Wikipedia:Peer review/December 2012

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.

---

Apple Inc.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it reach Good Article status. Please let us know if it does not meet that criteria, and if so, where.

Thanks, Cg2916 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'd be happy to do this peer review. Can you (Cg2916) confirm that you are still interested in the PR and willing to work on the article ... I ask because it looks like you haven't edited in a couple of weeks. --Noleander (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, it looks like you have not edited the article much. The Peer Review process is primarily for editors that have been working on an article, and want to work on it some more, and are asking for ideas. My advice to you is to spend a week or two (about 40 to 100 edits) improving the article, then come to the PR process for assistance. Does that make sense? --Noleander (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

---

All things

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it promoted to FA. Currently, it is an A-class article, and was promoted to GA within the last year. Any comments would be excellent.

Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Exome sequencing

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve this article. In order to do that I'd like some input from other people on what information might be missing or is unclear.

Thanks, Vmrosario (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Jainism

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article needs some improvements before it becomes eligible for 'Good Article' status. Any help or suggestion would be beneficial. Thanks, Rahuljain2307 (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

---

List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to featured list status. Please have your comments/suggestions for further improvement.

Thanks, Zia Khan 01:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comments I'm not providing a full review, but I noticed that bold links are to be avoided per WP:CONTEXTLINK, portals related to the subject should be added using {{portal box}} or {{portal bar}}, and the notes section is completely empty right now. TBrandley 02:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Zia Khan 05:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment What is the point of splitting the list with several headings? I think it would be better to merge them into one single list, it isn't that many entries. The User 567 (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Zia Khan 04:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "Head of Her Majesty's Government." don't think head should be capitalised. Also I thought Pakistan is a republic? So why is it called Her Majesty's Government?
• "after the establishment and the creation..." establishment and creation are more or less the same thing so I would just use one, would also state why it was established/created
• You need to explain why the Governor-General can change Prime Ministers
• "although he held the post for only 13 days" -> although he only held the post for 13 days
• "Zulfikar Ali Bhutto entered the office who was overthrown by Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, and the country went again into the Martial law" few things that need clearing up. Why was Bhutto overthrown? Why did the country enter into martial law? Also you never stated it was previously in martial law
• "After nearly seven years, Muhammad Khan Junejo was appointed as Prime Minister by Zia" seven years of what? is zia the same person as before? How come he is now dismissing Prime Ministers?
• "Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were predominent during 1988–99" predominant at what? I have no idea what you're trying to say here
• "two non-consecutive term each" term should be terms
• "Shrif was overtaken by Pervez Musharraf through a military coup d'état in 1999." typo and overtaken should be overthrown
• "of Pakistan Peoples Party" need to add the after of
• "Of twenty-two Prime Ministers who have held office since the introduction of the position in 1947, seventeen have ealected by the National Assembly, and five have served as caretakers." -> Of the twenty-two Prime Ministers who have held office since 1947, seventeen have been elected by the National Assembly and five have served as caretakers
• You have 13 in one para and seventeen in the sentence above, be consistent as to whether you use digits or words
• I see no reason, why all the prime ministers cannot be in one table
• Do those colours meet WP:ACCESS? I'm not sure they do, colour normally needs a symbol as well, for those who are colour-blind
• "Suhrawardy made his foreign policy" what does that mean?
• "he also was" -> he was also
• "Junejo was elected as tenth" the before tenth
• "Jatoi was appointed by the President Khan after instance of this further down
• "Sharif elected" -> Sharif was elected
• ref 11 no need for BBC News to be capitalised
• ref 14, I get a different title then is given and you need to add the author
• ref 22 needs a publisher
• Story of Pakistan is in italics in one ref and not in another, be consistent
• you need to indicate what language ref 30 is in, as its not ing English
• ref 35, I don't think including the quote is necessary
• ref 37, appears to be a dead link
• ref 41 appears to not be formatted correctly
• ref 43 needs a publisher
• likewise ref 50
• ref 54 needs the author adding
• ref 57 needs a publisher
• likewise ref 64

The main issue for me is the prose it needs a copyedit by a native English speaker, as there quite a few issues. I would recommend fining one before taking this to FLC. NapHit (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed all except that of colours, not sure what to do with this because these are Parties' official colours. Zia Khan 04:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments – After scanning through the lead, I've come to agree with NapHit that the entire list needs a thorough copy-edit by somebody with strong English skills. There are simply too many issues with the list at the moment, and I fear that a trip to FLC will not end up well if further copy-editing does not occur. The most glaring issues I saw are listed below, but please do not assume that fixing them will solve all of the list's problems.

• "the" is needed before "State of Pakistan" in the first sentence.
• Redundancy in "The office of Prime Minister was created immediately after the creation of Pakistan". "created" and "creation" in such close proximity is not great prose.
• Later in the sentence, another "the" is needed before Indian Independence Act.
• "Seven different Prime Ministers were changed between 1951 and 1957". "changed" is not the appropriate word here; "Seven different Prime Ministers served" is what you might have meant.
• Typo in "therteen days".
• "and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto entered the office who was overthrown by Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq during the Operation Fair Play in 1977, the position abolished and the latter became Chief Martial Law Administrator." Needs a total re-write.
• "Sharif became the most powerful Prime Minister in counry's history...". "in counry's history" → "in the country's history".
• "since Independence in 1947." Don't need capitalization here, or another wikilink to Indian Independence Act 1947.
• "He, during his both terms". "both" → "two"?
• "seventeen have ealected by the National Assembly." "have ealected" → "have been elected". Giants2008 (Talk) 18:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Zia Khan 16:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment

• In the left-hand numbered columns, what do the 'A's mean? I think it means acting PM, but a note should be added somewhere. Chris857 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Zia Khan 11:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Osama bin Laden

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is very nearly GA status and needs just a little bit ironing out to list it. I would like to have those bits sorted out so the article can be nominated.

P.S. I know referencing is a problem but I am myself inexperienced to tackle that problem. If anyone can come forward to help and guide, it will be great.

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I can do this one. I'll post some initial comments; and can add more later. --Noleander (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

 Doing...

Comments from Noleander

• The section "Activities and whereabouts after the September 11 attacks" has a large number of bullet points. Prose (paragraphs) is preferred. Try to convert to paragraphs.
• Citations: for Good Article status, it is not required that every single fact have a footnote: but for an article of this import, each paragraph should have at least one at the end. For instance: the first 2 paragraphs in thee Name section.
• Images: Ample images to meet GA criteria.
• Another paragr that needs at least one citation is "Identified motivations of the September 11 attacks ...". Just grab the best cites from Motives for the September 11 attacks article (but read WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.
• Sidebar "FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives" needs a citation giving the source of all those facts.
• Citation needed for "Years later, on October 10, 2001, ..." paragraph.
• Two sections should be merged: "Pursuit by the United States" and "Activities and whereabouts after the September 11 attacks". They both overlap tremendously, and cover the same era: 2001 to 2011. The "Activities" section is lazy: it is just a list - for an encyclopedia article, it should be interwoven with "pursuit" information. This consolidated section could have subsections on "pursuit by US under Bush admin" etc, but they need to be merged.
• The "Death" section has a {{main}} template right in the middle of the section "Main article: Allegations of support system ...". That looks ugly. Move it up to top of the Death section. Use "See also" template if two main templates adjacent is too puzzling.
• The prior Peer Review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Osama bin Laden/archive2 contains a list of sentences that need citations. It looks like those have not yet been addressed. That must be done.
• That's enough for now. I can provide more feedback after those are addressed. Overall, the article looks to be in fine shape: rather comprehensive, tons of citations, and lots of images. Reaching GA status will be easy once the citations are provided.

End comments from Noleander. --Noleander (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

---

2008 Mumbai attacks

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to try to work on this article to get it to FA status, given the importance of the article wrt the country. And for that, i would like to get a peer review so I can improve out the little bits to get it the FA status

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I wouldn't mind doing this peer review. It is customary for the nominator to make a pass through the article first, fixing as much as they can, before requesting a peer review. I see that you made two edits to this article on 5 Nov 2012: the 2nd reverted the 1st. Are there any other edits you've made? If not, I recommend that you read the FA criteria at Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria, then go through the article sentence-by-sentence, making improvements that you can find. Then request a peer review. If you need help understanding the FA Criteria, or if you have any questions on how to apply them, I'd be happy to help ... just drop a note on my talk page. --Noleander (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

To give you an idea of the sort of improvements that could be made:

1. In section "Kasab's trial" - first two paragraphs need citations
2. The article needs a subsection on "Motivations" explaining the suspected reasons/purposes/goals/etc of the terrorists.
3. Wording is not smooth & professional in some places. E.g. "There have been many bombings in Mumbai since the 13 coordinated bomb explosions that killed 257 people and injured 700 on 12 March 1993.[27] The 1993 attacks are believed to have been in retaliation for the Babri Mosque demolition.[28]" That section needs to be written to introduce the reader to the history: assume the reader has no knowledge of the history. As it is now, it assumes that the reader knows about the 1993 attack.
4. Run all the following tools on the article to find and fix some problems:

• Find broken external URL links with http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=ARTICLENAMEHERE
• Find ambig links with http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=ARTICLENAMEHERE
• Citation tool: This tool will edit the article and will combine duplicate cites: http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&page=ARTICLENAMEHERE
• Show Alt text for pictures with http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/altviewer.py?page=ARTICLENAMEHERE
• Find repeating links with tool on left page sidebar
• Copyright violations: Coren's tool
• Another copyright vio: Earwigs tool

for example, the "broken external URL" tool shows several dead external links that need to be fixed. --Noleander (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Broken Sword: The Serpent's Curse

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have to in order for Broken Sword to keep its Good topic status, and I want to promote it to GA after its release.

Thanks, Khanassassin ☪ 21:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned about the two huge quotes in the article, which account for about a fourth of the total text. The overview section is really nothing more than the quote. Maybe that's because there is no other information about the plot? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 07:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I re-wrote the two quotes. Better now? --Khanassassin ☪ 16:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Getting there, but this: "they witness a man disquesed as a pizza man murdering another man and stealing a seamlessly worthless painting" doesn't make any sense. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
      • How doesn't it make sense? The pizza-man-disquised guy comes in, kills a guy and steals I a painting which "seemes" worthless, but actually isn't. --Khanassassin ☪ 17:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Ah. You've misspelled "disguised", and I think the word you want is "seemingly". —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Haha! How could I have misspelled seemingly as seamlessly?! Haha. OK, it's done now. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 19:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
            

---

Starflight

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on Starflight on and off for a year or two, and I think it's almost ready for WP:GAN. It's been expanded some, but mostly I've rewritten and sourced it extensively. I'd like to get some fresh eyes to give a looking over and help me polish it up that last little bit. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I can do this one. --Noleander (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Wording: " ... resemble a space opera à la Star Trek. " - "a la" is too slangy; need more professional wording for encyclopedia.
• Wording: " ... and name it for no gameplay effect whatsoever." - "whatsoever" is too slangy.
• Citation - needed for section "Mega Drive/Genesis version"
• Grammar: " ...Starflight has also received favorable ..." - just say "Starflight received favorable ..". The word "also" should rarely be used in encycl articles.
• Ref subsection? - At the bottom of the section "References" is the manual "Binary Systems (1986). Starflight: The Manual. Electronic Arts." - that looks too confusing there, part of the footnotes? Just put it in a dedicated subsection "Manuals" or similar. Or change "References" to "Footnotes" and put the manual in a subsection named "References"
• Wording: "... and was very much the spiritual predecessor to ..."- "was very much" is too slangy. Just say "and was the spiritual ..". BUT make sure "spiritual" is the word/idea used in the source; editors should not supply that kind of sentiment on their own.
• Info on creator: It was created by Binary Systems ... why is there no article on them? Primary software developer was ...? Did they create any other games? ... [later note]: Okay, I see some detail later in the article. But should Binary Systems article be created? or at least red-linked? or was the company too tiny & non-notable?
• The "Plot" section should have more citations ... if entire section comes from the manual, at least put one footnote at the very end of the Plot section.
• Is there some kind of footer navBox you can put at the bottom that contains links to other, similar games? Readers may want to browse for other games of that era.
• Wording: "Starflight is often mentioned in the same breath as ..." - "same breath" is too slangy
• That's all I have. I think if you resolve that, and take it to GAN, you should be in good shape. I'm sure the GAN reviewer will find a few more things, but it should be straightforward. Good luck!

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notes. On the last point, there is a page for Binary Systems, but it's a redirect to Starflight. I think the team only developed those two games. I'm not sure there's enough out there to establish notability. One of the guys in the group, Greg Johnson, has been pretty successful and has an article, so maybe I could mooch off his sources. Thanks again for taking the time to leave comments. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Hawkeye (comics)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there seems to be a massive "fanboy" interference on adding a simple distinguish page to a similar character. Please see the revision history and review rationale and come to a decision.

Thanks, Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 18:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you want someone to mediate in a dispute. The Peer Review forum is for improving the over-all article quality, and there generally cannot be an on-going dispute. I suggest that you look at WP:Dispute resolution ... there are a couple of forums listed there that may help:

• WP:Third opinion
• WP:Dispute resolution Noticeboard
• WP:RFC

I suggest that you cancel this PR request, and post a request at one of those 3 forums instead. --Noleander (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Bajkam

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review for several reasons. My goal would be to bring this to GA level, and I'd like to be able to pinpoint any problems with it as well as brainstorming ways to make it better.

In case you'd like a brief topic summary before joining this review, the subject, Bajkam, was a Turkic warlord who served as top military official and de facto dictator of the Abbasid Caliphate during the 900s. Ironically enough, he was murdered by brigands while out enjoying the hunt.

Thanks, dci | TALK 00:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The only thing I'd suggest to meet the GAN prose requirements would be to add a sentence or two to the end of the lead, based on the last 3 paragraphs of the article. Otherwise, it meets WP:LEAD and WP:WTW. - Dank (push to talk) 04:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. dci | TALK 02:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: check alphabetization of Sources; "ever grateful thereafter" is a bit much; check for overlinking (Jibal twice in a single paragraph); suggest using full headings rather than subheadings (obviously most if not all of a biography is going to be "life"); any details on scholarly or biographical approaches to Bajkam? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I revised according to your comments. As for biographical approaches, there is an article by Marius Canard, a researcher who contributed to the Encyclopedia of Islam, on the topic. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be much of an analysis on the fellow as he was but one of many petty warlords who usurped the Caliph and viziers' roles as effective rulers of the empire. As described in the article, he was mentioned by some of the period's intellectuals, whom he had befriended. dci | TALK 00:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks to all for advice or suggestions, but given that things around here can be a bit slow, I think I'll withdraw and nominate for GA. dci | TALK 18:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Irving Gottesman

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is now GA and would like it to be an FA; after GA, I expanded coverage and fixed some MOS issues (both FA criteria), and tightened the language; peer review seems the logical next step.

Thanks, Churn and change (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

From MathewTownsend

This article badly needs a major copyedit. Just a few chosen from the lede:

• "He is known for his work on schizophrenia, especially among identical twins," - he's especially known among identical twins?

• "He has also researched on the ways" - on?

• "trying to tease out the separate and mingled contributions of genes and the family, social, cultural and economic environment to how the disorder onsets" - grammar problems and clumpsy wording

trying to tease out ... to how the disorder onsets, progresses and is inherited" - grammatically incorrect

"onsets" is not a word used in this context. It is not a verb.

• "These books carry both raw data from various studies, their statistical interpretation, and possible conclusions presented self-contained."

what does "presented self-contained" mean?

"These books carry" - do you mean "include"? - books don't usually "carry"

"both" - implies two, but the sentence seems to include more than two

• "Gottesman, along with Shields, have built models to explain how schizophrenia comes about, how it is passed on to future generations, and what decides its progress in a patient. This model explains all three elements as controlled by many genes acting along with the environment, with no cause enough on its own."

"have built models", "this model" - which model? what are "all three elements"

Gottesman, along with Shields, has - correct grammar

"how schizophrenia comes about" - not encyclopedic - the etiology of schizophrenia?

"and what decides its progress in a patient." - not encyclopedic wording - something decides? Do you mean the factors influencing the patient's prognosis?

• "This model explains all three elements as controlled by many genes acting along with the environment, with no cause enough on its own."

"with no cause enough on its own" - badly worded

why is environment piped to social environment? Are other environmental causes ruled out?

do you mean environmental causes/influences in general?

MathewTownsend (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the specific issues you mentioned. Can you note the issues in the remaining sections? Churn and change (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(more)

• Suggest getting the article copy edited by the League of Copy Editors.

Okay. 23:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I question that he was one of the founders of the field of Behavioral genetics since Francis Galton is usually given the credit.

Taken out; put specific claim in there. 23:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• the lede needs to be rewritten. It doesn't follow WP:LEAD.

In what way? The first paras are a summary of the body text. Churn and change (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think a list of every position he held or a list of every award he received, no matter how non notable or unimportant, enhances the article.

Fixed; took out a bunch. Churn and change (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Much of the article seems to be an uncritical description of two books he wrote. This doesn't seem appropriate in a biography.

There isn't much criticism out there, except for the two pieces I note. Did you note any? If so, let me know. The reviews of the books I have in the sources are pretty much the main reviews out there. 23:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• IMO the article needs a copy edit and a rewrite. Recommend getting people from Project Medicine involved and becoming familiar with WP:MEDRS so that the information in the article is sourced correctly and is not misleading.

This is too vague. What is wrong with the sourcing? What is misleading? The sources are reliable, secondary and third party. As to misleading, I don't see the kind of criticism you are looking for in the literature. If you can find that, let me know. Churn and change (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: here are a few comments. I saw some places that could be improved, my impression wasn't as negative as Mathew's though. I made some copyedits as I went through. You might want to ping Casliber, since he's a great copyeditor and knows the subject area well.
• Watch for overlinking, I don't think PhD or Violence should be linked.
• " In 1972–1973 he received a Guggenheim fellowship" I think the MOS recommends "1972–73".
• I think one weakness of the prose is that some sentences are too long. You might try to chop some of the long ones in two.
• "A series of books, at times co-authored with colleagues, summarizes Gottesman's work." The middle part is a bit trivial for the lead, I think.
• "and possible conclusions presented with necessary background material." I'd remove "necessary" here.
• I suspect that the image wouldn't pass the FAC image review, they're very strict about the use of non-free images.
• There may be a MOS issue with the table, I don't know anything about tables though. Maybe check with User:The Rambling Man.
• There are some "Cite error: <ref> tag with name..." errors in the reference section.
• The sentences "After spending his last 16 years ..." and "Gottesman is married to Carol Applen, whom he wed on December 23, 1970. He has two sons." Don't seem to flow with the surrounding areas.
• Is there more you could add to the "Work on IQ" section? It starts with him testifying to the Senate, but I would assume he had built up a reputation for being knowledgeable in the area before then?
• The "Humanistic views" section doesn't seem to flow very well to me, it seems like unrelated things are being placed next to each other.
• "The model provided no specific therapeutic insight, but was useful as a guideline for further study." Useful according to whom?
• I'll probably be back for more, but hopefully these are helpful. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

more from MathewTownsend

• first paragraph ends with his obtaining his PhD from the University of Minnesota.

first sentence in second paragraph "A native of Ohio, Gottesman studied psychology for his undergraduate and graduate degrees" - could this be combined and not be repetative?

• "He is known for his work on schizophrenia, especially for researching the disorder in identical twins, trying to tease out the separate and mingled contributions of genes and the family, social, cultural and economic environment to the onset, progress and inter-generational transmission of the disease." - this seems too long and confusing. Perhaps "He is know for his work on identical twins, researching the relative contribution of genes and environment." (since environment includes the social and physical environments - the degree to which it is inherited and/or influenced by environmental factors.)
• I think you should say he is a psychologist.
• "He has also researched the ways genes and the environment add to how humans become violent and to how human intelligence varies." - perhaps something like "researched how the the interaction between genes and environment relate to variations in human intelligence and propensity to violence." or something like that.

• "... Summaries Gottesman's work. These publications include raw data from various studies, their statistical interpretation, and possible conclusions presented with necessary background material." how about something like "summarized Gottesman's research and his conclusions, as well as case studies of schizophrenic patients, including interviews with family members, that revealed the schizophrenics disordered thought processes. Gottesman and Sheilds' built explanatory models to explain the disorder's etiology and progression through the interaction of genes and environment.
• "Epigenetics - the control of genes by biochemical signals, modified by the environment, from other parts of the genome" - could this be worded more clearly?

Hope this isn't confusing! I'm trying to be helpful but I don't have the time right now to look at the sources. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

---

John Le Mesurier

This peer review discussion has been closed.
With appearances in over 100 films, plus an extensive stage and television repertoire, "Le Mez" was a tireless character actor who appeared in some of the most well-known films of the twentieth century, but is perhaps best known for his portrayal of Arthur Wilson in Dad's Army. This article has had a fairly fundamental re-vamp recently; we are hoping to be able to nominate it for FA status in the near future, but feel that a closer scrutiny by a wider audience could be hugely beneficial and all comments are welcome.

Thanks, SchroCat (^ • @) 22:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC), Cassianto^Talk 21:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC) and ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... As I reviewed Sellers, and this looks like similar stuff (from the same sturdy team), I'll do this, but it will be a couple more days before I begin. On the face of it the article looks good; not overlong, and well presented. One subsection ends with an uncited sentence, and you may want to fix this. Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

By Jove that is good news. I think I caught that ref. Thanks Brian. -- Cassianto^Talk 01:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments (first batch)

Lead

• I'm not sure that, at present, the lead is a proper summary of the whole article. The third paragraph, for example, is little more than a list of films he appeared in. Also, I would expect to find in the lead some indication of the kind of actor he basically was, e.g. comic, dramatic, classical - and some indication of a career trajectory, which is quite missing at the moment.

• Slightly belated, but now addressed! - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• The "Fay Compton Studio of Dramatic Art" is the name of an organisation. You should not wikilink a part of this name; all of it or not at all (or a redlink if you must, though I wouldn't)

• Full title linked back to Compton. In favour of this as opposed to not at all as I thought it important to show the distinguished background to JLM's theatrical schooling. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• "From there he took a position in repertory theatre and made his stage debut in September 1934 at the Palladium Theatre in Edinburgh in the J. B. Priestley play Dangerous Corner and later accepted an offer to work with Alec Guinness in a John Gielgud production of William Shakespeare's Hamlet". Far too much for one sentence; please divide it. And "William Shakespeare" can safely be called "Shakespeare".

• Split. Should Shakespeare still be linked? I would consider it to be borderline OVERLINK but I have left it linked to his surname. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree - it's too much, especially for the lead, so I've dropped the link. Feel free to revert is either of you disagree! - SchroCat (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Which arm of the forces did he serve in "as a captain"? Also, it's not a good idea summarise his war service and jump to his 1948 film debut in the same sentence

• Royal Tank Regiment now added and the sentence split. (Although this may all change once the lead is re-worked, following your opening comment) - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Early life

• Add a brief description for Turing; don't force use of the link.

• I know him for his computer invention rather than maths so have gone with this. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Could we have brief details of why he disliked both his schools intensely?

• Done—and in his own words too for Sherborne. - SchroCat (talk)

• "follow in his father's footsteps" is a bit of a cliché, and not really encyclopedic language. In fact, this whole sentence needs a rethink, as it has two "ands" stringing it out. Suggest reduce to: "After leaving school he commenced work as a clerk at Greene & Greene, a firm of solicitors in Bury St Edmunds, while in his spare time he took up amateur theatricals".

• reworded. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• "he discussed his decision with his parents, saying that, "the law was about to lose an unpromising recruit". Hmm, I rather doubt these were the words he used at the time.

Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Same point as raised in the lead - linking part of an organisation's name (Fay Compton Studio of Dramatic Art)

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• "along with Alec Guinness" suggests that they actually joined together, as a pair, which probably wasn't the case. Perhaps: "...where a fellow-student was Alec Guinness, with whom he became close friends".

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• "provided their annual public review..." What is meant by "provided", which seems an odd choice of verb. And do you mean "revue" rather than "review"?

• Quite right: the school now staged a revue. - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• "...Le Mesurier decided to leave and take a position in repertory theatre with the Edinburgh-based Millicent Ward Repertory Players, earning £3.10s (£3.50) a week". Verbose, and grammatically adrift. Suggest: "Le Mesurier decided to leave, and joined the Edinburgh-based Millicent Ward Repertory Players at a salary of £3.10s (£3.50) a week".

• Changed. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

1934-36

• "At this juncture..." is imprecise. When?

Done - "Until 1937" now added. - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Per lead, Shakespeare can be just "Shakespeare"

• As per before, a linked variant has been left for his surname. OVERLINK? -- Cassianto^Talk 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Second and third paragraphs: first mention of the subject should be by name, not pronoun

• Done and done. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Overdetailing - we don't need to know each and every one of his rep performances. Thus the second paragraph could be usefully reduced. The same fault recurs later in the section

• Streamlined. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I found it interesting that he appeared on TV so early in the BBC's transmissions, and it might be worth mentioning that he was one of television's pioneer actors.

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• "putting on a performance" generally applies to theatre managers rather than actors. Did he do more than act in this play? Incidentally, the word "both" appears three times in this elongated sentence, which could perhaps be reworded or split.

• No longer putting on, just performing. I've reduced to two boths - can you let me know if this still reads OK, or whether you still think a split would be preferred? - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• "His last performance on stage in Scotland..." Is there any significance in this being his last performance in Scotland? If so, say why, and clarify whether you mean last-ever, or last in this phase of his career.

• None at all! Now tweaked to show it was his last performance with the Howard and Wyndham Players. - SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• It was actually the Guardian
  "reviewer", rather than its "review", that considered Le M's performance "faultless"

• Changed. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• The words "During the war..." are redundant

• Deleted. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

1946-59

• Again, there is too much emphasis on listing of roles. A more general survey of his career would be preferable. For example, could we know something about his thoughts and ambitions? Was he happy with the way things were going? At this point in the article he is still a rather lifeless character, which I'm sure was not the case in reality.
• A wife suddenly appears, without explanation. No doubt detail are provided later, but in this chronological narrative of his career we should be told, briefly, when the marriage occurred.

• Done (April 1940, so it appears briefly in the previous section) - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Jacques joined the cast of the show in 1956..." Clarify that you mean Hancock's show.

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Third paragraph beginning: "In 1952 he again worked..." → "In 1952 Le Mesurier again worked..."

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• "... worked with Saunders and Marshall in Blind Man's Bluff and also had an uncredited role as a Scotland Yard officer in Mother Riley Meets the Vampire" - it's not clear whether these are TV, film or stage roles.

• Film. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• "whilst", although an accepted English word, is slightly old-fashioned and generally depracated at WP:FAC. I'd advise making it "while" - although the whole sentence, which has an awkward "but" in it, could do with rewriting: "When Hancock left Educating Archie in 1954 to work on his own radio show, Hancock's Half Hour, he kept up his friendship with Le Mesurier, and Jacques joined the cast for the fourth series of the show, in 1956."

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Explain what you mean by "B-films"; I think you previously referred to "second features".

• Done (altered "B-film" to "second feature", which is the more British term too, I think) - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I have also made a number of minor copyedits during my reading through, apart from points noted in the review. More review to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Second instalment:

1960–68

• The problem identified in early sections comtinues: long lists of every one of Le M's performances, with co-stars dutifully noted. Do we need this roll-call? Why not create a "List of rôles performed by John Le Mesurier"? When we get some comment on his performances, e.g. comments by Lambert and Powell, it's interesting, but otherwise reading becomes something of a chore. I think that, as a matter of priority, the co-authors ought to consider reducing the merely listed items to a few examples, and focus on those rôles where critical comments give us more of an ideas as to the kind of actor Le M was.
• It would also be useful to know whether all these parts were much-of-a-sameness, or whether there was any variety. Did he only play comedy roles, or was there some straight acting?

• Slightly belated, but now addressed! - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Having mentioned Powell's comments, I can't make sense of this one: "... I find myself setting Mr Le Mesurier beside one of the nest among the American straight-face comedian, John McGiver". Can you check this is what Powell said, and clarify what he meant if he did?

• I've tweaked the sentence and managed to write it properly this time—the two typos did not help comprehension! - SchroCat (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

1968–77

• "issues commands" → "issued commands" (probable typo in quotation)

• Another of my typo blunders, I'm afraid: now remedied. - SchroCat (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• "...particularly the fortnight the cast would spend in Thetford filming the outside scenes" - I assume this was some kind of regular fortnight, not just a one-off; how frequently did it recur?

• Annually, which is now reflected in the article. - SchroCat (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• "A play was written, which toured around the UK between the summer of 1975 and August 1976". Awkward passive voice at the beginning; also, did Le M and the rest of the regular cast appear in the play?

• Tweaked the passivity and Le Mez's appearance. - SchroCat (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Can you clarify what is meant by "a cast recording" in the following: "...as well as an album, a cast recording of Dad's Army; both were released on the Warner label in 1975."

• I can, and have! - SchroCat (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• "likened to a "mild demeanour" - by whom?

• An academic, whose name is now added. - SchroCat (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• "He gave a memorable performance in Dennis Potter's 1971 play..." Apart from the "He" at the beginning of the paragraph, this is POV unless attributed. Also, clarify that this was a TV play, not a stage play. There are other instances where the performance medium is unclear, as in "In 1972 Le Mesurier made a cameo appearance in Val Guest's sex comedy Au Pair Girls and he starred alongside Warren Mitchell, Dandy Nichols, Paul Angelis and Adrienne Posta Bob Kellett's The Alf Garnett Saga." This problem is recurrent throughout the article.

• I've addressed the Potter information (both POV and "He"), but I need to work on the rest as part of a wider re-working that will be needed from your comments (too many roles, not enough clarity of types of work etc) - SchroCat (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

1977–83

• "The film was poorly received by critics and the public at the time." Does "at the time" imply that they changed their minds later?

• Removed the sentence: it's slightly irrelevant here. - SchroCat (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Clarify whether Angelini's comment referred specifically to the portrayal of Marley, or more generally?

• Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Stepson" is not a hyphenated word, but "guest-starred" does need one.

• Both done - SchroCat (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• The chronology in the section is a bit confusing. However, it seems that Le M was inactive for the last 18 months or so of his life. Any reason for this?

• Slightly belated, but now addressed! - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Final part of review to follow Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

'Final thoughts

Personal life

• The Times notice belongs in the previous section

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe a little too much detail on Melville's drinking? She was not an important factor in his career. I'd trim to a couple of sentences and then move on to Jacques.

• Trimmed. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• "The two" undobtedly refers to Le M and Jacques, but as written could be construed as Le M and Hibbert

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Specific birth dates for two non-notable sons are superfluous

• Exact dates deleted. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Give the year of the holiday collapse

• '63 now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1964 Le Mesurier eventually moved out of his marital house and, on the day he moved in..." Moved in where?

• Unimportant, so sentence now re-worked. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• "In his private life, Le Mesurier was a heavy drinker and was often seen with a drink in his hand but never noticeably drunk." I'd edit this down a bit: "Le Mesurier was a heavy drinker, often seen with a drink in his hand but never noticeably drunk."

• Reworded. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• "while undergoing his period of abstinence" - from alcohol?

• Indeed. Changed. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think the words "from a stomach haemorrhage" are superfluous; the haemorrhage has already been mentioned.

• Deleted. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• The grave image should be aligned with the text dealing with his death.

• Moved. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• "gave an address" → "gave the eulogy"

• Eulogy given. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Other comment

I had not noticed the brief "filmography" section at the end of the article. This could usefully be expanded by reducing the listings in the prose which, as I have indicated, is a bit of a problem at present.

• I would be in favour of doing away with the table instead and keeping the film mentions in the text. The table is a bit repetitive IMO and serves no real purpose here as there is a sister article giving a full filmography just above it. SchroCat any thoughts on this? -- Cassianto^Talk 00:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I put the table in because we had a request to put one in for Sellers at FAC. I'm happy for it to come out or to be filled with the additional detail stripped out of the text. - SchroCat (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's all I have. As I expected, this is a very detailed and thorough biography. Most of the issues I've raised are relatively minor; it's the predominance of prose lists that, I think, is the main item needing attention. I'll happily look again when you've done the fixes, but you'll need to ping me. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Brian, thank you so much for your time and effort on this article, it really is much appreciated. I think we've covered the majority of the smaller tweaks already, with your larger points still needed to be addressed, which Cass and I will work on to sort out. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Christina Aguilera

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it needs additional improvements/opinions before it is eligible for a reassessment of good-article status.

Thanks, 68DANNY2 (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I can do this PR. Can the nominator reply here to indicate that they are still interested? --Noleander (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like you also started a GA review here: Talk:Christina Aguilera/GA2 on 3 Dec. You can only have one going at a time. So, this PR review should be closed. You can start a new PR review, if you want, after the GA review is finished. --Noleander (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

---

1985 Wales vs Scotland football match

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see the quality scale of it improved if possible. I feel that I have done as much with it as I possibly can, and now wish to have fresh eyes look at it and see if it needs improving.

Hammersfan (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I can do this review. Hammersfan: can you reply here and let me know if you have a specific goal, such as getting the article to featured article status; or to good article status? --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If it can get to an improved status from Class B that would be great. But I'm more concerned to make sure that it's as good as it can possibly be, and I don't think I can do any more with it. Thanks Hammersfan (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the next step up is good article status, so I'll use that as the goal. --Noleander (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Lead: Footnotes are not required in the Lead section: yet there are 2 there, which seems odd. Are those facts not in the body (non-lead) portion of the article? Every fact in the lead must also be in the body - so make sure the facts are down there (with footnotes), and consider removing the footnotes from the lead.
• Links: It is customary to link the first occurrence of key terms _after_ the lead, e.g. in "The World Cup qualifier at Ninian Park ..." the WC and NP should be linked. Yes, they are already linked in the lead, but it is customary to also link them at 1st occurrance after that.
• Wording: "Context" is a strange term for a section heading. How about "background" or "History" or ...?
• Quotes: Using large quotes in the middle of the article is generally discouraged, but not prohibited. If you think it makes the article better, you can leave them. See Wikipedia:Overquoting and Wikipedia:Quotations. Most great articles use just a few quotes, and they are usually embedded directly within the text.
• Terminology: "converted the penalty to bring ..." - some readers may not know what "converted" means. Link it or use another word. Pretend that the reader is someone that is a layman that knows very little about sports or football.
• clarify: "with the 12,000 members of the Tartan Army ..." - readers may not know that that is a fan group ... don't make them click a link to figure it out.
• Wording: "undeniable sense of deja vu in that,..." - the phrase "deja vu" is a bit slangy; try to find a more academic/professional phrasing.
• Cause of death: - This appears rather late in the article: " In later years it was revealed that it was not a heart attack, but rather pulmonary oedema (fluid in the lungs) as a result of heart disease that caused Stein's death." That fact should be presented up where the death occurs.
• Reference sections: (1) the two external links in the bottom of the article should be in a section named "External Links" (see WP:LAYOUT. (2) If there is a key book (or other item) that really covers this topic well, that can be in a section named "Further Reading". It looks like the article's sources are mostly newspaper & magazine stories, which is okay, but the section title "Sources" is not used properly right now.
• Pictures: Use of pictures is great. Good job.
• Citations: Lots of foonotes: just about one per sentence, which is ideal.
• Pic captions: In a perfect article, the pic captions also have footnotes, so readers dont have to scan the adjacent prose to hunt for the citation.
• Caps in section titles: Caps are not used in section titles except for the 1st letter & proper names. Not sure if "Qualification" or "Government" should be capitalized. Maybe the are okay as-is.
• Wording: " But, for the second placed team .." - Remove "but" at beginning: it adds nothing.
• Clarify: " the second placed teams in each of these groups would advance to a play-off round" - ? only the 2nd place team? or the 1st and 2nd? Is it more accurate to say "the top two teams"?
• Year? - "Indeed, as a result of Heysel, the Belgian government banned football teams from the whole of the United Kingdom on the 1st June, with the ban only lifted in December 1986" - Need to specify the year that 1st June is in.
• Wording: "The bustling nature of the encounter .." - "bustling" is not quite right, at least, many readers won't know what is intended here. Also, what is "encounter" referring to? the entire match? or a single incident between two players? Re-write sentence to be clearer.
• Clarify: "As a consequence, the fact that the goalkeeper even needed lenses was something not widely known, even among his team mates, Alex Ferguson (who was also Leighton's club manager at Aberdeen) or, more importantly, to Stein." - This does not make it clear if AF or Stein knew or did not know. "not widely known" means some people knew. Later, more detail is given that shows Stein didnt know, but how about AF? Reword that sentence to remove the ambiguity.
• Grammar: "The news filtered out slowly - first the players were told, before Souness appeared before the waiting press pack to tell them that the manager had died." - Not optimal. "before" should be "then"? or maybe re-cast entire sentence.
• That is all for now. Overall, it is a fine article. If you implement the above suggestions, you can then nominate it for GA status at WP:GAN. That should be easy to attain. Then, if you want, you can go for FA status, which is very stringent (you'll have to remove those large quotes, etc) but feasible. Good luck!

End noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Church of the SubGenius

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I had a good pr before I submitted this to GAN, and I'd like to request a second PR before going to FAC with this. I'm not picky, please point out any troubling aspects of the article. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't envy you this one, Mark. My review probably won't be much help, as this group's bizarre teachings would be difficult enough to process at the top of my game, much less recovering from a stomach virus, as I am now. Still, hopefully there's something of use to you in here, and I wish you luck in pushing this thing through GAC and FAC. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead:

• "The Church of the SubGenius is an American parody religion that targets established faiths." Do we know there are no followers outside the U.S.? If there are, does it still qualify as an "American" parody religion because it started there? Also, in light of "...a few academics have defended it as an honest system of deeply held beliefs", is it POV to call it a "parody religion"?
• "described by commentators as fictional" Is there a more specific word than "commentators" we can use here? Anyone who comments on a subject is technically a commentator. What kinds of specialties do these commentators have?
• "The group is often compared to Discordianism; the two ideologies are similar in many ways, but there are clear differences." The part after the semicolon doesn't really tell us anything new; it should be elaborated on or eliminated.

Origin:

• "SubGenius members constructed an elaborate account of the life of Dobbs, which is described by commentators as fictional." Besides my earlier comment, this is the second mention of it without elaboration. I, as a reader, keep expecting to find out what parts of the Dobbs narrative are believable and which ones aren't. I know this is discussed in the Beliefs section, but can some of that be transferred here?
• "Some of their discussion centered around a powerful conspiracy, to which the Church attributes command of the world." I'm not sure I really understand this sentence. Can it be stated another way?
• I assume that the consecutive sentences about Jehovah 1 being "relatively evil" and "relatively good" are just part of the confusing system of beliefs embraced by the church.

Conspiracy and "Slack":

• "the Church teaches that Dobbs has empowered its members to see through these illusions" To what does "these illusions" refer?

Members:

• "Notable associates of the Church include Mark Mothersbaugh, Mojo Nixon, Paul Mavrides, Paul Reubens, members of Negativland, and R. Crumb." Could we include short descriptors of who these folks are (e.g. "actor Paul Reubens")? I only knew one of them.
• We'll never be taken seriously as an encyclopedia if we refer to Pee-wee's Playhouse as a "work of art"! LOL

Instructions:

• "Church leaders have issued specific instructions to their followers; Robert Latham of the University of California, Riverside, casts their ideology as "anarcholibertarian"." These thoughts don't seem connected well enough to be joined with a semicolon.

Devivals:

• "Cusack compares the style of the services to Pentecostal revivalism" Can we find a good link for "Pentecostal revivalism"?

Publishing:

• At this point in the article, it occurred to me that the group's beliefs might be slightly more comprehensible if the Instructions and Publishing sections were integrated into the Beliefs section. Maybe.
  

---

Deep vein thrombosis

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit this article to FAC. I have some ideas, from a few 2012 review articles, on where to add some things for comprehensiveness, but what else could be addressed?

Thanks, Biosthmors (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• I can't be of much help with the scientific/medical aspects of the article, but I can offer some comments in relation to the prose/presentation/manual of style aspects that might come up at FAC. Overall, the article looks very solid.
  • Thanks
• One issue is repeated wikilinks. For help picking them out, try User:Ucucha/duplinks.
  • Done
• Overall, there are a lot of wikilinks. It doesn't seem like too many common words are linked, but I'd suggest checking for ones that don't add much to the reader's understanding.
  • Removed some
• Some of it may be unavoidable, but try to minimize the amount of short sections and subsections if you can.
  • I've tried to bundle, for example like this
• On a similar note, watch for short sentences next to each other and see if you can combine them.
  • Good point, I've done some combining
• Purely a preference issue, but I'd consider WP:LDR for readability when editing.
  • Thanks
• I'd double check the use of italics in Classification, some of them are definitely right, but I'm not sure all of them are needed.
  • Looked at, and another editor did more than me, thanks to them[1]
• The usage of the serial comma is inconsistent, so it should probably be standardized.
  • Should be consistently used now
• "When taken together with the risk factors (see below), they are useful in determining the likelihood of DVT," I'm not sure the parenthetical phrase here is helpful, but you could consider linking it to the section you have in mind.
  • Parentheses removed
• There's a one-sentence paragraph in Signs and symptoms, this should generally be avoided if you can.
  • Removed
• A couple of the bullet points under inherited Causes aren't cited.
  • They are cited above and more in the category of commonly known (but I can add them if they would be helpful)
• "Oral contraceptives and hormonal replacement therapy increase the risk through a variety of mechanisms.[8][which?]" The which tag should probably be resolved... but I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the sentence as-is.
  • Clarified which
• "In 2012, results from the ASPIRE study are expected." You might want to introduce this study or explain it a little more, I think this is the first it's mentioned. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • • Reworded
  • Thanks for pointing out that script. Very helpful. Thanks for the comments I'll address them. Biosthmors (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks again. I didn't cite the old age and the thrombophilias in the risk factors because they are already cited above and they are more well known. I think I've addressed all these points. One downside is I did create a one sentence paragraph after removing the one you mention, because a comment below suggested that the material be trimmed. It is currently the last paragraph in anticoagulation. Biosthmors (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Alright, not a big deal--they're best to avoid if you can, but it isn't a hard and fast rule. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Well I just tried to avoid it anyways. Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Some comments from me:
  • I would not attempt to include splanchnic thromboses under the header of DVT. These are different diseases.
    • Removed and clarified with a note
  • There is no precendent for providing the grading of recommendations in medical articles. I think it might be better not to trouble the reader with this if it's possible to work this into the text. Also, the ACCP does not have the final word in many other health systems. For the sake of systemic bias we should be prepared to include the new guideline by NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Clinical guideline 144: Venous thromboembolism. London, 2012.)
    • Grades removed. Still need to incorporate NICE
  • I wasn't aware that "ternary" was in widespread use
    • Common language used now
  • I'm not sure if we should discuss the Cochrane review studying NSAIDs for DVT. If there is nothing to say, perhaps we shouldn't say it.
    • Reworded and trimmed to remove details about the n=90 study
  • In "epidemiology", no attempt is made to provide statistics for countries other than the USA.
    • Generalized, clarified where the data comes from, and added England/Asian
  • I have a vague recollection of a previous U.S. president having recurrent PEs and undergoing a caval interruption to stop this from happening. Forgotten where I read it. JFW | T@lk 19:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. As a temporary reply, this is the second comment I've gotten that expressed skepticism about the value of the strength grades, so I'll just plan on removing them. That way I can remove a table and some text too. And I'll definitely incorporate the NICE guideline. Biosthmors (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Good memory. Maybe I'll put that at PE: "Former Vice President Dan Quayle, who spent long hours in planes, developed a pulmonary embolism in 1994 and again in 1998. The first clot was initially diagnosed as pneumonia, but Quayle returned to his doctor before the blockage turned deadly." Biosthmors (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nitpicks Sasata (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• image captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't have periods (e.g. "The incision for a completed knee replacement surgery, a procedure that can cause DVT.") Those that are, should (e.g. "The ACCP suggested graduated compression stockings for at-risk travelers and some hospital patients".)
  • Done
• author formats of refs #12 and#31 are different than the rest
  • Should be OK now
• why is therapy capitalized in ref#7? Also, the first letter after the colon in a title should be capitalized (check refs throughout; there are other instances)
  • Fixed
• is ref #34 the same as #3 (and if so should they be merged?)
  • No longer cited
• how about links to: calf, iliac and feral veins, protein C deficiency, and protein S deficiency; factor V Leiden should be linked @ first occurrence
  • Linked
• would like to know incidence rates for places other than the US
  • Limited data, said so and mentioned people of Asian descent
• "In 2012, results from the ASPIRE study are expected." Does this not violate WP:CRYSTAL?
  • Results were published, so updated
• don't like how the last sentence of "Research directions" is phrased; it could imply that the results of the study (reduction in recurrent VTE with aspirin) are similar, when I suspect it's the study methodology that is similar
  • Reworded

more comments

• The images all have acceptable licenses.
• We are missing a section on airline response to DVT in flight.
• Most of this article is from the point of view of Western medicine, however are there any other alternatives such as Chinese traditional medicine, herbal remedies, or even physiotherapy? Is there any law on the topic, particularly for travelers?
  • We would include alternatives to the extent they are discussed in secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• There is no alt= text for the images.
  • No longer required. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• In the history section there is an unexplained and unlinked acronym LDUH.
  • Good catch. Added the abbreviation where it belonged.
• "venous thromboembolism" is later used with abbreviation (VTE) but VTE should be introduced at the first occurrence. Even better if these kinds of jargony abbreviations are not used.
  • Clarified
• Some acronyms are not needed as they are used in one section only, eg GCS and would be better shortened to stockings for comprehension. But it would not help to spell them in full.
  • Removed acronyms of PTS, IPC and GS
• References need to be improved in the use of abbreviations for Journal titles. The full title of the journal must be given as our readers are not specialists in the field. For example there is: CMAJ, Semin Respir Crit Care Med, N Engl J Med, Crit Care Med and so on.
• If the author's first name is unknown then the initials should have a . after them.
• Page ranges should have the numbers in full eg 265–72 should be 265–272.
  • The three points directly above this are incorrect (said the now-retired FAC delegate). Nor are List-defined references widely used, required or respected. Alt text is no longer required at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Journal references with no doi include Conklin P, Kakkos S. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Added Kaddos. A doi for Conklin is unlikely, I think.

Regarding journal titles, there is no policy that requires the names to be spelt out in full. Perhaps in your opinion it may be preferable to do so (and indeed also in my opinion), but the statement "The full title of the journal must be given as our readers are not specialists in the field" is false.

Regarding the use of a full stop (period) after initials, again I do not believe that there any policy or guideline that requires this. In my opinion, use of full stops here creates unhelpful clutter. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, full page ranges are not essential. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Axl on these points. Graham Colm (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

For normal articles I would not worry either, but for featured article status the MOS enthusiasts will crack down hard on full stop and ndash use. I suppose "must" is too strong here, but I still recommend expanding journal titles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware that GrahamColm is one of the FAC delegates? (I.e. he is responsible for determining consensus to promote.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Signs and symptoms", paragraph 1: "... although about half of those with the condition are asymptomatic." I added a wiktionary link to "asymptomatic", but I wonder if it might be better to say "have no symptoms". Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Took your suggestion

• From "Causes", paragraph 2: "... both of which may increase the risk because of tissue factor from outside the vascular system mixing with blood." Perhaps "entering the blood" rather than "mixing with blood"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Will do

• From "Causes", paragraph 2: "Oral contraceptives and hormonal replacement therapy increase the risk through a variety of mechanisms." I believe that the combined oral contraceptive pill increases DVT risk, but the progestogen-only pill does not. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Moved the clarifying note up that covers progestogen-only pills
    • Thanks. It is also worth changing this in the lead section, paragraph 2. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Good point, changed. Biosthmors (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Causes", paragraph 3: "The disease term venous thromboembolism (VTE) includes the development of both DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE)." This sentence could imply that both features are required for VTE. It may be more accurate to state: "The disease term venous thromboembolism (VTE) includes the development of either DVT or pulmonary embolism (PE)." Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I think that's better. Done. Biosthmors (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Causes", subsection "Pathophysiology", paragraph 3: "The blood flow pattern in the valves can cause low oxygen concentrations (hypoxia) in the blood of a valve sinus." Hypoxia refers to low (inadequate) oxygen uptake within a tissue, which has several generic causes. Hypoxemia describes low oxygen content within the blood. Does the blood flow through venous valves really contribute to localized hypoxemia? Or does it simply contribute to local venous stasis? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I will double-check the source, but I say both are related. And yes, I mean hypoxemia (low blood oxygen, changed). A diagram in the source showed two circles of blood flow in the valve sinus side by side. One was clockwise and the other was counterclockwise, resulting in hypoxemia. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Diagnosis", paragraph 1: "In those not highly likely to have DVT, a normal D-dimer test can rule out a diagnosis." I presume that this should be a normal result rather than a test. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes yes. Thanks, changed.

• From "Diagnosis", subsection "Classification", paragraph 2: "A DVT might also be called idiopathic when it "occurs in the absence of a known precipitating factor, such as oral contraceptives, surgery, trauma, or cancer."" Is the quote really necessary? How about "A DVT might also be called idiopathic when it occurs without a clear precipitating risk factor." Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It's not my favorite sentence but I think it is helpful to readers and representative of the literature. I think "clear precipitating risk factor" might be misinterpreted because there is a long risk factor list but the literature appears to only use the words "provoked" or "idiopathic/unprovoked" when DVT occurs in the presence or absence of only a few of the commonly known risk factors. I'll think about how this might be improved. I think including the terms provoked and unprovoked might be good too. Biosthmors (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Reworded. Biosthmors (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• From "Diagnosis", subsection "Probability": "Wells scores of one or two can alternatively be categorised as moderate, low if less than one, or high if greater than two, with likelihoods of having the condition of 17%, 5%, and 53% respectively." Can we have "moderate" in the middle please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Done.
    • Thanks. I have adjusted the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• From "Diagnosis", subsection "D-dimer", paragraph 1: "D-dimers are a fibrin degradation product." This should be either singular ("D-dimer is a fibrin degradation product") or plural ("D-dimers are fibrin degradation products"). I recommend the singular form because the plural is not used anywhere else in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I was thinking along these terms: if one degrades protein, one gets amino acids. Thus fibrin degradation yields D-dimers. Biosthmors (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• In "Diagnosis", subsection "D-dimer", paragraph 2, are these statements "suggestions" or "recommendations"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Clarified. Good point. Biosthmors (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• From "Diagnosis", subsection "D-dimer", paragraph 2: "An elevated D-dimer level means diagnostic imaging is necessary." That's not what an elevated D-dimer level means. Can you clarify this sentence please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Clarified.

• In "Diagnosis", subsection "Imaging", only two sentences are used to describe compression ultrasound, despite this being the de facto gold standard, effectively replacing contrast venography. Compare this with the very detailed D-dimer information. (Actually I think that there is a good case for moving the D-dimer text to its own spinout article, while using summary style here.) I think that the information on compression ultrasound should be expanded. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Prevention": "Anticoagulation, which increases the risk of bleeding, is typical when the benefits are thought to exceed the risks." Every drug is given when the benefits are thought to exceed the risks. In this case, anticoagulation is rarely used for prevention. The commonest scenario is when a person has had recurrent DVTs (i.e. two or more). In this situation, a thrombophilia screen is typically performed as well. Thrombophilias are rarely detected in the absence of recurrent DVT, because there is usually no indication to test for them. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I've reworded the text based upon this comment, but maybe you were looking for more changes. Biosthmors (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• From "Prevention": "Aside from anticoagulation, the anti-platelet drug aspirin appears effective in preventing VTE." Such a statement needs further qualification. In which group of patients/people is this beneficial? Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Biosthmors (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• From "Prevention", subsection "Hospital", paragraph 1: "The ACP also drew attention to a lack of support for any performance measures encouraging physicians to apply universal prophylaxis without regard to the risks." I'm not sure that that sentence is helpful for a general encyclopedia article. Perhaps delete it? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• From "Prevention", subsection "Hospital", paragraph 2: "Heparin is suggested in outpatients with cancer who have solid tumors and additional risk factors for VTE." Should this be low molecular weight heparin? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think this is a very well written article and largely accessible to the lay reader. I agree with the comment above wrt the ACCP being over-cited in-text, which makes the article essentially a description of US health best-practice. As the International English version of WP, we should consider other healthcare systems and protocols, especially if their guidelines deviate for some interesting reason. In addition to the NICE guidelines given above, see also the SIGN 129 guidelines. Both are excellent sources for a WP article as they have a firm foundation in evidence based medicine combined with a pragmatic cost-effective approach to treatment/prevention. It would also be interesting to know which treatments/preventions are affordable or widely used in the third world. Are their any reviews/papers discussing this aspect? Colin°^Talk 17:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll check out that guideline. I saw a review article the other day discussing practices in Asia, but it appeared to be primary for that information. I'll keep an eye out for info on developing countries. Biosthmors (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• I would drop the "List of deaths" section. It isn't adding anything to the article and per WP:MEDMOS. If there was some famous historical figure who died or was supposed to have died from this then that may be worth noting. -- Colin°^Talk 18:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Fine by me. I'll try to start a List of people who developed venous thromboembolism and move the content there. Feel free to give me a tip or two at my talk page on naming/organization if that is apparent to you. I haven't given it much thought. Biosthmors (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh I wouldn't create such a list unless the topic of notable/famous people who developed venous thromboembolism was itself notable. A quick Google suggests otherwise. There are diseases and conditions for which health charities publish such lists, where the first chapter of practically every book on the subject name-drops the notable sufferers (or supposed ones), and where speculation on historical figures is the subject of scientific and not so scientific speculation. I don't think that applies here. Colin°^Talk 20:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:MOSLINK and WP:OVERLINK-- there is still some overlinking (aspirin, for example). Ask yourself if the reader is likely to click on a link (methinks a reader of this article knows what aspirin is), if the link is a common term, or if the link is needed for understanding of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I went through and removed some links I thought were to more common and less important words to understand the concepts, including X-rays, MRI, and aspirin. Biosthmors (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Are the lists of causes in any particular order, e.g. frequency? And did I miss cardiac disease and neurological disease? In Lazarus, Hillard M.; Schmaier, Alvin H. (2011). Concise Guide to Hematology. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 181–182. ISBN 1-4051-9666-1. it says: "Neurological disease Individuals who have strokes often have thrombosis in the paretic limb, but not in the limb that is functioning. Cardiac disease An uncomplicated myocardial infarction has a low risk for thrombosis. However, a patient with heart failure associated with myocardial infarction has a 25% greater risk for deep venous thrombosis of which 25% will have a pulmonary embolus." Graham Colm (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source discuss frequency. A friend told me they diagnosed a DVT the other day that had edema but no redness, warmness, or distended veins, and I wished I would find a source that could help us clarify this. Those conditions should be included. Good points. Biosthmors (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I too am slightly concerned by the nature of the list. It seems to be an indiscriminate collection from any secondary sources that mention VTE risk factors. It is unclear if the order of the list has any significance. My personal preference is to use a list from a single high-quality secondary source. Ideally, the source would include relative risk or odds ratio values alongside the factors. However I don't think that should be done when listing factors sourced from many different references. This reference has a nice list. (This is just my opinion, and not necessarily "better" than the article's current format.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops I misinterpreted the first comment and read "causes" as "symptoms". Table I of Lijfering (ordered by risk factor magnitude) has been the most influential in how I ordered it. I largely follow that convention. Thus, while one might argue that due to the ubiquity of non-O blood type, it has a larger impact on causing VTE than the rare deficiency of antithrombin, it remains on the bottom of the inherited list. I will look at the reference you provided Axl, thanks. It might make me switch the order around of something. Biosthmors (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Gateshead International Stadium

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has recently been promoted to GA and I wonder if someone could have a look at it and see what needs to be done prior to an attempt at FAC? I'd be particularly grateful if someone could have a good look at the prose (though I plan to ask the good people at GOCE to look this over after PR) and little WP:MOS issues which I am periodically rubbish at spotting and editing. Cheers Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Isaac Newton

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its one of the most important articles in the Wiki and I have been unable to nominate it for FA only because I cannot find the original writers for this article who could iron out the problems that may arise then. A peer review will help in figuring out where the problems lie and to solve them before going for FA; as well as finding other more experienced editors willing to help the article

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is not too bad, but there's room for improvement. My main issue is the continuity of the story line. There are some unexpected jumps and out-of-context statements, on different scales:

• Overall structure: I would expect a Life section to be roughly in chronological order. Instead, Middle years is subdivided by fields of science, jumping back and forth in time. I'd suggest to move all scientific details into a new Work section, with the subsections that are now in Middle years, and only mention important milestones like employments, publications or disputes chronologically in the Middle years section.
• Some episodes are described multiple times, with some overlap. I think they should be joined in one place, probably in the new streamlined biography section, in any case some redundancy should be removed.
  • How Newton avoided becoming a priest: Now at the end of both Early life and Middle years.
  • His connection with de Duillier is introduced in the middle of Mathematics, at the end of Mechanics and gravitation and again in Personal life.
  • His connection with Hooke is mentioned in Optics, Mechanics and gravitation, and Fame.
• Smaller points: I've got a long list of them, I'll fix some myself and convert the rest to readable form when I have time. But maybe we should first agree on the overall structure anyway. — HHHIPPO 21:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I guess I'm not yet able to edit the article myself, but I wanted to stop by and mention that I agree there are some organisational issues. Thematic order can work if done right.

My advice to whoever works on the article is to put yourself in the mindset of someone who knows nothing about the subject other than that story about an apple falling on his head or something and go through the article with a fine-toothed comb, stem to stern. The paragraph on Leibniz, for example, becomes a bit confusing when read in this way and probably needs to be rewritten in any case. Its tone ("Such a suggestion, however, fails to notice...") and lack of secondary references are more appropriate for an essay than what I understand a Wikipedia article should be.

My advice to you would be to choose something less daunting if you feel unqualified to do the work yourself. You've only made one edit to the article, and that was to change a date. John Anderton (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

---

List of songs recorded by Selena

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to take it to FLC very soon

Thanks, Jona^{talk to me} 15:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• {{doing}}... Ping me if I haven't gotten back to you within a day :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• I think the lead section is way too big. The lead should really just provide an introduction and summarize the main points of the article, but this is giving a pretty significant chunk of her biography, as well as details not found anywhere else in the list. I do get that some of this is just a result of the list format, but I think breaking it up and slimming it down is still necessary. Readers shouldn't have to get through nearly a thousand words before hitting the main point of the list.
• The last paragraph seems to be meat that should be inline with the song details themselves. Other parts seem unnecessary--it's songs recorded by Selena, so why does it mention covers or samples? (It also makes it unclear if the Abraham "Feelings" track actually features Selena or it's just a song Selena recorded when she was six.
• The actual list section seems fine; it's clear, sortable, and provides easy access to references.
  • I note that a lot of the song stuff is referenced directly to the LP/liners. It might be good to see if you can find an online source to corroborate these, as it's rather hard to expect someone to dig out an 80's LP to verify.
  • I'm unsure of the reliability of El Porvenir; might want to write up a defense of it just for those who don't have the language skills to easily verify how it meets WP:RS.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Metamorfosis World Tour

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i will take it to GAN soon.

Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Fakih Usman

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to try and bring it to FAC in a while and would like input as to what contextual information could be added (for readers who don't know much about the Indonesian political scene) and to clean up the grammar.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Tony Lloyd

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, following a virtual re-write, I'd like to have it sense-checked by an outsider, and push the article towards GA and FA (I've done this a few times, but not on a biographical article and not for some time now).

Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  17:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

Seeing as Lloyd is now the police commissioner for where I live, I may as well take the opportunity to read through the article and learn more about him.

• The sentence starting "Born in Stretford" could do with chopping up. Birth to the 1997 election is a lot of ground for one sentence.
• Vote figures for the PCC elections seem undue weight for the lead. Its also a little odd that it is the only election in the article for which vote share is discussed, given the number of elections Lloyd has been involved in.
• More information on how he entered Parliament would be useful. As Stretford went Conservative in the previous four elections it looks like there might be a story there. A gain from the Tories must have been unusual in the "longest suicide note in history" era.
• Worth mentioning that Manchester Central is/was a safe seat earlier than its current position near the end of the article.
• His overall political position and/or philosophy isn't too clear. We get hints, but these are subtle and require knowledge of figures in the Labour party. e.g. Lloyd typically supports left-of-centre politics, and voted accordingly for Brian Gould and John Prescott respectively... assumes knowledge of the field of candidates in those elections. I don't know much about Lloyd's political position myself, and it is the sort of thing I'd like to learn from the article. Its a bit too reliant on voting records on specific policies gleaned from TheyWorkForYou, which while useful, are shorn of wider context. For instance, what was his view on Clause IV and the creation of New Labour? To be chair of the parliamentary party normally implies being an exceedingly loyal party man (moreso than the average MP), is that how he is viewed? The bit on him gaining that post says defeating incumbent Ann Clwyd who was perceived to be too close to Blair, does that mean he was thought to identify more with Brown?
• Aside from the party-related stuff listed, did Lloyd have any other extra-parliamentary interests? Might be worth checking through the Register of Members' Interests to help narrow down possible search terms.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That helps a great deal thanks - your review has total validity, and is particularly useful as someone under his jurisdiction as PCC. I'll get to work on this in the next day or so. One thing I picked up on myself before the PR request was Lloyd's politics. He's a left-winger for sure, but I'm struggling to find sources to that effect - so you're right in so far as I've hinted at this using the few resources I've found. A serious political mind and researcher would probably have a decent book/source which could resolve that issue nicely; in the meantime I'll try work on that myself. Thanks again, --Jza84 |  Talk  00:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Wonder Woman

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've considerably improved this article after it had a failed to get GA class status. Before I renominate it, I would like to get a peer review so I can learn if there are any improvements required beforehand.

The problems listed earlier were that the article is dotted with original research cited with primary sources. I have tried to use secondary and tertiary references more now and cited almost all that is needed to. All the "original research tags" added by the reviewer of the GAN have also been replaced with references now. It was also noted that the neutrality of the article seems disputed as there were places where it was written that Wonder Woman is popular. I have removed (or cited) such sentences. Please see if there are places where more work of this type is needed

I would like you to specifically review the Fictional Character Biography section as I created the section after the GAN review and don't know if there are some problems that need to be addressed there. Thanks, --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Citroën C3 Picasso

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like feedback on where to take this article or how close it is to a Featured Article Candidacy. Can i get a detailed and bulleted list of issues, areas of concern, improvement and suggestions to do this? I prefer a bulleted layout for simplicity. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... Comments may be posted in chunks, depending on how many I have. – Runfellow (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Be as anal as possible, post every little thing you take ussue with; spelling, wording, neutrality etc. Thanks for taking the time to do this ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments, Part 1

I see that you originally tried to get this up to FA status and they sent you here. Don't let them get you down. To be honest, I'm a little surprised there aren't many more featured articles about automobiles, making comparing this article to those a little more difficult than I anticipated. Two of the better Good Articles seem to be Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf, so I'm sort of using those for comparison purposes.

Here are a few comments, going through line-by-line:

Lead

• The first sentence should describe the subject of the article in a plain, matter-of-fact way, and that's about it. As it's currently written, yours immediately jumps into the history. For a template, it would be something like "The Citroën C3 Picasso is a 5-door produced by French automaker Citroën as a mini multi-purpose vehicle (MPV) version of the Citroën C3."
• After that, you can begin the lead section, which will need to summarize all of the parts of the article as per WP:LEAD. As stated in the FA review, the lead section is currently too short. There are a lot of ways to expand a lead section, but the method that works best for me is to look at your table of contents and see if each major heading has at least one sentence in the lead. If not, either a) there should be, because it's important or b) there shouldn't be a section dedicated to it, if you don't think it's important enough to be in the lead.
• Be careful phrasing anything with the passive voice. Rather than phrases like "It was designed by", try starting out with "Donato Coco and Jean-Pierre Ploué designed it..." This will help with a lot of other things later on.

Better? ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Switching between active and passive is not easy, even for me. "X and Y designed the car" would be an active way of phrasing it. With "X and Y are credited", the action (crediting) is occurring to them rather than them performing the action. -R

• I think one source would be sufficient at the end of the sentence rather than breaking it up awkwardly as it is. If one of those sources doesn't list all four, it's not a big deal, or at least not as big of a deal as cramming it with references.Y

Launch

• Generally speaking, chronological format works for most articles whenever possible. Your lead mentions two designers, but they aren't mentioned in the article. It would probably behoove you to include some kind of "Development" section, rather than beginning the main part of the article with assembly. A comprehensive article will include information about the design, predecessors, reasons for production, company preparations, and if applicable, media hype/attention for the new design.
• Putting two wikilinks together, like "Trnava plant", isn't really necessary. One link to PSA Trnava Plant is fine.Y
• "in the west of Slovakia" - change to "in west Slovakia"Y
• "announced in July 2008" - Announced what? To whom? Also, the reference link here just goes to a flash home page.Y

It's actually citation 15, i deleted the other as a duplicate and i've clarified from that source your point ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comma after "09 and 10 September 2008"Y
• Delete "shortly after"Y
• First it was "presented" to the press, but then it was "unveiled publicly" at an event in Paris. How is the press presentation not an unveiling? The term implies that the car had not been seen by the public yet.Y

I had rogue dates in there i can no longer reference so i removed them. 09 and 10 September have been removed and the section clarified. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete "eventually"Y
• "Shortly after was the release to the rest of Europe in March 2009." - Awkward syntax. "The company began selling the car in other European markets in March 2009."Y
• The sentence beginning with "Launched in" and ending in "VED band C" is far too long, I'm afraid. You're trying to cover all your bases with Template:Convert, but clear prose is more important.Y
• You have "Exclusive" in single quotes in one place, italicized in another. I don't know if the MOS has anything on car names, but I'm fairly sure they're not italicized.Y
• "as of 2012" needs a month.Y
• "16inch" - this is one place to use both a hyphen and a convert template.Y

I've converted them to millimetres but are you sure i need a hyphen? None of the articles i've looked at do this...Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, according to MOS:HYPHEN, "Values and units used as compound modifiers are hyphenated only where the unit is given as a whole word". -R

• When using phrases like "three different trims" or anything similar, you can usually delete "different".

I think i've done this one now. I'll leave it for you to decide. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comma after "In January 2012". Also after "engine as its predecessor".Y
• Check over WP:MOSNUM with this section, as there are quite a few issues you'll need to address here.

I'm not honestly sure if you're going to want me to go through everything like this line by line, especially when I know I'm skimming over a lot of minor issues that will almost assuredly come up in another FA review, should you intend to submit it again. I'm sure you've put a lot of work into this, but I think it will need more if you aspire to get it past the rough nitpickers up at FA. I don't want to just rag on it like this for the whole thing, though, unless that's what you want. Alternatively, I can go with more general advice rather than your requested detailed analysis. Let me know what works for you and I'll work with you on it. – Runfellow (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments, Part 2

Reviews

• If "cheap feeling interior" is a direct quote, it should probably be directly attributed. If it's just a general summary of the critical consensus, it won't need the quotes.Y

It's from multiple reviews, although i believe only one (or two) used the word "cheap" directly. The general consensus was of a hard, cheap feeling interior and exterior fittings. I'll leave this for you to tick off. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The three-word phrase in quotes is better, I think. That'll work. -R

• The first sentence jumps around quite a bit, especially the last "and also the quality of the engines" bit. That should be at least a couple of sentences right there, rather than an afterthought behind thoughts about the interior.

Better? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• "tight" doesn't need to be in quotes.Y
• After "obstacles", split that sentence up because they're two different subjects.Y
• I would recommend using the Serial comma for all of these lists. I know it's personal preference, but it makes sense to use them here.
• Comma after "close to the driver's natural line of sight".Y
• The phrase "Other areas like" implies that the sentence will be about other physical areas of the car, like the displays. You'll want to find a way to rephrase that. Also, the sentence contains very awkward syntax. There's summary style, but you can try too hard to summarize, too. If there are three references with three complaints, I don't see a problem with addressing each issue separately, so long as you don't imply that there was any sort of consensus if there wasn't one.

I think i've reworded it to eliminate this. Your opinion? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• The sentence about servicing seems very out of place. This section is about reviews, and that information seems like it's design info.Y
• For the image here, I don't think "plasticky" quite works for Wikipedia. Also, the consensus in the section seems to be that the reviews were quite negative about the interior. The caption says that they were "mixed". Were there some reviewers who liked the interior? If so, that should be included. If not, the caption should reflect the content of the article.Y

I meant mixed overall towards the car. Most criticised the interior. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Design and specifications

• The sentence beginning with "This decision is partly" has very awkward syntax. Read that one aloud to a friend to see if he or she understands it.Y
• The following sentence regarding Rebadging is also quite awkward. Generally speaking, avoid "being" sentences.Y

Engine

• The first sentence should read "When equipped with the 1.6 Litre VTi engine, the C3 Picasso Exclusive and VTR+ models are capable of a top speed of 117 mph (188 km/h) in 10.6 seconds and 120 bhp." The hyphen in there is superfluous.Y
• The sentence about BMW is also awkward to read. If BMW designed all of the engines, start with "BMW designed engine X, engine Y, and Engine Z for the car." If they didn't, tell us who did design them.Y
• The references after EGS6 and manual seem redundant.Y - Moved them to be proof they were "introduced" instead ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• "Start-stop system" and "Regenerative braking" don't need to be capitalized. You can wikilink something with a lower case first letter and it'll work fine.Y
• "These two new features are claimed by Citroën..." - "Citroën claims these two new features..."Y
• CO2 is the same thing as carbon dioxide, so that should be the first wikilink to that article. Y
• "independently estimated" - by whom?YCalifornia Energy Commission
• Generally speaking, you have the company spelled correctly throughout the article text, but there is one "Citroen" here, and many of your references have the incorrect version.Y

I tried to pick out issues that were more common, so you can start searching the article for similar problems and be proactive in fixing them. Two things here are of the highest importance here: go through the MOS and make sure the article follows those rules and read the article aloud to yourself or a friend to hear how some of these sentences sound. The most prevalent thing here is awkward syntax, which is a common issue everywhere on Wikipedia. Reading things out loud will highlight those issues for you. More later – Runfellow (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments, Part 3

Sorry it's taken a while to get back to this, real life getting in the way, etc. I'll go back through and look at your edits when I finish going through the article, which will give you more time to refine and allow me to focus on the larger stuff.

Accessories

• Are ABS really considered an accessory? I don't really know. I'd guess that you put those here because another article did.Y

Title changed to Features, which works better. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• "As standard on all models is also the giant three-part panoramic windscreen and five seats" - Awkward syntax, plus "giant" is superfluous (and actually a minor NPOV issue, believe it or not.) Since one part of this sentence is about the windscreen and the other part is about the seats, split them up into two sentences (at least).Y
• "boot" is a regional term, which we call "trunk" here in the States. Is there a term that works for both?Y

Not that i can think of, but trunk is not a term used in the UK and i don't believe Europe uses it either (although i'm not 100% on that). Problem? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No big deal. "Boot" works fine. -R

Wikilinked it ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• "The Exclusive model is the only to feature..." - "Only the Exclusive model features..."Y
• ", as well as:" - "The upgraded edition also includes tinted windows, ..."Y
• If we can assume people will know what "dual-zone" climate control is, it doesn't need to be in quotes. If we can't, it should be explained. If it's a proprietary technology (as car manufacturers often do), it should be capitalized without quotes.Y
• "Another standard..." - Awkward syntax. I generally get what it's trying to say, but you're trying to say too much with one sentence (this is a general trend in the article.) In this one, you're trying to say all of this in one sentence:
  • The range (the first subject of the sentence) features a unique interior.
  • Citroën (the second subject) calls the interior a "soft grey, Mistral Maxi Taylor", although I don't think anyone knows what that means.
  • Citroën claims "Top European" engineers designed it.

I don't know what to do with that one? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• • The source (though not named explicitly, the third subject) does not list the names of the individuals who designed it.Y
• Comma after "Of the optional accessories"Y
• "kerb side-lights" to "kerb-side lights", as per the source you listed.Y
• "which switch on when the car is locked or unlocked to aid the driver and front passenger from tripping hazards or puddles while entering and exiting the vehicle" - I'd take this whole thing out, but if you're going to include it, you'll have to rephrase. It's not possible to aid from something, like "aid [person] from tripping hazards".Y
• "Also available are: [long list]" This isn't really a sentence, per se, just a laundry list of possible additions with interjections added.

Safety

• As per MOS:ACRO, "an acronym or initialism should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)." So something like "Euro NCAP (The European New Car Assessment Programme)" would be backwards; full name first, then acronym in parentheses. Check for other instances of this in the article.Y

I believe i have met this ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 21:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Generally, avoid using colons to introduce a list. That's not a hard-and-fast rule, but when every other sentence includes one, it bogs everything down and just looks like filler to make the article look longer.
• "The results of the front end were mixed" - "The results of the front end tests were mixed,"Y
• "let down" - Huh?Y
• The sentence beginning with "Protection inside" is another example of a sentence that goes on for too long. The scorers are the main actors at the beginning of the sentence (though since the first part is passive, that's a little hard to tell), and by the end, it's about the types of restraints.

I'm not sure what you mean. The entire sentence is about the protection offered inside the car from the seats. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Though the sentence regards one subject, it's trying to express multiple ideas. You're trying to say that: a) almost every seat was rated highly for protection b) it lost points because it only used one kind of restraint c) those kinds of restraints can be fatal in some cases. Split that up into two or three sentences and things will be fine. -R

• Comma after "Overall".Y

Generally speaking, the main issue here is clarity. Summary style is obviously important with Wikipedia, and I see that you're trying to summarize multiple pieces of information. But more important here (and elsewhere) is definitely clear prose. As per WP:MOS at the very top, "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." Boiling sentences down to their basic structure ("W includes X. X is adjective. W also includes Y. Z considered Y too adjective.") will make this more boring to read, but I'd rather have more more boring than more convoluted. Keep working at it and I'll come back with more comments later. – Runfellow (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments, Part 4

Watchdog and UK recalls

• This section should probably be titled simply "Recalls".

The Watchdog controversy generated massive negative media publicity against Citroën and Watchdog has a high amount of viewers. It's not every day 24,000/24000 sold cars are recalled. I feel the heading should mention that since it's the most notable event in the section. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• "611 C3 Picassos built between January and March 2010 were recalled on 20 June 2010," - This illustrates the importance of the passive vs. active issue. As written, the sentence leaves out an important detail: Who recalled them? The manufacturer? The country's agency? That's because of the very nature of passive sentences often leaves out the real "doer", like "X were recalled." instead of simply "Y recalled X." What I'm saying here is that if you just add "by the manufacturer" at the end of this sentence, it won't solve the issue.
• Other than the section title, you haven't named a the "country" you're writing about until the third paragraph here. In any case, "United Kingdom" is better than UK in this context.Y
• Putting these events in chronological order would make this easier to read. For example, "BBC produced an episode of Watchdog regarding this. The problems they mentioned included X. The company addressed those problems by issuing a recall, which included..." etc.

They are in chronological order? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• The sentence "Despite this..." doesn't fit in that paragraph, which is about Watchdog.Y
• Watchdog needs to be italicized every time.Y
• "as long ago as" - "as early as"Y
• Dunno who "VOSA" is.Y
• "it cutting out" - the battery or the gearbox?Y
• The indirect use of "offending" here is technically correct, but not really right for an encyclopedia.Y

Awards

• First sentence: Active vs. Passive

Better? ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Did the magazine state that quote, or was it a specific writer? If a specific writer, name him or her.Y
• The sentence "This was a year before..." is another anachronism of sorts. Begin the section with "A year before the C3 was released in the United Kingdom,..." etc.Y
• "In 2009 when the car was finally" - "When Citroën released the car in the United Kingdom in 2009, it won "Best MPV" at What Diesel magazine's Car of the Year Awards, "Scottish MPV of the Year" at the Scottish Car of the Year Awards, "Best Supermini MPV of the year" at the Auto Express New Car Awards and "Design of the Year" at the Fleet World Honours." Italicize publications, but not the names of awards or the presentations.
• "Many reviews had complained of poor fitting and the finish used on the exterior." - Firstly, reviewers complain, the reviews themselves do not. But this sentence is really out of place anyway, and should probably be with the "Reviews" section.
• As a matter of fact, it seems like this section ought to be at least related to the "Reviews" section in some way. I'd consider making "Reviews" a top level heading, moving it down, and including "Awards" as a subheading under it.Y

Advertising

• Lot of MOS issues here. See WP:ITALIC especially.Y

I believe i have complied now. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• "H Suresnes advertising agency" is capitalized and not italicized.Y
• Same with "Euro RSCG Paris". Companies aren't italicized.Y
• Ghostbusters is capitalized.Y
• "remix of the Ghostbusters theme tune by Street Life DJs" seems convoluted and confusing. The song was originally by Ray Parker, Jr., but the structure of the sentence implies it was written by the Street Life DJs.Y
• "Street Life DJs" aren't italicized.Y
• Comma after "As the monster is defeated".Y
• "in an impossible feat" - Seems a little silly to say it's an impossible feat when we're talking about a commercial parody of Ghostbusters. I think we know that it's an exaggeration.

I'm toying with this one, but if i take it out then people who haven't seen the advert may be led to believe it's possible to stack a lot of stuff in the car like that and that i could have exaggerated the monster size. Is it a big issue or something i really should change? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll have one more set of comments later. – Runfellow (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments, Part 5

Sales

• I don't know what the standard procedure is on sales sections, but I know some people sort of flip out at the sight of a stand alone table. I'm not really one of them, but understand that might be an issue later on.

It's statistical information with a notes section, i really have no way of writing that out from a list of numbers and years without making things up. I really can't do anything about this one. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why the UK sales get their own column, but no other country does. If it were produced in that country, I could see it, but it's a French car. The rest of the article is also very UK-centric, considering it's sort of a pan-European car.

I only have UK sales figures since i can't find any other released foreign sales figs, even from Citroen. Plus the UK was one of the biggest markets for this car, unless i count all of the Eurozone as one single country. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• "very little of the year" - Awkward phrasing.Y
• You'll want to decide whether you're going to use complete sentences in the "notes" column or not. Some sentences are, others are just fragments. Be consistent. If you decide to go with all complete sentences, consider changing the section to prose anyway.Y

I don't see the logic in that as i'd lose a lot of the information and have to make reasons for sales numbers, resulting in Synthesis and Original Research on my part. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

C3 Picasso Facelift

• Ref #137 goes after the comma. Y
• The first sentence starts out fine, but after the comma break, it makes an awkward transition back to passive: "with it expected to go on sale in the UK in the first half of 2013".

How do i change that to active when it hasn't happened? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• "static cornering lamps" - If you don't know what these are, we don't either. The fact that they're in quotes implies it's something you're quoting directly but don't know what the phrase means.Y
• "Two new colours were also added" - Assuming you're talking about exteriors here, but the way the sentence is structured, it actually says that two new colors were added to the car (as in maybe the seat colors were changed, etc.) "The company released two new exterior paint color options." makes more sense.Y
• Granted, I have a very wide monitor, but for me, this section and the one below it have huge chunks of white space because of the extra automobile infoboxes. I know some other automobile pages have those near the bottom, but I don't think you have enough new content here to really justify one. Using an image would probably be fine, so long as you include that information in the section.

I was told by the Automobile Wikiproject that i should ideally include an infobox for models in the article...Plus it's in preparation for the new model as it will be on sale in the new year, possibly earlier to France. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

C3 Aircross

• You've gone back to italicizing car names here, in this case the Aircross. Eliminate all cases of this, since I'm almost certain that a car name will never have this kind of formatting.Y

I'm pretty sure i erased all of those...And you're right, Wikiproject Automobiles recommends they are not highlighted at all. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Urban-off-road" vehicles being common on Brazils roads." - fragment

Unsure if i've done this one but i've attempted. ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• "This vehicle was launched in early 2011 for the Latin American market; Brazil and Argentina specifically" - Why make this so hard? "The division launched the vehicle in Brazil and Argentina in early 2011."Y
• The fact that the car runs on bioethanol isn't really a "comparison" to the Picasso here, and thus doesn't really belong in that sentence. Split it off.Y
• As is the "exterior is styled to include" section. I still don't think you need all these lists after colons.

I didn't want to rely solely on the picture or i'd hardly any information on the car. I've rewrote it though. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete "actually".Y
• Which one is "also used" by the Peugeot? From the way you phrased it, it could be either the Aircross or the Picasso. Another passive vs. active issue.Y
• Delete "thereby increasing their Latin American presence".Y
• "and were targeting a "young and adventurous" market audience to do so" - The sentence is about how Citroën wanted to sell X number of cars per month. You probably meant the company expected a younger market audience to buy the cars, but as it's phrased now, it actually says that they expected the "young and adventurous" market audience to sell the cars.Y

Where to go from here

As Wikipedians often do (sometimes too much so), I'll be frank here: There's still quite a bit to do on this article before it's ready for FA review. Keep working at it, and use the comments above as general cues, not as a comprehensive list. If you go through and change only the specific things I've mentioned, it won't really help you that much. Here are the next few steps I would take if you really want to get this article going:

• Work on the changes I've mentioned. For anything I mentioned more than once, go through the article and look for more cases elsewhere. This is especially true with things like awkward syntax, passive vs. active voice, and MOS issues.
• Try to find a MOS or template specifically for automobiles. Sometimes, even users can have one stashed away someplace. Go through the regular WP:MOS and ensure that the article follows it closely.
• Solicit the help of other editors interested in the subject of automobile articles. I know there must be quite a few out there.
• Read it to a friend or two out loud, or at least to yourself. Read it slowly. Pronounce every word. You don't even really need their feedback most of the time; the issues will pop out as you read them. I do this on nearly everything I publish, and although it feels a little funny at first, it's the best way to catch many of the awkward sentences that sounded perfectly normal in our heads.
• After you have done all this, submit it to the Great Guild of Copy Editors, whom I hold in high regard.
• At that point, I would ask for a reassessment of the article's Good Article status. If you've done all of the above, it should be passed through again, but I think a more sufficient GA review will help you handle the FA promotion process a little easier.
• Then submit it for another peer review. If you'd like me to comment on it again, let me know. Or I can leave it alone and let someone else have their say.
• After that, submit it for FA review again, and be sure to note the steps you've taken in between the two reviews.

All that seems like a lot of work, I know, and obviously you're not bound to any of it. Maybe you don't think it needs another GA review process (it's unconventional of course to submit your own article for reassessment), or you might want to skip the second peer review (it's not required), or perhaps you'll be content with GA status. Those are all fine and respectable options. But I think in the long run, if you're really gung-ho about this (and again, you may not be, which is fine), you'll end up with a much better article if you go through the process above.

Keep working at it, and let me know if you have any questions or comments. If I need to address anything in your responses above, I'll probably add another section below, rather than going into confusing triple bullet lists. – Runfellow (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You've been brilliant Runfellow, you've been very very detailled, and gone through everything in amazing detail.

I'm dyslexic and as you've now noticed i can't often phrase a paragraph that easily in less than 5 edits in some instances...

I may go for another peer review after i've dealt with yours as a way to see if there's other stuff you may have missed but i do hold your work here in very high regard. After that i'm not sure what i'll do.

So for now i'm happy with your analysis and just request responses to some of the points i have replied to above. Thank you very much and have a nice day/evening ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to keep up with any questions or comments you have on here. Keep working at it. – Runfellow (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Further replies to above

• If you still want to include Watchdog in the section title, I recommend adding "investigation", i.e. "Watchdog investigation and recalls"
• Awards first sentence active vs. passive – Yes, better.
• I don't think anyone is really going to think one can disassemble a monster and place it in the boot of a Citroën. It's not a big issue, but yeah, impossible feat sounds a little funny, almost condescending, like adding "by the way, monsters didn't actually attack)".
• You can still include some or even all of the information you've included after the colons; far be it from me to say what you should or shouldn't include. I'm just saying that it should be woven into the prose as gracefully as possible, rather than doing this: over, over, and over.
• If you want, I can go through after you're done and fix a few of the MOS or passive/active things.

Runfellow (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Go for it, i'd really appreciate that.

The new model launched early, it's on sale already in Spain as a matter of fact. This makes things more difficult as there will be a huge amount to do over the next few weeks. At least now i know what and what not to do.

Thanks a lot ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 23:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Elephant

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like for it to be prepared for FAC.

Thanks, LittleJerry (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Taxonomy", subsection "Classification, species and subspecies", paragraph 1: "The teeth of the African elephants are more diamond-shaped dental loops." I don't understand what that means. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand the new text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

They are referring to this. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I found this website, which explains the matter. I have adjusted the article's text to clarify this and added the reference. Can you please fix the referencing for the preceding sentence? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• In "Taxonomy", subsection "Evolution and extinct relatives", the picture of a "fossil of early proboscidean Moeritherium lyonsi" looks like a jaw bone (upper jaw?). The picture should have a more accurate caption. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Taxonomy", subsection "Evolution and extinct relatives", last paragraph: "the neck shortened to provide better leverage for the skull." I don't see why a shorter neck would provide better leverage for the skull. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The skull is too big and heavy to be on an enlongated neck. LittleJerry (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not "better leverage". I have changed "leverage" to "support". Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Taxonomy", subsection "Evolution and extinct relatives", last paragraph: "The middle incisors grew into tusks." Should this be the upper second incisors? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Anatomy and morphology", paragraph 2: "The skull is lightened by air cavities which can also absorb impacts." The air cavities can absorb impacts? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what the source says. "...the orientation of the honey-comb cells also suggests that this structure is designed to absorb all manner of forces." LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite the same meaning. I found this reference. How about this: "The skull contains air cavities (sinuses) that reduce the weight of the skull while maintaining overall strength." Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. The source I have confirms it. LittleJerry (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• In "Anatomy and morphology", subsection "Trunk", last paragraph, are the "objects" food? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Anatomy and morphology", subsection "Teeth": "Elephants usually have 26 teeth: the two upper second incisors, known as the tusks, 12 deciduous premolars, and 12 molars." If the tusks are upper second incisors, what about the other incisors? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Elephants lost their other incisors. LittleJerry (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be good to mention what happened to the other incisors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The last paragraph of evolution mentions this. LittleJerry (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That paragraph mentions that the number of incisors decreased. If elephants don't have any other incisors, in what sense are the tusks "second incisors"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Technically they aren't now but they were originally during its evolutionary history. Hence why it says "developed from". LittleJerry (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The current text is misleading. The "Evolution and extinct relatives" subsection doesn't mention the upper second incisors at all. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have adjusted the text in the "Tusks" subsection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Anatomy and morphology", subsection "Skin", paragraph 3: "Elephants have difficulty in releasing heat through the skin because, in proportion to their body size, they have very little of it." How about "Elephants have difficulty releasing heat through the skin because of their high surface-area-to-volume ratio." Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Anatomy and morphology", subsection "Legs, locomotion and posture", paragraph 1: "To support the animal's weight, an elephant's limbs are positioned vertically under the body (sometimes referred to as columnar) as opposed to angularly as in most other mammals." Do most other mammals really have angularly positioned limbs? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this could explain things. Most mammals are the second, elephants are the third. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The current text doesn't explain that. Indeed the second category is described as "erect", not "angular". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Anatomy and morphology", subsection "Legs, locomotion and posture", paragraph 1: "The long bones of the limbs have dense cancellous bones in place of marrow cavities. This allows for the creation of blood cells and gives the bones more strength to support the body." These statements are misleading. Cancellous bone is not dense—at least not in comparison to cortical bone. The medullary cavity (marrow cavity) is normally involved in blood cell creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. The source said it's "a network of dense cancelous (preforated) bone..." LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Then the source itself is misleading. It would be better not to mention "dense" at all. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Anatomy and morphology", subsection "Legs, locomotion and posture", paragraph 1: "Elephants are incapable of rotating their front limbs, as the ulna and radius are stiffened in one position." Are the ulna and radius fixed to each other? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what it means. In the human forearm, the ulna articulates with the radius to allow pronation and supination. I suspect that in the elephant, this articulation does not occur. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Better? LittleJerry (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

How about "fixed in pronation"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Anatomy and morphology", subsection "Legs, locomotion and posture", paragraph 3: "Despite being unable to rotate the front limbs, they can move well through rough terrain." Why should limb rotation help with moving through rough terrain? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. LittleJerry (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Anatomy and morphology", subsection "Internal and sexual organs", paragraph 2: "Francis Gano Benedict estimated that the elephant's heart beats 28 times per minute while standing and 35 times per minute while lying down, which is slower than a human's in both cases." There isn't really any need to mention Francis Gano Benedict, is there? Nor is there any need to mention the comparison to humans? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Anatomy and morphology", subsection "Internal and sexual organs", paragraph 2: "The animal relies on the diaphragm to aid in respiration rather than the expansion of the ribs." How about "Breathing relies mainly on the diaphragm rather than expansion of the ribcage." Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Anatomy and morphology", subsection "Internal and sexual organs", paragraph 2: "Elephants have a hindgut fermentation system." What is a "hindgut fermentation system"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Linked. LittleJerry (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Anatomy and morphology", subsection "Internal and sexual organs", paragraph 3: "Females have also been observed with secretions." Are these secretions from the temporal glands? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have clarified the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Behavior and life history", subsection "Ecology and activities", paragraph 1: "Asian elephants primarily inhabit single-monsoon, dry thorn-scrub forests." What does "single-monsoon" mean in this context? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure, so I removed it. LittleJerry (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Behavior and life history", subsection "Ecology and activities", paragraph 2: "Elephants are important seed dispersers; because most of the food they eat goes undigested, their dung can provide food for other animals, such as dung beetles and monkeys." I think that the semi-colon here is not quite right. Are elephants important seed dispersers because most their food is undigested? Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That semicolon was put in by the copyeditor. I added back in the "and". LittleJerry (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that there is more to be said about seed dispersal. I believe that the mechanism is as follows: elephants eat plant food, which happens to contain seeds. The elephants move around, away from the original sources of the seeds. During this time, the seeds pass through the elephants' digestive systems. By the time that the seeds are released in the faeces, the elephants are far from the original source. Also, the seeds are deposited in their own piles of natural fertilizer. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Added in more info on seed dispersal by elephants. LittleJerry (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Behavior and life history", subsection "Ecology and activities", paragraph 3: "At Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Game Reserve, South Africa, introduced young orphan elephants went on a killing spree." Should "Hluhluwe-Umfolozi" have an endash rather than a hyphen? (If you're not sure, I shall ask WikiProject South Africa.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thats how it is in the main article. LittleJerry (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. However that is weak, circumstantial evidence. I shall ask WikiProject South Africa. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is here. There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus. However I believe that an endash is more appropriate. I shall change the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Behavior and life history", subsection "Social organization", paragraph 3: "Adult males and females usually come together for reproduction." "Usually"? Surely they always come together for reproduction? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Behavior and life history", subsection "Social organization", paragraph 3: "Bulls appear to associate with family groups randomly, depending on whether the group has an estrous cow." I presume that bulls will associate with family groups if estrous cows are present? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify that in the article please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have adjusted the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Behavior and life history", subsection "Musth and mating", paragraph 3: "Males become mature sometime later." I presume that this means that males mature at older age than females. Isn't there a more precise estimate? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't given. LittleJerry (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Behavior and life history", subsection "Life cycle", paragraph 1: "Being "precocious", a newborn can already stand and walk and will follow its mother and family herd." "Precocious" links to "K-selection", but I don't believe that precociousness is related to K-selection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Behavior and life history", subsection "Communication", paragraph 3: "These calls may be used to coordinate the movement of herds and allow male elephants to find mates." This sentence needs a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you deleted it while expanding other text. That's fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Behavior and life history", subsection "Communication", last paragraph: "In addition, the muscle surrounding the external auditory meatus contracts on tactile stimulation." So when something touches the external auditory meatus, the muscle contracts? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, Dr. Chissy added that. LittleJerry (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think that the last paragraph from "Behavior and life history", subsection "Communication" would benefit from further copy-editing to simplify the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Alerted the copyeditors guild. LittleJerry (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed myself. LittleJerry (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Conservation issues", subsection "Status", paragraph 2: "The total population of Asian elephants is estimated to be 52,345–41,410." This range estimate has a higher value as its "lower" number. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The limits of the range are very precise. It is implausible to have such a degree of precision, especially when the range is a "crude guess". It would be reasonable to give limits to the nearest 100, although even that may be too precise. What exactly does the reference say? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. This roundoff is also in the reference. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• From "Conservation issues", subsection "Threats", paragraph 2: "Bryan Christy of the National Geographic has called this "one of the worst concentrated killings" since the ivory ban." I don't see why Bryan Christy is being named, nor why he is quoted, especially as the reference was written by him. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Although they might call it weasel wording, hence why I put in the name. LittleJerry (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I am still uncomfortable with the sentence. Let's leave it for the time being. The FAC reviewers may say more about this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• From "Conservation issues", subsection "Threats", paragraph 2: "Asian elephants are potentially less vulnerable to the ivory trade, as females lack tusks." The "Anatomy and morphology" section mentions that Asian females may have small tusks. Perhaps "... females rarely have tusks." Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Conservation issues", subsection "Threats", paragraph 2: "However, they have been killed for their ivory in some areas." Is isn't clear whether "they" refers to Asian females or Asian elephants in general. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not "the species", they are "members of the species". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• From "Elephants and humans", subsection "Beasts of burden", paragraph 1: "Elephants perform various tasks, including ... leading religious ceremonies." Perhaps "leading religious processions" rather than "ceremonies"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Elephants and humans", subsection "Beasts of burden", paragraph 2: "Leopold II of Belgium is known to have captured and trained elephants in the Belgian Congo." Do you know when he did this? Perhaps in the 19th century? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• From "Elephants and humans", subsection "Warfare", paragraph 2: "During the Magadha Kingdom, elephants began to archive greater cultural importance than horses." "Archive"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, "achieve". [I fixed the spelling. :-) ] Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• In "Elephants and humans", subsection "Warfare", all of the examples are historical. Can we have some dates (i.e. year or century) please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Done LittleJerry (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure if it is better with the years in. Let's leave it for the time being and see what the FAC reviewers say. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• From "Elephants and humans", subsection "Zoos and circuses", paragraph 1: "Around 1,200 Asian and 700 African elephants are kept in zoos and circuses. The majority are in North America, which has an estimated 370 Asian and 350 African elephants." 720 out of 1,900 is not the majority. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• From "Elephants and humans", subsection "Zoos and circuses", paragraph 3: "... although different samples suggests that other zoo elephants live as long those in the wild." What are these "different samples"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed LittleJerry (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• From "Elephants and humans", subsection "Zoos and circuses", last paragraph: "Some trainers have tried to train elephants without the use of physical punishment." Using the word "tried" implies that this may have been unsuccessful. Was this unsuccessful? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. The source only gives one example. LittleJerry (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. What exactly does the source say? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"At least some circuses have tried to develop more humane methods of gaining compliance from their elephants. Ralph Helfer, for one...." LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, let's leave the sentence as it is. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

---

The Green Room (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because some work was done on it a while back and most of the primary sources for it are exhausted, so I would like opinions in improving it.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Production

Background and writing

• "painful breakup" - Only my opinion here, but "painful breakup" seems redundant to me. Few breakups aren't painful.
  •  Done
• "The Altar of the Dead" is a short story, and thus should be in quotes, not italics, as per MOS:QUOTEMARK.
  •  Done
• "and even visited"
  •  Done
• Comma after "projects until 1974"
  •  Done
• "Over the years" Is there a more specific time period you can use?
  •  Done
• You can probably delete "Truffaut and Gruault continued to work on the script and"
  •  Done
• "By the spring on 975" - "By the spring of 1975"
  •  Done
• The sentence beginning with "Truffaut thought the" is trying to summarize too much. You can combine some of these thoughts into one sentence, but not all of them:
  • Truffaut thought the script was too long.
  • He asked Gruault to cut it down.
  • Gruault did.
  • But Gruault didn't like working with Truffaut.
  • And Gruault was busy working on another script.
    •  Done
• Comma after "However"
  •  Done
• "reread" - "rereading"
  •  Done
• Comma after "In October 1976"
  •  Done

Casting

• "inensly personal"
  •  Done
• Comma after "According to co-star Natalie Baye"
  •  Done
• "personale" - Personnel
  •  Done
• See below for a note on the final paragraph of this section.

Filming

• Comma after "That summer"
  •  Done
• "despite the films" - "despite the film's"
  •  Done
• Chronologically, the section goes back and forth a bit. Rather than start with the sentence about filming (since you have more specific information about that in the second paragraph anyway), move the budget and studio information to after "lasted until November 27, 1977." That way you start with location scouting, then move on to filming.

Music

• "Truffaut choose" - "Truffaut chose"
  •  Done
• The reference for the on-set music seems oddly placed. Seems like it should go at the end of the sentence.

Reception

• The choice of quotes here is fine, but you'll want to break up the monotony of the sentence structure here. "X told Truffaut that..." will work once or twice, but not over and over again.
• "The Green Room was both Truffaut's worst financial failure and one of his most critically praised films, with some calling it his best work and the only major French film critic who disliked the film was François Chalais of Le Figaro" - awkward syntax. You can break these into different sentences. Since this second paragraph is about critical reception and the third paragraph is about financial success, I don't see any reason to talk about the latter subject here anyway.
• "truffaldian" should probably be capitalized.
  • It's awkward, but I definitely remember that that's exactly how it was quoted.
• I don't know why "l'homme qui aimant les flammes" isn't translated.
  • Same reason.
• Comma after "A few days before the films premiere"
  •  Done
• "tract record" - "track record"
  •  Done

General

• Cast lists are okay, according to WP:CASTLIST, but since you have a section on casting in the prose already (which is good), I don't know if you really need the bullet point list earlier.
• According to WP:FILMPLOT, articles on films contain a short (400–700 word) plot summary. What immediately came to mind here was how this article doesn't have one. They're not particularly fun to write, but you'll need one for sure.
• It's completely optional, but you may want to think about a "Themes" section in here, since that's clearly an important aspect of the article. Notably, the paragraph in "Casting" beginning with "Truffaut later told a reporter" needs to be with the rest of the information about themes. It's not about the casting, really, and seems out of place in its current location.
• Remember that short stories are always in quotes, not italics, as per WP:ITALIC
  •  Done
• It looks like your keyboard might have been a little wonky at some point. Happens to the best of us.
  • "the cript wa"
  • "which wa vry reasuring"
  • "filld out the cat"
    •  Done
• Your reflist could easily be at least two or three columns. You can do this by changing {{reflist}} to {{Reflist|2}}
  •  Done
• There's no rule restricting the use of quotes, per se, but you have quite a few here. In terms of percent of the content, quotes probably comprise a much larger percentage of this article than is necessary. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to get rid of quotes, but keep looking for sources and information to add. There are only two references here, so I'm sure you can find more to fill in some info here.

Overall, the structure generally keeps with the film MOS, and it's easy to follow (though I'll point out that my background is in film studies so I'm probably not a "typical" reader). The main issues here seem to be typographical and MOS-related. Go through it with a fine-toothed comb, and then I'd suggest submitting it to the Guild of Copy Editors to look through it. Let me know if you have any questions or comments and good luck improving the article. – Runfellow (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Will continue working on this, thank you for the review.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
    

---

Venom (comic book)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've worked on it for a long time and I would like to potentially send it to Good Article, but I would like other opinions in to what it may benefit from towards that end.

Thanks, Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yomangani's comments

• "and, as of 2012, its most recent host" - is he the host as of 2012 or has the focus been on him since 2012? The opening sentence is a little awkward with the inclusion of the as "of 2012" but I suppose it is needed because of the "most recent" qualifier. You might try recasting it but I can't think of a particularly elegant alternative offhand.
• "including the inception series..." - are the two series the inception series or just the first one (the perils of identical singular and plural forms)? Again this might be clearer if reworked.
• "The story began the characters transition from unambiguous villain to anti-hero,..." - while I appreciate you are trying to avoid duplicating what should be the content of of Venom (comics) I think it would be helpful to give a couple of lines of introduction to the character before informing us of the transformation.
• "The entire limited run consists of 60 issues" - this would seem to suggest that the eighteen limited series were, in fact, one limited series. "The entire run of limited series consisted of 60 issues" perhaps.
• Why are some series/issues in italics and others in double quotes?
• "after Thompson was first unveiled as the Venom " - "the Venom" or "Venom"?
• "Remender had initially been unsure how to develop an interesting story about Thompson until he noted that he was ultimately a tragic hero, a violent man and his own worst enemy haunted by a drinking problem and a tragic past" - a bit clunky. You could drop most of that and rework the following sentence.
• "and was abused by his foster father, the Crime-Master. " - during his childhood or "now"?
• "Remender left the book" - this is comic jargon. "Remender stopped working on Venom"?
• "to focus on his other titles Captain America" - that's only one title.
• "a series still under Remender" - unclear. Remender was the editor? Chief writer?
• "Bunn's run began with the September 2012 issue #23" - fairly obvious as he took over after the August issue #22. It also sounds awkward with the next sentence starting "In September 2012"
• "introduced the aspect of reproduction to the Venom symbiote" - this reads like the Venom symbiote was unaware of reproduction. I'm guessing it actually means that the concept of the symbiote's reproduction was introduced.
• The titles of these series subsections need to be quoted or italicized as appropriate (see earlier query)
• the use of "the innocent" and "an innocent" gives it a bit of a biblical feel - perhaps be a bit more precise as to who these people are.
• If you can cut the repetition of "insanity" it would help (not sure how many of those are titles, so I can't do it)
• "She later insists on only being his friend because of his violent methods" - sounds a bit odd. Presumably she doesn't want a have a romantic relationship because of his violent methods of fighting crime, but this sounds a little like she is only interested in having friends that are violent.
• "led by criminal turned mayor" - I don't think you can turn mayor, you have to be elected. "led by the mayor, the criminal Charles Palentine"? or "mayor-turned-criminal" if he was mayor first.
• "The series establishes two romantic interests for Brock in Beck and another companion, Elizabeth." - Beck has already been established as a love interest.
• There is an overuse of "sees" as in "The story sees", "a subplot sees", etc., and "also".
• "Brock returns to New York City to find Carnage" - "to hunt down"? "to try to find"? The "meanwhile" that starts the next sentence doesn't make sense as it is.
• "The series also contained the back up story" - what is a back up story?
• The plot of Venom: The Hunted is very hard to follow.
• "His son Kostya sacrifices his life to prevent the release of the plague and divert a nuclear missile dropped on Yesenofsky's base." - "his son" is Yesnofsky's son, right? Not Brock's? I presume the second part of the sentence should be something like "and to divert a nuclear missile that was to be dropped on Yesnofsky's base" or "and to prevent a nuclear missile being dropped on Yesenofsky's base" but I don't know the story
• "Venom is a monthly comic book series published by Marvel Comics since 2011." - this paragraph reads a little oddly, it as if the article is restarting. The other series don't have this sort of preamble; I would have expected something along the lines of "A monthly series published since 2011" similar to the introductions of the other series and then a description of the plot.
• "killing spree to torment Venom, including abusing his father's corpse" - abusing his father's corpse is not part of killing spree: killing his father would be.
• "leaves him possessed with a powerful demon" - "possessed by"?
• "The 2012 event "Minimum Carnage" saw the series and Venom crossover" - could the series crossover without Venom? If not "and Venom" is redundant. If so, please explain how.

Overall, I'm not really sure about this - the lead and publication history are good, but then it gets a bit listy and plot heavy. I would have liked to see something about the character and story development, themes and art development over the series' history. I'm sure it will pass GA with a bit of tweaking though. Good luck. Yomangani^talk 00:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and comments, I will take a look at these immediately. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That was indeed epic edit conflict, had to copy all your edits into my edit to make sure everything was saved. I've done up to where you finished before, I need to obtain the comics for the extended informational opening for Venom: Lethal Protector but other than that, its done. Oh, I need to explain what back-up story is too. I'll begin working on your additional comments. As for why some are italicized and some in speech marks, some were mistakes but comic titles should be italicized and story titles quoted. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Did all of that but the possession thing. It's hard to describe and so what is there is clearly not sufficient but Thompson has kind of possessed it. The DEmon is trapped inside Thompson's body and cannot escape because Thompson is mystically marked by Mephisto. I'd like to cover things about reception/art/development but unless I'm doing it wrong, that type of information just seems very difficult to find for the older things. The history of the 2011 series for instance is as long as the history for the entire limited series and the 2003 series combined because the information is just much more readily available, and I was able to add information on the behind-the-scenes motivations behind changes they make like moving Venom to Phildalphia and such. If I or others can find that information I'd be eager to add it, but the comic industry seems to be less straightforward than the Film or Game industry where everything down to sales figures tend to be easily located. Plot wise, I try to only cover notable elements that impact the character history/future, character introductions/deaths/changes to the status quo, so the 2011 series despite covering about 26 issues is relatively short. The limited series' I try to keep it short and to the point where I can (Though the article needs a copy edit I imagine). There is a little more detail for limited series just because they also substitute for having a full article, which they don't really need beyond Lethal Protector and Separation Anxiety. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine there is a dearth of resources on these less well-known characters; that's a pity but not a lot you can do about it. The article is already much improved, but the change you made in the lead to make the first series clear ("Beginning with Venom: Lethal Protector, eighteen limited series following Brock's adventures were published monthly between February 1993 and January 1998, including Venom: Separation Anxiety (1994)") now means that the reader is left asking what is important about Venom: Separation Anxiety that it gets singled out from the other 16 series. I'm also not sure how far you can justify fair use claims on two covers. You have photos of some of the writers available; while they aren't very exciting adding some might break up the text a bit.Yomangani^talk 12:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it is annoying because I like developing GA's for films and adding all that behind the scenes information because I find it interesting and I think others do to. But this info just isn't available, perhaps they didn't release that kind of stuff at the time or do interviews. I think it was a bit more niche back in the late 80s-90s. I have removed Separation Anxiety from the lede and added a few images from those I could find for illustration. I will try my chances with hte second comic cover for now because it is separated from the original by 13 years and is about a different character so i think it's useful BUT, if a GA reviewer complained about it, there is an image of Rick Remender that I can replace it with quite easily. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Interstitial cystitis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am attempting to get the article to good article status but it still may need a bit more work. The article recently failed GAN due to time limitations by the reviewer and in the meanwhile I need feedback on how to better the article further. The last major upgrade to the article has been the near complete replacement (as much as possible) with secondary review sources, considerable revisions to the length of the article, removal of unnecessary/redundant information, etc. I think the article is close to GA status but I could use some feedback.

Thanks, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Caution, I'll be pointing out some weighty concerns I have about the article. =) Thanks in advance for your patience.
• "This disease has a profound impact on quality of life". Is this always true? I suspect not, though it suggests so.
• Isn't it described as a diagnosis of exclusion? We should link that in the WP:LEAD, I think
• "can be quite disabling" should be "can be disabling"
• The article links to a 2001 definition. Can't we get an updated source per WP:MEDDATE?
• Why would "The Interstitial Cystitis Survival Guide: Your Guide to the Latest Treatment Options and Coping Strategies" be a reliable source/WP:MEDRS? It doesn't have publishing/author info, so it is difficult for readers to assess its reliability. Using[2] after having a google books link can generate a complete citation.
• "The condition is officially recognized as a disability" sounds a bit like we're reaching for notability. In other words, it sounds like the article is trying to convince readers of its importance, instead of plainly citing facts. I have seen no other medical article on Wikipedia, for example, include this type of tid-bit in the lead. Combined with "has a profound impact on quality of life" I'm concerned about about WP:NPOV issues. I think this article is likely violating our neutrality guideline. I ask to hear an reply on this point, see some edits, or I'll plan on tagging this article as such later.
• Why are we still citing a website[3] for information about the disease instead of standard peer-reviewed medical journals, etc.? Consider citing the website for an accessible lay summary within that {{cite journal}} template if it is due to journal articles being paywalled?
• I hope these limited comments have been helpful. Thanks for putting the article up for peer review. Biosthmors (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Biosthmors, so far I have fixed nearly all of these problems now to address your comments. The "always" part for quality of life is fixed, the quite disabling vs. disabling bit is fixed, the full citation for the book reference Survival Guide is complete (thank you for that citation generator), and I'm going to work on updating the definition now. Regarding the condition officially being recognized as a disability, I'm not quite clear on why that would violate NPOV or sound like it's reaching for notability if it's true. The sources cited for that statement seem reasonable to me. Can you clarify what the issue with this statement is exactly? The same for why citing the Harvard website is not desirable. Is it simply that citing a peer-reviewed medical journal for information about the disease is preferable? I'm just wondering because the majority of the article does cite peer-reviewed medical journals but if we're attempting to get as much as possible cited that way, then that will make sense. I'll await your reply for those two parts and update the definition to the best of my ability in the meanwhile (do we care if the definition comes from a primary paper or review? I'm currently assuming we want something from a review article for the updated definition). Thanks for the comments and I absolutely welcome more feedback to help get this article to where it should be. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Definition updated with 2012 peer-reviewed medical journal review.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it is preferable. And I don't see why it should be mentioned in the WP:LEAD. I saw it (together with the other issues) as a way to emphasize to the reader how important the disease was. The medical facts should speak for themselves, without bringing in some other opinion from a government agency. Thanks for your patience! Biosthmors (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by User:Quasihuman

I have one major concern which I have outlined below, if this can be addressed, I will weigh in with more comments.

• Some of the text seems to be closely paraphrased from a number of sources, in some of these, the possible source may have copied from us, but in other cases, that seems unlikely:
  • Our article:"For the most part, people with interstitial cystitis will either have lots of pain and very little frequency or they will have lots of frequency and very little pain."
  • Other source:"...for the most part, people with interstitial cystitis will either have lots of pain and very little frequency or they'll have lots of frequency and very little pain."
  • Our article: "Far more patients may experience a very mild form of IC/PBS, in which they have no visible wounds in their bladder, yet struggle with symptoms of pain, frequency, and/or urgency."
  • Other source:"Far more patients may experience a very mild form of IC, in which they have no visible wounds in their bladder, yet struggle with symptoms of frequency, urgency and/or pain."

These are the results of a brief check, there may be more in the article or these may be the only ones. If the other sources did not copy from us, I would advise you to check through the article for similar concerns, and rephrase sections which have been closely paraphrased. I can help by identifying text where there's a concern. By the way, I checked through the history, and in both cases, these issues were there before Tyler started editing the article. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 20:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Quasi, I just rephrased that sentence you brought up (you were right, it was too similar to the article and I'm not even sure if the article qualifies as a reliable source or belongs in the article) and I reworded the sentence and I think it's better. I think I do remember someone having brought up this issue but I thought it had been addressed a while ago. If there any specific areas for me to look at let me know and I'll take care of it. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Just an update, I've been searching through the history to find the diffs of when the two examples I cited were inserted, and it turns out that they were made by separate editors years apart. The second example was added here. I'm investigating the editor who added the first example, and I don't think it would be fair to link the diff until I'm sure about their other contributions to the article. Could someone check if the other content added in the diff above is still in the article, and check if it's problematic? I'm out of editing time tonight, and won't be back on 'till tomorrow evening. Thanks, Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Sounds like a "job" for Tyler! ;-) You could also try using WikiTrust as I've seen it successfully (and impressively) demonstrated, but I haven't been able to get the option to work for me as of late. I'll post at WP:VPT (now at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#WikiTrust). Biosthmors (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Quasi, so, the vast majority of what that user put on the page in that diff you linked to earlier is not there. The remaining residual stuff does not seem problematic to me, I did rephrase some of what that author put there and just added a systematic review to support an unverified statement but overall, I think the residual contributions from that user are okay, there isn't much left as it is from what I can see.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the work Tyler, on further investigation, it turns out that http://www.grpelvicmed.com/patientsupport/gynconditions/interstitialcystitis/ , which was the supposed source of the content in the second example, plagiarized much of their content from us. I should have looked more closely at it in the first place, had I done so, I would have seen that they copied the text, inline refs and all, from us. I'll add the site to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Ghi for future reference, and because a private company are using our content without attributing it to us. I believe that the other example is a one-off, so I think the article is clean. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Quasi, thanks. If there are other things the article could benefit from or areas that require further work, please let me know. Also, Biosthmors, can you clarify those two points discussed earlier that I was confused about? I'd like to resolve those last two points because then I will have addressed everything brought up so far. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Here are some further comments, I'll add more in the next few days when I have time Feel free to ignore some or all of these if you think I'm wrong.

• Per WP:MOSINTRO, the lead needs to be an accessible overview. Most of the lead seems accessible, but it would benefit from nocturia and diagnosis of exclusion being explained in an accessible way. If I were an average reader, I would have to click through the links to find out what they mean. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• In the lead:"The condition is officially recognized as a disability" - my concern with this is different to Biosthmors. When I read this, I ask myself: Where?, the US, Europe, the UK? when I look into the article I find reference only to the US. I suggest appending "in the United States" to the end. See WP:WORLDVIEW. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• There seems to be a lot of bulleted lists in the article, I especially note the one-member list at the bottom of #Prognosis as inappropriate. I will leave it to your discretion whether the other lists are appropriate per WP:PROSE. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Good comments Quasi, thank you. I'm addressing them now and please do keep them coming. Fixing all of these weak spots in the article is simply making it a better article. I've already fixed the first two things you brought up most recently about where it is considered a disability and the more accessible overview bit. Just fixed the bulleted lists in the prognosis section. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

More comments from Biosthmors

• Fix instances of IC/PBS.
• Use en dash between number ranges instead of a hypen. Biosthmors (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• "While a small 1987 study showed that 11 of 14 (78%) patients had a >50% reduction in pain,[42] a 1993 study found no beneficial effect.[43]" is inappropriate.
  

---

HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article is listed as low importance when the relevance is very high. Previously this stub-article consisted of no references and little to no structure. I would appreciate constructive criticism and suggestions on how to make the article become better.

Thanks, Richardsyn (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. For what it's worth, those "importance" rankings only relate to WikiProject medicine (not real importance). I've commented at User talk:Richardsyn to welcome the editor to Wikipedia and make sure they are committed to following-up on peer review comments. Biosthmors (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Blur (Blur album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After undergoing a series of improvements, I feel that feedback/reassessment on this article would be beneficial.

Thanks, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  21:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the oldest unreviewed one ... I'll take a look. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was worrying that this would stay this way forever. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  23:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, taking a look atm. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  16:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

OK ... didn't take too long. I did a brief copy edit to take care of some things that glared out at me. Which, actually, weren't that many. Overall, it's a pretty solid album article. It has a story to tell—band close to breaking up revamps sound and revives career—and tells it well. I got that without much effort as a reader.

The most visible change I'd make to the article would be the organization of the intro. The lede tells us what it needs to tell us—then suddenly we're dropped into the backstory. I'd keep the current lede, then a sentence telling us how the album did (sort of summarizing most of the third graf), then tell us what singles it's best known for.

Then, tell us about the new sound in the first sentence of the second graf. Then use all the other sentences in the first graf and the second graf to tell us how this came about. Then conclude with the current third graf, which may be the fourth one by this point.

I don't understand why we would need those sentences in the first paragraph when they are already mentioned in the third. As far as I am aware, the entire lead needs to summarise the rest of the article rather than the first paragraph of the lead summarising the third (which is what you seedm to be suggesting - I might have interpereted it wrongly). FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  11:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Other than that, it's mostly about the copy editing.

• Is the word "rapturous" in a cited source? We need to make clear that it's not ours if it is, and honestly we shouldn't be using it at all really, instead describing them, perhaps, as "positive" or "enthusiastic."
  • I am pretty sure that it's ours and have changed it to "positive" FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  18:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• The greatest issue is consistency in so many things. Although it's an article about a British group and uses British spellings and the DMY date format, I see we're still using American-style double quotation marks as the norm ... except for a few places where we don't.
  • Would you mind giving an example of this? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  18:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It turns out on further examination that this was not so. Never mind. Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Most importantly, we need to remember that song titles are in quotes, and album titles are always italicized. The middle of the article gets really loose with this.
  •  Done FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  18:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• We also need to remember that it's almost always (and, in this context, always) "U.S." with the periods, not "US."
• Do we have running times for the tracks on the bonus CD?
  • Added. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  18:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't really find much more. Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Smooth Radio

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm listing this article for a second peer review ahead of an FAC nomination. It has recently passed GA following a first peer review from Yomangani, and a thorough copy-edit by Baffle gab1978 which got it into shape. Part of the advice I received from the GA reviewer, Meetthefeebles was to bring it back here as the next logical step towards reaching FA status. So, I'd like to know what else I would need to do before taking it to FAC. I should also mention that we don't currently have a radio station article at FA (the closest is Mutual Broadcasting Systems), so if this can make it there it would be a definite candidate for TFA. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: It's great to see this article being developed. I agree that radio receives little care and attention on Wikipedia. I will try to incorporate some elements from John Myers' recently-published autobiography, as it has some interesting detail regarding its name, licensing, and personnel. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  That would be fantastic, thanks. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Zaian War

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this to WP:MilHist A class review at some point. However it has been almost 4 years since I last put an article through A class (and then FAC) so I am probably a little out of touch with current requirements. User:Hchc2009 kindly provided a comprehensive review of this article for its GAN but I would like to request a further check, particularly of the prose and style, before I take this further.

Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

• Some of your reflinks aren't working - try using Ucucha's script to see the errors

Thanks for showing me that tool, very useful. I have fixed all the reflinks - Dumelow (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• File:General_Lyautey-Pirou-img_3150.jpg, File:SenegalSoldats1914.jpg need US PD tags

Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• File:030Arab.jpg is tagged as lacking author info - if author is unknown, just put in "unknown"

Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• "three pincered attack" - is this correct, or do you mean "three-pronged pincer attack"?

I have replaced with "three-pronged" - Dumelow (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• "his removal of Abdelhafid from power and his replacement by his brother Yusef" - not clear who the final "his" refers to

Reworded this passage to avoid ambiguity (hopefully) - Dumelow (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• "joined them on the 12 June"

Done - Dumelow (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Spying a few missing hyphens, for example in "four battalion strong"

I have never really got the hang of doing that. I have fixed this instance and had a quick scan through for others, if I have missed any would you be kind enough to point them out? Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the Guigou River (redlinked in this article) is actually the same as the Sebou River

Nice work. I have redirected the link and added some info to the Sebou article - Dumelow (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• goumiers or Goumiers or Goums?

I have decapitalised all instances. goumier is the term for individual soldiers, a goum is the name of a unit (company) of around 200 such men - Dumelow (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Provide imperial values for metric measures, possibly by {{convert}}

Done - Dumelow (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Lyautey became disillusioned with French tactics in Europe and the disunity between the allies and engineered his own downfall and resignation in March 1917 and returned to Morocco by the end of May" - too many "ands"

Crikey, just a few! Split this sentence - Dumelow (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• "though the Summer of 1918" - why the caps?

Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, I have added a couple of locations. I have left some because when I was taught academic referencing I was told to avoid things like "Oxford: Oxford University Press" - Dumelow (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "held onto": held on to. "onto" implies movement, per Chicago (Chapter 5, which generally warns of differences from BritEng usage); "he jumped onto the platform".

Switched with retained - Dumelow (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Almost immediately upon taking up his post": Consider whether "Upon taking up his post" or "Immediately upon taking up his post" would work for you.

Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Mangin's men were highly successful, rescuing the captives and inflicting heavy casualties on vastly superior numbers of tribesmen for the loss of two men killed and 23 wounded. Many tribes, however, remained opposed to French rule.": We've had some opposes over liberal use of "however" recently at FAC. I'm not sure what the "however" means here ... it makes sense to me that the tribes were opposed to French rule, under the circumstances.

Indeed, I have expanded on this point and made clear the fate of al-Hiba - Dumelow (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Said was an old man who was held in good standing by tribesmen across the region and had formerly been a caïd for the Moroccan government, even serving in the army of Sultan Abdelaziz against a pretender at Taza in 1904, despite initially being open to negotiations with the French pressure from pro-war chiefs had dissuaded him.": ?
  • Perhaps a full stop after 1904 and a comma after French? - Dank (push to talk)

That was a hell of a sentence wasn't it? I have done as you suggested - Dumelow (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• "being described by French officer": described by French officer

Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• For the next two, WP:PLUSING may be helpful:
• "with little success, the majority of the tribes in the confederation remaining opposed to French rule.": with little success, and the majority of the tribes in the confederation remained opposed to French rule.

Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• "with Said raiding the French outpost": after Said raided ...

Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• "This resulted": Generally, look for ways to rewrite "this resulted". If the thing immediately preceding was the cause, then "resulting" usually works; if it wasn't the cause, then "this" is a dangler; see WP:Checklist#danglers.

I have reworded this bit (and merged with part of the preceding sentence) as it felt like it was just padded out for no reason - Dumelow (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Having failed to make any impression on the Zaian through negotiation in May 1914 Lyautey": comma before "Lyautey"

Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• I got down to Zaian War#Khenifra campaign. - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  

---

John Creaney

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was previously deleted for non-copyright compliance. Having recreated it and tried (apparently successfully) to be in compliance, I would appreciate any advice about how to improve/expand the article. Thanks, Quis separabit? 17:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Peer review is not appropriate at this stage; please read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia:Peer review project page. This article is the barest of outlines at present. If the sources provide nothing more, then there's little you can do beyond leaving the stub as it is. That's perfectly acceptable; a stub can be a useful resources of information on a lesser-known figure. Otherwise, you'll need to find information enabling you to flesh out Creaney's legal career, together with obvious stuff like when and why he was appointed OBE. And anything else you can find out about him. It's really a case of digging, if the material is there to be dug out. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Lee Choon Seng

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present for peer review, this article about Lee Choon Seng (1888-1965), a philanthropist, Chinese community leader and Buddhist pioneer in pre-independence Singapore! In 2007, Aldwinteo wrote many short, but interesting, articles about the history of Singapore, and since he stopped contributing, I have been trying to help his articles attain GA status. Please support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by reviewing this short, but interesting, article, which I hope you will enjoy reading! Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made some minor copy edits to the article myself. A few points that need to be followed up on:

• "He continued to serve the Chamber of Commerce in various capacities until 1967 owing to poor health as one of their Honorary Presidents." - reword. this is awkward and doesn't make it clear how long he was honorary president, or how long he suffered from ill health.

• Paragraph on Overseas Chinese Association - seems a bit off topic. Could be reworded to focus more on his involvement. At the moment it seems he was simply a member.

• During an OCA assignment - paragraph needs rewording. First sentence has no subject.

• Go through the automated checker in the toolbox. There's a few minor problems listed there.

In general I think the article comes of a little bit too complimentary. It is not exactly POV, but it certainly seems to focus on all the good stuff he did. Is there any more possible information from sources maybe less friendly to him? Any criticisms to be found? Are there any Chinese language sources available? MOre sources in general would be good, though I recognise there might not be that many. Also, a little bit of background context regarding the state of Buddhism in Singapore during his lifetime could be useful. Is there any information about why he converted and exactly when? Any information about his philosophy, both religious and political? It is mentioned that he supported the Kuomintang, but perhaps info could be expanded on this aspect in his personal info section. His relationship with the Japanese authorities could be made more explicit. Why is the OCA listed under the SCCC section? In general I feel that the flow of the article could be improved, to make it seem less like disconnected sections each on a different achievement. Overall it was fairly well written and seems to outline his life reasonably well, but more could certainly be added if the sources exist. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have copyedited the section about the SCCCI. Could you have another look at the article? Unfortunately, I do not have access to the sources Aldwinteo used and I doubt more exist. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments: per talk-page request, I'm throwing out some comments. Overall, this was a great effort and naturally written.

• Redundancy: avoid additive term like "in addition" and "also" as they are just fluff.
• Clarification requested I believe their removal would affect the flow of the prose. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Considering the E.S.L. readers, I'm fine with not removing them. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Clarification: What is meant by a "permanent" memorial hall?

  Done Not sure what Aldwinteo meant, but I doubt there are temporary memorial halls, so I removed the word. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Redundancy: "Not much else is known about his personal life, except that he had two wives and at least fifteen children, lived at Pasir Panjang Road and died on 5 June 1966" – the "not much is known" part is not necessary—just state the facts. The length of the section will convey the amount of information known about him.

  Done Removed the "not much is known" clause. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Section heading: "Business activities" can be condensed to "Business".

  Done For more efficient business! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Grammar: "From 1927, Lee was actively involved with their SCCCI, initially as General-Secretary, then as their President." – perhaps you meant "the SCCCI"?

  Done Thanks for spotting the typo!

• Redundancy: No need for "officially" here – "In 1943, the Singapore Buddhist Lodge (新加坡佛教居士林) was officially set up with about 100 members, mostly from the Chinese social elite."

  Done Redundancy eliminated. Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Redundancy: or here – "Lee invited representatives from all Chinese temples to the Singapore Buddhist Lodge to discuss the formation of an umbrella organisation, and on 30 October 1949, the Singapore Buddhist Federation was officially registered, with Lee elected as its chairman and Venerable Hong Choon as its vice-chairman."

  Done per above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Redundancy: "This temple still stands today in Sarnath and it is called simply The Chinese Temple in Sarnath." – cut "it".

  Done It has been cut. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Chronology: I'm wondering if the "died on 5 June 1966" can be moved to the Commemoration section and if the section could possibly be renamed "Death and commemoration", as that would improve the chronological flow of the article.

  Done Excellent suggestion! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• General question: I agree that the article may focus a bit too much on the positive, as it seems that he had success after success. Were there possibly any controversies, failures or criticisms to discuss?

  Not done The article was written by Aldwinteo, not me, and I do not have access to the sources he used. Chinese culture does not encourage the publication of criticism of people like Lee and since he lived in pre-independence Singapore, I doubt sources for failures or controversies would exist. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Citation formatting: Preferably "The Strait Times" should be italicized.

  Done Italicised. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This article was a nice read, and with the suggestions above in mind, it can be a great candidate for GA. As always, let me know if you have questions. Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Second Review: On my second review a couple of new points I would make:

• What is Wan Qing Yuan? It isn't really explained? Why is it relevant that the secret meetings took place there?

  Done, please check Is "a two-storey villa" sufficient explanation?

Yes, fine.Peregrine981 (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• It says that he was "involved" in "secret meetings" with Sun Yat Sen. Do we know more than that? What was the nature of his involvement? When did these meetings take place? What is the relevance of the meetings? Did his involvement go beyond these meetings?
• In the section on the OCA assignment to Endau Settlement it says that the convoy was "shot". But this is not very clear. You cannot really "shoot" a convoy. You can shoot the members, or shoot all of the members, or execute the members, or attack the convoy, but it is not clear exactly what happened here.

  Done, please check Everyone in the convoy was shot. Only Lee survived. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, fine.Peregrine981 (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• In the Chinese Temple at Sarnath section, the timeline could be clarified. When did Venerable Tao Chiai die? When was the pilgrimage? How long did the restoration take?
• I still think that more context could be provided about buddhism in Singapore. What was its status in pre-independence Singapore? Why was Lee Choon Seng's contribution important?
• I would ideally like to see more information about why he converted and when.
• The overall timeline should be made more explicit.
• Overall, reads fairly well and good improvements made. I recognise that some of my points may be difficult to find information on, and/or require original research, so they may not be achievable. But if the information does exist it should be included. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Catullus 16

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because GA review indicated there are some major points to address in the article. A Peer Review is a natural next step.

Thanks, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't responded to a request for a peer review before. Is this the appropriate place to make a comment? Or does that go on the talk page or someplace else? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

All peer review comments should be made here. Take a look at some other PR pages, to get the idea. Brianboulton (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer 1. The article currently focuses on sexual vocabulary (though Amy Richlin's article on the verb irrumare is underutilized) and doesn't explore some of the topics in the introduction. It seems to be concerned almost entirely with how the imagery has offended modern sensibilities, and doesn't really offer a basis for understanding Carmen 16 in the context of Catullus's poetry as a whole, or his significance to Latin poetry in general. Some missing aspects:

• a metrical analysis and a discussion of how this poem relates to other hendecasyllabics in the Catullan corpus.
• how the poem relates to the tradition of invective poetry in Greek and Latin literature.
• sounder explication of how the poem fits in the Furius and Aurelius cycle of poems.
• how the poets mentioned in the intro responded to the poem, particularly its views on the relation of the poet's life to his work—a theme that needs to be dealt with in greater depth.
• the poem as an aesthetic statement (there's a misunderstood reference to Wiseman that points to this line of analysis).

Structurally, the article relies too much on stitching quotes together, which seems to be a substitute for thinking through and summarizing the material. The article could benefit from a broader range of sources to provide some of the larger literary context that's missing.

Although the poem is significant in understanding sexuality in ancient Rome, it's also a work of literature. In general, there's just too great an emphasis on the dirty language for its own sake, and not enough awareness of the poem in its Greco-Roman literary context or the body of Catullus's poetry. To be honest, I think it would be hard to make this a GA without a knowledge of Catullus's other poems and of major Catullan scholarship as background. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Neuro-linguistic programming

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's been years since this article's last peer review. It looks like some editors made a strong push to get it upgraded to good or featured status. The page has changed significantly since then, as have Wikipedia's standards. I'd like to continue the push for at least good article status, and would appreciate any guidance.

I think the article looks reasonably complete. So my main question is if the article can be seen as neutral, and that it treats the various strong opinions with due weight and fair attribution. I'm also interested if any templates on the article are still valid, and if the references seem kosher. Anything else that might be at issue in a GA nomination is fair game.

Thanks, Vcessayist (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Hereditary diffuse leukoencephalopathy with spheroids

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to better reflect this neurodegenerative disorder that is commonly overlooked due to its rarity.

Thanks, Hsrinimukesh3 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• What is a spheriod/axonal spheroids? The WP:LEAD could/should define it. A picture would be nice, but I understand if you can't locate one of course.
• Add a link to "polycystic lipomembranous osteodysplasia with sclerosing leukoencephalopathy" please. WP:RED is good, by the way.
• The text in "History & Origination" that starts of with "Related disorders in the same disease... " should begin a section called Related diseases, in my opinion.
• "History & Origination" should just be "History" per WP:MEDMOS, as is done at DVT or malaria
• Also regarding MEDMOS, it doesn't seem like there is much epidemiology in the epi section, see the epidemiology section of DVT for an idea of what I was expecting. Numbers like 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 1,000,000? You say it is rare to start of the peer review. How rare? =) Has it been documented in those that are not of European descent? Also, some of the material could go in a classification section, some in a pathophysiology section, etc.
• Also per MEDMOS, "Genetics" seems better off as just a "Causes" section
• I'm not sure why the text "Given the difficulty of identifying cases definitively as HDLS, researchers have looked into other disorders that can produce white matter degeneration" is worded well. Perhaps it could be done more efficiently as "White matter degeneration is associated with—and makes differential diagnoses out of—x, y, and z." Or something similar? Or are you trying to communicate another idea that I completely missed?
• There is a missing period at the end of "inability to speak (mutism)[3]". The period would go between the ) and the [ per WP:REFSPACE examples.
• Section headings should not be capitalizes unless they are proper nouns (see WP:HEADINGS)
• The phrase "Current research" could become outdated in a couple years, no? Therefore, try something like, As of 2010, or whatever year your source is.
• The Research section reminds me a little bit of a materials and methods section. Maybe the relevant content could be incorporated into a Diagnosis section? A diagnosis section is a main one, as you can see at MEDMOS, DVT, malaria, etc.
• I hope these comments are useful, and I hope you can continue to improve the article when you have time, even if it is after Wednesday the 28th. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I just made a majority of those changes. I'll have to follow up with a clinician on getting more information on pathophysiology and epidemiology. I had trouble grabbing that from papers. Maybe he can direct me toward a reliable resource so that I can more fully fill it out. Thanks, Hsrinimukesh3 (talk)

Thanks. From a glance, I like what I see. The diagnosis section contains a lot of "how-to"-ish materials and methods stuff, it seems. How research is done is not of interest to readers, unless you're at an article for that research methodology. Can we please remove from the diagnosis section unnecessary details? Also, if you have access to Web of Science it should be easy to see what's out there for a rare disease like this, I would think. Can we also get more links (even if they are WP:RED) to those diseases in the table inside the Clinical symptoms & misdiagnoses section? Biosthmors (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Drama Queen (Ivy Queen album)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I tried it for GA earlier and the year, and was not passed. Now, I would like to try again and would appreciate ANY comments. I feel the Background, Recording and production, Release and promotion, and Commercial performance sections need the most help, though the whole article could benefit from it.

Thanks, DivaKnockouts (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

• The description page for the sound samples should mention how long the originals are - the rule is actually "under 30 second or under 10%, whichever is shorter", so you need total length to calculate that

 Done

• What makes this a reliable source?

 Done

• Don't use contractions

• Does this apply to quotes as well?

• Quotes shouldn't be modified. Only the prose should have contractions removed. Chris857 (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, that is what I thought.  Done

• Be careful about being too informal, outside of direct quotes

• Where exactly?

• WP:OVERLINK - for example, Tainy twice in first three sentences

 Done

• "where the building was resembled piece by piece" - do you mean "re-assembled"?

 Done

• "Drama Queen has been described as R&B meets reggaeton and was the first time Ivy Queen experimented with the genre" - which genre?

 Done

• "Themes include cool & cocky, pool party, TGIF, partying and driving, according to AMG" - probably want to quote this directly

 Done

• "A more diverse set of musical styles prominent on her 2007 effort Sentimiento." - this is not a complete sentence

 Done

• "I have a throne flanked by holy souls" - is this meant to be a quote?

 Done

• Is there a way to avoid repeating "features minor key tonality, bowed strings, a string ensemble and synthesizers"?

• Do you have any suggestions?

• Generally, the Song structure section needs editing for tone and flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• The article was recently copy-edited in the past few days, DivaKnockouts (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• The lead section seems to mostly focus on the album's charting info, which while interesting and information that should be mentioned in a lead, isn't the whole of what it should contain. More information about its production, promotion, and reception would be good.
  • Remember that the lead isn't a replacement for the body content, so to a degree you need to repeat some introductions. The "Background" section doesn't tell us anything about the singer in broad strokes and just leads into her album. Perhaps prefacing it with some information about the performance of her last album would help it flow better. To give a slightly different genre example, the article for the development of Star Trek: The Motion Picture starts off with an explanation of the TV series the movie was based on and what happened to it.
• For a reggaeton album, I'd expect that there would be more Spanish-language resources to boost a lot of the sections, such as reception and production.
  • On the same note, the ornery part of using those sources is it's harder to discern if some sources are reliable or not. I'm not sure about Reggaeton Online and Primera Hora.
• Overall I'd say the sections are good in the sense that they have some information, it's presented cogently, and it's a broad summary, although I'm really missing the recording and development information (by far the shortest section.)
• From one of the music sample thumbnail captions: "It has been described as being "uplifting"." Who said it was uplifting? For subjective statements like this you should always attribute it where feasible.
• I'd suggest breaking up the reception section into thematic chunks--group comments about lyrical content and messages, for instance, in one paragraph, while comments about musical aspects goes in another. More general comments can be put at the beginning.

If you have any questions about the PR, ping me on my talk--I don't watchlist these reviews. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Kotoko (singer)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is similar to my old peer review for Mami Kawada, except this article has more potential to become C-class. This article is about Kotoko Horikawa^{[citation needed]}, who is actually a good friend of Kawada and was once part of the same production group, although she's way more prolific and popular. However, her article's a little too short for me, so are there any suggestions as to how it can still be improved? Unlike Kawada, there's plenty of sources that talk about at least part of Kotoko's early life, although like other I've singers, such info is still lacking. Similar to Kawada's article, my goal is for it to reach C-class, although in my opinion it's easier since more sources are available; with her popularity, and with a little help, B or even GA-class is possible. Still, any input and feedback, as well as additional sources, are appreciated. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In the biography section, is the second and third paragraph in a decent order? It looks like the second paragraph talks about her works when she was signed onto I've Sound, then jumps back in time to before she was signed. Some the wording seems iffy to me. Why was her North American debut a success? The sentence "Now that her self-composed hybrid of pop and techno beats—sometimes pop—have crossed the Pacific, her lyrics have elevated her presence among thousands of North American J-pop/anime fans." seems like O.R. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If I recall, I did find a source which said that her music was becoming popular in the US, but I can't remember where. As for that sentence you said, I do agree that that is rather odd and I was thinking of removing it anyway. For now, I'll remove that sentence. Anyway, would it be a good idea to merge those two paragraphs you speak of? It wouldn't be too difficult to change the order anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

---

PJ Harvey

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because PJ Harvey is a charting English artist who's article has been rated as one of high quality. The article's citations are in check as well. I think PJ Harvey would make a splendid featured article and I was surprised to see that it had not been yet. I plan nominate the article to be featured if the peer review shows that it's high enough quality.

Thanks, Mrmoustache14 (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

I have been looking at citations and references. There are a number of issues:-

• Citations apparently lacking in the text. This may be partly due to misplacement of citations, but you should check the following:-

• Automatic Dlamini: Last part of first paragraph, whole of second paragraph
• Stories from the City etc: Last sentence of first paragraph
• White Chalk and Let England Shake: Final phrases of first paragraph

• Reference formats and related issues: I have only checked out the first of the three columns, and it is likely that the issues identified here will recur in the following two columns:

• check link Ref 7 (links to a blank page)
• Ref 9 also links to a blank page. Also, it needs to be formatted
• Ref 11: page numberneeds to be clarified
• Ref 12: Why is http://www.jphuntley.co.uk/pjh/FullPages/fullbiography.htm a reliable source?
• Ref 13: Where is the transcription referred to available? Has it been published?
• Ref 15: Why is this source reliable?
• Ref 16: Why is this source reliable: The page looks distinctly amateurish
• Ref 18: I'm not clear as to the physical form of this source.
• Ref 20: Same query as 13
• Ref 22: Format problems (bolded date)
• Ref 28: Links to "page not found"
• Ref 29: Format problems (open-ended quote marks; if this is a book title it should be italicised, ISBN missing)
• Ref 30: Magazine title should be italicised
• Ref 36: To what do the page numbers refer in this ref?

I have not been abe to check out the prose, but you need to work on the above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

---

2000 UEFA Cup Final riots

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some reccommendations on how to improve the article as I am thinking of eventually taking it to GA status.

Thanks, The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: My initial impression is that it is biased in favour of Arsenal fans. See, "Later, Galatasaray fans occupied Copenhagen's City Hall Square and started to try and provoke Arsenal fans in a nearby bar. The fans in the bar stood up to the provocation with both sides chanting at each other until bottles were thrown from both sides. " and

"Then, in a calculated attack seen as retaliation for the Istanbul killings, approximately 500 Arsenal fans[10] attacked from the main road behind the Galatasaray fans." This in not a neutral way of presenting the event. Who sees the attack as a retaliation? It is not NPOV to say that the Galatasaray fans tried to "provoke" the Arsenal fans but that they "stood up to" it. Improvements should be made throughout the article to present the events in a more neutral way. One way of doing so would be to try to use non-British sources, perhaps Turkish or Danish, or perhaps from third countries. That's my dominant first impression. Mostly well written, though perhaps small amount of copy editing could be useful. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this. The page does already have some sources in it from Ireland and America, I'll take a look at turkish and danish papers and see if I can decipher something out of them. Are there any other parts that need work as I've reworded the parts you pointed out? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

here are a few more comments:

• "a public disorder event" - awkward wording. A riot? A brawl? A fight?
• "reportedly also involved fans from other clubs" - couldn't we just say that it did involve other fans?
• "were in part a retaliation for the killing of two Leeds United fans " - might be good to qualify this. "seen by XX as..." for example, or were "a result of tension originating from" or something similar, to make it less accusatory
• "Later, Galatasaray fans occupied Copenhagen's City Hall Square and started to try and provoke" - this doesn't really correspond to the reporting in the source cited:

The brawling broke out after Arsenal fans inside a bar opposite the square faced off against their Galatasaray counterparts outside, with each group trying to out-sing the other. There had been violence outside the bar in the early hours of yesterday morning so riot police moved in to push the Turks into the square.

A few bottles were thrown, a few insults and punches traded between rival fans, but there was no sign of the invasion that was to take place moments later.

Most of the Turkish fans had their backs to the main road as they chatted and sang songs. Suddenly a mob of around 500 Arsenal fans marched over.

The rival fans then picked up and wielded chairs that had been laid out in the square for tourists. As the two groups attacked and counter-attacked, handicraft sellers gathered what they could of their damaged wares and ran for cover, along with shoppers and office workers. Families with young children and a man in a wheelchair were caught up in the confrontations as riot police sought to keep the rival factions apart.

As the Arsenal fans were pushed back they could be seen regrouping for another charge.

[4]

This source [5] does more closely support the above wording, but is not used as support. Some reorganisation is necessary to make attribution clear.

• In the "Aftermath" section, it is mentioned that Arsenal criticised the police, but no mention is made of Galatasaray reaction. In fact, no mention is made of any official reaction by the club. Surely there was one? It should be included. Did Galatasaray warn of trouble? Did Galatasaray take any disciplinary action toward its own fans?
• More background should probably be included regarding the initial stabbing in Istanbul. There may be English language papers from copenhagen/Istanbul that could be accessible, although it may be hard to find them online 12 years later.

That's it. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've just done a paragraph on the Leeds history. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Fidel Castro

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone a major overhaul in recent years, and now offers a cohesive, predominantly well-referenced overview of one of the most significant political figures of the latter 20th century. I'd be really grateful if some of my fellow editors could give me their opinions on it; are there any areas that break the NPOV rule, for instance, or sections with irrelevant information. Any tips that will help bring it up to the level where it would warrant a GA review ?

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Brief comment: A very important article. I am somewhat dumbstruck by its length (c. 22,000 words) and even more by the "needs expansion" tags on two of the sections. I can't help feeling that, if all this content (and more) is really necessary, then the article is in need of subdivision. Another thing that surprises me is that the article has been around for ages (DYK in 2004) yet does not seem ever to have been formally reviewed, despite a number of Wikiprojects claiming an interest. The sheer length is likely to deter all but the most committed reviewers; I will, however, try to compile some general comments over the next couple of days. Brianboulton (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC) It's full of propaganda....for example, Hugo Chavez was never a "General" in the Venezuelan Army! Comment yes, much too large. Just made an edit that changes two characters. Didn't time the save, but it took at least 10 or 15 seconds. Loading the page takes a bit less time. Needs to be trimmed/split off. GlitchCraft (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

I've read the first few sections, and in my view it would be quite easy to reduce the text without significant effect on the content. Below are a few suggestions that you might consider taking up:

• I have copyedited the lead into a more summarised form, reducing it from 650 words to 490. I have posted this revised version, though of cours you are at liberty to amend it or even restore the original, should you so wish.
• There seems to be plenty of scope for similiar reduction in the "Childhood and education: 1926–1945" section. Suggestions:

• Image captions should not become essays. Use footnotes for ancillary information.
• The first two paragraphs are all about Castro's father. While a little family background is OK if length permits, I'd say in this case that you have to be more parsimonious with extraneous detail, and you should aim to reduce these paragraphs by about a half.
• Some clunky sentences can easily be shortened without loss of meaning. For example: "Castro was Lina's third child, being born at his father's farm on August 13, 1926, and was given his mother's surname of Ruz rather than his father's because he had been born out of wedlock, something that carried a particular social stigma at the time" becomes "Castro was Lina's third child, born out of wedlock at Ángel's farm on August 13, 1926. Because of the stigma of illegitimacy, he was given his mother's surname of Ruz rather than his father's name".
• And again: "Although he was from a prosperous background, with his father's business proving ever more profitable, his father ensured that he grew up alongside the children of the farm's workforce, many of whom were Haitian economic migrants of African descent, something that Castro would later relate prevented him from absorbing "bourgeois culture" at an early age" could become: "Although Ángel's business ventures prospered, he ensured that Castro grew up alongside the children of the farm's workforce, many of whom were Haitian economic migrants of African descent. This experience, Castro later related, prevented him from absorbing "bourgeois culture" at an early age."
• Besides these there are numerous examples of use of wordy phrases where a single or couple of words would do. For esample "and it was here that" can become "where"; "poor economic situation" → "poverty"; "gave up his faith in" → "rejected"; "begin attending" → "attended" – and I am sure many more, in this section and throughout the article.
• The list of Castro's sporting interests is unnecessary.

• "University and early political activism: 1945–1947". A few samples:

• " Instead, it was to the UIR that he grew closest to, although whether he ever became a member or not has remained unknown" → "He grew close to the UIR, without for certain becoming a member".
• "Various accusations would arise in later years alleging that Castro carried out gang-related assassination attempts at this time..." → "In later years Castro was accused of attempting gang-related assassinations..."
• Remove WP:WEASEL words such as "fervently"

I am sure that if you apply the principle of economy of phrasing throughout the article, you could lose uo to 2000 words without any loss of content. The trouble is, that would still leave 20,000 words, way longer than the current longest Featured Article, and 50% longer than Nikita Khruschev. This points towards another option, that of making more use of exisiting subarticles. For example, your "Cuban Revolution" section links to a "main article" of that name. However, this "main article" is considerably less than half the length of your section (2400 words, against 5400). Surely this is wrong? It seems that much of your content could be absorbed into the main article, leaving a thousand or so words of summary in the Castro biography – as appears to be the case with the Cuban Missile Crisis section.

I don't have time at the moment to take these thoughts further, but please feel free to contact me for further discussion of ideas about how to implement the suggested changes, or alternative suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments. Just some copyediting notes: - Dank (push to talk)

• Replace "ly-" by "ly" throughout. See WP:HYPHEN.
• "With his health failing": Some style guides recommend rewriting most instances of with + a noun + -ing; WP:PLUSING may be helpful. "In failing health" or "As his health was failing"
• "Vice-President Raúl Castro, who assumed the full presidency in 2008. ... Castro is a controversial": Not sure about this; it seems clear enough to me, but I'm wondering if some readers will think you mean Raúl.
• "rural Galicia, Northwest Spain": rural Galicia in northwest Spain.
• "however it remained only partially independent": remaining only partially independent
• "Ángel Castro decided to migrate there permanently in search of employment. Doing so, he undertook": Assuming the decision itself wasn't that noteworthy: "Ángel Castro migrated there permanently in search of employment. He undertook"
• "being born at his father's farm": born at his father's farm
• "born out of wedlock, something that carried a particular social stigma at the time": I'm left wondering how the stigma was different than at any other time.
• "with his father's business proving": WP:PLUSING
• "his father ensured that he grew up alongside the children ... something that Castro would later relate ...": "ensured" and "something" aren't the best choices here; they make me wonder how he ensured it. "his father saw that he ..." might be better, or just say what his father did.
• "Aged eight, Castro was then baptized": At age eight, Castro was baptized [it's a little better to avoid the repetition of "aged"]
• "to playing sport": to sports
• "table tennis, athletics, basketball": table tennis, basketball
• I got down to University and early political activism: 1945–1947. - Dank (push to talk) 02:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

These are some great, constructive comments here guys, so thanks so much for providing me with them; will begin to act on them when I get the chance, in the next week or two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've begun editing down the length of the page, starting from the beginning. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

---

William P. Halliday

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because to prepare for GA review. Thank you in advance for any comments or suggestions.

Thanks, Lawman4312 (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

• A lot of your reflinks aren't working, probably because you're trying to link page numbers
  • Changed.
• Try making the article text accessible to non-Americans: for example, the first time you say "Civil War", specify US
  • Changed.
• "where he was eventually convinced to stay and open a school. Eventually" - repetitive to have two eventuallys so close together
  • Changed.
• "However, after a short time he switched careers" - don't need "however"
  • Changed
• What's a "siter"?
  • Changed
• "Later, he worked as a merchant, cotton planter, lumberman, banker, miller, coal mine operator, owner of vast tracts of coal and farm lands, owned salt mines in Illinois, and was a pioneer lumber dealer in Cairo" - either stick with "was" throughout, or rework owner vs owned
  • Changed.
• "Halliday was consumed with business" - what does this mean?
  • Changed.
• The second and third paragraph of Civil War could use some reorganizing, as currently the chronology is unclear
  • Changed. Added new information.
• Link or explain specialist terms like "balustrade"
  • Changed.
• "One unique addition to the Riverlore is the distinctive river boat theme of the house" - is this an addition, or part of the original design of the house?
  • Changed.
• "he bagan investing" - read through for other typos
  • Changed
• Consider adding ISBNs for recently-published books
  • Changed.
• Some of your categories overlap - an article shouldn't usually be in both a parent and its child categories.
  • Changed.

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Entertainment

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it intensively for a while and think it is ready to be assessed and considered for my first GA. I would like to know how to get it to that standard. Thanks, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Great improvement. For some of the forms of entertainment, it's not clear how they meet your definition of entertainment as opposed to leisure. e.g. Games needs to be about when people play games in front of an audience (in addition to their use as leisure). Similar for childrens' play.--99of9 (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

- Good point. I have clarified how championship games have a big audience of non-players and distinguished those from games (especially ones played by children) that create their own audience as players take turns. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• On a first view, I think there has been a lot of really good work done here, & it is already at GA standard, except for a lack of references. Personally I'm relaxed about this, as it is such a summary overview, with many links to referenced articles. Other points:
• Generally the article could distinguish more between professional entertainers watched by an audience, and participatory entertainment - maybe by a separate section on the professionalization of the entertainer. This is especially an issue with the too-short dance section - surely this has been the predominant form of entertainment for most of the world through most of history, but in a participatory form. No links to either disco (at Nightclub) or folk dancing, or the rather good striptease! Some African content needed here surely. I'm not sure I entirely agree with the distinction made in the lead, by implication insisting on a distinction between the audience and performers. Most forms of entertainment have evolved from being at least partly participatory to professionalized forms, & it makes sense to take the two together.
• In general I think more links are needed, especially to historical forms - I entirely agree with the comments on the talk page, & the links here will need regular ruthless weeding, but we have a lot of good articles and an overview article like this should take full advantage of WP's ability to link, selecting for decent articles rather than subjects we ought to have decent articles on but don't. There is a case for short and select lists (in running text) of linked examples at the end of most sections.
• I'd like to see sections on aspects of the context of entertainment. Religious festivals as entertainment, from Holi to Holy Week processions (a pretty poor article - some local ones are better) were often a major context of entertainment historically, especially for large-scale festivities. Court entertainments were crucial for the development of most highly specialized "classical" or "art" forms of public entertainment around the world. Shows performed for people eating or drinking, from oral epic poetry through medieval court drama to modern cabaret and tourist jousting shows etc etc deserve a mention. Also street performers & buskers. Lord of misrule-type social inversion tradition occurs in various forms around the world - we don't seem to have a general article on them though. Payment for entertainment - the rise of the ticket - is worth a section.
• The literature section needs to distinguish more sharply between oral literature (a truly crap article), essentially public entertainment, and the essentially private recreational experience of reading, with reading aloud to an audience perhaps as a transitional stage.

Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

- Thanks. I will work through these concerns. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Family Guy (season 7)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get it to FL status and then get the entire season as a GT.

Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

• The Cast and 'Crew subsections are a little listy. Any extra info or rearrangement which can break up the text would be good. Even moving some stuff from reception.

Comments by David Fuchs

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Coverage and content
  • Why does the infobox mention volumes in region 1 (presumably segments of the season), but then has different seasons mentioned for region 2?
  • Who wrote the log lines for the episodes? They sound like regurgitated press releases, complete with exclamatory sentences! and lame puns ("the town goes to pot"?) These all really need to be rewritten, especially if they have been copied wholesale from another source.
  • Why does the "cast" section repeat season 1 credits? Can't that be condensed into a simple mention?
  • "Local station Televen was threatened with fines for broadcasting the show (which were avoided by airing an episode of Baywatch instead)," Does this mean that Televen was forced to run Baywatch to avoid fines? I'm not following.
  • There are spots where words appear to be transliterated, garbled, or missing, i.e., "a title frequently given the series by the group". Another copyedit when the above issues are resolved would be in order.
  • I'm not really sure four reviewers from three outlets makes a comprehensive reception section. In addition, the IGN lists seem like irrelevant trivia.
• Images/NFC
  • Mostly the article has freely-licensed imagery; I'm not sure File:Family Guy Vol7.jpg meets WP:NFCC as the show is not necessarily primarily represented by the home video art, and it's not the subject of any critical commentary within the article. In addition, it's definitely too high-resolution for necessary purposes.

If you have any questions, ping me on my talk page--by default, I don't watchlist peer reviews. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Flying Spaghetti Monster

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it may meet or be close to meeting the Wikipedia:featured article criteria. Thanks, Guy Macon (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Guy Macon
It is my intention to nominate this article as a featured article. Before I do that I want to correct any shortcomings that remain. In particular a featured article:

• Is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing.
• Meets all Wikipedia policies regarding content.
• Is well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
• Is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
• Is well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate.
• Is neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias.
• Is stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day.
• Follows the style guidelines.
• Has a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections.
• Has an appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
• Has consistent citations: consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing
• Has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, alt text when feasible, and clear acceptable copyright status.
• Has an appropriate Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

I would very much like to hear any opinions about whether the article meets the above criteria, and especially any flaws that I or the other editors working on the page can correct. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Mitch Ames

• The lead says "While generally praised by the media and endorsed by members of the scientific community, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has received criticism from ...". As worded this implies that the media and scientific community praise FSM. I suspect that the media and scientists praise the intent of the parody, eg that (like Russell's teapot) "the philosophic burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims", not that they praise the deity itself. Some rewording of the sentence is required.
• The brief mention of pirates in the lead seems a little out of place. If it's sufficiently important to mention the correlation at all, it's probably worth noting (briefly) in the lead that the correlation between pirates and global warning is intended to demonstrate that correlation does not imply causation.

Fixed by me to read "Pirates are revered as the original Pastafarians (a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarian),[9] and Henderson asserts that the steady decline in the number of pirates over the years has resulted in global warming, alluding to the concept that correlation does not imply causation.[7]. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some of Flying Spaghetti Monster#Other developments should be moved up into Flying Spaghetti Monster#History, so that "other developments" only includes material not directly related to FSM. In particular:
  • The first paragraph (of this version, in case it changes) is very much about the FSM movement, so should be under "History".
  • The 3rd paragraph, about the Gospel, is directly related, not an "other development"
  • (Paragraphs 2 and 4, Boing Boing challenge, Kansas State Board of Ed's changing standards, are "other developments".)

Seems to have been fixed by others --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• It appears most or all of the entries under Notes are actually references. I suggest merging the Notes and References into a single References section. Possibly the single existing unnumbered entry under Reference ("The Gospel...") should be merged into the several numbered references to (specific pages in) the Gospel.

I've also copy-edited the article directly. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Very brief comments from Runfellow

Typically, I'd add more than this, but I'm a little short on time at the moment. Here are some brief comments:

• Although this article redirects from the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" to "Flying Spaghetti Monster", I'm of the opinion it should be the other way around. This article is in fact about the church (movement, whatever you want to call it), and not really about the "deity" itself. If this article was similar in content and structure to something like God in Christianity, I could go how it's named now. But it's really more like Christian Church. This has probably already been discussed elsewhere, however, so it's not a big deal.

I understand. I believe the decision was made because Flying Spaghetti Monster is simply "easier" and slightly more recognizable than Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (I feel silly every time I say that), but I see your argument.

• I don't know if it's fair to say "adherents state". The reference for this remark is the original website written by Henderson, not a third party source, and this is a common refrain. If it's just Henderson who comes up with the satire, then say Henderson. If it's unclear, I suppose "adherents" is probably acceptable. But if possible, there should be a third party source or poll that shows that "adherents" (or just fans) genuinely state or believe something before you can really claim they all do.
• Adding to Mitch's comments above, I'm always wary of the phrase "the media", because it generally includes more than what people think about when they hear the phrase. That said:
  • Do members of the media believe any differently than regular members of the public? If so, why? If not, why single them out?
  • The first reference links to an academic source, which doesn't really have to do with media per se.
  • Same thing goes for "generally praised by the media". Is "the media" (i.e. journalists) praising it, or are people using media outlets to praise it?
• I can't really figure out any reason to have an "other developments" subsection instead of simply creating a linear narrative.
• The "Supervolcano" reference used for the "thousands of followers" claim just cites the original website, including using quotes around "followers". There's no doubt that the concept has thousands (if not millions) of fans, but I'd take that word with a mighty grain of salt. Additionally, the source used for "primarily on college campuses and in Europe" says that they have thrived there, but doesn't say they are primarily there. Sounds like nitpicking, I know, but I don't think they're interchangeable.
• There's a section here on Henderson's books, but there's no mention of them in the lead.

Sorry I'd go more in depth, but I'm just fresh out of time. Runfellow (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I'm still looking into much of it. Glad so much of the feedback is positive, constructive, and helpful (as is always the case, here)! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Mike Capel

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want this to become a featured article, and I would like a fresh look at this article before I nominate it.

Thanks, Albacore (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Giants2008 – There were quite a few niggling prose issues and such that I found, but most of them will be fairly easy to remedy. I think you've gotten about as much as possible out of the article, so you have that going for you. I'd encourage you to bring it to FAC after the PR is over. We always need new nominators at FAC, and the worst that can happen is the article improving, which will happen even if it doesn't get promoted.

• I know the height and weight of a player is hard to put in the body of an article, but content that is in the lead should be placed into the body of an article in some way, and cited there. If this could be added to the Major league career section, it would be an improvement.

• Left in lead, removed reference from lead, put a similar thought and reference in the body.

• I'd encourage you to move it down a little more, because right now the sentences after this talk about his pre-MLB career. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Moved to the last sentence of his playing career. Albacore (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Collegiate career: "To compensate for a loss in velocity of his fastball". Needs "the" before "velocity", I think.

• Changed.

• "as the Longhorns finished at a 61–14 record...". "at" → "with"?

• Changed.

• Chicago Cubs: Typo at the end of "Capel no longer pitched sidarmed."

• Changed.

• "he lead the Midland club in losses". "lead" → "led"?

• Changed.

• "In 1986, Capel became a straight relief pitcher". Was he a part-time or full-time starting pitcher before this point? If so, that appears to be worth a mention.

• Mentioned his games started in 1984.

• Removing the comma from "while leading his team in saves, with 13" would be good, as there seems to be a bit too much punctuation in this sentence.

• Changed.

• For 1988, we have two "make the team"s very close together. Try varying the writing a bit more for better prose.

• Varied.

• It now reads "Slated to make the MLB team as their 10th and final pitcher, the Cubs assigned Capel...". Sounds like the Cubs were slated, not Capel; I think the opposite is what you're trying to get across. To fix the sentence, try "Capel was assigned to Triple-A by the Cubs after they acquired Mike Bielecki from the Pittsburgh Pirates." Giants2008 (Talk) 02:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Re-written.

• "When Al Nipper was supposed to become the Cubs fifth starter on April 23". Apostrophe needed at end of team name.

• Changed.

• Milwaukee Brewers: Another apostrophe needed at the end of the team name, in the first sentence.

• Changed.

• "for a MLB roster spot." "a" → "an".

• Changed.

• Might be a good idea to link strikeout if you haven't already, as that's a jargony item that could use the link.

• This is linked in the lead; should I link it again?

• If it's only linked in the lead, you can get away with having another link in the body. FAC reviewers like myself usually complain when there are multiple links to something in the body, but that isn't the case here. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Linked on first appearance outside of lead.

• Houston Astros: Score needs flipping in "a 1–4 loss."

• Fixed.

• "Statistically, Capel's 1991 season was the best of his MLB career, recording a 3.03 ERA over 25 games." Reads like the season recorded the stats, not Capel, which I don't believe was the intention. To fix this, consider putting "as he recorded" after the comma.

• Changed.

• The last two sentences of this section need references.

• I added a reference for the AAA stats, but I don't think there is a reference saying the Astros did not re-sign him. I put the Baseball-Reference page as a reference here, though.

• Personal life: "Capel testified on Clemens work ethic and character." Apostrophe needed at end of Clemens' name.

• Changed.

• Reference 24 needs a publisher.

• Added.

• For the most part, it looks like you've exhausted the relevant literature, but I've found a few additional items that may help address any comprehensiveness concerns reviewers may have. This appears to be a newspaper article that isn't currently used, the only such material I was able to readily found. If there's something useful in here, it would be great to include it.

• I'll buy this sometime close to Christmas.

• Ref 5 states that Capel set Spring High School pitching records. Is there anything else that can be found on this? Even with this little known, I think this is worth a mention.

• Mentioned that he set several records. The Spring High School website has an individual records page, but there is nothing there. Nothing from the Wayback Machine either.

• This New York Times article says Capel started and won a game in the 1982 Amateur World Series, which I think is a useful detail. It beats just saying that he was on the team.

• Added.

Giants2008 (Talk) 02:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review. I will nominate the article for featured status after the PR is over. Albacore (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  

---

The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if there is anything that needs improvement before I take it back up for WP:FAC. I just want to at least make sure the article meets the criteria for comprehension well researched. GamerPro64 00:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)  Doing... Thanks for the reminder. I'll try to have thoughts up by tonight (going to reread the old FAC to brush up.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Some initial comments by David Fuchs

Still need to do a full run-through, but here's some stuff to chomp on while I take my painfully slow time.

• Unlike many first-person shooters, the game contains no head-up display -- doesn't quite square with the following part of the sentence. It doesn't have a *persistent* HUD, but information is still relayed that way, no?
• In looking for areas that non-game players might be a bit confused, do the reviews or game manual explain "combos" any more? Something like "combination attacks" might work better here, although I feel like we're missing the upshot--combo attacks are more powerful? Why would the player use them?
• The opening cinematic shows Riddick in hiding, having grown out his hair and beard, before the opening scene of the movie. -- before the opening scene of what movie? The cinematic?
• Afterwards, he accuses Pope Joe of tampering with his eyes; Joe says that he merely treated Riddick's injured arm. Riddick then continues his escape, while using the eyeshine to his advantage. Well obviously someone messed with Riddick's eyes--do you mean that Riddick thinks Pope did something else to his eyes?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far. I'm probably gonna have to play the game again to answer these questions. GamerPro64 16:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a reason the GamesRadar quote is pulled? Seems like undue weight to give it its own little box for their quote.
  • Removed the pull quote. GamerPro64 15:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Overall the reception section is I'd say 85% there, it's got the right content but needs a bit more tweaking. For lines like While the game's stealth mechanics were praised,[15][63] certain critics received its first-person shooter elements with less enthusiasm., you really should attribute to specific reviewers; "X and Y praised the game's stealth mechanics, though Z and B received its FPS elements..." etc.
• I don't really have much else to comment on; seems broad enough in coverage for FA, although I'm wondering if there's anything more in-depth you can pull out of the development section; if there was a way to structure it in more of a narrative style I think it could be more engaging. It prolly needs more tweaks to the prose but seems fairly close. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Mauna Loa

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's an aging FA from 2006 that needs work as the last piece of my GT (FT?). I know it's received a review already, in January, but I'd like some experienced editors to jump on this and tell me about what I need to do to get a GA nom, or maybe preserve that star.

Thanks, ResMar 23:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

• The Mokuʻāweoweo section - first para unreferenced and some more info could be added. e.g. An American visit in 1840 turned into a trip of almost a month. - how long and why could be added/tweaked.

• Ditto first para of Origins section (needs referencing) - find a good source and you might find more exacting info.

• Actually I see a few unreferenced paras here and there. Start with them. I suspect you'll find other info to add and some that might need rewording. Once fully sourced then we can start with the copyediting.

• Amalgamate one and two sentence segments into more cohesive paras.

Comments from Chemist234

The article is very interesting, educational and generally very good, although it will benefit from a more academic style of writing. First of all, it requires more references. Occasionally, one stumbles on inconclusive statements, for instance, the bombing in 1935 (see below). I see here several point for the improvement:

• The structure of the article. It looks to me that your first goal was to describe the volcano and the specifics of its activity. To maintain the focus on the subject, I suggest moving "Climate" and "Ascents" further to the end of the article.
• I recommend adding to the introduction the fact that since 1832 there were 32 eruptions documented.
• The last paragraph under "Structure" (beginning with Tradewinds) seems to belong to "Climate" rather than to "Structure".
• I agree with Casliber on suggested additions to the first paragraph of Mokuʻāweoweo. I also suggest to find an appropriate place for this paragraph in the section "Ascents".
• Your "Wilkes expedition" reads like a novel. It would be great and would make the entire article more interesting if you could similarly add some more facts and details to the earlier ascents. For "Today", one could, perhaps, add a map showing the existing trails for those who plan to visit.
• I suggest working on the sentence "It is sometimes reported that missionary Joseph Goodrich ...". "Sometimes" is perhaps not the best word. "Several sources" is closer to the intended meaning. References to those reports would help, too.
• In "Historic eruptions", paragraph 4, air force is would be more descriptive than air power. Did the bombing described successful in diverting the path of lava?
• The first paragraph of "Current activity" requires a reference. Also, the term of inflation in the context of volcano activity needs to be defined.
• Section "Hazards", last sentence of the first paragraph: It is unclear why towns build on the recent lava deposits are in particular danger. Is it because lava of future eruptions is likely to follow the same path?
• In "Monitoring", paragraph 2 requires a reference.

Good luck, Chemist234 (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

OK I may have jumped the gun a bit by putting this to PR before starting work. Upon close inspection what's there is definitely salvageable, but the issue is that there's a lot of holes, both in content and sourcing. So it's going to need extensive work either way (not that I didn't already know that). I plan to rework the article and then ask you guys' opinions once more. Until then, thanks for the comments! (I'll leave this open for a bit longer to get people's quips in; the quick response very much surprised me, but I suppose that's what you get when you've been here long enough). ResMar 00:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

---

List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has potential to be a Featured List Candidate. I has worked on it and provided reliable sources and I think Peer Review will help to improve it further.

Thanks, Pks1142 (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Please go through the points mentioned at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Madhuri Dixit/archive1. Same point of notability applies here and to all award lists related to Indian cinema. Understand those points and if you still have anything more we can discuss here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetically Done

Refrences Checked Less Notable awards are in Other Awards section.Pks1142 (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pks! I see that you are very enthusiastic about this list. But please don't raise your hopes. Its very difficult to get this to FL-class. The reasons for it are just as same as the ones given in Dixit's review. When i gave that link, i was kind of hoping that you would mainly go through those points. In case you have more doubts on it, then feel free to ask here. IndianBio also knows the case with such list of awards. He could also help you understand it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What that mean??? I should not rise my hopes.???? What??

Ok, but I would try till I get mental. Because, I think Rome was not built in a day!!! Thanks.Pks1142 (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comments from Baffle gab1978 (talk)

Overall, it looks good with tightly-written prose. There are some grammatical and spelling errors though. I apologise if I'm suggesting changes that conflict with the norms of Indian English. OK here we go:

• Prose
  • 1st para header

• After attending schools in U.S., Chopra returned to India, she participated in the Femina Miss India 2000 contest, in which she came second, winning the Femina Miss India World title. Did she really win the title by coming second? Please clarify.

• We know she attended schools (should that be 'colleges' or 'universities'?) in the US, the previous sentence just told us. When did this happen?

• She was subsequently sent to the Miss World pageant, where she was crowned Miss World 2000, along with Miss World Continental − Asia & Oceania. Was she really sent to the pageant? Did she not enter of her free will? Are the two titles she won part of the same contest prize, or two separate contests?

• Chopra won her first Filmfare Award in Best Female Debut category for Andaaz along with several nominations. Did she win the other nominations? Try something like She was nominated for several awards for her part in Andaaz, and she won the award for Best Female Debut.

• She also became second and last woman to win Filmfare Best Villain Award. Missing article the x2.

• Chopra was followed by a series of successful films like Mujhse Shaadi Karogi (2004), Krrish (2006) and Don (2006) which won her several awards and nominations. This is nonsensical - a person can't be followed by a series of films - clarify.

• • 2nd para

• "In 2008, she featured in Fashion which fetched her every "Best Actress" award in the country including the prestigious National Award and Filmfare Award." featured in --> starred in if she was an actor in the film, or was the subject of the biopic film, if the film was about her. fetched her --> for which she won.

• "The same year she was fecilitated by the "Nielsen Box Office Award" at Asian Film Festival, Hong Kong by The Hollywood Reporter trade journal and the "Jin Jue Award" at Shanghai International Film Festival for her "Contribution to Cinema" " Is fecilitated a typo? If not, simplify - what does it mean? at Asian Film Festival, Hong Kong --> at the Asian Film Festival in Hong Kong. by The Hollywood Reporter trade journal and the "Jin Jue Award" at Shanghai International Film Festival for her "Contribution to Cinema" . by The Hollywood Reporter trade journal --> by the trade journal, The Hollywood Reporter. Why the quotemarks around Contribution to Cinema? Don't capitalise unless Contribution to Cinema is a proper noun.

• "From 2010-2012, Chopra received a number of nominations and won a few including a consecutive Apsara Award for Best Actress for Kaminey (2009) and another Filmfare Award in Best Actress (Critics' Choice) category for 7 Khoon Maaf (2012)." a number - how many? a few --> several. Filmfare Award in Best Actress (Critics' Choice) category --> missing article the x1.

• "Later, she received the "Trailblazer Award" from the South Asians in Media, Marketing and Entertainment Association for her blazing trails in the U.S. for Indian entertainers." Later - how much later? Be specific. for her blazing trails - clarify.

• "In 2012, Chopra released her debut single In My City by Interscope records which won her a People's Choice Award for "Best International Debut" and three nominations at the World Music Awards." In 2012 - add the month if possible. by --> on or In 2012, Chopra's first single ... was released by Interscope Records.

• • 3rd para
• "Apart from acting awards, Chopra has been the recipient of several achievement honours by various films and fashion organisation groups." has been the recipient of --> has received. by --> from or use active voice --> Various films and fashion organisation groups awarded Chopra several achievement honours. various films and fashion organisation groups --> film and fashion organisations or similar.

• "groups.In 2008, - missing space.

• "In 2008, she was chosen as Godess of Atlantis for the inauguration function of Atlantis, The Palm" Godess --> Goddess Atlantis, The Palm - what is that? "inauguration function --> launch?

• "Eastern Eye ranked her Top on their list of "World's Sexiest Asian Women" not once but twice." --> Eastern Eye twice ranked her top of their list of "World's Sexiest Asian Women".

• "In 2010, she became the first Indian actress to cast her foot impressions at the Salvatore Ferragamo Museum, Florence." Why is this significant? Is it an award or nomination?

• "In 2011, People and Maxim declared her "Best Dressed Woman" and "Hottest Girl" in India." --> In 2011, People and Maxim magazines declared her the best dressed woman and the "hottest girl" in India. (note quotemarks around hottest girl as this is a slightly ambiguous term, whereas the meaning of best dressed woman is obvious).

That's the header done, I'll do the list tomorrow.Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing the mistakes out. Will work on it.Pks1142 (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: I had adopted all your suggestions. I want to clarify some points which are as follows:

1. Yes, She is the second woman to win that award.
2. She received the traiblazer award for her blazing trails in the U.S. for Indian entertainers as the first Bollywood actor to win a major record deal in the U.S.
3. she became the first Indian actress to cast her foot impressions at the Salvatore Ferragamo Museum, Florence: Its a kind of Honour.
4. Godess of Atlantis : It was the inaugaration function of the palm The resort in Dubai which was attended by several Hollywood Stars along with Whos who in the World. I think it show her selection was a kind of achievement. Other celebrities may have been selected but She was chosen. Its a kind of achievement.

Rest other things corrected and adopted in the list. Thanks.Pks1142 (talk) 05

33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• • List

• Bengal Film Journalists Association Awards - "oldest Association of Film critics in India" - don't capitalise common nouns.
• Bollywood Hungama Surfers' Choice Awards - "Chopra has won two awards both in Best Actress Category..." a comma after 'awards' would break up the sentence. This section lacks a reference.
• BIG Star Entertainment Awards - "Chopra has won two award from five nominations" - pluralise 'award'
• Filmfare Awards - "The awards were first introduced in 1954, the same year as the National Film Awards." Do you need the second clause? Is there a connection between the National Film Awards and the BIG Star Entertainment Awards, or is it a coincidence that they both began in 1954?
• Global Indian Film Awards "Chopra has received two awards from two nominations" - probably remove the 'has' since these are no longer awarded and she won't receive any more.
• Indian Telly Awards - "The Indian Telly Awards are presented to Television fraternity." Do you mean presented to professionals/actors/others in the television industry, or is 'Television fraternity' a group of some kind? "Chopra has received one award from one Nomination." - don't capitalise common nouns.
• International Indian Film Academy Awards - "Chopra has won three award from three nominations including two Special honor awards." Pluralise award, and why is Special capitalised? If it's the title of an award, "Special Hono(u)r Award" (remove/include the "u" as necessary); if not, "special honour award".
• People's Choice Awards India - "Indian Film, TV, Music and Sports" Don't capitalise common nouns; TV --> television unless there's a special reason for not doing so.
• Sabsey Favourite Kaun Awards - "The Sabse Favourite Kaun Awards was annually presented by Star Gold." - was --> were. "Chopra has received..." again you could remove "has", since she won't receive any more.
• Global Indian Film and TV Honours - "...is an award ceremony..." pluralise "award" unless there is only one award.
• Zee Cine Awards - "The awards were not awarded in 2009-10, but was resumed from 2011" - pluralise was .
• Recognitions - "...by various organisation." - pluralise 'organisation'

• • General comments
• I notice the article uses (mostly) "recognize" but "organisation"; you should standardise on one form or the other for consistency. Use whichever Indian English prefers.
• Possibly add a 'main article' hatnote

Good luck with your FA nom. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. I hope so, it should should pass FL nomination.Pks1142 (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries, Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin

This is a well put-together list. A few suggestions:

• Language: "Chopra moved to Newton, Massachusetts and later Cedar Rapids, Iowa for higher studies." – I recommend a "to" after "later" to make the sentence more readable.
• Redundancy, over-linking and abbreviation: "After spending some years in U.S." – expand the abbreviation, since this is the first mention of the country. Also, don't link to countries unless it really matters to the context (eg. a geography article or something). And finally, remove "some" as it is vague and meaningless.
• Redundancy: "In 2004, Chopra won a number of awards for her performance in Aitraaz including a Screen Award" – remove "a number of". Of course, there's a number of everything, be it zero or something else!
• Grammar/redundancy: "Chopra appeared in series of commercially successful films" – there's a missing "a" before "series". But "a series of" is vague too. Better removed.
• Clarity: "In 2008, she starred in Fashion for which she won every 'Best Actress' award in the country including the prestigious..." – what is "the country"? For readers' sake, say "India".
• Diction: "The same year she was fecilitated by the 'Nielsen Box Office Award' at the Asian Film Festival in Hong Kong by the trade journal..." – "fecilitated" is too uncommon of a word to use. Use something simple.
• Capitalization: Why is "Contribution to Cinema" capitalized?
• Grammar: "In 2012, Chopra's first single In My City was released by Interscope records which won her a People's Choice Award" – song titles are surrounded by quotation marks, no italics. Because "records" is part of the name, it should be capitalized. And finally, there is an incorrect use of relative pronouns here: "which" should be "and" instead.
• Punctuation: Missing full stop at the end of this sentence: "In 2008, she was chosen as Goddess of Atlantis for the inauguration function of Atlantis, The Palm"
• Needs citation: "In 2011, People and Maxim magazines declared her the best dressed woman and the 'hottest girl' in India."
• Grammar: "Chopra has won two awards, both in Best Actress Category in two consecutive year." – grammar issue here ("years", not "year").
• Italicization: Check italicization. For example, Cosmopolitan is a magazine and should be italicized. The same goes for all other magazines.
• Redundancy: "The Screen Awards is the only awards ceremony in India to be involved with the Executive Director and the Governor of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences." – cut "to be".
• Cohesion: Repetitive "awards...awarded": "The awards were not awarded in 2009-10"
• Citations: You need to check for consistency in citations. For example, ref 4 has a publisher but the others don't. Also, check for italicization consistency of Hindustian Times.

Well, good luck! Feel free to ask questions. Regards. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done, Thanks Wikipedian Penguin. Thanks for the help.Pks1142 (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. There are still a few unitalicized magazine titles in the lead. But good work. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done, Thanks a lot.Pks1142 (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Cellular automaton

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a fairly substantial amount of work improving its references and clarifying part of the text, but I need some outside views on how well it is organized and if parts of it are still confusing or need additional expansion. I'm pretty sure it at least mentions all important facets of the subject, but the depth of coverage might be an issue. I'm looking to take it to WP:GAN sometime in early 2013. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Geet Ramayan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to take it FL in the near future. Thanks, - Vivvt • (Talk) 21:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a reviewer with any experience at all, but I would like to point out two possible changes. One that the list be made collapsible. Second that the description portion for each song be inherently hidden, and then be shown if we want. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This is list of songs from Geet Ramayan. Whats the point if we make the list itself a collapsible one? Again, I am OK hiding description but then there are 56 songs with description. So readers will have to hide-unhide each of them, which in turn would be too many clicks. Like somebody had said to me earlier, it gives them a feeling a playing a video game if they had to click too much for hiding-unhiding. Do you still wanna go ahead with it? - Vivvt • (Talk) 23:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment: IMO the biggest hurdle is to prove WP:RS value of Aathavanitli-gani.com, a major resource. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm! Right! How do you suggest we go about this? The website is fan-based website run by a single person. It only hosts Marathi songs. Would a comparison of info present here and of that present on other RS work out? Comparision not for Geet Ramayan, but other songs info hosted on the site? The site has many filmy songs, TV serial tracks and natya sangeet. As all are Marathi, it would be difficult to find other RS in the first place to compare. But for these three genres there is some hope. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

[6] Sahitya Akademi ref. For songs: Geet Ramayan by G. D. Madgulkar, published by Government of India in book form is the best reference. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Haida language

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent some time working on it and I'd like to get it to Good Article status.

Thanks, Mo-Al (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Fecal incontinence

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

previously stub, recently undergone large expansion by only one editor with limited experience of wp style etc. I am particularly unsure about the level of medical terminology used... is it understandable without some medical knowledge? Hoping to move this article to GA status eventually.

Thanks, lesion (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I could do this review. Could the nominator reply and confirm they are still interested having a review? --Noleander (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to action the suggested improvements, thanks.lesion (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• No numbered paragrs in Lead - The lead should not have any bullet points or numbered paragra. All pargrs in lead should be straight prose. Max 4 paragrs.

changed numbered para to prose

• wording in lead: " the perceived devastating impact of FI for patients." - word "devastating" is too subjective; too argumentative. Need a more objective wording. E.g. "significant" or "severe".

Reworded to make clear that word devastating was taken from sources, rather than the personal POV of wikipedia editors:

"Some suggest that physicians may fail to recognize the impact of FI for patients, describing it as devastating."

• Too conversational: "To understand FI, it is helpful to study the normal continence mechanism.." - Too informal & conversational. WP articles should be very detached & objective. Very aloof wording. That whole sentence could probably be deleted.

Removed

• Wording: "The rectum is believed to act as a reservoir to .." - "believed" is wrong here: For facts that are 99.9% certain to scientists, just asser them. Uncertain words like "believe" should only be used when there is great uncertainty (e.g. is there extraterrestrial life? etc).

Reworded "The rectum acts as a reservoir..."

• CIte needed: for the following: "In continent individuals, defecation can be temporarily delayed until it is socially acceptable. The rectum is able to expand to a degree to accommodate this function (rectal compliance). Distension of the rectal walls creates the awareness of needing to defecate."

Re-used suitable named ref which defines compliance, also changed wording awareness -> urge.

• Section ordering: The Mechanism section ends with "Problems affecting any of these mechanisms and factors may be involved in the etiology of FI." I think the Etiology section should immediately follow this, for flow & continuity.

unsure of best order, but if we are treating this page as a "symptom or sign" page, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Symptoms or signs sort of agrees with you, so reordered. Also changed titles, replaced etiology with pathophysiology, "Prevalence & risk factors" with epidemeology, "symptoms" with "Signs & symptoms" and "diagnosis" with "diagnostic approach" as per above manual.

• No main link: "Main article: encopresis" There is no need for that. The plain link on the word encopresis in the prior paragr is sufficient. A "main" link usually only appears at the top of a section (after sec title, before any prose).

Removed main link

• key fact missing in Lead: "FI is a sign or a symptom, not a diagnosis" - that needs to be in 1st paragr of Lead section.

Added above to lead, with wikilinks

• Citations & footnotes: I must say, the citations look outstanding. Good job. Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, I presume that you personally read those sources, true?

All refs I added I read, (the textbooks i read only the relavent chapters) however there were existing references before I started on this page, which I have not read. I retained all existing refs into the current page, suggest trust previous editors in this.

• Roman numerals NG: Readers cannot be presumed to know roman numbering, so " i) intra-anal, ii) intra-vagina iii) cutaneous ..." must be changed; maybe just eliminate the numbers altogether.

removed roman numerals, changed to prose without numbering. Also added non jargon explanation of these phrases in parentheses

• Capital: "... retrograde colonic irrigation, This is were a vo" - lowercase "This"

Typo, corrected

• Picture vs. Text? - There is an illustration near top with caption: "Stylized diagram showing action of the puborectalis sling, ..". (1) I dont' see where this sling is mentioned in the article itself; (2) Is this correlated with the procedure mentioned in "Dynamic graciloplasty" section? If so, that picture should be moved down to that section.

worked term "puborectalis sling" into section "physiologic continence mechanism", with explanation. Also slight edit of picture caption for clarity. Article might benefit from some simple diagrams to accompany some of the treatment options to help with this?

• Uniform terminology: Subsections under Surgical treatment section: the top bullet outline uses term "Fecal diversion (colostomy)" but then the section name is "Fecal diversion (stoma creation)" ... need to be uniform.

Both outline and section name now "fecal diversion (stoma creation)"

• Wording: "FL is a related topic to rectal discharge, .." - change to "FL is related to ..."

done

• Comprehensive: Section "Types": is this supposed to contain a comprehensive list of FI types? I see only 2 subections: AI, and FL. Do those two types make up all the various kinds of FI that there are?

This is difficult, Fecal leakage was to be its own page, but I merged it in the end with this main page...Still not sure if "types" just needs to be cannibalised into relevant main sections. FI is supposed to have 4 main types, gas, liquid and/or mucus and solid.

• Clarify: "It has been suggested that male FL patients respond to non surgical treatment, as compared to those with more severe forms of FI who usually require surgical intervention." - Not sure what this is saying. Males but not females? "Compared to ..." I would expect to see a population group named there not a "form of FI". Re-word whole sentence.

Re-read source, this whole sentence was supposed to refer to males with FL and males with FI. Reworded: "Research carried out on male patients with FL suggested that there was improvement with non surgical treatment. This was contrasted with male patients with more severe forms of FI, who usually require surgical intervention"

• avoid acronyms: "quality of life (QOL)" - since QOL is only used once after this, just eliminate the acronym: they should be avoided.

done

• Citation: Citation needed for 2nd half of the QOL paragraph.

whole para is adapted from same source, moved citation to end of para to reflect this.

• Contradiction? - article says "Diagnosis of FI usually begins with a thorough medical history ..." but also says "FI is a sign or a symptom, not a diagnosis". I'm not a medical person, but that seems to be inconsistent. I take it that FI is a symptom, and there may be several underlying causes/diseases/issues. If so, should the "Diagnosis" section be renamed or ???

Changed "diagnosis" section to "diagnostic approach" as per manual above. Reworded contradictory phrase to "Identification of the exact cause(s) of FI usually begins with..."

• That is all for now. Why don't you address the items above, and when you are done, if you want more, post a note on my Talk page, and I can go thru the article again. Regards, --Noleander (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

my comments italicized lesion (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is now relatively complete, but would like some input if certain aspects are clearly over-emphasised or under-emphasised. Also, if there is anything clearly missing from the point of view of someone fresh to the page. Obviously any other commentary would be welcome.

Thanks, Peregrine981 (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to do this review. Can the nominator reply and indicate that they are still interested in going forward? --Noleander (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

.... also: is the intention to try to get the article to WP:FA status? Or simply to get a review for overall quality? --Noleander (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I am still interested, thank you for your offer. I am ultimately interested in going for FA status, although this review request was in part to determine how far it is from FA status. I've never been involved in the process before, so I'm not exactly sure where it stands at the moment. If you're willing to do a detailed review in aid of that goal, I'd be willing to put in the effort to bring it up to standard. My main concern is that there is a great deal of commentary on this issue out there, and I'm not sure how best to go about fairly representing it in the article. At the moment it cites specific authors, primarily as examples of the general arguments that have been made about the issue. I have gone through the article to try to eliminate the instances of blatant POV and incorrect reporting of facts that was quite rampant for several years (for example with regard to the content of the "dossier"). Anyway, I'm committed to improving the article, so would appreciate whatever level of comment you're willing to provide. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Allright. I'm pretty busy in real life, but I should be able to get to it within a few days. --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have a look at these over the next few days and get back to you. Thanks for your effort. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Footnotes in Lead - FNs in lead are optional. All facts in the lead must be repeated in the body, and they must be cited in the body anyway. Personally, I think they should not be shown in the lead, since it makes the lead ugly. The presence of FNs in lead raises the suspicion that the lead contains facts not in the body. Question: Is there any footnote/citation in the lead that is _not_ also used in the body? If not, why not, since all lead material should be in the body.

 Done - except one note explaining the name.

Description

• This section seems out of place: isolated, small. Suggest move it into the Timeline section, within the Publication section.

 Done

Debate

• Sequence: "while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute .." - that is in a quote. The next paragraph is "In October 2004, a lecturer at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen was assaulted ..." That latter paragraph should be given to the reader before the quote about it.

 Done

• Citation needed: "The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. "

 Done - section largely reworked, hopefully making it more logical.

Publication

• Missing info: "On 30 September 2005, the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten ("The Jutland Post") published an article entitled "Muhammeds ansigt"[11] ("The face of Muhammad"). ..." - This is out of the blue. Who assembled the 12 artists? When did they start collecting the 12? What was their motivation? Did the artists express any worries before the publication?

 Done

• Rearrange: "After the invitation from Jyllands-Posten to about forty different .." - Okay, so here is some background: that should be up above the "30 Sept" paragraph. However, the other details still remain: When did the editor invite the 40 artists, etc?

 Done

• Continuity: "On 19 February, Rose explained his intent further ..." - this follows the prior paragra about Rose, but there is a paragraph between; the two Rose paragrs should be adjacent.

 Done

• Year? - "On 19 February, Rose explained his" - what year?

 Done - well, I've changed it to say "later" since I don't think it is particularly important to state the precise date of the interview.

• Clarify: "the Danish daily Politiken polled thirty-one of the forty-three .." - why did they only ask 31 of the 43? or did they ask all 43 but only 31 replied?

comment - moved to previous section where I think it better belongs, even if it is not in strict chronological order. Article is not online, so hard to verify information for the moment. Will have to come back to it.

Diplomatic

• Immediate responses: "Having received petitions from Danish imams, eleven ambassadors from Muslim-majority countries asked for a meeting ..." - This is over 2 weeks after the publication. What responses where there (non diplomatic) before then? Did Danish people write letters to the editor? Did Muslim leaders around the world make comments? Need details on the non-diplomatic responses between 30 Sept and 19 Oct (probably in a new section).

 Done

• Confusing wording: "The ambassadors maintained that they had never asked for Jyllands-Posten to be prosecuted; possibly, the non-technical phrase of the letter, "to take NN to task under law", meant something like "to hold NN responsible within the limits of the law"." - Not sure what that is saying. The "possibly ... meant" is a subjective guess: who is making that guess? The WP editor? Or one of the parties? clarify.

 Done

• Who? - "The Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Aboul Gheit, wrote several letters to the Prime Minister of Denmark and to the United Nations Secretary-General explaining that they did not ..." - who is "they"?

 Done

• Huh? - "The refusal to meet the ambassadors has been criticized by the ..." - There is no prior mention of a refusal to meet ... even if there was, it is too far away and needs to be restated.

 Done

Judicial investigation

• Detail: "On 27 October 2005, a number of Muslim organizations..." - which organizations?

Commment - it was the loose coalition of muslim organizations that organized in early october. Not sure of the exact complainants. Not sure if that is necessary?

• Detail? "The most recent case was in 1971 when a program director of Danmarks Radio was charged, but found not guilty..." - what was the nature of that case? Islam-related?

 Done

• Continuity: "On 6 January 2006, the Regional Public Prosecutor in Viborg discontinued the investigation a .." - Was an investigation started? When? Details? Was it an in-depth investigation? Or maybe it never really went anywhere?

 Done

• Wording: "His reason is based on his finding that the article concerns ..." - Too wordy. Just write "The prosecutor terminated the investigation because the article ..."

 Done

• Clarify: "...his finding that the article.." - what article? The cartoons? Or the article accompanying the cartoons?

 Done

• Variety: "He stated that the right to fre ..." - 2 consecutive sentences begin the same way: need to vary.

 Done

Tour

• Wording: "They created a dossier ..." - many readers won't know what a dossier is (I'm not even sure). Can a better equivalent word be found? I think "collection of .documents" would be better for readers.

Comment: Dossier is the accepted term. This may be a varieties of English issue, but to me it is a completely normal word.

• Huh? - "They created a dossier (known as the Akkari-Laban dossier (Arabic: ملف عكّاري لبن‎) containing a forty-three-page document entitled " .." - I thought a dossier was a document: how can it include a document (which is named "Dossier ...")? Or is it a folder of documents: if so: what additional documents did it include besides the 43 page item? I suggest the following: "The created a collection of documents called "Dossier ..." which included the following five items: ...."

 Done

• Numbered list: "and the following: ..." - That list should contain a 5th item: the "several letters from " It is confusing to have the "letters" in prose, before the numbered list.

 Done

• acronym: "(in response to the JP controversy)" - avoid acronyms. Spell out JP here.

 Done

• Detail: " l to Muslims who were participating in an online debate on Jyllands-Posten .." - sounds like an important debate? When? where? who?
• Wording: "...r was handed around on the sidelines." - word "sidelines" is a bit slangy. Maybe just remove it, and say that the collection of documents was circulated.

 Done

• Wording: " an official communiqué was issued seeking for the United Nations .." - better is " an official communiqué was issued requesting the United Nations"

 Done

Protests

• Detail: "... were held around the world in..." - Need a list of countries. Could be "...around the world, including A, B, C, ...."

comment: this is a bit of a tricky issue to deal with. the protests were so wide spread that the list will become quite long. Nonetheless I have begun gathering the information. If necessary it can later be moved to a sub-article.

• Detail: " the Danish and Austrian embassies in.." - Why Austria?

comment:it was in the same building

• continuity: Two items are separated: " Several death threats and reward offers for killing those responsible ..." and " Haji Yaqoob Qureishi, a minister in the Uttar Pradesh state government, announced a cash reward for anyone who beheaded " - those two should be adjacent.

comment: Disagree. It follows on the information about government officials more than about killings.

• Why: "Several ministers in various countries resigned or were suspended amidst the controversy, .." - why did they resign? Where the supporters or opponents of the cartoons? Were they afraid for their lives? Were they fired? or quit voluntarily?

 Done - added info, although I think we can't get into too much detail here. If people are really interested in the details they can follow the links.

Boycott

• Against who? - "A consumer boycott was organised i ..." - should mention "against Denmark" in that first sentence.

 Done

• Punctuation: ".... all Muslims to boycott, not only Denmark but also Norway, France, ..." - commas are misplaced.

 Done

Response

• So what? - "The second letter, dated 30 January 2006, had a Danish version,[63] dated 21:31 Danish time, an Arabic version, and an English[64] version dated 21:44: ..." - I cannot grasp the significance of the times ... either remove or explain the importance.

 Done

Later

• use template: "For a detailed account of later developments please see: Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" - wording is too conversational; just the {{seealso}} template.

 Done

• Ambiguous: "On New Year's Day 2010 police had to shoot a would be assassin in his home." - In the assasin's own home?

 Done

Journalistic T

• Need context: "A complaint was filed against the newspaper under this section of the law,..." - what newspaper? Sudden shift from historical background to the JP cartoons needs more words.

 Done

• Wording: "and three cartoons were in fact later reprinted in Jyllands-Posten..." - remove "in fact"

 Done

• Clarify: " It frequently tried to report on activities of imams it considered radical..." - Why is the word "tried" there? Did they fail to publish the reports?

 Done

Islamic T

• Define term: "Owing to the traditions of aniconism in Islam,..." - First sentence in this section must define the term aniconism

 Done

• When? - "OIC's Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated in a press release: "" - year/month?

 Done

• Long quote: ""Why is the insult so deeply felt by some Muslims? .... " is a very long quote. Not clear why quote is there: better is to paraphrase in WP's voice.

 Done

Political

• Nation? - "Christopher Hitchens argued that official reaction in the West, particularly the United States was too lenient toward the protesters and Muslim community in Denmark, and insufficiently supportive of Denmark and the right to free speech: "nobody in authority can be found to state the obvious and the necessary—that we stand with the Danes ..." - Hitchens is from UK, true? What "authority" and "we" is he referring to? UK? US? western world?

comment: It is ins't completely clear what he means by "we". I think he means generally governments in the west (outside of DK)... but it isn't completely clear. So, I will leave it as is, since I think this is largely implied by the introductory sentence.

• Wording: "the controversy was used by Islamists jockeying for influence ..." - Word "jockeying" is a bit slangy and some readers may not comprehend the intent. Find a more encyclopedic wording.

 Done

• Source of quote: Paragraph: "Critics of political correctness see the cartoon controversy ..." contains two quotes... the speaker(s) need to be named.

 Done

• Punctuation: "the lamentable laws against "hate speech" in Europe, " - inner quotes within an outer quote should use single quote marks ' ...'

 Done

Comparable

• Need citations: For each work named, need to cite a source that compares the work with the JP controversy.

 Done

References

• Footnotes should be formatted as 2 columns

 Done

• Missing a list of key sources: Certainly there must be five to 20 key sources on this topic, true? Especially books like The Cartoons that Shook the World or the article by Hitchens, or publications by Rose. They should be specifically listed here in a "References" subsection. The reader should not have to comb thru the footnotes to try to find a handful of key sources.

Puasing for now

• That should be enough for now. After you address the above, I can review it again if you want - just post a note on my talk page. --Noleander (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

---

The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it reach FA one day. I feel that the references are all good, but that the prose needs a bit of work.

Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro
I've had a first look at this as far as the second paragraph of the plot section. Hopefully, I will revisit this later in the week, but I am finding quite a lot of issues so I will give you time to have a look at my comments. Please feel free to disagree with me, and to politely (or not!) tell me to go away and never touch an X-Files article again. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• "Do we need to link "science fiction" in the lead?
• "It was directed by Michael Watkins and written by lead actor David Duchovny in collaboration with series creator Chris Carter. The installment explores the series' overarching mythology and concludes a trilogy of episodes revolving around Fox Mulder's (Duchovny) severe mental reaction to an alien artifact.": This is all a little clunky. The "in collaboration" idea is not really mentioned in the article, and could replaced by a simple "and". Also, "severe mental reaction to an alien artefact" does not really tell the reader very much. Nor does it really seem reflected in the main body.
• "was seen by 10.1 percent of the available television audience, representing 16.15 million viewers": Representing seems an odd choice of word; in what way is it representing? Perhaps rework to begin with the number "seen by 16.15 million viewers—10.1 percent of the available television audience"
• "The episode received mixed to positive reviews from television critics.": This is basically OR; the reviews were either mixed or positive. Mixed to positive is basically the writer's interpretation from reading the reviews.
• "Mulder is a believer in the paranormal, while the skeptical Scully has been assigned to debunk his work.": I'm neither a fan nor a follower of the X-Files, but I would imagine that this is not really that true a description of the series format by the 7th series. It may be better at some point here to explain a little about "the series' overarching mythology".
• "In this episode, Scully returns to Washington, D.C., from Africa": Why the comma after "D. C."?
• "has been placed in an alien artifact-induced coma": While probably completely correct, this phrasing is a little opaque for the general reader; what sort of artefact? How has it induced a coma?
• "Unbeknownst to Scully, rogue former FBI agent Alex Krycek (Nicholas Lea) is using nanobots to force Skinner to betray her and Kritschgau.": Unbeknownst is a little too much; why not just "unknown"? And as this incident is not mentioned further in the lead, and is once more rather opaque and baffling without further explanation for the general reader, I would suggest cutting this whole sentence from the lead.
• "Meanwhile, Mulder enters into a dream where The Smoking Man (William B. Davis) offers him a new life and a fresh start. After conferring with a vision of Scully, Mulder awakens from his coma.": Do you enter into a dream? Why not "In a dream" or "Meanwhile, Mulder dreams that…" But again, this just seems impenetrable and not a little baffling. Why is this significant? Why is the presence of Scully in the dream important, and why does it make him wake up? Is there too much plot in the lead? Could it be cut down or made more friendly for non-specialists?
• On this point, I think the lead does need more about the production and writing of the episode.
• "The genesis for the episode was Carter's fascination": "Genesis"? Why not "inspiration", or "idea came from", which is perhaps less dramatic? And was he really fascinated, or just interested?

Plot

• I'm really struggling with the plot section. I get the impression that this is not written with the general reader in mind, and requires background knowledge of the series to understand it. While this is perhaps to some extent unavoidable in a series like this, I think this may go too far, and I do not really understand what is going on in the story. (Perhaps that is a fault of the episode rather than the article!) It needs to be more accessible. On a more prosaic level, I don't think it really flows, and I cannot follow the chronological order of the story, or where everything takes place, or who the characters are. And perhaps parts could be more concise.
• For the benefit of those who are not regular viewers, do we need to explain the format of the series, and introduce the characters, in this section? (Not suggesting here, just asking)
• "visit Fox Mulder who remains paralyzed in a hospital": Was he paralysed in a previous episode? If not, "remains" does not seem the best word.
• "The Smoking Man reveals that he is Fox's father": reveals to who?
• "visits Michael Kritschgau": Who?
• "and claims": Scully claims? Was this her theory, and why did she go to him with it?
• "contact with the shard of an alien": With the what?
• "has reawakened the extraterrestrial black oil that he was infected with three years prior": The what now?? I think these last points suggest that the plot background needs further explanation. Do not assume that the reader understands the series history. But I'm not sure of the best way to accomplish this.
• "Mulder is now proof and carrier of alien life.": And to follow, I'm not sure how this follows from the previous sentences.
• "With Mulder gone, Walter Skinner tells Scully": Gone where? From where? Where is Scully? Where did Skinner come from, and who is he?
• "that his mother signed him out of the hospital": Whose mother? This is rather confusing now.
• Three "meanwhile"s in the plot section. More variation, perhaps?
• "who offers him a fresh start at life.": In what sense? And "at life" seems unnecessary.
• "He is brought to a new neighborhood and given a new home, finding Deep Throat inside.": Repetition of "new", and starting the second clause with "finding" is not quite right grammatically. Also, the wording suggests this took place over a long period ("given a new home" does not usually happen instantaneously) but this cannot be the case if a man was waiting inside. What about "Taken to an unfamiliar neighborhood, Mulder is shown a new home [was it explicitly to be his home? If not, maybe just "shown a house"]; inside, he finds Deep Throat."
• "Deep Throat claims that he faked his death": So I assume, that DT was presumed dead?
• What burden was he under?
• "Mulder is met by Diana Fowley soon after": Who?
• "Scully checks the video tapes at the hospital and spots Mulder's mother talking to The Smoking Man in one of them": A bit messy. What about "On the hospital [security?] tapes, Scully sees Mulder's mother talking to The Smoking Man"
• "which describes how one man will prevent the impending apocalypse, becoming humanity's savior.": After the comma seems a bit redundant.
• "Scully believes that Skinner gave it to her, but he denies it.": Do we need this at all?
• "Scully goes to see Kritschgau and notices he has a stolen copy of her information on the alien spaceship.": What information? What spaceship? Notices how?
• "After he admits hacking her computer, she deletes the files from his laptop." And he just let her? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I've done some massive clean-up on this. For the most part, I think the confusion in the plot section can be cleared up by the addition of a "Background" section, which I added. See if that helps at all. If not, I'll try to fix it up more, but as for all the other issues, I believe I've fixed, addressed, or made note of all of them. I appreciate very critical reviews, as it makes the articles much better in the end!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Changes look good, and the background section helps tremendously.
• Maybe say somewhere which episode(s) are covered in the background section?
• "Scully unsuccessfully tries to contact her. She receives a package that contains a book on Native American beliefs": Who is "she"? Scully or Mulder's mother? And is there an explicity connection between the Native American book, and the Navajo writing? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I think I got these taken care of too. The connection between the Native American book and the writing, however, is never blatantly spelled out.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

More comments: I've now read down to end of "Writing" section.

• Was the dream induced by the drugs/the Smoking Man?
• "Mulder confides in Scully, revealing that she": The last sentence was about Fowley; which "she" is this?
• "Duchovny worked on the script for "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati" while Carter wrote the preceding episode": Does "while" in this sense mean at the same time? If not, this is a little misleading.
• "The tagline for this episode...": The what?
• "which is an important concept in the work of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.": Was the actual phrase used by Nietzche? Or just the concept?
• "In the context of the episode, the subtitle has been interpreted as a reference to the love of a pre-determined life, in this case, Mulder's false reverie": Interpreted by who?
• "or to the idea that Mulder must "love his suffering and passively accept it [and] actively embrace his journey ... and release his spirit to find new vigor."": Requires intext attribution.
• "to the love of a pre-determined life, in this case, Mulder's false reverie": "Pre-determined fate" seems a slightly contrived phrase. And "false reverie": is there any other kind? Why not just "dream"? (And to be honest, this all seems a little nebulous, vague and contrived, but that is not a criticism of this article or its writers)
• ""The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati" contains allusions to Nikos Kazantzakis's novel The Last Temptation of Christ. Duchovny, a fan of the novel, found parallels between the story and Mulder's ordeal and incorporated many of the book's concepts into the episode": Fair enough, but why not explain what these were? Spell it out a bit; this would be more interesting than reading about Duchovny's take on the character which follows this sentence.
• "He believed that this would help emphasize the episode's themes of science and religion.": We're getting into some pretty heavy repetition of "episode" now. And this sentence does not really mean anything. Given the last sentence before this, the sentence effectively says "the parallels emphasise the episodes' themes." Perhaps it is meant to say that the allusions rather than the parallels do this, but this would require some re-organisation. EIther way, this does not really say anything. What are these themes, and how does the link to The Last Temptation of Christ emphasise them? And is emphasise the correct word?
• "Duchovny was drawn to the fact that Christ's struggle in the novel was "not only godlike, but also profoundly human."[18] In the episode, he attempted to answer the question about whether or not Mulder would develop a personal life, noting that "Mulder is a guy who's been given the same problem ... What I'm doing is using the very human model of Christ".[18]": Right. Why was Duchovny drawn to use Christs "profoundly human" persona? The only way this would work was if Mulder was in some way God-like. What is the "problem" that the two share? Presumably "work" getting in the way of a personal life, or personal life intruding on a "struggle", but this should be spelt out. Again, this may be a problem with some rather loose analysis rather than the article, but I think this needs better presenting to the reader.
• Third paragraph of "Writing" seems a bit loose. What is its focus? The Smoking Man, Davis or Anderson?
• "proved difficult for Anderson to believably present": Split infinitive: I'm of the camp which considers this a crime against humanity!
• "Anderson later stated that she had trouble with her lines in the episode because of her character's previous encounter with an alien shipwreck.": Which lines? Why were they a problem? The quote which follows does not really make it clear. It merely says "all this". All what?
• "Carter explained that there must be "conflict between the two characters" for the show's dynamics to work.": Which characters? What conflict?
• "A large portion of the episode concerns the ancient astronaut theory, which proposes that intelligent extraterrestrial beings visited Earth in antiquity or prehistory and made contact with humans": Really? This does not really come across in the plot section, so maybe spell it out explicitly here.
• "suggested that aliens developed the notions of God and religion": Ditto.
• "In 'Amor Fati' we treated the religious side with respect": Which religious side? Again, not clear to what this refers (even though it's a quote, it should be clear) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  I think I've cleared up most of these issues. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Looks fine from a quick glance. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

More comments: To the end of "Casting and effects" now, and I apologise for the slow progress.

• "Casting director Rick Millikan saw the episode as a flashback": Did he really see it? Maybe "visualised", although I'm not sure that works either. There is something a little off with a casting director having such a sway. Were these characters not in the script beforehand?
• The second sentence in the first paragraph of "Casting and effects" is very long; I would suggest three separate sentences on each actor.
• "Casting the boy who Mulder meets on the beach was challenging for the producers": Not quite sure about this sentence, either grammatically or factually. The last paragraph describes the casting director as having a major influence, but suddenly the producers are casting? Leaving that aside, I'd prefer something like "The producers [or whoever] encountered difficulties in casting the boy whom Mulder meets on the beach." But it may be better to cut this sentence entirely or replace it with another.
• The part about Rogers realising she was going to be killed off seems to be unnecessary padding; presumably she had the complete script so would have actually read about her death a very short time after her "premonition"?
• "He later jokingly stated that": Any reason this could not just be "joked"?
• "A scene in which Mulder watched himself age was filmed, but later cut.": Why?
• Effects seem to be tacked onto this section. Is there nothing more to say on this?
• Similarly, are there any details on filming: dates, locations? This would appear to be quite important, and is currently missing completely. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  Okay, similarly, I believe I have patched up this section. There isn't a ton of info on the filming, unfortunately, but I got a couple more sentences of info added. As for the slow progress, take your time! I am grateful that you are doing this at all!!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

And a few more comments':

• "he is placed on a cross-like table, symbolic of the cross to which Jesus was nailed": Do we need to specify here that the cross-like table is symbolic here? Maybe better to leave it to the reader? Not too sure here: asking, rather than suggesting. Also, not too sure why "Christ-like figure" is linked to Crucifixion of Jesus.
• "Mulder is similarly challenged when he is enticed by The Smoking Man and overcomes temptation by sacrificing himself for the sake of humanity.": Does this "sacrifice" occur in the episode? If so, not really obvious in this article.
• "Scully shares many elements with Kazantzakis' version of Judas Iscariot, as both are able to call the heroes out of their respective trances.": Many elements? If so, given how central this character is, perhaps more should be given. Also, we have an echoing of the previous sentence ending with "both..."
• "Scully, representing the more rational one "who must anchor herself in the certain of scientific facts"...": Is this quote correct; should it be "certainty"?
• "discovers the aliens shards and deduces that they hold the key to "every question that has ever been asked"": Again, does this happen in this episode? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

  These issues have been fixed, I believe. I'll try to clarify some of them, though.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Last batch of comments

• "In the US, the episode earned a Nielsen household rating of 10.1, with a 14 share, meaning that roughly 10.1 percent of all television-equipped households, and 14 percent of households watching television, were tuned in.[40] It was watched by 16.15 million viewers": Is there a way to make this a little more reader-friendly and less technical? And possibly combine it all: as a general reader, the number of viewers would be the most important thing here, so maybe that could go first?
• "In the UK, "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati" was viewed by 840,000 viewers, making it the third-most watched program for that week after episodes of The Simpsons and Friends.": I think it should be made clear that this is not on all channels: the main viewing channels would have had viewing figures far in excess of this, but this sentence suggests that it was one of the most watched programmes in the UK. And the reference is a deadlink.
• On that point, why is information given for the UK only; presumably other countries broadcast the episode?
• Sales figures for the DVD?
• "a DVD collection that contains episodes involving the alien Colonist": Involving who?
• Why is purple prose linked in the quote? Links should generally not be given in quotations, and I don't see the need here for a link at all.
• "He highly complimented the scene": Why "highly"?
• Who is Sarah Stegall?
• "Since its original airing, "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati" has appeared on many lists of the best The X-Files episodes.": Maybe make this seem less like it is the episode which has chosen to do this! Maybe "Since its original airing, critics have listed "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati" among the best X-Files episodes."
• I think there is a slight problem with that last paragraph. The first sentence suggests that it classed among the all-time best episodes, but apart from the first example, the others are "best of season" or "best of this-type-of-episode" lists. And I think we are getting into "list every list in which this has been named".
• That last section overall is a little quote heavy; I'm not sure all of the quotes really tell us much about the reception, and perhaps anything interesting could be moved to the analysis section.
• Also, it would be quite useful to read some more general reviews which are not connected to X-Files or sci-fi fans; what did the general public think? Are there any general reviews from, for example, newspapers.
• Some dates for the reviews would also be useful: which (if any, and if not, are there any) came out after the broadcast, which came out years later, which are "looking back" reviews, etc.
• I think that is about everything. I may have a last visit in the next day or two, and maybe another quick copy-edit. But it is looking much improved generally. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

  I tried to fix all these issues. I left the purple prose link in the quote, but cut down the amount that the quote contained, as I feel that the term purple prose is something that a potential reader might want to look into. I also tried to reorganize all of the reviews chronologically instead of all over the place. Unfortunately, I couldn't find very many reviews from newspapers and the like. Also, as for the last paragraph, I tried to reorganize it so that the first three or so are calling it one of the best episodes, whereas the last two are talking about the episode in regard to a specific parameter.--04:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Final readthrough: Looking pretty good now. I've done some copy-editing, any of which you can revert if you don't like it or if I have messed anything up. Just a few last points I noticed on reading through once more. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• "In this episode, Scully returns to Washington, D.C. from Africa and discovers that Mulder has been placed in coma by shards from an alien spaceship wreck. Scully joins former government employee Michael Kritschgau (John Finn) and her boss Walter Skinner (Mitch Pileggi) to search for Mulder.": "has been placed in" is awkward, and suggests awareness for the shards. Maybe "exposure to shards from an alien spaceship wreck induced…" but that's not too comfortable either. Also, this part in the lead does not state that Mulder is missing. It jumps from his coma to Scully searching.
• "The inspiration for the episode was Carter's interest with the possibility that extraterrestrials were involved in ancient mass extinctions on Earth. Much of the episode was inspired …" Inspiration…inspired. Also, maybe something like "Carter was interested in the possibility … on Earth, and used these themes in the episode. Much of the episode…"
• How do we know the Smoking Man's motivations? To whom is he revealing this?
• "Scully, having been visited by Albert Hosteen, awakens in her apartment": Why does he visit. This seems a little throwaway as it is not explained, and suggests that it could actually be cut unless he did something important.
• "When she talked to Carter and said "'I don't know if I can do this anymore.' How can I be arguing against all this when in the last episode we shot this other storyline happened?", Carter explained that there must be conflict between Mulder and Scully in order for the show's "believer versus skeptic" dynamic to work.:" Something wrong with the quote here. What did she say to Carter? The rest should not be in the quote.
• "making it the third-most watched program for that week after episodes of The Simpsons and Friends." Still not clear, and still looks like the most watched programme in the UK, rather than on that specific channel. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  How do these changes look now? Thank you ever so much for doing this; now this article looks wonderful!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good. Ping me when this goes back to FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Iowa class battleship

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…after a long and grueling effort by a great many people from a wide variety of backgrounds the article has finally come full circle in that it now no longer contains any citation needed tags, or dead links, and having been rewritten and retooled I feel the time is right to shoot for FAC resurrection. Accordingly, I am aiming this article through PR to begin that process, and I am looking for any type of constructive feedback (keeping in mind that, like all great projects, ours has a few loopholes that allow for certain quirks - like calling ships "she" - to stay in an article) prior to moving on to A-class and FA-class. In particular, thanks in no small part to Brad101's outstanding (frustrating?) radar for locating this problem, I want to make sure that the information cited in the article agrees with its source material, and I want to make sure that all citations in the article are considered accurate and appropriate for ACR/FAC. Otherwise, anything else you would like to bring to our attention would be appreciated.

On behalf of all who have worked on the article over the years, TomStar81 (Talk) 23:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

• Citation for the paragraph about boilers?
• Check for overlinking - I see two instances where destroyer is linked thrice in a single sentence
  • This is likely a result of paragraph shift - most of the sentences have been split up and rejoined over the course of the reconstruction of the article. I'll take a careful read through of the article to see if I can find any other examples and remove them, though allow me to note for the record that my style here is to link the terms and the start of each new section, so a degree of overlink may be present as a result. If that bothers anyone, lemme know and I will tweak my editing accordingly.
• Check alphabetization of bibliography
• A few refs with formatting problems - for example, FNs 8 and 10
• I see at least three different date formats
  • Are these in the article, the citations, or the references/biblo sections?
• Does FN 19 refer to FN 65?
• FN20: no full bibliographic info for this source
• Cited sources shouldn't be in Further reading, uncited sources shouldn't be in Bibliography
• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Can I ask for clarification on this one? Do mean like finding the books in the library or where I found the information in the books I referenced (like page numbers, etc)?
• Norman Polmar or Polmar Norman?
  • Either way works, but your right, it needs to be all one way or all the other :)
• Be consistent in whether shortened citations include all authors, how they disambiguate, etc
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• Navweaps or NavWeaps? Noris or Norris?
• FN98 is missing publisher, FN99 is missing retrieval date

More later. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments. Just some copyediting notes: - Dank (push to talk)

• "The Iowa-class battleships were a class of fast battleships ordered by the United States Navy": class/battleships/class/battleships. I recommend: "The Iowa-class battleships were ordered by the United States Navy", then "Six were ordered" in the next sentence can become "Six of the class of fast battleships were ordered".
• "had been laid down": were laid down
• "as a result of the postwar": after the postwar, per WP:Checklist#because
• "draw down": drawdown
• "canceled prior to completion": canceled (I think most will assume that "canceled" means "not completed", and for the few who don't, they'll find out soon enough.)
• "Iowa class ships": Iowa-class ships
• "longest examples of their type": What type? Maybe: "longest battleships" (I think I remember that, but don't quote me)
• "followed the design pattern set forth in the preceding North Carolina- and South Dakota-class battleships, which placed great emphasis on ...": shared the emphasis of the North Carolina- and South Dakota-class battleships on
• - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• COMMENT: I want to apologize to everyone in advance for this, but over the last week or so I've been up to my neck in medical paperwork as my dad scrambles to get the last of his job application material turned in ahead of a 4-week stint on Odessa/Midland, Texas. I should be able to give this project my full and undivided attention again on or about December 12. In the mean time, keep the suggestions coming so I know what to work on why I get back here. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 23:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I had a rather nasty stomache virus, but I am finally back, and I am gonna start working on this. I'm away from my library until early next year, but hopefully it will not be a big deal. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    

---

Oligonucleotide synthesis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to receive a feedback from the community prior to nominating the article as a Featured Article Candidate. Your suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Chemist234 (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Music for a Time of War

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have been working on this article for about one month. I know I have just a bit more work to put into it (remaining sources to incorporate into the article are posted on the talk page). However, I am at a point where I could really use a second pair of eyes, or more! My goal for this article is FA status. A copy edit would be great. Also just thoughts on general flow of the article, amount of detail, etc. Any feedback would be great before I finish my work on the article prior to GAN. Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... (There may be a little wait, but I will get to it). Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Take your time. I appreciate the feedback. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Some opening comments to get the review started:

---

Lead

• "debut" closely followed by "debuted", twice. For smooth prose I recommend finding an alternative verb.
  • Replaced one occurrence of "debut" with "was first performed", though now I feel the word "perform" is used a bit too much. I cannot think of an alternative at the moment. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Rather than "in May", I suggest you give the exact date of the first performance. To what does "both performances" refer?
  • Done. Added complete date of first performance. Then included a sentence stating the program was repeated the following day. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Likewise, "the following weekend" is imprecise and should be dated. This sentence is ambiguous; does "repeating the program at the inaugural Spring for Music Festival" refer to the Carnegie Hall performance itself, or to a further performance?
  • Done. Added complete date of Carnegie Hall performance. Now reads: "On May 12, 2011, the Symphony debuted at Carnegie Hall, repeating the program performed in Portland at the inaugural Spring for Music Festival." --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Perhaps "May 12th" May 12 would be more appropriate? I am sure the year is implied. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
      • May 12 per MoS. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• As a general point, try to avoid giving too much detail in the lead For example, the detail "recorded in Super Audio CD format" is unnecessary at this stage; likewise it is unnecessary to list the recording's various awards here. The lead should provide a broad summary of the whole of the article, which I don't think it does at present.
  • Doing. Removed Super Audio CD detail. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• "debuting" again
  • See first comment in Lead section above. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Program

• My first thought is that the four images would look much tidier if they were incorporated into a square, thus. I don't know how to do this easily, but I know an editor who does, and if you wish I'll raise the matter with him. The lead presently lacks an image; why not use this, there.
  • If you are able to submit a request, that would be much appreciated. Otherwise, I will try to find a template that will generate the square, which I concur would look better in the article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Done. Much thanks to the uploader. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Again on a point of layout, it looks very untidy having a quotebox and a blockquote next to each other, in a part of the text that is already affected by the image. I'd reconsider the positioning of the quotebox, whatever you decide to do with the four-part image.
  • I agree, but I was not sure how else to display two quotes both generally speaking about the program (which I see as the first paragraph of the Program section, before it breaks into separate paragraphs for each composition). Will keep considering options. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Done. Did some readjusting. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Longwinded wording: "The Oregon Symphony first performed the work in January 1974 with Lawrence Leighton Smith conducting; until Music for a Time of War the Symphony had most recently performed the composition in January 2007 with Kalmar conducting." I'd abbreviate: "The Oregon Symphony had first performed the work in January 1974, under Lawrence Leighton Smith, and had played it under Kalmar in January 2007".
  • Done. Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Insert "which is" before "approximately"
  • Done. Found two occurrences in article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Kalmar's program includes a solo vocal performance by baritone Sanford Sylvan..." Misleading - sounds as though the baritone part is not normally included. Suggest: "In Kalmar's program the baritone soloist is Sanford Sylvan..." etc
  • Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• "The program follows with..." → "The program continues with..."
  • Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• "these performances marked the ensemble's most recent prior to Music for a Time of War. First, what does "these performances" refer to? Secondly, an orchestra is not the same as an "ensemble". Finally I'm not sure that this information is significant enough for inclusion. If they hadn't played it for 40 years, well, perhaps. But 4 years?
  • The Feb. 26–28, 2005 performances, as indicated by the source. I changed "in February 2005" to "on February 26–28, 2005" to clarify multiple performances. Replaced "ensemble" with "orchestra". "Ensemble" is used several times throughout the article. Should any of these be changed as well? To me, an orchestra is a type of ensemble, perhaps I misunderstand the term. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• What is the relationship of VW's fourth symphony to war? You give this information in respect of the first three works. My understanding is that VW did not provide a program for the work; certainly my own recording of the work (Barbirolli 1937) gives no indication in the accompanying notes of a "war" theme, although the music is violent and passionate at times.
  • Doing. See comment below. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Done. Not much program content to include, but I noted Williams' own thoughts on the symphony and how others interpreted the work. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

---

I will continue, as time permits. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I look forward to additional comments when you have the time. Feel free to strike resolved concerns, or cap them if you prefer. I know it helps me to separate resolved and unresolved issues. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

General

• "prior to" crops up five times: not sure what the phrase has that "before" hasn't
  • Replaced two occurrences with "before", attempting to alternative between the two options. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Several innocuous statements are given three separate citations: this isn't easy on the reader's eye and I'd be inclined to prune them or bundle them where practicable. See WP:CITEBUNDLE and WP:CITEKILL

Done. I believe there is only one instance in which a sentence is followed by three references. In this case, one sources verifies a live broadcast and two verify the partnership between the radio station and the Symphony. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• You oughtn't to italicise RVW's 4th Symphony here or later in the text: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Classical music titles
  • Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Program

• RVW's 4th Symphony: I heartily agree with Brianboulton's comment, above; dissonant though the work is, it has no programme. I note Kalmar's disclaimer in the first para of the section, but VW said of the Fourth "I wrote it not as a definite picture of anything external – e.g. the state of Europe – but simply because it occurred to me like that".
  • Doing. See comment below. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Done. Not much program content to include, but I noted Williams' own thoughts on the symphony and how others interpreted the work. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Performances and broadcasts

• Not clear why you need another blue link to Carnegie Hall here; several more examples of WP:OVERLINK such as multiple links for Britten et al could do with trimming.
  • Removed link to Carnegie Hall since link appears in the section above. Other examples of overlinking? According to OVERLINK, articles' "first occurrence[s] after the lead" should be linked. As far as I can tell, throughout the article there are only duplicate links because words are linked the first time they appear in the lead as well as the first time they appear in the article. If there is a specific link you believe should be removed, please let me know. Thank you for catching the Carnegie Hall link, though. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Britten and Vaughan Williams have at least five blue links each. Tim riley (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • It appears all composers are linked: (1) in the lead, (2) in the lead infobox, (3) the first time they appear in the article itself, (4) in the image featuring all four composers, (5) in the Track listing section, and (6) in the Personnel section. For which appearances should links be removed? According to OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Also, according to WikiProject Albums, "names [in the Personnel section] should always be linked if an article exists". Seems appropriate to at least remove links in the Track listing section? --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I shall shut up forthwith! Fair points all. Tim riley (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Hah! Well, I will leave the links for now, but I do agree with you that there might be some redundancy here. Balance between overlinking and article style guidelines... Perhaps others will chime in on the issue as I continue with GAN and FAC. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Second invitation to Spring for Music and cancellation

• "News also emerged in February 2011" – this reads a bit oddly, as though the news was leaked rather than announced.
  • Done. Replaced with "It was also reported in February..." -- please let me know if you have a better suggestion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• "it would not return to Carnegie in 2013" – the omission of "Hall" looks strange to an English eye, but if it's idiomatic American usage ignore me.
  • Done. The venue is sometimes referred to simply as "Carnegie", but I added Hall just to be more accurate. Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Image of Ives et al: I suspect I'm the user to whom Brianboulton refers above. I'd be happy to run up a quartered image. Do you mind if I crop Ives and Britten so that all faces are roughly the same size? I'll look in again to this page, or you can leave a note on my talk page. Best wishes. – Tim riley (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

By all means, please do whatever you think would look best. Thank you so much for offering to create the image. I was still searching for a way to just plug the four images into a window template, but your offer is one I cannot refuse. Thanks again! Please let me know if there are any additional concerns needing to be addressed. In the meantime, I will continue working on improvements based on feedback supplied by you and Brianboulton. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Image now uploaded at File:Ives-adams-rvw-britten.jpg to be used or not as you think best. Tim riley (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. But I must tell you that though I am no expert (haven't a clue, in truth) on WP's draconian copyright rules, I have my doubts if the Ives image, or even the Britten, will survive scrutiny by the image police. I have looked for unquestionably public domain replacements but without success. Brian knows more about this topic than I do, and he may like to comment in due course. Tim riley (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, copyright rules. I can never keep up. *rolls eyes* Well, if the image is removed, I will just replace it with separate images for individual composers, or something. Thanks for the heads up. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I am glad you both mentioned RVW's Symphony. Actually, this is one section I have not yet finished working on. I will be sure to expand the paragraph with information from the program as well as other sources. (There is a list of sources still needing to be incorporated into the article on the talk page.) I still need to expand the Reception section with a couple other major reviews. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Update: I have since expanded the RVW paragraph. As mentioned above (twice), there is not much program content to include, but I noted Williams' own thoughts on the symphony and how others interpreted the work. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Images: I see that Tim has alluded to my superior expertise on matters of copyright. Well, not that superior, but experience and a few hard lessons have given me some awareness of the pitfalls. I've looked at the four images in the composite:

• Ives: unfortunately, the link to the source is inoperative, so we can't confirm the source of the image or the claimed original publication date of 1913.
• Britten: this is asserted to be free of copyright on the "not renewed" basis, that is, the source book was published without a copyright notice. I find that quite hard to believe. The book, originally published in the Netherlands in 1960, was published in the UK in 1961 by Thomas Nelson, a leading British publisher; would they really have forgotten to register copyright? I've not seen the book; Tim has wonderful access to the British Library, and he may be able to peruse a copy.
  • [Note for Brian on post-Christmas resumption] Very happy to, but you must tell me in short, clear words what I am to look for. Tim Riley (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Adams: I used this image on a project (Nixon in China) a year or so ago, and it went through FAC all right, on its present licence.
  • Good to know. Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Vaughn Williams: no problem.
  • Good to know. Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't suggest you remove the Ives and Britten images without further enquiry, but if the article is to be presented at FAC we will need to clear on these matters. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If the images are not suitable, I can simply remove the newly-uploaded collage image and include "approved" images in the article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox: Why has the article got two infoboxes? This is rather confusing, particularly as the first one lists the solo vocalist as a "guest", whatever that means. One such box is more than enough. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

One for the concert program and one for the album. Both have specific infoboxes. They do contain several different parameters. Ideally, there would be a "subtemplate" for the concert infobox to provide details about the recording. Actually, I am not certain I have finished expanding the "Recording" section, so I am going to leave both infoboxes for now and I understand the concern may be re-visited during GAN/FAC. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

List of airports in the Okanagan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it at featured list status, and would appreciate any feedback anyone may offer.

Thanks very much, TBrandley 22:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments –

• "with Kelowna providing the same amount". This is one of those awkward "with ... -ing" connector type of sentences that the prose reviewers at featured content processes don't care much for. You could try "while Kelowna provides the same amount" or similar to fix the writing.
  • Done. TBrandley 02:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• The "however" at the end of the second paragraph seems like an unneeded add-on. The rest of the sentence gets the point across by itself.
  • Done. TBrandley 02:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• The biggest question I have about the list is whether SkyVector is a reliable source. I've never seen it or heard of it before, but am admittedly not that familiar with airline websites. It's worth addressing before an FLC nom, since half of the references are to SkyVector.
• I questioned the reliable sources noticeboard, although I do personally believe the source is reliable. Thanks for the comments. TBrandley 02:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Jim Umbricht

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm planning to bring this to FAC soon, after an excellent GA review, I think I exhausted all my useful sourcing here, though I'll do a second check tomorrow. Sad story of a baseball player who died way too soon.

Thanks, Secret ^account 07:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

Lead

• "He was best known for his year-long battle with malignant melanoma.": Not too sure why this needs a ref, particularly as the ref does not say that this is what he was best known for. I think we are reaching in judging what he was best known for.
• "he died six months later": later than what?
• Why are there refs in the lead? Is the information not included in the main body? If not, it should be.

Early career

• "Umbricht was born in Chicago, Illinois and moved in with his family to Atlanta in 1946": Moved in with his family?
  • Fixed Secret ^account 05:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• In this section, there are rather too many sentences which begin "He" or "Umbricht".
  • Did some rewording. Secret ^account 05:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• "That year Umbricht pitched for the Bears in 10 games...": No year has been specified by this point.
  • Fixed Secret ^account 05:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• The end of the section gets a bit too list-y with the stats.
  • I'll see if I could find some interesting, on-topic tidbits to add to the section.

Major League career

• "He pitched seven innings, giving up five earned runs, including home runs to Johnny Temple, Frank Thomas and Buddy Gilbert, while striking out three.": Perhaps a little too much going on in this sentence.
• Why such a short section on the Pittsburgh Pirates?
  • I removed the 1960-1961 subsection, as it dealt with the Pirates. Secret ^account 05:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Umbricht left the game in position for the win": Although I understand what this means, I'm not sure it is the best phrasing.
• I'm not sure a date range is the best idea for a title
  • See above, I removed it. Secret ^account 05:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• "The Pirates began strongly in spring training, winning 11 in a row at one point": (I've edited this sentence) My baseball knowledge fails me at this point; do the teams actually compete during spring training? The name suggests training only.
  • Yes they do, I'm not sure how to reword it without adding unneeded redundancy in the sentence, better to follow the link. Secret ^account 05:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• "In a March 17 game": Is there a significance in the date? If not, perhaps remove it.
  • Removed the date.
• "was impressed with Umbricht's pitching and expected him to become the Pirates' fourth starter by opening day. He won the spot and...": It seems that the same point is being made repeatedly here. Why not cut "and expected him to become the Pirate's fourth starter", and rephrase the rest?
• "getting charged with the 11–3 loss": What does this mean?
• Do we need all the dates?
  • Baseball is a sport that is highly dependent on dates, unlike cricket and some other sports, I'll see what dates I could cut. Secret ^account 00:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Umbricht had terrible control": POV?
• "After giving up nine runs in seven innings of work in his first two starts": Hasn't this point just been made? Let the reader do the adding.
  • Cut and reworded Secret ^account 00:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• "was scratched with a sore throat": Scratched is jargony.
  • Reworded. Secret ^account 00:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Umbricht pitched five innings, striking out five": Reads like he struck out five innings.
  • Added "five batters" Secret ^account 05:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• "After the game went to extra innings, Umbricht pitched the thirteenth inning. The Pirates won in the later half of the inning, earning Umbricht his first career win.": Ref?
  • Sourced Secret ^account 00:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• "After the game went to extra innings, Umbricht pitched the thirteenth inning": Is there a way to rephrase this without repeating "inning(s)"? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Hard without going into confusing baseball terminology. Secret ^account 00:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Cancer and early death

• "A lifelong clean-cut bachelor, Umbricht had developed a reputation as a cheerful person who only cared about others' well-being.": While doubtless true, I'm not sure this information fits in at this point.
• "As a result...": And, following from the above comment, I'd cut this.
• "and began to be as a surgical procedure not long before Umbricht's surgery": Typo here? Missing word after "began to be"
• Added Used

Aftermath and legacy

• "In 1965, the Houston Colt .45s became known as the Houston Astros.": I'm not really seeing the relevance here.
  • Removed Secret ^account 05:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Journalists criticizing the retirement of numbers sometimes use Umbricht as an example of someone whose number was retired but who is unfamiliar to baseball fans.": Use it how? For what purpose? This is not quite clear.

General

• I have copy-edited the article, but please check I have not made a mess of anything. As ever, feel free to revert anything you do not like, or that does not work.
• I have not performed any spot-checks
• I do not watch peer reviews, so please raise any issues or questions on my talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Penticton Regional Airport

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to promote this article to featured article status. It has already passed as a good article, and I would appreciate further feedback.

Thanks very much, TBrandley 16:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Review - Hey Brandley, let's give it a shot :)

• Why are we using "nautical miles"?
  • It's what is given in the source and tends to be the standard throughout the world. A lot of airports are sourced from the Aeronautical Information Publication and only a few give a distance from town in kilometres. For example Australia, United States and Norway. For some airports you can find another source, such as the airport website, that will give you the distance in kilometres. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Not done per Cambridge. TBrandley 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Aviation standards use Nautical Miles (NM), makes sense to me. --Sweboi (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• that is part of the Okanagan region -> I think this comes off as repetitive. You already told us it was 1.8 NT from Penticton, I think that's good enough.
  • I disagree, it notes that is part of the Okanagan region in Canada as a whole. I told that it is 1.8 NT from Penticton, but that doesn't make it repetive because Okanagan isn't noted at all in there. Not done. TBrandley 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• serving the South Okanagan, Similkameen and West Kootenay -> regions
  • Done. I added "areas", as "region" is already mentioned above, and I would personally like a variety of words. TBrandley 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• The facility maintains a restaurant, Sky High Diner, as well as medical facility, accommodation areas and administrative buildings; food and snacks are also offered. -> Especially the way the sentence starts off, this part is quite ambiguous. They offer snacks on board the planes? In the accommodation areas?
• Initial examination for constructing an airport in Penticton began in 1937 -> I think this reads awkwardly. I think Initial construction examinations for the airport began in 1937 would be better.
  • What's the reasoning for that? It sounds perfectly fine right now in my opinion, and your suggested way fails grammar. TBrandley 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• The proposed locations -> Why locations?
  • Because there is more than one location, that's why that is stated. It is expanded upon in the history section per WP:LEDE. TBrandley 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Rights for temporary public use of the Penticton Regional Airport was conducted in 1945 -> I don't think rights can be conducted (searches or inspections are).
  • What would you suggest? Not exactly sure. TBrandley 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• garnering approximately -> I don't think garnering is the best choice here. You garner recognition, awards, not passengers.
  • Done, I change "garnering" to "obtaining". Cheers, TBrandley 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• with two accidents or incidents having occurred at it -> You mean on it? Also, why "accidents or incidents"? Just leave it at incidents.
  • It makes sense like it is, and you can't just say "incidents" because one of them was an actual "accident". See accidents and incidents section. Regards, TBrandley 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• three scheduled flights every day -> daily
  • Done. TBrandley 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• which is operated by Jazz Air -> I think this is again a bit too detailed.
  • You'd think that, but on the airplanes themselves it says "Air Canada Jazz", and therefore is related significantly to the airline. Air Canada Express is the same company (Air Canada) as "Air Canada Jazz". It's important to the airline, so not really over detailed. It's that "Air Canada Express" is operated by them only in this case, as Air Canada Express has a number of "operations" of planes, such as "Jazz" in this case. Not done for now. Thanks for reading my rambling. TBrandley 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• There have been campaigns -> Unsuccessful campaigns?
  • No, it is not "unsuccessful", it is ongoing still, if you read further news in the sectors of the article, you will see that some references were published just last week. It is "ongoing", and those words aren't suppose to be used, as per WP:RELTIME. It's fine like this, in my opinion. In fact, further down it says it is scheduled for start in "2013", per WP:LEDE. Not done. TBrandley 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• as well as the expansion of services provided by Air Canada Express at the airport; David Allen is credited as airport manager -> The purpose of this sentence isn't very clear to me as an un-involved third-party reader. Also, the latter part of the sentence doesn't quite fit in properly. It reads like it's just thrown in there.
• As a general point, I'm not 100% clear on the connection between the airport and Air Canada Express. It is only used for flights to Vancouver? (text: to the Vancouver International Airport provided by Air Canada Express).
  • Right now, yes. What would you like me to do? Not sure. TBrandley 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Kelowna International Airport has had an impact on traffic at this airport, with over 50 percent of the local community choosing the former over the latter -> I think this needs tightening. I find it redundant to tell us that it had an impact when they've accumulated 50% of the population's business. Also, I think "former over the latter" could be improved, like the sentence in general.
  • Yes, it has. The "former" is Kelowna Airport, while the "latter" is Penticton Airport. It has had a impact because over 50 percent are choosing the Kelowna Airport, over the Penticton Airport. It certainly has. Not done. TBrandley 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • These are just comments from the lead. I will come back and add to this list until we complete every section :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Most of them weren't problems that actually needed addressing, in my opinion so I would appreciate a look at actual sectors please. Thanks for reviewing. I hope we can figure out our "differences". Thanks again and regards, TBrandley 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, you need to understand that this isn't a FAC. I'm not only listing definite problems. In order to give you the best peer review I can, I'm listing all issues. They don't necessarily have to be applied, they are only personal suggestions. You will notice that many are opinionated. I will try and get to the next section later tonight.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
        • No, I understand that, that's certainly fine. Thanks very much, TBrandley 00:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comments on the lead and history section:
  • In the lead: "...southwest of Penticton, a city in British Columbia, Canada that is part of the Okanagan region." That seems wordy. Couldn't you just say "southwest of Penticton, British Columbia, in the Okanagan region of Canada."?
    • Done. TBrandley 06:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "The proposed locations were owned by the Penticton Indian Band, and was thus expropriated in 1949." The verb doesn't seem to match. "Locations were... and were" is correct, unless I'm misunderstanding the sentence.
    • Done. TBrandley 06:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "It has a 6,000 by 148 ft (1,829 by 45 m) runway numbered 16–34, obtaining approximately 80,000 passengers in 2011, with two accidents or incidents having occurred at it." That sentence sounds awkward. Maybe rewrite the last clause to something like "with two accidents in its history."
    • Done. TBrandley 06:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "There have been campaigns for the airline WestJet to operate its services at the airport, as well as the expansion of services provided by Air Canada Express at the airport; David Allen is credited as airport manager." Why are those two independent clauses joined by a semicolon? They seem unrelated.
    • Done. TBrandley 06:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The order that information is presented in the lead does not match the order it is presented in the article's body.
    • Done. TBrandley 06:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "The proposed areas—west of Penticton's city centre and north of the Skaha Lake—were owned by the Penticton Indian Band, and was therefore expropriated in 1949..." This has the same mixed singular/plural problem as the lead. Emphasis added.
    • Done. TBrandley 06:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "Rights for a temporary public use airport was conducted in 1945 for an operation of 24 hours." Another mixed singular/plural usage.
    • I don't understand, sorry. What's the problem? TBrandley 06:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "In 1956, Penticton Regional Airport was promoted to a permanent license, replacing the temporary permit." Could you go into a little detail here explaining what the license change means for the airport?
  • "In 1968, Canadian Pacific Air Lines extended its services for the airport, scheduling two daily flights, only to be taken over by Pacific Western Airlines the following year.[4] However, in 1988, Canadian Airlines ended this.[4] This was replaced by Time Air and Air BC airlines; both airlines are no longer existent.[4]" This whole part is confusing. CPAL was running two flights a day. PWA "took over". Does that mean they bought out CPAL, or replaced them as an airline at the airport, or both? CA ended "this"? What is "this"? The flights, or the airline providing them? "This" was replaced by TA and ABC. In what way? They took over flight service? Seems like a lot of detail is missing explaining exactly what happened here.
  • "Later, a helicopter flight and training club was introduced to Penticton Regional Airport." Later is vague; you also probably don't need to rewrite the entire airport name there. It seems out of place.
  • General note I'm seeing at this point: it's probably best to name the airport the first time it's specifically mentioned in a paragraph, then call it "the airport" or similar until the next paragraph. Right now it's a bit random when it's called Penticton and when it's called "the airport".
  • "During this time, the airport obtained 22,000 more customers than it would have done without that airline operating at it.[5]" Maybe just say the airline provided an additional 22,000 customers to the airport, simpler phrasing.
    • Done. TBrandley 06:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The second to last paragraph in the history section doesn't really seem to be about the history. It's more a description of the airport's capabilities. Not sure if it should be moved into another section like facilities, or made into a separate section, but it's not quite working as is.
    • Not sure. What would you suggest? I don't think it would work in the facilities section, because that is regarding what services the airport offers, that's not really a service. Some of that paragraph I do believe some of that paragraph is about its history. TBrandley 06:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "The facility has been recognized as a certified airport by the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation.[9]" What does that mean? Can you add more information here, since there's no wikilink for certified airport?
    • Done. TBrandley 06:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "It has been identified that the air travel market of the local area consists of 210,000 passengers yearly.[12]" Awkward phrasing. Maybe "it has been noted" or something like that?
    • Done. TBrandley 06:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "However, in 1990, it was considered to be the area's main airport, hence why some questioned the need of expanding the Kelowna International Airport at that time, when its runway was in the process of expansion.[13]" Another awkwardly phrased sentence. Also, it's a bit weaselly. We don't know who the "some" are, since the source uses practically the same phrase: "In 1990, when the runway underwent an extension to 7,200 feet, some questioned the need to spend the money as Penticton’s airport was the main airport for the Valley at that time." In fact, you'd probably need to rewrite that anyway as a bit too close paraphrasing.
    • Done. TBrandley 06:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

—Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• On the two points you commented on above:
  • "Rights... was conducted"; I would think it should be "Rights... were conducted", but it's also not clear what that means. Maybe you want to say "Rights... were secured"? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe you could have a "Layout" or "Physical characteristics" section? I'm not familiar with airport article structure though. "An aircraft at this airport can handle no more than 30 passengers.[1]" and "The facility has been recognized as a certified airport by the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation.[9] Transport Canada categorizes a certified airport as a process that ensures it meets the safety criteria for airports, and provides flights to other destinations.[10]" Those sentences seem like they could comfortably fit into a facilities section. Maybe there's more information at WP:AIRPORT. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Continuing (History)

• with the preliminary development of the airfield completing in 1941. -> completed
  • Not done per grammar. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• In 1946, more land was acquired from the Penticton Indian Band for use at the airport to help maintain it. -> I don't understand how acquiring more land helps maintain the airport. Also, I think the second part of the sentence could be written a bit better with some punctuation etc.
  • Done. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• However, in 1988, Canadian Airlines ended this. -> Could be a bit confusing, perhaps a bit more elaboration? Also, try to avoid short and choppy sentences.
  • Done. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• That was replaced by Time Air and Air BC airlines; both airlines are no longer existent. -> Again, take what you will from this, but IMO I think active would be better suited than "existent".
  • Done. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Pacific Coastal Airlines offered its services at the Penticton Regional Airport for twelve months, ending in 2009. -> Again, I'm a bit confused. So they stopped services in 1988 and then re-instated for 12 months in 2008-09?
  • Done. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• During this time, the airline provided an additional 22,000 customers to the airport. -> I think accommodated and passengers are better
  • Done. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• The facility has been classified as an airport of entry by Nav Canada, and is staffed by the Canada Border Services Agency.[1] An aircraft at this airport can handle no more than 30 passengers. -> Just making sure. The facility is Penticton? Also, they only support aircraft that hold up to 30 passengers?
  • Yes, and done. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Nav Canada has noted that most of the aircraft wind at the Penticton Regional Airport -> wind at the?
  • At the airport. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• aimed at the north and south directions. -> Maybe "Northern and southern directions"?
  • Done. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• to fly to the Vancouver International Airport and Calgary International Airport -> TO make it a bit cleaner, what do you think about to fly to the Vancouver and Calgary International Airport.
  • Not done in order to clarify its specific airport (these places have quite a few airports), also that may lead to confusion. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• 79,475 people -> I personally find it an odd read to begin a sentence with a number like that.

Facilities

• to the airport; the airport's -> I know it can be tough, but wording used in such close proximity take away from the read
  • Done. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• 247 employees work for the Penticton Regional Airport. -> Again here
  • See above. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Food and snacks are available at this airport -> This airport sounds a bit awkward. Also, are we talking about food on-flight or in-terminal?
  • Mostly done, although "this" is just a different word to use. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Spencer Aviation, which is located at it; -> at it?
  • What's the problem with that? "At it" means it is located at the airport's facility. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Airlines and destinations

• that an additional daily flights -> flight
  • Already done. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• the airport garnered 34,946 aircraft movements -> Do you think aircraft movements is best? Or garnered?
  • Yes, "aircraft movements" is actually the type used on typical articles of relation to aviation, while "garnered" is just a word, I don't see the problem there. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• so that they can perform a presentation -> could
  • Done. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Calgary International Airport and Edmonton International Airport. -> Again here
  • See above. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Please accept all my comments in good faith. You've done a great job and I tried to pin-point any possible problematic areas I could find. Feel free to include my recommendations :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. TBrandley 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
      

---