by this. Is it one quote or two, and if the latter, how are they linked?

• • Clearer now? Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Much. That will do nicely. Tim riley (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• • "daring, spicy harmonies - a step…" – em dash for hyphen, as above, but more so.

And that's my lot. Sorry to deliver such a meagre gleaning, but, like King Gama, I find nothing whatever to grumble at. – Tim riley (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all these. I will continue to fuss and polish. Am I right in thinking that Sibelius is not a major element in the Riley pantheon? If so, more kudos for bothering with this! Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

As a fully paid-up Colin Davis groupie I went to many of his Sibelius concerts, including a perf of the Fourth that had the entire audience looking about as we tottered out at the end for a quiet corner in which to commit suicide. Now the great man is no longer here my Sibelian credentials may grow tarnished. I must say your article made me want to hit Sibelius over the head with a Schnapps bottle for his shilly-shallying, though your quote box about the inhibiting effect of being a national treasure is, I admit, very telling.

A few more comments from Smerus

Fascinating article about this Snark of a symphony ('they sought it with forks and hope'). I write as one who is a sceptic that the fragments relate to the 8th, but of course it is great to have the whole story here. Like Tim I have a few crotchety comments, but none I think are overpoweringly significant.

Lede

• 'How much...was completed is unknown'. That suggests anything from 0-100%,but we do know from the copyist's receipt that a first movement was finished. And it seems that this is all that we know - which ?may? be worth reiterating somewhere in the final summary.

• I have left the lead, but added something to the opening of the "Speculation" section. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• 'It was generally anticipated that the flow of innovative works would continue' - no citable evidence of this (and it would be difficult find anything appropriate). ? Better 'There was no reason to suppose that the flow of i ws would not continue'?

• My wording would I think be citable, but I prefer yours so have adopted it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• 'In musical circles' - and outside of them as well I suppose, so the phrase may be superfluous

• Agreed Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Limbo

• The bound 'Symphonie' - but is there any reason to suppose at all that this relates to the 8th? It's not clear from the text (- e.g. this could have been one of the earlier symphonies, or even somene else's manuscript that Sibelius owned)

• The reason for linking "Symphonie" to the Eighth is provided in the text by Kilpeläinen, who points out that none of the earlier symphony scores carry the unnumbered heading "Symphonie", and asks: "Could he have omitted the number to prevent news of the now completed Eighth from spreading? Or did he not give the work a number at all, because he was not satisfied with it?" Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Destruction

Begining of 3rd para - 'although Sibelius informed his secretary of the burning' - as this comes immediately after Salemhaara's postulation of a second burning, it's not quite clear that this relates, as it does, to the first and only known incineration.

Tweaked the wording here. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Discoveries

• 'when the composer had become critically fashionable again...' Although many critics and musicologists did Sibelius down, I beleive that many held a place for him (and of course he continued to be popular in concerts). ?Maybe 'when critical interest in the composer once more revived'? - as it seems now (I hope) that Sibelius's position in the pantheon is secure and the revival is not merely a matter of fashion.

• Again, I've adopted your wording.

General - It still seems a very murky story (not your fault of course). The long period of prevarication and fantasy by the composer about the symphony is itself a matter of great psychological interest (apart from musicologically). I am not well-read in Sibeliusiana - I have always gone along with the story which I somehow drew out of the atmoshpere that S. just burnt out after the Seventh and took to the bottle. Are there any psychological interpretations of his behavior that might be worth expounding in a bit more detail?

The final paragraph in the "Destruction" section summarises the main theories as to why the symphony was abandoned. Need more be added? I have not seen any professional psychological analyses of his behaviour, though it is possible they exist. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for an excellent article and a stimulating read. --Smerus (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest and for your helpful comments, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda

Fascinating! Just a few comments:

• Lead: "Much of Sibelius's reputation as a composer rested on his symphonic works." Did that change? Or add: during his lifetime already?

• Clarified Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Destruction: "Sibelius letzten Gedanken" is no correct German, should be "letzte Gedanken", - if it's like that in the source (I don't find it), add "sic."

• It is as per the source (I had given the wrong url – sorry). "sic" added Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Speculation: Sibelius wrote wrong German (chortext instead of Chortext), but probably best left like that.

• It could be Siren's wrong copying of Sibelius's German - but I'll leave it as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• The difference between a lowercase "c" and uppercase is minimal in handwriting. Perhaps Sibelius had it right, as you suggest. But we have to go by the source even if wrong ;) Gerda Arendt (talk)

Finally: I find it a bit misleading to read Symphony No. 8 and then find out it's almost not extant, but I would not know how to hint at that in the article title, - similar to "lost operas ..". Interesting reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that last point of Gerda's is decidedly ad rem, though I too can't think how one would get round it. When I ran up the article on Elgar's Third I was able to call it "Symphony No. 3 (Elgar/Payne)", but obviously no such recourse is available here. I think you may have to leave the title as it is faute de mieux. Tim riley (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The precedents in WP are L'ange de Nisida (not one of mine), a lost opera by Donizetti; The Temple at Thatch, a destroyed novel by Evelyn Waugh (yeah, that's mine); and L'Arianna, an almost-entirely lost opera by Monteverdi (mine too, but still under wraps). All these carry a normal title. We could add the words "(lost work)" to the symphony title – but what if more of it turns up? What if Josephson's dream of a reconstruction should eventually come about? My inclination is to leave the title as it is, at least for the time being. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Gerda: thanks for your review comments, all of which I have addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I like thinking together, thank you for that gift and your thoughtful actions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Symphony No. 8
— composition project —
by Jean Sibelius
The composer, photographed in 1939. By then he had probably ceased all work on his Eighth Symphony, although he continued the fiction for many years that it was still a viable project.
Composed	first mentioned in 1926 (1926), end unknown

I agree that there is no easy way to describe the project character in the title, but we could show it "at a glance" in the article. You will find better wording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't dislike this concept, but it is a bit wordy - does it need anything but a 'thumb' text on the lines of Gerda's caption, (and maybe the 'name' section at the top)?--Smerus (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I took the caption from the article, it could be any, of course. Great image, btw, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, thanks for offering the proto-infobox for consideration. It, or something like it, might well at some time be incorporated into the article, but not at this time. I intend to go forward with the present image and caption, and I hope that reviewers will respect this decision. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The bound copy

Not that any of the following is much relevant to the review, but I am fascinated by the bound copy of an unnumbered symphony, which seems to me to be the crux of the story. It's not clear from the article whether the other bound symphonies were Sibelius's ms. or the copyist's. Also it's not clear whether Sibelius had other things bound by this company or only his own symphonies (or own compositions). If the binding company only did his own works, and the bindings were the copyist's versions, then it is highly likely I think that the the bound copy was a complete eighth symphony; one does not send such things to the binders until one is, at least temporarily, satisified. But clearly it wasn't, on Sibelius's further consideration, the Eighth Symphnoy of his heart's desire. There are two incompatible stories running in parallel in the article - the story of the symphony which was never written, but which Sibelius pretended was in progress; and the far more tragic story of the symphony which was written, but just failed to live up to what S. wanted it to be. The bound copy could point to the second storyline. Glad I've got that out of my system, apologies for spamming the page.--Smerus (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This thoughtful conjecture would make an excellent conclusion to a magazine article on the Eighth, but until such an article is published and I can cite it, I can't incorporate it here. Everything about the nature of what was bound in 1938 is circumstantial; we only have the bill which refers to the binding of a "Symphonie". It may have been the Eighth. I don't there is much more that can be said with any certainty. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that we copy the above two entries to the article talk page? This PR talk page will subside into obscurity once we have moved on to FAC, but the point mentioned by Smerus may occur to later readers, and it would be useful to show that it has been examined now. Tim riley (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A good idea. I have copied the comments as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I will talk to my friends at the Slovak musical journal Hudobny zivot to see if they would accept such an article! Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Short comment from Eusebeus

This is strong work, offering a very readable and thorough take on a very interesting and longstanding Sibelian mystery. I suspect that Brian you may wish to move this to FA at some point, in which case my only suggestion would perhaps to offer a little further clarity on the (mental) health issues that afflicted Sibelius in the latter part of his life in terms of his compositional stagnation. Obviously, the point is not to duplicate the biographical details in the main article, but perhaps simply highlight these aspects to provide the context for his compositional difficulties a little more than is the case at present. Eusebeus (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. I have added a little to the final paragraph of the Destruction section, to highlight Sibelius's tendency to depression and lack of self-confidence as factors in his relative silence after Tapiola. The diary entry quoted by Ross seems a telling indicator of his state of mind, even when he apparently had little to be depressed about. Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

After so many excellent reviewers, it's been pretty slim pickings left on which to comment. The following are not suggestions, so take on board or ignore as you see fit. I've made a few small edits: feel free to revert if you don't like them.

Lead

• "How much of the Eighth Symphony was completed is unknown; Sibelius repeatedly refused to release it for performance, though he continued to assert that he was working on it long after he had, according to later reports of his family, burned the score and associated material in 1945." That's quite a sentence and I had to read it a couple of times to get the full sense (although I was in a particularly dense frame of mind at the time!)

• I have struggled to find a way of rephrasing this. I could replace the supporting clause "according to later reports of his family" with the single word "reportedly", but I'm not really sure that's an improvement. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Background

• "middle 1920s" or mid 1920s?

• Either, but as I've previously used the "mid-" format, I've changed it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Progress and prevarication

• "In a revision of plan": should there be an article in there?

• Maybe, but the whole phrase is pretty well redundant, so I've removed it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Speculation

• Should "postwar" be one word?

• I have often seen it thus, but the dictionaries seem to hyphenate it so I have done so. Tim riley may have a view. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Tim Riley always has a view. I can't help it. I was born sneering. The OED will have none of "postwar", and insists on the hyphen. I am bound in all conscience to say that I think the OED is out of touch with reality. From a swift and highly unscientific check of online archives I reckon The Times and The Guardian favour "postwar", and The Indy and The Telegraph favour "post-war". My search site (Newsbank) throws up more "post-war" than "postwar", but if The Times and The Guardian go for "postwar" it's admissible me judice. I am too inclined to take the OED as gospel, and this is a reminder to me that I didn't oughter. Hyphenate or not, ad lib, I'd say. Pray remind me of this next time I'm laying down the law with the OED in my hand. Tim riley (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you Mr Pooh-Bah for that magisterial summary. I'll leave the hyphen for now (and maybe remove it later when no one's looking). Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As usual, an excellent and balanced piece which is informative and interesting. Drop me a note when you go to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and helpful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. As an aside I'm listening to the Friday repeat of Radio 3's Composer of the Week at the moment: it's Sibelius and the talk is about the unfinished eighth. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Minecraft

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi, I was hoping someone could take a look at this article and give me a good starting point in trying to improve it to A- or FA-class. I don't know that it would necessarily need any expansion, but I'm sure it could use some refinements.

Thanks, Deadbeef 05:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

looks pretty good. I can see no issues of any kind myself. I'd put it up for FAC. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 23:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Notes from Teancum (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:LEADCITE citations shouldn't be in the lead if the info exists in the body. WP:LEAD states that the lead should summarize the body (in other words, anything in the lead should also be in the body). Therefore there shouldn't be any cites in the lead.
• Four non-free screenshots are unnecessary. The "city hall" screenshot does nothing to help the reader understand, and the "procedurally generated" screenshot doesn't either. I don't look at that and go "Yeah, I totally see how that's procedurally generated". That being said they'll have a very hard time passing WP:NFCC.
• Cite #28 (Boing Boing) may be challenged at FAC. What makes this site reliable?

I've removed the screenshot with the procedural generation caption. The city hall picture needs to be kept because the whole point of Minecraft is to build. Therefore a picture of something built is important.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

the screenshots exemplify what the game looks like, although the captions need work. cite 28 is form an interview with one of the game devs. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the lede, there were some sales statistics that weren't in the body of the text, which was why there were citations in the lede. I've now updated the statistics in the body, and removed the citations in the lede.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

if you want Public Domain or CC images to replace the non-free images, I can certainly accommodate, by taking some screenshots, and put them on commons. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not allowed. A video game screenshot is still copyrighted by the developer.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

hmm? i've never heard of that... but OK... not sure how everying on youtube makes money off gaming recordings then... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Short answer: Wikipedia's copyright policies are much more strict than that of YouTube.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

ah. although the monetization is somewhat stringent... but yeah, perhaps they are...— Preceding unsigned comment added by aunva6 (talk • contribs)

@Teancum: Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Boing Boing, the Boing Boing article is reliable.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Magia (Shakira album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We need a GA about one of Shakira's early promotional albums, and I would like this one to reach that status. Feel free to make suggestions of improvement for the article to be good, and what more info I could use as well. Make sure you provide a reliable source of where you found that info from.

Thanks, EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 23:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Since this album is not very well-known , you'll might have to turn to sources especially those printed around the time of Shakira's early fame on Google Books. One article from a Colombian article talks about her being a winner of the Chilean Vina del Mar. Also found a Billboard article makes a mention about it too. Other than that, the lead needs to be expanded, the singles need references to indicate they were released as singles. Put Spanish in the language parameter on the album infobox as well. Since it's her first album, the background should expand on her musical beginnings. Other than that, I can't imagine there's much for article to expand since it received very little attention. It probably won't take much to achieve GA in this case. Erick (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've done a bit expanding to the lead, and the only single I could find was for the song "Magia". Did some of the other stuff you said too, now I'll be looking for what background info to put. Thanks for the suggestions! EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 14:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions for this to become a FA? Thanks. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 21:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Well that might be difficult. You're probably going to put on a reception section which may be hard to find. BTW, the Billboard should use Template:cite journal. Erick (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Had a hard time finding any reception sources. Did use cite journal template for Billboard source. Seems a lot of members of the Wikiproject Shakira aren't willing to improve and expand articles about Shakira's first two albums, and I seem the only one to want to. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 13:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to help but I'm very busy with trying to make She Wolf a good topic. Also, I didn't think much about Magia and Peligro because.... well are they really important? Shakira herself doesn't seem to care much about them. But I'd like to commend you for taking the initiative to improve Magia. Good luck!

P.s- Have you thought what to do about the album's commercial performance? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• What do you mean? EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 14:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I mean do you have any sources or information concerning the chart performance of the album? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No. I couldn't find any charts, as the album only sold 1,200 copies. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 16:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

And unfortunately, there aren't really any Latin American countries with album charts. Only Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico has them. :( Erick (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Withdraw. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 14:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Bono

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A friend of mine, Miss Bono, has requested that this article be peer reviewed. Could this article possibly be a candidate for GA status? If not, what is it missing?

Thanks, -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 03:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Numbermaniac I could do the peer review if you don't mind and if its okay with Miss Bono. Prabash.Akmeemana 20:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It is more than ok to me. Thanks Prabash. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 20:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure Prabash.A -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Giffnock

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was promoted to GA status with a few changes after a thorough GA review by Pyrotec. I've considered making the push for FA but I appreciate content writing isn't one of my stongest attributes. A review with relation to suitability for FA candidancy and any work recommended would be of great help. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Fatinitza

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to get this article to Featured article status. Now, this probably isn't the easiest opera to write an article on - the opera was once world-famous, but there's only a few good books that contain modern scholarship on Suppé - but I think I've done fairly well with what I could find.

I'd appreciate a particular focus on anything you feel is missing from the article, so I know where to focus the next bout of research.

Thank you,

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Irish stepdance

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I really want to improve this article and am not sure how. I just need a new view on how this could be improved and maybe even move up to B-class and (hopefully) eventually GA. Also, I'm trying to avoid adding original research, as I am a competitive Irish step dancer.

Thanks, Angel of Mischief Talk 16:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Jeff Gordon

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to send it to GAN, but I can't find anything to improve on and I feel like a PR could provide more assistance than a GAN.

Thanks, NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 18:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

---

List of songs written or produced by Naughty Boy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been newly created and modelled on the likes of other FL articles such as List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis. I think the article is in good nick but I am not familiar with FL articles so I thought I had better check with others first!

Thanks, → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Chandralekha (1948 film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I can't find anymore ways of improving the article, although there are thousands of ways which are impossible by me, but possible by everyone else.

Thanks, Kailash29792 (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• For a start, I see multiple tags at the beginning of the article (clean up, copy edit, and so on). Any plans to address those?--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I tagged the article with those tags to make people work more, while I search for content to add. However, instead of just directly copy pasting, I had also rewritten sentences minorly to avoid copyvio. U can also suggest me improvements. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Vivvt

• There are many long quotes in the article, which could come under copyvio, so either remove them or reduce them with no close paraphrasing.
• Use template:tracklisting for Tamil tracklisting, similar to Hindi. Also, I am sure you can get more info on singers, song duration etc.

- Vivvt (Talk) 02:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks Vivvt, I'm trying very hard to change the quotes, which I believe any veteran editor can easily do. As for the tracklisting, I can't find any additional info on the Tamil songs (despite the film being primarily Tamil), and I wish someone could help me find. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

From August onwards

There have been major changes now. Pls review them. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry

• What was the budget of the film?

Reply: Done. the budget is ₹3 million, added to the infobox ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Outside the lead no text should be in bold per MOS:BOLD with a few exceptions.

Reply:The film's international titles Miss Chandra, Shakunetsu-no ketto and Indiens hersker are alone bold, can those be exceptions? ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I gave the link just for you to read it and understand when to use it. Film titles should be italicised. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Why is the Tamil tracklisting embedded in a table where as the Hindi is not. Maintain uniformity.

Reply:Till I find more information on the Tamil songs (not so easy as it seems), the table form will stay. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done... or maybe 50%, because I'm still searching for info on the singers ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Maintain uniformity throughout. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Chandralekha was also selected to be screened at the 10th Chennai International Film Festival in December 2012". Since the date has passed I suggest you to change the tense accordingly.

Reply: Done. Made as past tense ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• What makes "Raaga.com", "Kalyanamalai Magazine" and behindwoods a RS

Reply: Raaga.com is the most accurate source for the tracklisting (it even has an iOS app [1]), KM and Behindwoods are also reliable, being used in GA's like Karnan. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think sources are needed for soundtrack. We don't cite them even in FAs. Indiaglitz and BW are not considered reliable as they don't have articles in WP. There have been many debates regarding the credibility of these sources in the past. It's upto you to convince the GA reviewer. KM is definitely not a reliable source. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sourcing is inconsistent throughout the article with many of them missing vital parameters such as "work", "publisher", etc.,

Reply:  Done. I've used the parameter "Work" for all the online ref's, for the italic effect ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• That's a wrong idea. See WP:ITALIC to get an idea. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

To conclude, now newspapers alone are italicised. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Try to reduce the amount of quoted material.
  

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply: Only one quoted material, is as good as it is supposed to be. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if you understood the meaning of "quoted material". —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

To be precise, I don't know if u mean the quote box in the casting section or the quote in the development section ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Among the many issues that editors have noted, the soundtrack may be the most notable. That is because I can find little to no information on the Tamil songs (Hindi is already complete). I however have the DVD of Chandralekha at home, can I use that as a source for the songs? BTW, soundtrack section now uses the proper tracklisting template. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Dr. Blofeld

Lead

• "went through repeated changing of story, casting and shooting" = numerous changes to the script, cast and production?
• What is a "all-India hit"?

Plot

• "Seeking revenge on his father, Sasankan leaves the palace, forms a gang of thieves and creates confusion in the country by robbing and killing people. In one such incident, C" Comma needed after thieves

Filming

• "The highlight of the film was the drum dance " -seems subjective, can you reword "highlight"

Music

• "Chandralekha is believed to have "created an atmosphere" of music directors inspired by Western music in Tamil cinema." who believed it? Needs rewording.

Marketing

• "Vasan spend nearly INR5,00,000 on publicity alone, which was one of the highest of the times. " Spend= Spent, highest=most expensive times=period
• " Because this exchange method was prevalent when India was short of foreign currency, it might have been the case with Chandralekha. " seems OR

Release

• "the film was a trend setter for the making, production cost incurred, publicity and the hype it created before and during the making and after its release. Most producers delayed the release of their films fearing competition and released after Chandralekha's release." repetition of release.

Legacy

• " Chandralekha was the costliest Tamil film made at that time, yet it achieved huge box office success and opened the market for Tamil films across South India." citation needed
• Delink The Hindu, already linked.
• "The film elevated the careers of Rajakumari and Ranjan, both became popular all over India with the film." add "who" before both and change with to "following the release"

Overall looks fine for GA, but I think it lacks the polish in the quality of prose to be FA worthy at the moment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

Thank u everyone for ur suggestions. Now the PR will be closed, and I'll nominate the article for GA (nearly all the issues in this article have been settled) ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

---