Wikipedia:Peer review/January 2013

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

---

List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to FLC eventually. I am hoping for some comments on the content and format.

Thanks, Greatuser (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2012‎

• Quick comment: The National Film Awards does not have any nominations. They do have considerations but those are not declared publicly, so award infobox shouldnt have 1 under nomination column for NFA. - Vivvt • (Talk) 17:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh!, Sorry I corrected the mistake and Thank You Greatuser (T • C) 05:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Continuing on NFA, 2012 is a year when she was awarded with NFA for her film performance on 2011. You will have to be consistent when it comes to award year. Its wrong for NFA to mention it for year when it was awarded as they had multiple ceremonies in a year. - Vivvt • (Talk) 07:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  

---

FIFA Club World Cup

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello everyone! After Timao's victory in Japan, I have dedicated some time to improving the FIFA Club World Cup page and found out it can be labeled as a good article. I want to make a request to everyone here to read over it and tell me what other improvements I can make. I know I have three sections left to reference but that shouldn't take more than a few hours. Thank you!!! God Football (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, it needs to be about the FIFA Club World Cup, not various unrelated previous competitions. Kevin McE (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is currently in the middle of a content dispute. There is little point in reviewing this unless that dispute is resolved. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Ahimsa in Jainism

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know whether this article is well-written or not, and what improvements can be done in the article regarding its overall style. In particular, I want to make sure that it meets the Good article criteria 1a and 1b. Any help regarding this would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Rahuljain2307 (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Connotations (Copland)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, after considerable work in expanding its overall depth and scope, I have reached a point where feedback to further improve its quality might be both welcome and beneficial. The ultimate goal is to being this article to FA status, which would be timely given this is the centenary of composer Aaron Copland's birth and the subject of this article is a seminal though lesser-known musical composition in his output. I look forward to this review as a collaborative effort.

Thanks, Jonyungk (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I look forward to giving this article a more detailed review in a day or two, though my comments may have to be delivered in instalments. For the moment, here are a few issues relating to sources:

• A number of your listed sources require subscription for accesss; this should be noted in each such case - you can use the (subscription required) template. This applies to each of the New York Times articles and also to the Musical quarterly article.
  • Will do. Thanks for pointing this out.
• The fifth item in the bibliography is described as "Bernstein score for Copland Connotations". From the link, I can't understand why this score is described as Bernstein's. What is the distinction between this source and the sixth item on the list? Can you identify which are the citations to these scores?
  • The fifth item is Bernstein's personal copy of the score, with a personal inscription on the cover page from the composer. The sixth item is Boosey & Hawkes' info page for the piece.
• In the citations I see "Bernstein and Haws"
  • Should be "Hawes," which I will correct. The other author of this source is Bernstein's brother, Benton. Maybe rephrase this footnote as "B. Bernstein and Hawes"?
• I also see page ranges with hyphens. These should be ndashes. There is also inconsistency in the format of ranges. e.g. "78-9" and "60-61"
  • Not to disagree but some clarification would be welcome as other editors have recently changed n-dashes to hyphens in other articles on which I've worked.
    • I think there other editors don't know their MOS, and certainly don't know their FAC. Trust me! Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, one inconsistency remains—"60-61"—as I wasn't sure "60-1" would be either awkward or confusing. Feedback, please.
    • I don't find "60–1" confusing, but perhaps others might. Leave it and see if anyone else picks it up. Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

More in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

More comments Here are some prose comments relating to the lead, and some more general comments on the article's present structure:

• The "Great Depression" is not a point in time, but covered much of the 1930s, so you should be more precise in marking the end of Copland's "dissonant" period.
• Link dodecaphonic. Or better, as you use the term "twelve-tone" later, use it here.
• "While the composer had produced other orchestral works contemporary to Connotations, it was his first purely symphonic work since his Third Symphony." Doesn't mean much without a date for the third symphony, and I wonder if the distinction between "orchestral" and "symphonic" works is clear enough to make this point worthwhile.
• "in pieces" → "with pieces"
• "with New York Philharmonic" → "with the New York Philharmonic"
• "More recent performances by Pierre Boulez, Edo de Waart and Sixten Ehrling have been acknowledged to show the music in a more positive light". I think, to maintain its sense, the sentence needs commas after "performances" and "Ehrling", and you should indicate by whom these performances are acknowledged to show the music in a better light.
• "Nevertheless, while the overall reputation of the music remains mixed." This is not a complete sentence.
• John Adams needs a link. I dont know if "Michael Andrews" is this one
• "which include" → "who include"
• I doubt the ordinary reader will understand what you mean by the music's "angularities".
• The short "Instrumentation" and "Dedication" sections are not the most obvious way of leading into the article. In fact, looking down the TOC, the sections don't appear to be in a particularly helpful sequence. In particular, I believe the article should begin with a "Background" section expanding on the background information given in the lead. I outline below what I think would be a more logical order:

• Background
• Composition (incorpoarting most of what you have allocated to Structure, Significance of Title and Resemblance)
• Performance and reception history, subdivided between initial performance and subsequent revivals. This would include most of the stuff in "Other factors...", "Composer efforts", and "Boulez revival". There may well be too much of this information in the article, and you may want to consider some thinning out here.
• Analysis, incorporating the "Copland and serialism" and "Charges of academicism" sections.
• Legacy and influence.

I'm not suggesting this proposed article structure as a blueprint, but it's closer to the general framework of WP articles on classical music, particularly those that aspire to FAC.

I'll get back when I can. Do you have a particular timescale for developing this article, or is time of no special consequence? Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the anniversary of Connotations' premiere was last September, there doesn't seem to be a particular date, anniversary or otherwise, for which to shoot. Personally, I'm for taking whatever time needed to get this article right and your comments on structure underline the fact that I'm perhaps a bit rusty on this. I also know your schedule is pretty hectic so I'm willing to be flexible. The reason I presented the article to PR at this time was that I had reached a limit on what I could contribute on content and needed help with further shaping and refinement. Jonyungk (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley – my very few comments on this fine article are on the article talk page. They are minor drafting points; the substance of the article seems to me to be excellent. This is a side of Copland of which I (and I imagine many other music lovers) know nothing. Most interesting. I agree with Brianboulton's remarks, above, on drafting except that I find "60–1" awkward. I'm not sure I have anything useful to add about the structure and layout of the article. Please let me know when it makes its way in due course to FAC. – Tim Riley (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Nick Drake discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… with recent edits it seems capable of reaching FLC, however, the lead might require some further copyediting. Nick Drake has a small number of releases but it is a comprehensive list of all his released material.

Thanks, Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 02:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

---

The Knickerbocker

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am a student in the Wikipedia Student Ambassador Program and this is my project this semester. I would like some feedback about how I can continue to improve this article and my editing skills in general.

Thanks, MelPav (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• The "Impact" section comprises solely of one sub-section called "Environmental". Are there any other "impacts"? If not, then merge the two. maclean (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is a promising start. I have identified several areas which will benefit from further work, and also picked up some minor presentational points.

General comments (prose etc)

• I'm not sure about the phrasing "one of the earliest proto-environmental magazines". The prefix "proto" generally implies undeveloped or primitive in character; judging by your "Environmental impact" section, the magazine's environmental agenda was quite well developed. Consider deopping "proto"
• History section: consider how this might be expanded. If as you say the magazine was "the most influential literary publication of its time", there is surely more to be said, bearing in mind the period of US history in which it appears. There is very little "history" here; half the section consists of a list of contributors.
• Name: In the listing of names it says that the Knickerbacker name was used from January through June 1833, which implies six issues under this name. In the subsequent text it says that the name was changed for the second issue; which is correct?
• Content: Like the History section, this apppears to be rather sketchy. You say the magazine was devoted to the fine arts in particular, presumably meaning painting, sculpture, music, poetry etc; but the only content you give any detail about is environmental. On Hitchcock's poem I had to smile at the description "first ichnological poem". Are there many more in this poetic genre?
• Environmental impact: This, the only detailed section in the article, emphasises the point I made above; lots of detail on environmentally-related content as compared with little specific on anything else. I am not criticising this section, merely observing that it contrasts in detail with other aspects of the magazine.
• Image captions: You should extend the captions to clarify the relationship of the images to the article. With the Diedrich Knickerbocker image you should explain that this is Darley's representation of Washington's fictional character - otherwise, a casual reader will assume him to be a real personage. The other captions could all be usefully extended, to be more informative.

References

• ISBN missing from Nash (2001). You could add OCLC numberss to the pre-ISBN books by looking them up on Worldcat
• Page range in ref 3 requires dash not hyphen
• What makes Ref 13 a reliable, high-quality source? There is no indication as to authorship and it does not appear to be professionally published
• Ref 21 publisher name omitted. This is a mirror site for Wikipedia, and therefore should not be used.
• Ref 22: publisher name omitted
• Ref 24: publisher name omitted.

Please ping my talkpage if you have any queries arising from my comments, or if you would like me to look at the article again. Brianboulton (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Voivode of Transylvania

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs some attention from other editors before being developed into a GA article. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

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

• "preserved for the monarchs": "reserved" is more precise.
• "Stephen Báthory the voivode elected by the Diet of the new realm": comma before the appositive, after "Báthory"
• "from the period beginning with the 1170s": If you don't mean a specific period, then "from the 1170s" (in BritEng)
• "Thereafter they were "the men of the voivode" who appointed and dismissed them at will (Gyula Kristó).": I'm not sure I follow.
• "In the latter case, however,": Some reviewers have asked us to take a tougher look at "however". I don't think the word adds anything vital here.
• You're giving the Hungarian and Romanian terms for many offices, which seems fine to me ... but then you occasionally throw in German, without telling the reader which which word belongs to which language. It might be better if the German words at least were identified as such. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank for your above suggestions. I only disagree with the last one. I think the article is consequent that in cases when it refers to a Saxon settlement or official, than the German name is preferred. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Now archiving this, since the same article is up at WP:GAN. See the PR instructions. - Dank (push to talk) 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  

---

American Sign Language

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like input before nominating it for Good Article status.

Thanks, Mo-Al (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 Doing... Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. Sorry for taking eleven days to get back here on this; it would have been a week, but Christmas got in the way.

I am doing a quick copy edit before my in-depth critique. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, the copy edit managed to shave off about 400 bytes. Most of it was redundant wording—when we raise the possibility that two related languages may in fact be dialects, we don't need to say "of each other", because that's implicit in the word "dialect". That, however, was the only significant prose issue, and I congratulate you: it is not often one finds an article nominated for some sort of review or recognition that is so free of serious spelling, grammar or punctuation issues, especially where there is so much technical detail. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Now to the broader issues. It's a good thing the prose is so nailed down, because the article as a whole does have some issues we need to address before GA is considered:

• Intro: First, fix the lede. "American Sign Language is a sign language ..." well, imagine that. It reminds me of too many of our bot-generated articles over at WP:NRHP: "The John Doe House is a house ..." The lede does not need to repeat a descriptive term used in the title of the article subject itself.

  Nor does it need to then explain to us what a sign language is. I realize that, since linking in the boldfaced title is discouraged, there may be the temptation. But you can get that link in there in a later sentence. I think the lede should skip right to "... is the predominant sign language of deaf communities in ...".

  As a whole the intro also reads as if it were once the entire article. It should be rewritten with an eye towards summarizing what comes further down the page/screen, per WP:INTRO. As it currently stands we have a lede graf that should be a little shorter, and a second graf that seems to be trying to defend ASL's status as an actual language. While that does come into play in greater detail, the intro tells us nothing about the rich history or demographics the article goes into. I think we could have four grafs here.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Structure: I think you might want to look at Swedish language, one of only two FAs we have about a particular language, as a model for how this one should look (Forget the other one (Turkish language); the people responsible for getting it to FA have all left the project, and it's showing such serious signs of neglect that I think I will have to nominate it for review). You'll see that instead of starting off by telling us about the speaker community, it briefly discusses the classification of the language then gets to the history (I bet at some point we could have a separate History of American Sign Language, as well—it seems like there's enough in the sources to support one).

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It also seems like the grammar section should, following the Swedish article, summarize what's in the main American Sign Language grammar article. More later. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC) OK.

• Consistency of referencing method: Per our page on Harvard referencing: "If you choose to use this style, however, it should be used for all citations in the article, not merely a selected subset. It's a little confusing to have both Harvard referencing and inline footnotes. So pick one and stick with it.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Still more to come. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Illustration: I was glad to see some video in the article. We need it because sign language, like spoken language, depends on the "ineluctable modality of the audible" (as James Joyce famously put it), i.e., time, to separate signifiers despite being purely visual with no sonic component (which is of course the point). So ... where we need signing illustrated, we should do so with video as much as possible. Wouldn't it be great if we had a short video of someone signing "American Sign Language" in the infobox instead of that image which non-signers won't understand until they read down in the article? Likewise for the pictures of the guys doing ASL on stage ... as still images they could be anyone standing on a stage with their hands in some unusual position, for any reason. With video we'll get it.

  I know there's not a lot to work with in the commons category right now, but that doesn't mean we can't make more videos.

  Also, those three videos illustrating the dialect differences could probably be better managed from a layout perspective by putting them in the one big box that could be created with {{multiple image}}.

multiple image  Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Consistency in capitalization of "deaf": I get the feeling that when "Deaf" is capitalized, some sort of cultural identity is being asserted. It would be nice if there was some sort of note explaining this. Especially because we have sentences where "deaf" and "Deaf" are used practically side-by-side, like "There is also a distinct variety of ASL used by the Black Deaf community. Black ASL evolved as a result of racially segregated schools in some states, which included the residential schools for the deaf." I don't see the logic whereby one is capitalized and the other not. If there is a reason this needs to be explained.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A few more things after another word from our sponsors. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• "See also" and "External links" sections: Both of those are rather large by our standards, and I daresay places where fat could be cut. I'd read WP:SEEALSO and WP:EL and review whether the listings that are there, particularly in the latter section, really need to be there.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, a few single-bullet observations:

• "There is also evidence that ASL is structurally quite different from FSL, and thus should not be taken as its genetic descendant." This is interesting ... perhaps you might give us some of the details of that evidence?

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• "ASL is sometimes written using English orthography" Some examples (other than the one already given (I think) for "hearing child of deaf parents") and an explanation of how that system works? It might even be worth a separate section.

 Done Mo-Al (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• For the example under "Allophony", of how the sign for "tomato" has changed over time, a video illustration would be great.

effectively  Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I also have some ideas for things that could be included in the article provided reliable sources can be found:

• The use of ASL for special education of groups other than the deaf: My son is high-functioning autistic, and he has had in several of his classes over the years fellow students who were speech dyspraxic. They are often taught to sign when they cannot speak clearly, and my son has picked up some signs from them (and thus, without trying, taught them to me ... "thank you" and "more" most notably, so far). I don't know if this is true just in the ASL-native area, but it would be interesting to have something on it. Which would lead into the broader subject of ...

• Influence on/use of ASL by hearing community generally: Some schools, including those I've substituted at, allow students to take ASL for their foreign-language credit. Some information about this might be nice to have. One also thinks of the Occupy movement hand signals, supposedly derived from ASL (and quite useful in gauging consensus response at a meeting composed primarily of speaking/hearing people).

Well, I am now finished with this peer review. Hope this helped! Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Metock case

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm worried that the detailed summary of the Court judgment in the Judgment section might be construed as original research. In fact this kind of summary of legal instruments is common in law articles on Wikipedia (usually without the kind of point by point inline citations we use here). It's unlikely that secondary sources will ever carry this level of detailed summary and I do think that an encyclopaedic article should include it. But of course I'm unwilling to continue offering these summaries if they are likely to be deleted on OR grounds. Note however that the opening remarks of the section are cited from relaiable secondary sources. It is the sections commencing "The first question" that are a concern.

Thanks, JaniB (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

There are a number of issues here, but I'll try to break them down:

• "Groundbreaking" is a subjective term, and as such, doesn't really need to be in the lead. Let the content speak for itself. Same goes for "major political significance". The article should simply tell us the areas of significance and its effects; the lead should summarize that significance and those effects.
• The second paragraph I think is trying to summarize the court's opinion (though I'm not sure). Even so, it should read something like "The court found that..." rather than what it is currently, which is a block of text that may actually be plagiarized. As written, the paragraph actually breaks WP:NPOV.
• Definitions generally don't need to be included in the lead, such as "A non-EU national is..."
• Since everything in the article indeed should be "facts", that doesn't make a very helpful title. "Background" would probably be more appropriate.

I don't really think I should go any further than the lead of the article as far as specific criticism goes, because it looks like this is basically a start-from-scratch scenario, I'm afraid. It looks like User:1d6507f9 basically crammed in 37k worth of information on December 2, and that sets off all sorts of red flags as far as stability is concerned. Although the simplest solution here would be to revert his edits, that's not really in the spirit of Wikipedia, so I'd suggest cleaning up his prose in ways you see fit based on the issues you've mentioned here. There's a lot of jargon that needs to be simplified to make this encyclopedia-worthy. Overall, the main issue here may not be WP:NOR or NPOV (although those may be present here); instead, clarity and style are my major concerns. The article is written in the style of a legal brief, rather than a summary of an encyclopedic article, and as such, your concerns about the style here are certainly warranted. I consider myself intelligent enough to understand most basic legal issues, but I'm lost after the first couple of sentences here.

Remember, BE BOLD. Runfellow (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments Runfellow.

JaniB was really asking for comments specific to her concern about so-called "original research" (does the paraphrase of the Court's judgment constitute OR?), but I'll address some of the issues you raise.

The December 2 edit was a considerable expansion, prepared by myself and a number of colleagues, of the original article, one that had been flagged as requiring expansion as I recall. The original material was retained for the most part and that included the subjective terms you mention. I understand your issue, but personally I would prefer to keep those commonly accepted judgements. I'm sure the issue must be often debated within Wikipedia.

The second paragraph is not a plagiarism. It was provided by me to set the backround to what is an issue of ongoing political significance in the European Union.

The article is an article about a law case and reads like a legal article in the same way no doubt as an article about a mathematics theorem reads like a mathematical article. There are plenty of those where I get lost after the first couple of sentences, but that doesn't mean the article is not within the scope of Wikipedia. The purpose of the lede is to make the main effect of the judgment available to all, and that is what we tried to do with, for example, my second paragraph.

"Facts" is a standard heading in any article about legal judgments. You will see it in about pretty well every article about a legal judgment in Wikipedia (and elsewhere). In it, one simply presents the situation put before the court that needed ruling on.

I would be very sorry indeed to see all our hard work reverted! JaniB has already more or less retired from Wikipedia over the reception of her edits (she provided the framework for the current expansion, over which she devoted a significant amount of time researching and mastering the Wikipedia mark-up involved). As things stand, I and a number of colleagues are prepared to devote time to articles about really important EU case-law, but not if our efforts are reverted or edited to extinction! We are not naive about Wikipedia. We do know it is an issue. I have some material to add to this article that I shall incorporate after the New Year and, depending how the article has fared, then consider supplying some more article starts and expansions.

Thank you again for your comments. I still would like to hear from others (perhaps with some experience of editing law articles?) on JaniB's enquiry. Imogene @1d6507f9 10:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Altes Stadthaus, Berlin

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping for it to become an FA.

Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Windows NT 3.1

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a translation of a German Wikipedia GA and I'd like to get it to that level over here as well. Any help to that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, -- Liliana-60 (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

JoshuSasori - very brief review:

1. I don't like the lead section much. It doesn't summarize the article's contents very well, focusing on some details and omitting the bulk of the contents.
2. Some of the text is a bit freakish: On the other side, a new operating system called Unix was created a decade earlier - wow, is it a bad translation or something?
3. Here: demonstrate the operating system on COMDEX 1990 - maybe demonstrate at?
4. Bill Gates already dominated the market of desktop operating systems with MS-DOS and Windows and hoped to do the same in the networking market with Windows NT - why "Bill Gates" and not Microsoft?
5. developed from anew -> developed anew.
6. strictly spoken -> strictly speaking
7. Most of the article depends on the Zachary reference. Is there another main reference?
8. It would be nice to change to using a harvnb style reference template.
9. The references would be neater in multicolumn format.

The English needs more work checking details I think. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Bryan v. Itasca County

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was just promoted to GA and I want to try and improve it to FA status.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 21:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Colorado State Highway 82

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review becaus I recently expanded this much more than I thought possible. Before I nominate it for GA or anything further, I think a peer review would be nice

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I certainly hope I'm not the only one who looks over this article, as I did not intend this to be a formal peer review, but here is a summary of the changes I have made. –Fredddie™ 16:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

1. CDOT route log is precise to 3 decimal places, so I took it out to 3.
2. US 6 is signed along I-70, so I included it.
3. Removed overlinking in the references.

Thanks! Feel free to do more. Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Globalization

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to help identify an remaining POV problems or any area of discussion that may be neglected or overlooked.

Thanks, Meclee (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Mickey Mouse

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want opinions on what people think about this article being a featured article.

Thanks, Mickey798 (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Well done in producing this comprehensive account of an enduring character. I think, though, that before the article is ready for a full prose review, a few general issues need to be addressed:

• Citations: One of the sections has a "citations needed" tag, and there is eveidence that other parts of the article are light on citations; for example, I note a number of paragraphs not ending with a reference. This aspect needs attending to.
• Images: The article at present has 10 non-free images of Mickey. That, in my view, is way beyond anything intended by the Wikimedia "fair use" policy, particularly as many of the images are quite similar. I think you might get away with three - say, the lead image, and one colour and one black-and-white cartoon picture. But 10 is, I believe, out of the question
• Broken links: Ref 37 is tagged as dead. I also found error or "not found" messages for 39, 40 and 50, and for the external "Toonpedia" link (the last-named could easily be dropped)
• Informal prose: I have not read the article, but I couldn't help noticing that Disney is referred to as "Walt", and that at one point Oswald "thought he had Disney over a barrel". This is the language of magazine journalism, but an encyclopedia require more formal prose. Events need to be reported neutrally, thus the adverb "angrily" is inappropriate. You should check through the text to ensure that an encyclopedic tone is maintained.

These comments should not be interpreted as anything other than a favourable view towards the article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's good but needs to be fixed up a little.

---

Sky City

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

I wish to take this article to GA status [Not sure if FA status is possible with this article at all, but if it is, I will like to try it too, once I get it through GA.] The article topic seems pretty interesting, and looks like it could do good with getting the community's tag as one of the best articles in Wikipedia.

P.S. If I have placed it under the wrong category please correct it.

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

Some notes:

• NB: You want to have citations at least in every paragraph and for every piece if information sourced from a different source.

It will be good if you could point out where specifically are citations reqd on this page. Though i'll myself see about the one-citation per paragraph thing and see if anything is left out. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In general, almost all paragraphs meet this rule. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• given you are moving between metric and imperial units, use both.

Is there any template that will convert the two and/or display both, or is manually converting and adding the only way to do it? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. Got the template. Did the conversions partly. Do the others too need to be converted? Mind pointing which ones? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just any which have both metric and imperial units (all weight and length ones) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• If completed on schedule, the skyscraper will be the world's tallest building and will have the unique distinction of being constructed in only three months. - why would building it quickly make it the tallest..?

It wont. The project plans to have both of them - Building in 3 months; and being the tallest. Could it be reworded, or does the correct one make sense? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to reword then, as it sounds like that its status as the tallest building depends on it being completed on schedule. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Good enough now? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• If built as planned and to schedule, Sky City would likely be the tallest building in the world at the time of its completion, with 220 floors and a total height of 838 meters. - presumably there is another very tall building being built at the same time? If so, slot a mention in.

i believe no. The only other to-be-constructed tall building seems way away from being completed. But I wanted to make sure we were not biased against the possiblity of other taller buildings coming up (as they always do) and so worded it that way. Should it be changed? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

same issue as in lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. How about now? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• As of June 8, 2012, the Broad Group had not yet obtained the final approval of the government. On September 5, the Economic Observer Online reported: "[Sky City project] is now kept in secret, and any information about the Sky City is not suitable for the public." - are these sentences still needed given the sentence which comes after them?

Not sure. I chose not to remove it since they seemed correct, and had already been there when I was editing it. Should I remove them? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It just sounds like the sentences have been added as they have happened. It needs to be more cohesive. The June sentence is irrelevant now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Timeline in order now. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Link LEDs.

 Done

• Can we link or discuss any previous buildings/projects this company has built?

See lead. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC status, and believe it concisely and completely covers the history of this fort. Though the subject is comparatively minor, I believe the comprehensive coverage of a minor topic can be worthy of FA status. One thing I'm concerned about, however, is archaeological information. There have been three archaeological reports (I'll refer to them as South, Israel, and Babits, after the authors), but none are available much beyond one or two local libraries and a university library (unavailable even to me, although I'm desperately trying to get ahold of at least the latest -- Babits). I'm concerned about citing to these because I would question whether they'd run afoul of WP:VERIFY. In general, though, I'd like comments about the whole article with an eye to FA criteria.

Update: I have the 220 page Babits study, which is unpublished. There's a lot of great material in there about the archaeological work that I'd like to condense to 1-2 paras, but I'd like input about using an unpublished source that's apparently available only at the Historic Site or in the East Carolina University library.

Thanks! Cdtew (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• On the Babits study, it's not really a question of "Is this reliable?", it's "How do we typically use a source like this?" Other people are better at answering that than I am. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• If the Babits study is genuinely unpublished (has never been made available to the public in any form), then it can't be used as a source on the wiki; as you say, it would fail verifiability. There's a difference, though, between a work having limited availability/only being held in a few libraries, and it being unpublished. Being made available to the public at the historic site, for example, would count as being published. The more limited the availability, the more onus I'd argue is on the editor to then provide quotations from the work or answer questions from other editors if the material was contentious or particularly unusual and attracted queries or comment. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• So, then, if the research work is readily available from the historic site or from ECU's library, we're considering that published? I've contacted both places, and both have assured me that the research can be obtained by anyone interested, at least for temporary on-site viewing. As for quotes, I would hesitate to add that much additional content which could be summarized, and is relatively un-controversial. Do you think that's something I should do for FAC? Thanks for your comments, by the way! Cdtew (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Personally, yes, I think that would meet with the definition used on the Verifiability pages. Someone could theoretically go and check it themselves if they wanted to (awkward though that would be if you live in the UK!). By quotes, I just meant that if on the talk pages someone for example asked "is that really what was said on pg. 5???", then if it's a rare work, the onus is more on the editor who has been to North Carolina to help them out! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• One other thought on this is that the verifiability of the source relates to whether it is a "reliable" source. This is part of the first sentence in the verfication standards document cited above. Reliability is heavily weighted on peer reviewed or "third party" published sources. I take this to mean that the source can be read and commented on by third party reviewers. Published means it has been made available to the public in some form. With these two thoughts in mind I would agree that the use of the source does fit w/in the MOS guidelines on verifiability in that it is available to the public and could be reviewed by a third party. I echo the caution and suggest using the source to support generally accepted fact rather than relying on it for controversial items and/or straight supposition. That will help your cause at FAC. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 02:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

• Is the South source the one already cited in the article? If so, it's available online through Springer. If not, do you have bibliographic info for it and the Israel source you mention?

• Nikki, thank you for your comments. I'm a little under the weather today, so it may take me some time (ie: a few days) to answer your questions or correct these issues. As for your first question, the South source isn't what's in the article -- it and Israel are reports done contemporaneously with the archaeological work. In the end, I decided to exclude them, mainly because their conclusions now appear to be outdated, but also because the Babits source I do cite to summarizes those studies very well, and is likely more easily available outside of Iredell County, NC.

• On the Babits source, it's a question of terminology: WP:V defines publication not in the manner "normal" people do, but as "made available to the public in some form". Under that definition and WP:SOURCEACCESS, since it's available in a university library I'd say it qualifies as a reliable source, especially given that Babits would definitely be considered an expert in the field. [After edit conflict: basically per Hchc]

• Thanks for the input. I'll keep it in.

• Other sources you might consider include Hannings' Forts of the United States and Roberts' Encyclopedia of historic forts, both of which have short entries. Clarke has published a book about Arthur Dobbs that may or may not discuss the fort

• I looked at Hannings and Roberts, and didn't see the need to include them. I recently purchased Clarke's book on Dobbs, and when it arrives I will glean what I can and use it as a source.

• Flank is a disambig link

• I've changed the wikilink to one for Flanking maneuver, which I think is closest to what I'm looking for, although a static fort isn't per se a maneuver.

• Given the length of the article, lead should be a bit longer

• Is what I have now long enough? I surely wouldn't need to exceed two or three good-sized paragraphs for this article, would I? I see its about 20k characters with spaces, so I read WP:LEADLENGTH as requiring two to three paras. I'm not great at lead-writing, so let me know what you think.

• Yes, much better now. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Don't start headings with "the"

• Removed.

• File:Collet_Map_excerpt_showing_Fort_Dobbs.jpg: why the doubled template?

• Because of my lack of expertise! Removed.

• File:Fort_Dobbs_Panorama.jpg: should use creation not upload date

• Done.

• Use a consistent date format

• I think I had one in the footnotes that was "Date Month, Year". They should all now be "Month Date, Year" format.

• Almost, just FN1 is still inconsistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Corrected. Had to figure out how to use that template, too.

• Special:BookSources/978-58465-542-8 and Special:BookSources/684-13536-1 both return errors

• I was missing one digit in each. Done.

• "by 1754, six western counties—Orange, Granville, Johnston, Cumberland, Anson, and Rowan—held approximately 22,000 residents out of the colony's total population of 65,000" - give some context here. How much of the colony's territory did these counties represent?

• Unfortunately, the source I used doesn't spell that out -- it (Lefler & Powell, 1973) was primarily concerned with showing the disparity in political representation between the eastern (established) counties and the western (new) counties. Without delving into OR, I don't know of a source (yet) that will give me this information (at least re: square mileage). I did however find this map, which gives good visual context. My questions, however, would be (a) is this too irrelevant? (after all, someone with the same question could gain context by going to articles about those counties to find out how they were formed and where their original borders were; and (b) is that file useable -- I mean, it does have a CC 2.5 license, at least as far as I understand the page's copyright notation.

• Its licensing specifies non-commercial, which for our purposes means it wouldn't be considered free, and you'd have a hard time justifying it as a fair-use image. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• That is a shame, but at this point I don't know a concise way to give a comparison.

• "construction of Fort Stanwix in New York, ...constructed in" - repetitive

• Removed redundancy.

• "nearby Catawba raiding parties" - do you mean raiding parties from nearby Catawba encampments/settlements?

• Your version is correct, and much clearer.

• The " good and substantial building" quote is long enough to require blockquoting

• Done, and the version I was using was a second-hand trasncription; I dug up the original quote, and it's longer and mentions Hugh Waddell, so I am using that (naturally) instead.

• "North Carolina General Assembly petitioned King George II for assistance, indicating that the frontier remained in a relatively defenseless state" - not clear what you mean here. Did the assembly indicate to the king that they were defenseless, or did the fact that they petitioned indicate this to later scholars?

• The assembly indicated to the king they were defenseless. I cleared up the wording.

• "approximately 15 of the Middle Towns were destroyed" - out of how many total? Any estimates of Cherokee population in the area?

• I've seen estimates of 60 towns, but I can't put my hands on the source that said that, so it's just from memory. I did add in Cherokee pop totals, and town size numbers for context.

• "that had was rumored"?

• Intended to be "that was rumored" - corrected.

• "discovered in the 21st Century" - don't need caps on century

• Removed.

• "a 1,000 square feet (93 m2) lot" - should use adjectival form

• I was using the convert template, and don't know how to change the form. I instead modified the sentence so that (I believe) it's more correct.

• Okay. For reference, you could change the form by adding |adj=on to the concert template. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Biggest lesson so far - templates have all sorts of wonderful tricks to them, I just have to take the time to read the template pages.

• "the site was opened as a historic site" - repetitive

• Replaced first site with land.

• "archaeologists and historical researchers had determined the exact location of Fort Dobbs, and have located" - why the switch in tense?

• Corrected tense to all-past.

• "By 2006, archaeologists and historical researchers had determined the exact location of Fort Dobbs...by 1968, the site of the fort was confirmed" - seems contradictory?

• I guess I was trying (and poss. failing) to differentiate the "site" from the "exact location" (meaning foundations and outline of the fort in the soil), becuase the former was known by 1968, whereas the latter wasn't really discovered until 2006. I'll try to figure out a different phrasing structure.

• Don't use contractions outside of quotes

• I found one he'd, which I removed, but I don't see any more outside of possessives?

• FN49: page?

• I didn't put that particular source in, and I can't seem to find it on the net. Are pages generally required for newspaper articles? If so, would it be on Highbeam? (I don't have Highbeam). Cdtew (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I added this in. Page number is there now. At present it is cite number 51. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Joanna! I was sick this week, but was going to get around to asking you to help with that anyways. Thanks for keeping tabs on me, and thanks for that source! Cdtew (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Added in locations for two that were missing; added states for Chapel Hill publishers.

Comments from H1nkles

• You're going to want to read How to satisfy Criterion 1a for writing assistance. Don't rush to FAC, it's better to let it evolve and take your time. I'll post more specific comments in the coming days but one thing the above article stresses is that you want to look for superfluous words. Don't say in 10 words what you can say in 5. More to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 02:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate your advice already. Over the next few weeks (after the peer review period, more likely), I plan to "walk away" from this article and come back with fresh eyes. As for now, though, any advice you have is much appreciated! Cdtew (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "the fort was primarily built to protect the British settlers..." Remove "primarily" as a superfluous word. If it was built for any reason other than to protect British settlers then you should list it otherwise adverbs like "primarily" become unnecessary fluff that gets picked off a FAC right away. Especially when it's in the lead, which is often the first impression reviewers get of your article. "...and constructed entirely of wooden logs..." "entirely" is another of these removeable adverbs.

• Removed both; looking for more...

• "...implying a very small total population." The context tells us it was a small population, no need to spell it out.

• Removed; I suppose it is self-explanatory.

• "Within three years, most of North Carolina's population increase, driven mainly by immigration of Scots-Irish and German settlers traveling from Pennsylvania on the Great Wagon Road, was occurring in seven western counties created after 1740." Be judicious in using parenthetical references. This is frowned upon at FAC - not completely rejected but discouraged if that makes sense.

• I'm not sure what you mean. To my mind, "parenthetical references" means a reference in parenthesis rather than as a footnote. If you mean that I'm using refs that have an author name and page number, I'm still confused. I see articles all the time on the front page that use scads of "author-year-page number" refs and easily made FAC -- see: Action of 1 January 1800, Little Moreton Hall, etc. If you mean something else, let me know.

• I think I should amend the comment to "parenthetical remarks" as being more descriptive of what I'm trying to say. Yes parenthetical references do refer to items in parentheses, but they also refer to information in a sentence that is set off and explanatory but may not be bracketed by parentheses. Commas are the other common punctuation used for parenthetical remarks. Using parenthetical remarks isn't bad per se but should be used judiciously, in my opinion.

• Ahhh! I see. Ok, I'll look at how I can rephrase. I think that's one of my only instances in the article.

• All punctuation should go before citation, check throughout for consistency.

• As of this time, all citations look correctly-placed.

• The first sentence in the "Construction" subsection is a bit unwieldy. I would end it after "parties" with the citation. I would then start a new sentence with the quote from the letter. Check WP:QUOTE for MOS guidelines on the use of quotes and some formatting suggestions. Since it isn't a short quote you may want to format it a little differently. That's a style suggestion that is completely up to you as long as it conforms to the MOS.

• I broke that first sentence in half, and re-tweaked how the quote sits in the para. Since it's not terribly long, i'm not in love with the idea of making another block quote, so I just tried to fit it in as un-awkwardly as possible.

• Is there a reason the fort cost so much less than contemporary forts of its time? Anything in the research that could be added here? You make the point that it cost comparatively little to build but don't tell the reader why.

• The fort was wood, and built somewhat quickly. I've not seen any direct comparison between the forts I listed and Fort Dobbs, but if I had to hazard a guess it's because Fort Stanwix is larger and built in a more modern Vauban style; Fort Prince George, on the other hand, was smaller, so I have no idea why it cost more, and haven't seen an explanation. This is all OR, and I would prefer not to put anything in unless I had a source; while it'd be great to have further comparison, I think the cost alone tells the story that needs to be told -- this fort was cheap (implying temporary, and implying the poor finances of North Carolina at the time).

• You link "militia" in the second paragraph of the Construction sub-section though it is mentioned in the first paragraph and not linked. Make sure the first instance of a term is linked per WP:LINK. Then subsequent references to that term do not need to be linked. Check throughout the article.

• Moved that link to para 1 of the Background, although I could move it to the lead...

• The subject matter of the second paragraph in this sub-section is too variant. The start of the paragraph discusses who had a role in designing and building the fort. Then it strays into further reasons for the fort's construction (the subject of paragraph 1), then wraps up with a fact about it being the only military building between SC and VA. This needs to be addressed. Keep the subject matter of each paragraph discreet. I'd question the premise for including the fact about the congregation house at all. By simply stating that a settlement was growing in that area you make the point that needs to be made. File that under my opinion though.

• I broke up that second para, and moved the information relevant to "reasons" to above the construction portion.

• I think the long quote in the "Descriptions and shortcomings" sub-section needs quoatation marks but I could be wrong. Check WP:QUOTE on that.

• MOS:QUOTEMARKS says use either quotation marks or block quotes. Since it is now a block quote, I'll omit the quotation marks.

• The name of the sub-section is plural "Descriptions and shortcomings" but I see only one description. I also don't see specific shortcomings, which I would expect from the title. Perhaps you want to rethink the name of the title or see if the fort had any defined shortcomings.

• I see what you mean. I changed the title to "Description and effectiveness", because that's what that section is really talking about.

• I see at least two different links for Pennsylvania, select one and then remove the other.

• Done

• "The fort was primarily used as a base of operations for Waddell's company...."

• Removed. I guess I love words of ordination too much.

• The chronology in the first paragraph of the Early Uses section is a little weird. You start with its use at its inception then cover its role during the French and Indian war when Waddell was in PA, then double back to its use before the war (at least I think it's before the war since Waddell is back in the fort). It's a bit confusing and probably needs to be tiddied up.

• Re-arranged to clear up the timeline. Waddell's absence was approx 1758-1759, so I think the article conveys that well enough now.

• "In addition to warning nearby natives against attacking settlers in the Carolinas, Dobbs also instructed Waddell to attempt to keep peace with the Catawba, going so far as to instruct Waddell to turn over a settler who had killed a Catawba hunter in order to placate the hunter's tribesman, in the event assurances that the settler would be brought to justice under the province's laws did not persuade the Catawba to remain friendly with North Carolina." This paragraph is one long sentence. I think it should be broken up.

• Done. Broken into 2 sentences.

• I'm not sure I understand the point of the paragraph on the aborted construction of a second fort. What does that have to do with this fort other than that Dobbs was a part of that construction? Unless you have a good reason to keep it in this is probably information that can be cut. More to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 00:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I believe it should be kept in because it shows a (relatively) comprehensive (though aborted) plan to fortify other areas of the frontier. What I want the reader to get, though, is that this plan was disrupted by poor relations with the natives, and thus left the frontier in its relatively defenseless state, with Fort Dobbs as its only protection. I think this comes through the article, and would prefer to keep this paragraph in.

• I'm a little confused by some facts in the "Decline and fall" sub-section. You say that the Anglo-Cherokee War was fought at the same time as the French and Indian war and that the fort was used as a garrison to repel Cherokee raids in 1758, yet in the previous sub-section you say that the fort housed only two soldiers from the inception of the French and Indian war through 1759. These facts seem incongruent. Am I missing something obvious here?

• The French and Indian War was 1754-1763 (although fighting ended for the most part by 1761); the Anglo-Cherokee War was 1758(-ish)-1761, meaning that between 1756 and 1758, North Carolina contributed soldiers to the conflict in Pennsylvania, but thereafter wasn't required to contribute as much. I'll clarify the dates in the article.

• "...albeit against the opposition of several pro-British Cherokee leaders." This is implied from the context and can be removed.

• Since the article doesn't go into a disquisition of Cherokee politics, I'd like to leave something in that clues the reader into the fact that there were Pro-French as well as Pro-British Cherokee leaders. I've modified it slightly.

• Overall I'd challenge the need for the extended description of the causes of the Anglo-Cherokee war. I'm not sure what it does to advance the narrative on the history of the fort and consequently I suggest you think about removing or significantly reducing it.

• Again, I compare this to articles like Action of 1 January 1800 and 1740 Batavia massacre, which gave either more or less detail than I did. I think the detail I've included is beneficial for the article, in part because Fort Dobbs -- as a physical symbol of encroachment on Cherokee hunting grounds and the expansion of the frontier -- was part of the cause of the war. Additionally, I think the reader needs the context to know that this was supposedly a quiet theater of the F&I war after 1758, but this Cherokee "rebellion", as it was known, kindled a fire in what had otherwise been a sleepy backwater. I disagree with taking the extended description out, and I think it balances what needs to be said without going too far.

• I see what you're saying here just be aware that FAC reviewers may not agree. I'll put some comments at the end of this review on my opinions regarding the topic of "tangental" information in articles going to FAC. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Scalps is another misplaced link that needs to be linked earlier in the article.

• Moved!

• "...small Cherokee bands attacked homesteads and small communities...." Small - small, consider changing or removing one of the duplicative words.

• removed second instance and replaced with "communities on the frontier", implying small size

• "In raids on April 25 and 26, 1759, several parties of Cherokee led by Moytoy of Citico struck at settlements on the Yadkin and Catawba Rivers against the wishes of Cherokee leaders such as Attakullakulla, killing around 19 men, women and children, and taking more than 10 scalps from those killed, including eight scalps from settlers living on Fourth Creek." This is a very specific sentence that ought to be referenced directly after the sentence.

• Cited, and changed that paragraph structure.

• Fort Prince George is linked twice, once is enough.

• Removed.

• The writing in the Site preservation and archeology and Historic site section is pretty good.

• Thanks! I added some since your comment, but preserved what I had.

• I'm not sure about the formatting of the pictures in the Historic site section. I'd check the MOS specifically WP:LAYOUT, WP:ACCESS and WP:IMAGE.

• I looked at layout, and it seemed to indicate as long as it wasn't disruptive on mobile devices or smaller screens, then it would be OK. I've looked at this on my iPad and iPhone, and don't think its disruptive. If anyone had thoughts about how I could format it better, I'm all ears!

• The key with references is that the format needs to be consistent. Make sure everything is exactly the same.

• I think everything should be uniform now.

• Overall you have a good article, it's not too long, which will serve you well at FAC. You need to tighten up the writing and look critically at a couple of sections that may stray off topic a little. Make sure the subject of each paragraph is discreet and that you're sourcing the information correctly. Finally make sure you adhere religiously to the MOS. Best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 01:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks again for your comments, and I appreciate you taking the time to review my work! Cdtew (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• There were a couple of areas where I felt the information was tangental to the subject matter and could be removed. You disagreed, which of course is your prerogative. What follows are my opinions of what FAC reviewers are looking for based on my experiences. In my opinion FAC reviewers are looking for adherence to the subject at hand and brevity. This is why I looked critically at information that appeared to be obvious from the context and also at information that appeared to be tangentally connected to the subject matter. The reviewers probably don't care about the subject of the article nearly as much as you do and so will be merciless in cutting out what they feel does not add to the article. If you can make a cogent case, should the issue come up, then you're fine. After being beat around the ears enough I've resigned myself to cutting and burning through articles to make sure they're lean and mean when they get to FAC. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I understand completely. I appreciate your suggestions, and I think (I fear?) that they may turn out to be true. Part of the reason I want more background in the article is because of the terrible state of the Anglo-Cherokee War article itself. I think I'll take your suggestion and use it thusly: I'll come up with a good, concise defense in case that question is raised, and if that doesn't satisfy the reviewers, I will have a pre-determined portion that I will cut out quickly. This all presumes, of course, that I'd have the opportunity to cut and edit during FAC. Thanks again for your time! Cdtew (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments.

• We made a lot of progress during the A-class review. After you've had a chance to respond to requests during this review, I'll review the changes. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• I've made some small changes.
• Otherwise, per standard disclaimer, all the changes since January 7 when it passed A-class look fine. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks again, Dank, for taking another look at my prose. Continued appreciation flows from me in your general direction.

Happy to help, Clark. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Battle of Adwa

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has many of the qualities of a GA or FA. However, I would like independent review, especially on the POV. I would like a final review before submission as Good Article.

Thanks, አቤል ዳዊት (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments. Just some copyediting notes ... all of these will be useful for A-class, and some of these will be useful for WP:GAN as well:

• "usually known as Adowa": If it's usually known that way, shouldn't the article be titled "Battle_of_Adowa"?

 Resolvedchanged to "also known as" - both versions are commonly used. After a discussion consensus was reached to use "Adwa."

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the main points of the article; the two short sentences don't do that.

 Doing... we will work on this

• "among the various European powers": among European powers

 Done your right, sounds better

• "recently-obtained": recently obtained, per WP:HYPHEN
• "located near Ethiopia": near Ethiopia
• "Somali-land": I haven't seen the old name with a hyphen before, and it's not hyphenated in the linked article.
• "Italian language version": Italian-language version

 Done All above

• "consented (i.e. was required) to Italy representing Ethiopia": allowed Italy to represent Ethiopia
  •  Resolved I found a stronger wording in the Treaty of Wuchale - What do you think? Changes linked below
    • Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• "The Amharic version": link Amharic
• "if he wished (optional).": if he wished.

 Done All above

• "As a result, Italy and Ethiopia faced off in what was later to be known as the First Italo-Ethiopian War.": What specific action led to the war, if that's known?

 Checking... There is further detail in the First Italo–Ethiopian War article. Though it might be outside the scope of this article. More detail than necessary for an intro of a specific battle. I will bring to discussion.

• Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Changes አቤል ዳዊት (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, interesting article. I have the following suggestions:

• the lead probably needs to be expanded before taking it to GA or FA;

 Doing...

• some paragraphs appear to be uncited, particularly the first three paragraphs of the Background section. For GA or FA, at a bare minimum, each paragraph should be covered by at least one citation at the end of the paragraph (more may be required if each sentence uses a different source);

 Doing...

• in the Citations section, I suggest adding publisher, author and accessdate information for the web citations (if such information exists);
• in the References, is there an ISBN for the Webb source? I looked on worldcat.org but couldn't find this book. I found a 2011 book called "The Battle of Adwa: African Victory in the Age of Empire" by Raymond Jonas, but not a 2011 book by Webb. Can we be sure that the author is correct here?

 Resolved

• the full bibliographic details for the work by Prouty don't appear to be in the References section, although there is a citation to them;

 Doing...

• same as above for McLachlan, Ruggeri and Pétridès. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

 Doing...

---

Campbell's dwarf hamster

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to become a good article and before I nominate it I want it to be peer reviewed.

Thanks, Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

• File:Campbells_dwarf.jpg: where are you getting that licensing tag from? The given source seems to cite Wikipedia
  • Image changed. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• " the breeding season for Campbell's dwarf hamster is different, depending on the location" - how about "varies by location" or similar? More concision needed
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Check comma usage throughout
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Campbell's dwarf hamster marks it scent around its territory using harderian glands, skin glands located behind the ears, urine and feces for communication" - grammar. Some general copy-editing needed
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The lowest tolerated temperature from a laboratory experiment showed that Campbell's dwarf hamster can resist temperatures" - phrasing
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The tunnel...are usually" - grammar
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The diets of the three types of hamsters are different to avoid fighting over the same type of food" - which came first? That is, did they switch diets to avoid competition or do they live together because their diets were different to begin with?
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• "they may be found yurts" - grammar
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• "males are at higher risk to predators" - do you mean "from predators"?
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• "the breeding season begins towards the middle of April in Tuva and towards the end of April in Mongolia... in Mongolia, it begins in May" - which is correct?
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• "In captivity, the gestation period for Campbell's dwarf hamster is between 18–20 days and the shortest gestation period recorded for a captive female was 13 days...oher females have a gestation period of approximately five days" - which is correct?
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Females are usually sexually mature at two weeks of age...females become sexually mature at two months of age" - which is correct? Check for other inconsistencies
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Female hamsters that live with the male hamsters after mating" - how typical is this behaviour?
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• FN34: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Y revision Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    

---

Neville Cardus

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Any British reader of relatively mature years and a passing interest in music (classical) or cricket will know who Cardus was and will almost certainly have read him. He considered himself primarily a music critic, but it is likely that he reached a far bigger audience with his cricket writing. For someone who wrote so prolifically and with such erudition, it is a surprise to find that he was entirely self-educated and had no musical training. Yet he was at the top of both his professions for many years, and was awarded the rare honour (for a critic) of a knighthood. This article is a joint effort from Tim riley and me. Comments welcomed from all quarters on all aspects. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment(s) from Cassianto

This looks fantastic. I feel there won't be many from me here, but I will list them as I go:

*"Cardus's opinions and judgments were often forthright and unsparing, which sometimes caused friction with leading performers" -- of cricket, music or both?

• I think the context is clear that this refers to his music criticism, which is what is being discussed here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

*"Cardus spent the Second World War years in Australia, where he wrote for The Sydney Morning Herald and gave regular broadcast talks." -- Whats a broadcast talk? I'm making a presumption that these talks were for radio?

• Your presumption is correct, but I have clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

*"He also wrote books on music, and completed his autobiography."

• Tim'll fix it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

*"He began going to the Hallé Orchestra's concerts at the Free Trade Hall, and was present at on 3 December 1908 for the premiere of Elgar's first symphony, under Hans Richter". This sounds strange. Maybe say instead: "He began going to the Hallé Orchestra's concerts at the Free Trade Hall, where, on 3 December 1908 he was present for the premiere of Elgar's first symphony, under Hans Richter."

• I've adopted your suggestion, more or less. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

*Would it be usual to link Trumper and Shrewsbury School in the image captions?

• I'd say so, yes. Tim riley (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

*"...mainly out of admiration for Bernard Shaw"- Is there a reason why he is referred to this and not George Bernard Shaw, the name by which he is more commonly known according to his article? The disambiguation page shows four other Bernard Shaws, all are closely related professionally inasmuch that two are footballers and one is a journalist. Granted, to you and I it would obviously be GBS, but visitors may assume otherwise. Is there any reason for the piped link on this occasion?

• Shaw is, I believe, known as "George Bernard Shaw" in American usage but not in English. He hated the name George and didn't use it. You will find his collected plays and his three volumes of music criticism are by "Bernard Shaw", without the George. The film of Pygmalion has the title screen "Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion". The National Theatre's current season includes "The Doctor's Dilemma by Bernard Shaw". Cardus himself wrote of the older man as "Bernard Shaw" - no "George": rather pleasingly the first example that came to hand refers to another contributor to this very page: "Bernard Shaw wrote of Sarastro's music that it could be put into the mouth of God" ("An evening to cherish", The Guardian, 3 May 1961, p. 7). I think Shaw should be allowed his own preferred form of name. Tim riley (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Based on that then, so do I. -- Cassianto^Talk 14:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I will continue later. -- Cassianto^Talk 14:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these. Anything further will of course be welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing else from me. The article is superb! . -- Cassianto^Talk 10:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

All your contributions, above, gratefully received. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro: What a fantastic article! There was so much about the man that I never knew. Very easy reading. A few points and questions, any of which you may feel free to ignore.

• "he became The Manchester Guardian newspaper's cricket correspondent": Do we need to say it is a newspaper?

• Non-British readers may not recognise it as a newspaper, but I'll leave it to Tim. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've rejigged it a bit, to include the word "newspaper" later in the sentence. Tim Riley (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "His contributions in these two distinct fields in the years before the Second World War": Perhaps "contributions to" to avoid "to…to"?

• I think you mean "to avoid in...in". Done as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ah yes. Late night editing. Apologies! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Although he achieved his largest readership for his cricket reports and books, he considered music criticism as his principal vocation.": Lots of "his" here, and is there a way to reduce it to one "he"?

• I can't see a way of doing it, without mangling the sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Without any formal musical training, he was initially influenced by the older generation of critics, in particular Samuel Langford and Ernest Newman, but he developed his own individual style of criticism...": Again, is there a way to cut the second "he"?

• Easily done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Cardus's opinions and judgments were often forthright and unsparing, which sometimes caused friction with leading performers.": Is the comma needed?

• I believe it is. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Me too. Tim Riley (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Cardus spent the Second World War years": Sounds a little strange. Is "years" needed? If so, what about "years of the Second World War"?

• "Years" is I think necessary. I'm not sure that your suggested rewording is necessary, but I'll leave that to Tim. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I very slightly prefer Sarastro's wording; I suggest we leave it as it is for now and see if anyone else has a view. Tim Riley (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Neville's mother was Ada Cardus, one of several daughters born to Robert and Ann Cardus": Maybe make it clear earlier that these are the people they lived with?

• Sorry, I don't understand the point at issue. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, my fault; must stop writing after midnight! What I meant was that these two are introduced, but it does not become clear until later on that Cardus and his mother lived with Robert and Ann; at first I wondered why we were being told who his grandparents were. Perhaps explain it here? Not a huge deal, though. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• "was supplemented intermittently by his daughters' earnings from part-time prostitution.": This is a little different to what is stated in the ODNB, which does not mention "intermittent" and specifically mentions Cardus' mother.

• True, ODNB doesn't say "intermittent", though this is can be deduced from other sources. However, I have withdrawn the word. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1902 he saw the Test match against Australia in which Victor Trumper scored a century before lunch and thereby won a permanent place among Cardus's heroes.": Why "the" Test match, as the general reader (and even specialists) may not be familiar with that match.

• The phrasing is "the Test match against Australia in which Victor Trumper scored a century before lunch", as one might say of a TV programme "the episode in which George Costanza's fiancee dies" etc. So I think the wording is right. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• On the Attewell point, I may be able to help on one of the references. Of the two Attewell profiles on Cricinfo, the one for William is not his Wisden "profile", rather a frankly rubbish review written in 2000 before the site became a little more "professional". The same page links to his actual Wisden obituary here. Walter's page has his actual obituary which was published rather later and is perhaps more reliable. Doesn't quite clear it up, but perhaps not worth claiming that Wisden says they were both the coach.

• Thanks. I have removed the references to Wisden. As you say, the confusion remains. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• The standard story that I have seen elsewhere is that he had a "breakdown" in 1919. While I suspect the version here is correct, can any more details be added?

• Cardus in Autobiography says he suffered a breakdown but gives no medical details. I have relied on Brookes's more precise account. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• The other old chestnut is that he was a sensation as a cricket reporter, and people bought the paper just to read his reports, etc. Here we have "Nevertheless, he developed a style of cricket reporting that quickly lifted him to the forefront of contemporary sports writers." Can any details be added; e.g. when was he first noticed, when did he become "famous"? Although I suspect this may not be possible to elaborate on.

• I don't honestly see a need to elaborate here. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• As early as 1922 the Australian writer of the quote at ref 95 was calling Cardus "one of the most interesting writers on cricket of this or perhaps any other generation" – Tim Riley (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "tending to treat the actual scores as secondary": I may have to disagree with the source here. If you have a copy of "The Roses Matches 1919-1939" which collects his reports, he does quite a lot of factual reporting as well as his character stuff. They are quite good just as cricket reports in themselves.

• Well, the source is Cardus himself. On the page that I have cited from Full Score he adds: To look at the scoreboard while Hobbs was on view, as master batsman, was as unimaginatively pedantic..." etc etc. Also, treating the scores as "secondary" does not imply that he ignored the figures, rather that he looked beyond them. I am sure that as a good reporter he made sure that his readers knew the state of the game, but he made certain that they were informed of much else, besides. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The MCC tour of Australia under G.O. Allen was the occasion of Cardus's first visit to the country.[101] During the tour": Tour…tour

• Unavoidable, I fear, without undue contortion. Also, the repeated word is in two separate sentences. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• On Fry in Australia: Don't know if you've heard the story about the outward journey when Fry was talking everyone to death. Paraphrasing a little here, but the gist is that immediately before a 2 minutes silence on the ship (I think) Cardus said something like "This will be your biggest ever challenge", leaving Fry no time to reply. (I'm not suggesting including this, by the way!)

• He said (according to himself) "This'll irk you, Charles". The story is in Cardus on Cricket, and I've read it elsewhere. Nice story, but as you say, not really appropriate in a summary encyclopedia article. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• While there are a couple of cricket quotes in the article, is there room to include a famous music quote or two?

• Under consideration Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• A possible runner: NC on The Magic Flute – "The opera in fact is the only one in existence that might conceivably have been composed by God". ("An evening to cherish", The Guardian, 3 May 1961, p. 7)

• "—though his rationalism was shaken, he confesses, when he came to understand the late string quartets of Beethoven.": Sorry to betray my ignorance here, but not quite sure what this means here! Probably just me…

• I think he means that the beauty of the late quartets was such as almost to convince him of divine inspiration, of powers beyond the rational world. That's how I read it, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I notice that several of the references are given as "Cricinfo" (which technically should perhaps be ESPNCricinfo). My personal preference is to give the reference to Wisden, which originally published it, and keep the link to the Cricinfo page, as I find this more accurate and perhaps "respectable".

• I agree with you, and will attend to it

• A couple of composers are mentioned whom Cardus liked but whom were not widely revered at the time. The obvious inference is that general opinion later changed, but could this be made more explicit.

• I understand you mean Mahler, but who is the other one? Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• One other point about music: while it is made clear what he achieved as a cricket writer, maybe the same could not be said for the coverage of his musical writing. Basically, was he any good?

• I would have thought that the tributes quoted, of Menhuin and Colin Davis among others, answer your question adequately. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• And a final cricket point: It may be worth making the point that some of his match reports were lacking in … well, truth. For example, he (according to him) once reported on a Test match at which he was not present. The point is made about his cricket "characters" but could it be extended slightly?

• Perhaps a tweak in this direction is possible - I'll work on it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The point is alluded to in the Australia section: "Mr. Cardus mingles fancy with fact. The latter is preferable.". (Inadmissible evidence: at the Festival Hall, circa 1971, I saw him comfortably holding forth in the foyer to a bevy of young ladies: he was there throughout the second half of the concert but reviewed it all.) Tim Riley (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I may be able to find a better quality copy of the picture of Trumper if it helps, but I would have thought that MacLaren was a greater hero of his. Or Ranji. (Not worth including, but he was just about the only person to rate MacLaren as a captain) Sarastro1 (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I rather like the Trumper picture. If you can improve the quality, that would be welcome. Thank you for your thorough review and the many helpful points that you raise. Much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As it stands the article looks to be an obvious FA candidate. It looks flawless to me, an excellent account of the critic and thoroughly enjoyable to read. Unlike many wikipedia editors I get the impression that the authors have actually read his article many times to ensure it is satisfactory; it represents the very highest standards of writing through much experience on wikipedia. I'm afraid my critical eye is unable to detect anything major. I suppose the only thing which was a little tricky to read was registering his constant post war movements between Sydney and London, anybody would think that Sydney was Oxford!! I don't think its a writing flaw though. I'll have to scrutinize this a lot later if I'm to be of any critical use to you, it's that good Brian and Tim! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, dear Doctor! Praise naturally lapped up gratefully, but if on later consideration you find any faults, we'll be glad to hear. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As the Doctor says above, this is positively first-class in all departments, and truly a credit to the whole project. I can find only a few very minor nitpicks in what is a marvellous article. The prose is particularly fine; well done to you both! Anyway, here are my contributions to this peer review.

• "Robert Cardus was a retired policeman; to augment his small pension the family took in neighbours' washing, and the household income was supplemented by his daughters' earnings from part-time prostitution." I'd break this up myself: "Robert Cardus was a retired policeman; to augment his small pension the family took in neighbours' washing. The household income was further supplemented by his daughters' earnings from part-time prostitution."
• Caption: "Albert Square, Manchester, (1910), where Cardus and his self-educated friends met regularly for discussion and debate" The brackets and the commas are not necessary, either one is fine. I would put "Albert Square, Manchester (seen in 1910), where ..." myself.
• Other captions have dates and so on (such as "modern photograph") in brackets; I would italicise all of these
  • I don't think that's the usual practice, and having just experimented (without saving) I don't think it looks as good with the itals as without. Brian – your thoughts on this? Tim riley (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Definitelly not a case for italics. The Albert Square view is "depicted" rather than "seen", as it's a panting. Brianboulton (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• "He concluded that he could not satisfactorily review concerts for an evening newspaper, and joined the staff of The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH)." I can't help but think a word is missing at the juncture of this sentence. Perhaps change to "and so joined", or similar?
  • Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Caption: "Cardus's friendships in Australia included C. B. Fry, Sir Thomas Beecham and Donald Bradman". There should be a full stop at the end here as it is a full sentence, and I'm not sure the word "friendship" is used correctly. Perhaps "In Australia, Cardus developed friendships with C. B. Fry, Sir Thomas Beecham and Donald Bradman."?
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Box quote: "Reader's letter to The Sydney Morning Herald". Is this letter dated in the source? That would be helpful. Is there a reason for the space between Herald and the reference?
  • Alas, Brookes quotes but gives no date for this letter. I have searched the Herald's online archive, and I cannot find it there. I conclude that it was not written for publication and is somewhere in the paper's old files. It must remain undated, here, I'm afraid. If you don't leave a gap between an italicised title and the <ref> it looks uncomfortably squashed. But I'm happy to go with the majority on this. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Box quote: "Daniel Barenboim's tribute to Cardus:" is the colon at the end here necessary?
  • Removed. Tim riley (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• The eulogy should probably be either indented or boxed.
  • I concur (indented rather than boxed, I'd say). I have experimentally added indents: Brian, what think you? Revert if you prefer, natch. Tim riley (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done again on a fabulously good read, and I hope you both have a wonderful weekend to kick off the new year. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are gratefully received. Thank you very much. Tim riley (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat
A fascinating and beautifully balanced read. These are some very minor points and may not even be worth mentioning (or at least you may have considered the alternatives and have reason to do things the way you have).
Ellipses Two of the ellipses used are in the un-favoured shortened version (…), rather than the others, which use the MOS-favoured, slightly longer version (...) These look different in the background text, rather than on the screen. The first is in the first quote ("a war game … with an intensity"); the second is in the final para of the section ("mercury bubbled in the blood … The issue was here a very ache of intensity".

I note that you don't use a   before the ellipses: is this a conscious thing? I find them useful in ensuring a line doesn't start with the full stops, although I appreciate it's just a matter of opinion.

I have standardised the ellipses into the MOS-preferred format. As to the no-break spaces, you are right, these can be useful. It's just that I am too bloody lazy to put them in place. You have strirred my conscience and I will do so. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Quote boxes I notice you have a space between the sources of quotes in quote boxes and the citation (Wilfred Rhodes: Autobiography [63]; October 1929 [86]; The Sydney Morning Herald [111]) As it appears in all the boxes I presume there is a reason for this?

I don't see these spaces; can you clarify the problem?

::Now highlighted by use of bolded asterisk:

1. Wilfred Rhodes: Autobiography*[63]
2. October 1929*[86]
3. The Sydney Morning Herald*[111])

These are the sources in the quote boxes. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have fixed the problem now Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Music critic "prewar": surely "pre-war" would be the better BrEng variant?

No, either is acceptable as BritEng, which has tended increasingly to do away with hyphenated forms though some still remain. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Final years "Howat describes his appearance in this years as": these years?

Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

More to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Only two other minor points, of which I am unsure of one:
Manchester, 1901–12

• "As a small boy he had begun to visit Old Trafford cricket ground": the Old Trafford? I'm not sure your version isn't the correct one, but it's worth a check at least.
  • It's curious how the idiomatic use of the definite article for venues differs on each side of the Atlantic. The article would look odd here to an English eye, yet contrariwise we should never dream of referring to, say, "Philharmonic Hall" without the article. Tim riley (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm sure you are right and I've tried to mull over why I think it looks odd: the only thought I had was I would say that "playing at Old Trafford is fun"—sans article, but "playing at the Old Trafford cricket ground is fun". I don't know why I would make the distinction, (apart from not paying sufficient attention at school) but I know I'd be wrong at least 50% of the time! - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Interesting! Our Test grounds cover the whole range: you couldn't say anything other than "the Oval cricket ground", but equally you could definitely not say "the Lord's cricket ground" (even when the Rev David Sheppard was batting). I think perhaps Old Trafford, Headingley, Trent Bridge and Edgbaston are betwixt and between. What a pleasing point you raise – thank you!

Cricket correspondent

• writing on 5 March 1933,: "[h]ad [Jardine]: comma and colon both needed?
  • No, and now pruned. Tim riley (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Very minor stuff. A top-drawer article and one I am sure will acquire FA status in the near future. - SchroCat (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Some very helpful comments there: thank you very much. Tim riley (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments from GuillaumeTell (it's a long article and will take me some time to get through the lot, nitpicking as I go)

Lead

• (para 1): “His contributions to these two distinct fields [cricket and music] in the years before the Second World War established his reputation as one of the foremost critics of his generation.” – I know about music critics, but what is a cricket critic?
  • Interesting. One recalls the famous tongue-twister, "A quick-witted cricket critic" (don't try this when sober) and the phrase is used widely, but I take the point and will ponder. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• (para 2): “He is widely considered to have influenced every subsequent cricket writer.” Every??

• I am leaving Tim to deal with most of your comments as I am somewhat preoccupied at present. But I'll pick this one up. I agree that "widely considered" is too vague, but as to "every", Howat and Gibson, to name but two, certainly thought so. See the "Reputation" section. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• (para 3): “produced books on both his specialisms”: “both of his specialisms”? What is a specialism? Discipline (specialism) looks like a rubbish article to me. How about “specialities”? Oh, no, Wikipedia says it’s a specialty…

• I can't help the "rubbish" nature of the linked article, But I think anyone but an idiot would know what a "specialism" is, and I far prefer it to "speciality" or indeed "specialty". Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Family background and early childhood

• “commonality of their forenames” Must we be so orotund? Commonality in Wikipedia redirects to Fleet commonality …. How about “apart from their sharing the same forename”
  • This comes of writing in committee. The phrase was perpetrated by me when tinkering with BB's earlier wording. Your phrasing is much better and I'll adopt it. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Final para: do we need the comma after “schoolmates”?

• There does seem to be a natural pause there. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Manchester, 1901–12

• End of first para: Beatrice “remained a potent inspirational force" throughout his later life as a writer. Really? I bet she didn’t live until 1975.

• Well, it's a quote. It simply means that her inspiration continued to influence him during the remainder of his life, in the same way that some current Tories might claim to be inspired by Winston Churchill who's been dead these 50 years. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• 2nd para: Manchester University ought to be the Victoria University of Manchester, oughtn’t it? And “or in the winter at the Lyons café” would look better as “or, in the winter, at …”

• I have piped the link and tweaked the punctuation Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• 4th para: “Manchester league cricket” doesn’t link anywhere and might puzzle some readers (including me). Lancashire League (cricket) doesn’t mention Manchester. Might club cricket help in some way?

• Neither Cardus nor Brookes are precise here - Brookes refers to "local Manchester leagues". Probably linking club cricket as you suggest is the best we can do. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrewsbury

• "to finance his winters' studies": I'd go for "winter studies"
  • I see what you mean, but there's a tiny hint of natural history about the latter, I think. On balance I think I'd prefer to leave it. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "His application was successful, and in May 1912 began his duties." Surely, "in May 1912 he began his duties". ["And don't call me Shirley"] Sorry about that!
  • Definitely. Will alter. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "the nascent Labour Party" - really, who knows what "nascent" means? I suppose you could direct the word to Wiktionary. And incidentally, the Daily Citizen (British newspaper) article isn't very enlightening (sorry, Doctor).

• "Nascent" is hardly such an obscure word as to invoke raised eyebrows or a Wiktionary link, but I've made it "early". The Citizen article is a stub, which anyone is welcome to develop, It was either that or a redlink. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ref #44: what on earth is the Tom Webster Biography doing here, and why?

• This is the only reliable source I was able to find that confirmed the closure date of the Daily Citizen in 1915. This is relevant because, according to Cardus, he was writing for it in 1916-17 (see footnote at end of paragraph) Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• "According to Brookes, the influence of Shrewsbury School affected Cardus to the extent that "[t]he playing fields of an English public school..." What's with the "[t]he"?

• It indicates that, in the original, the letter was a capital. In this context the flow suggests a lower case; the brackets show that I have altered the original slightly. This might be thought pedantic, but it is commonly done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• • More later when I have time. --GuillaumeTell 00:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• • I have dealt with these, rather than Tim, because I wrote this part of the article. If I have not commented on a point, you may assume I've adopted your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

It's extremely well written and fairly seemless in that I'm not sure who wrote what.

Lede

• "and the same newspaper's" Perhaps "and that newspaper's"
  • To my eye (and ear) the latter is rather more formal than the former: useful sometimes, but I think the existing version is less stiff. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• "He is widely considered" Given how sweeping the sentence is, I think you can do without the "widely".
  • This has already provoked comment from Guillaume Tell above, and I think BB and I will need to put our heads together and decide what to do about it. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• "his specialisms." Is this better than "specialties"?

• See an earlier reviewer's comment. "Specialties" is mainly US/Canadian. As between "specialisms" and "specialities", I won't headbut an editor who prefers the latter, though it carries with it the hint of restaurant dishes (" Today's speciality" etc). Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Early life

• "His birth certificate, however, confirms the earlier date" Surely it is a later date? 3 April rather than 2 April?

• 3 April 1888 is earlier than 2 April 1889 Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• You have cafe both with and without the accent (or whatever the thing over the e is)
  • Excellently caught! Thank you. Will fix. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC) (Later: Too late! Already attended to by Brian) Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Manchester Guardian

• I assume anyone inclined to read this article is going to get the reference to Twelfth Night in the first paragraph without prompting?

• I fear your assumption is optimistic. I asked four acquaintances, one a literature graduate, to place the quote; none did so correctly. The lit grad at least knew it was from "somewhere in Shakespeare"; otherwise it was two votes for Winston Churchill and one for Jesus. I will add a footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "all the energy of Larwood" What's a Larwood?
  • BB is ahead of me and has explained in the text. Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Cardus was unemployed," I gather, then, he was paid by the piece and not on salary?

• Unemployed in the sense of have no work to do. Suggest another word/phrase? Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(I have pondered and can't think of anything better. Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

Australia

• "The MCC tour of Australia" Year?

"With no financial pressure" The structure of the sentence, with the semicolon between two dashes, could use some work.

Both done. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Reputation

• I draw your attention to your using the present tense referring to Cardus in his writings in the fifth paragraph (not counting blockquote). I do not say it is wrong, I simply draw your attention to it.
  • I think we generally follow the convention that even the deadest of authors “says” in his book So-and-So…” rather than “said”, and I think I prefer it. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well done indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I am working on them. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• All done now, or commented on. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

More comments by GuillaumeTell (hoping to finish today)

Australia

• "For ABC Cardus presented a weekly hour-long programme, "The Enjoyment of Music", which enlarged the audience for classical music across the country." Does Brookes have any concrete proof of this or was he just guessing?
  • The Australian Dictionary of Biography concurs, and the excellent Trove archive of the Australian national collection of newspapers makes it pretty clear that NC's broadcasts did much to popularise music in Australia. I could add a newspaper ref or two if wanted. Tim riley (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Up to you, but I think it would be worth doing.

Years of uncertainty

• "Newman, whose retirement as The Sunday Times chief music critic was assumed to be imminent." Seems to me that this should read either "as The Sunday Times's" or (better) "as the chief music critic of The Sunday Times".
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• "the London Evening Standard": WP:overlink - linked previously further up (I noticed this after finding that the Free Trade Hall in this section only has one wikilink in the article).
  • Well caught, sir! Done. Tim riley (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

London critic

• "The Queen might have been any nice shy young lady in D.H. Evans or Kendal Milnes": Note 11 tells us that these were department stores - but why not just link D H Evans and Kendals, let readers read about these shops and skip the note?
  • We're not encouraged to put blue links within quotations. We all do it, but one tries to keep it to a minimum. I'll be interested to see what reviewers think at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• • The rule about not linking in quotes is not absolute. Within the FAC review system I have sometimes been advised to do so when alternative explanation is longwinded and likely to disturb the prose flow. In this case I think GT's suggestion is preferable to my cumbersome footnote and its attendant source websites. I suggest we adopt the suggestion and defend it at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Final years

• Flora Robson & Wendy Hiller were actresses (or actors, per The Guardian) who don't seem to belong to any of Cardus's worlds of cricket, journalism or music. Was Cardus friendly with either of them? If so, maybe this should be mentioned.
  • Not that I remember from the sources. Any thoughts, BB? Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• The only reference to them in biographical sources is in connection with the memorial service. Daniels mentions Hiller's fondness for Cardus, but there is no other information to work with. I can well imagine them within Cardus's circle of artistic/intellectual acquaintances. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Reputation, honours and influence

• Elsa Mayer-Linsman? No, Else Mayer-Lismann (1914-1990), who was Director of the Mayer-Lismann Opera Workshop and gave explanatory lectures with musical examples on the operas to be performed during the Glyndebourne Festival at the British Institute of Recorded Sound in Exhibition Road, South Kensington. The Cardus photo in the (ahem) infobox was taken by her.
  • Thanks for spotting the typos. As to the info-box, both BB and I considered it par for the course, having checked other FA biogs of authors. Having striven to uphold the consensus agin the things for composer articles it seems only proper to respect the consensus in re authors. Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK, that's it from me. Very comprehensive article which I'm sure will pass FA with flying colours. Can't say that I warm to Cardus, though. --GuillaumeTell 18:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for your detailed and careful review. All grist to the mill. Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• • I'd like to add my thanks for the time taken to provide a detailed and helpful review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    

---

Anonymous post

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of the changes made to the article to make it more comprehensive regarding the topic of "anonymous posting" and to improve it's quality w.r.t. to the wikipedia's article guidlines.

Thanks, Raunaqg (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

JoshuSasori minor notes:

1. Some of the references are WP:USERG.
2. Doesn't specifically mention anonymous usenet posting via funet, was all the rage in 1995: [1].

JoshuSasori (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment/s from YuMaNuMa

• Regardless of how many references you have, the list generally looks better in columns and it reduces the amount of white spaces. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 11:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Concord, Massachusetts

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has many of the qualities of a featured article. It is comprehensive, concise, well-supported by citations, links effectively to articles on related topics, and has a quality set of photographs to accompany it. I am eager to hear the thoughts of fellow editors on how this article could be improved and potentially moved forward to FA status. (Hopefully "History" is the proper forum for this article as it largely regards the history of a small but significant American town.)

Thanks, Venicemenace (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Dana Boomer

Although nice, this article is quite a ways from featured standards. There are major issues with references, comprehensiveness and MOS compliance (as a start) that would need to be addressed before the article would have a chance at even WP:GAN, much less WP:FAC. Specifically:

• The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, two to three paragraphs is appropriate. Once the article is expanded to cover everything necessary for comprehensiveness, up to four paragraphs might be necessary. The lead should be a summary of the body, and not include information not present in the body. See WP:LEAD.
• By reading the article, one would think that nothing happened in the town during the 20th century. The section needs to be expanded to include more recent history, into which the short sections "Concord grape" and "Plastic bottle ban" could be integrated. Multiple short, choppy subsections make the article look unfinished.
• The article is missing a number of sections that are generally present in good and featured city articles. These include Climate, Government and politics, Economy, Infrastructure and Culture. Other sections sometimes included (if applicable) include Architecture, Law enforcement/crime, Media, etc.
• References needed in Geography and Demographics sections - statistics always need references.
• Bullet point lists (such as the Points of interest, Education and Transportation sections) are frowned upon by the MOS. These can easily be transformed into prose, with additional prose that describes why these links should be important to the reader.
• External links (such as the ones in the Points of interest and Transportation sections) should not be present in the body of the article. Instead, they should either be references or located in the proper "External links" section.
• Reference #20 has a dead link tag
• Reference #42 needs to be expanded with more information

Reading the good article criteria and featured article criteria may help you to get a feel for what these two processes are looking for. Taking a look at the town and city articles already listed at WP:FA and WP:GA would probably also be beneficial. While it looks like you've made a good start on the history section, the other facets of the article need more attention. Dana boomer (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Theory of Literature

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a fairly heavy topic and I would like some feedback as to what could be developed further, if anything, and language. I've spent quite a bit of time in the trenches with this one, so I'm not really able to give it an objective read.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

• File:Theory_of_Literature_cover.jpg: why PD-shape over PD-text?

• Was thinking of the grey bar, but PD-text added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• File:Sadness,_by_Julia_Margaret_Cameron.jpg: source page?

• Pinged the uploader. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• File:Witkacy_Roman_Ingarden_1937.jpg: when/where was this first published?

• Source page says family archives, removed until better information found. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• What was wrong with Eleanor?

• Not in source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Studies of literature must be literary and systematic,[26] treating literature as literature" - this might not be clear to someone unfamiliar with literary theory, is there a way to better explain what you mean by this?

• Added "and not part of another field." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• By "linguistic differences", do you mean different languages, different styles, or something else?

• Different languages. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "two levels of operations" - should clarify that you're referring to general manuscript study rather than specifically forgeries

• Added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "the second level may require greater initiative from the student" - is the text specifically targeted to students? If so, at what level? The mention of publishing seems odd for a student text

• They don't explicitly state such an audience, although they use the term "student of literature" ("student") quite often. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "ideas" in the extrinsic section?

• The chapter is entitled "Literature and Ideas", so I've used the term here. Their discussion is closer to "Literature and Philosophy", so do you think an Easter egg link will do? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think that'd be clearer. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "contrasts these definitions with those of other scholars" - any specific approaches being criticized?

• Gave a couple examples, but worried about giving too much weight — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Wellek and Warren consider only an analysis of the psychological types of the characters in the work to be a legitimate application of psychology part of literary study. Such an analysis they find lacking on its own merits, as individual characters do not fit (or even exceed) psychological theories of the time they are written" - this phrasing is a bit awkward

• Reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "the author shapes said tastes" - you haven't mentioned tastes in this paragraph

• reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "the same effect as another art, through effects" - repetitive

• Reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "will have provide an "aesthetic experience" which can be judged" - grammar

• Dur, "have" trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "dual fluency in several modern languages" - dual suggests two, several suggests more - which is correct?

• Good point, trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "They also and recommend the teaching" - missing or extra word?

• Extra, trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Down to "Theoretical", more later. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "borrows the formalist-turned-structuralist Roman Jakobson's term literariness" - but you've just used this term in the context of Russian formalism. Is this a contradiction in sources?

• Jakobson came up with the term while a formalist. Could be clearer — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "possible extrinsic studies based on factors outside of the work being studied" - awkward
• "Unlike Russian formalism, however, their theory recognized possible extrinsic studies based on factors outside of the work being studied, Wellek and Warren emphasized the intrinsic aspect of literary criticism, looking at aspects within the work itself" - missing a word or a punctuation mark somewhere in here

• Reworded (goes for both this and the above). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Be careful with tense in Reception - for example, you start with present for Hatzfeld and then move into past

• Think I got this — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "he believed to be most of the of the literature"?

• Clarified — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Ingarden, who considered...considered...He also considered" - repetitive

• Threw in a few synonyms — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• You could be a bit clearer about why the book lost influence in the 1960s

• Had to go outside the source for this (Holquist didn't say much). Hope this is better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "leading to them becoming binary opposites" - I think you mean intrinsic vs extrinsic here, but the phrasing suggests Wellek vs Warren

• I think this works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Where is Evanston?

• Illinois — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Page for Thomas Jr.?

• Added URL, sorry — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• This book's entry in the References list is missing location. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Xerocole

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently rewritten the whole article, and want to know what I can do to further improve it.

Thanks, Prof. Squirrel (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's a good rewrite, making the article enjoyable and informative. I did want to know more about mechanisms, and perhaps examples beyond the high school textbook - there is a bit of a biology lesson about it at the moment. Would suggest therefore two directions for improvement: a) add some more advanced texts and scientific review-of-the-field papers to the bibliography (which is very short...), and trawl them for detail on the key mechanisms; b) consider drawing a diagram or two of the mechanisms, not too much like Roberts, e.g. to compare Camel and Horse nephrons (or Gerbil and Mouse). Since you have quite a few 'easier' texts already, why not subsection the bibliography into 'Research texts', 'General reading', 'Children's' (or something along those lines)? There are plenty of colorful and informative books for children as young as 4 on desert beasts. Better include the intended reading age! And a few more photos would go down well too. Finally, on anti-predator defence, Camouflage came to mind - feel free to lift some material on countershading (Oryx...) and flattened and fringed desert animals (horned lizards...). I've done a quick CE of the article. Comments by Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

PS. A 'History' section on pioneering research and natural history of the subject would be welcome too.

---

Zong Massacre

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to turn this into a Featured Article. The topic is difficult and the sources used are quite specialist, so I'd appreciate advice on issues relating to the prose, clarity of the content and any MOS issues. Thanks, Celuici (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• The lead should generally devote at least one sentence to each section (not necessarily each subsection); that's the usual interpretation of WP:LEAD.
  • Done -- I've added a sentence covering the "... in modern culture" section – Celuici (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• "tons burden": link to Builder's Old Measurement
  • Done, although I would be grateful if you would review the change I made in this edit, since one of the image captions needs updating and I'm not sure how to describe the tonnage of ships. – Celuici (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "was" is right, "had" is wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• "While some historians have seen this as evidence of his lack of experience at navigation and command": I don't understand ... why wouldn't the lack of a previous command be evidence of lack of experience with command?
  • Yes, it is implied, and so I've changed the wording -- but I think it's worth mentioning his lack of experience explicitly, since it was an important issue in the legal proceedings and is often mentioned in the sources. – Celuici (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• "This may have had some influence on his later conduct.": What may have had influence, on what later conduct?
  • Done -- I've updated this sentence. – Celuici (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Otherwise, So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at Zong_Massacre#Massacre. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• On your changes ... I recommend against "claim for", since it's not supported by SOED or other BritEng dictionaries. "put in a claim for" would work. "had an important place in the commemoration of the bicentenary of abolition in 2007": Sometimes that's okay if the sources are trying to be really careful not to say too much, but some consider "was commemorated in ..." to be "stronger" writing. I'm not wild about this bit, it feels too speculative ... but I've got to move on, I'll leave this for someone else: "Sometimes these killings happened immediately in the presence of the surgeon himself. It is likely, therefore, that Collingwood already had experience of the murder of slaves, and this may have prepared him to participate in the massacre which occurred on the Zong." - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the additional comments. I've changed the sentences to "Sometimes these killings happened in the presence of the surgeon. It is likely, therefore, that Collingwood had already witnessed the mass-murder of slaves, and this may have prepared him to participate in the massacre which occurred on the Zong." The sentence about the 2007 commemorations has also been updated. Celuici (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • RE: 'Claim for': the full OED has 'To make a claim for' as a definition for the word 'claim' as a verb, and refers explicitly to claiminig for insurance in this instance. So I think we can go with that. Celuici (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Btw, I think either A-class or GAN would work as your next stop, when the peer review is done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• Just a note, but the lede really should be longer than it currently is, and should be divided into more evenly sized paragraphs; I doubt it would pass FA in its current state. For instance, you refer to Liverpool, but many readers might not have the foggiest idea where that is, and you refer to the year in which the massacre took place, but not the date. There's a lot more basic information that is contained in the article but is missing from the introduction. If you wished, message me and I could draft a longer introduction, although as this is your project, I do not wish to impose on your work here, which is otherwise very good! Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Done – I've expanded the lead and adjusted the structure. I think the first sentence could use a little more work though, but it's difficult to include all the information without making the lead hard to read. Thanks for your comments. Celuici (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Under "Fatal Voyage", your two images have bunched up on the right hand side; consider moving the map of the Caribbean to the left, for aesthetic purposes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Celuici (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    

---

Canis Minor

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I buffed to for GA…felt okay about it without being deliriously happy with how it came together....would like to finish the job and take it to FAC.....but every time I look at it I just feel a bit blocked...all input gratefully accepted.

Thanks, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just skimming through it now. Not a thorough inspection yet, but:

• I think more should be wiki-linked. Examples: northern celestial hemisphere, Bayer, Flamsteed, etc.

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps succinctly explain culmination - perhaps just say "reaches its highest point in the sky on..." Culmination seems to me archaic, even in the parlance of astronomy.

placed in parentheses - others would complain of an easter egg link I suspect.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

...I'll continue looking. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to see the mythology section expanded. The article should be more explicit about where the myths are coming from. Don't take for granted that readers will know which mythology Zeus comes from, for example. An excellent source for this is The Constellations by Motz and Nathanson. AstroCog (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

sigh. I returned that book to the library the other day...I think I'll be fetching it again... got the book again...not a huge amount in it..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• You may already be doing this, but another suggestion is to use a current constellation FA as a working example. For example, Aries. It's structure is slightly different, though I'm not sure that this article would need to conform to the same structure, but the constellation task force seems to think that all constellation articles should have the same structure. Granted, zodiacal constellations are going to have much more coverage than the rest, but it's a good benchmark. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

yeah. was musing on that and will probably rejig like that Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by GermanJoe - after a first complete, but quick read:

• lead Are Procyon and Gomeisa the two stars, which Ptolemy used for his pattern? Just curious, maybe worth adding somewhere.

yes. Will think of how to work that in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Can you double-check the magnitude of Procyon? The sub-article has 0.34 instead of 0.38 (not sure if apparent or absolute though).

Aaah, good pickup - this paper and SIMBAD both have 0.34 (these are both Apparent Magnitude), so I'll use that - more up to date than an older star guidebook. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• There are two faint deep sky objects within the constellation's borders. - true, but without context this number means little. Maybe just state the total number of deep sky objects - is it 5? The main text is also a bit confusing about this (see below).

Yeah, reworded - really if we had more and more powerful telescopes, there'd be millions of galaxies everywhere... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• History ( "The Ancient Greeks called the constellation προκυων/Procyon, "coming before the dog",..." - In German the phrase would be "auf den Hund gekommen ..." (just a joke, ignore at will) ).
• "... and other variations by Cicero and others." => try to replace the second "others" with something different to avoid repetition and vagueness.

Yeah, reworded and expanded this bit a little Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am not sure, the mix of historical, "factual" information and mythological background is optimal here - both topics are related obviously, but blur into each other while reading and make their distinction difficult. But i have no better idea at the moment (edit for clarity: i agree, the mythological context is worthwhile to add, this (minor) concern is only about its presentation).

I've reorganised the section so para 1 is the constellation and what it represents, para 2 is mythological associations, and para 3 is some alternative designations proposed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• It feels, like the end of Western history misses a final sentence: when did "Canis Minor" became the commonly accepted name (after all the strange alternative suggestions listed)?

Agreed - but I can only go on what is in sources - I think reorganising helps. It's been called Canis Minor since Ptolemy and possibly before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The Inuit called Procyon Sikuliarsiujuittuq; it was considered to be a separate constellation that did not include Gomeisa." => Did just 1 star form the constellation, or was it "considered [part of] a separate constellation"? If it was a single object, maybe avoid the term "constellation", it's confusing for the layman for only one star.
• "Procyon received this designation because it typically appears red (though sometimes slightly greenish) as it rises during the Arctic winter;" => still not clear for me, why the appearance is red. Is that just the atmospheric effect during rising?

I've taken out inuit segment as it only refers to Procyon - better to just leave in that article, and restrict mentions to ones which include at least two stars Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• What's the actual guideline for apparent and absolute magnitude notation? (suggestion: use "apparent magnitude" once, then only "magnitude". Always specify "absolute magnitude", when used). - check throughout for correct types of magnitude.

yes. That's how books generally do it - will check. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Stars "[These] stars mark the paws of the Lesser Dog's left hind leg, while Zeta marks the right." => "These stars" is confusing, your last subject was the single star Delta1. Can anything be said about the other 2 Delta stars?

yes/added Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• "YZ Canis Minoris is a flare star, so called due to its solar flares being more powerful than those of our sun." - from the sub-article: "A flare star is a variable star that can undergo unpredictable dramatic increases in brightness for a few minutes." Your description needs clarification, the second part seems to miss some of the most important aspects of a flare star (variable, unpredictable, dramatic). The comparison with the sun doesn't seem to cover the original definition.

checked and reworded - aligned with source Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Deep-sky objects "NGC 2459 is a group of five 13th and 14th magnitude stars that lie close together but do not appear to be an open cluster as such.[41] A similar situation has occurred with NGC 2394." => This needs a little more detail for the non-astronomer: Why is NGC 2459 apparently no "real" open cluster? Is NGC 2394 another Canis Minor object? What "similar situation" specifically?

i.e. the stars lie close together in the sky but do not appear to be related, and yes the second one is also in Canis Minor - will reword Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Check for mortal FAC-sins :) like pp. for single pages instead of p. and similar stuff.

Another nice constellation article, though it still needs some polishing (did some minor copy-edits). GermanJoe (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Some sources you might want to investigate:

Title: A cannonball star candidate in Canis Minor

Author(s): Marcos, RD; Marcos, CD

Source: NEW ASTRONOMY Volume: 10 Issue: 7 Pages: 551-559 DOI: 10.1016/j.newast.2005.04.001 Published: JUL 2005

nice - something to add to the red dwarf section Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Title: The colour of Sirius in ancient times

Author(s): ChapmanRietschi, PAL

Source: QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY Volume: 36 Issue: 4 Pages: 337-350 Published: DEC 1995

only mentioned in passing - nothing to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Title: Ancient and mediaeval observations of comets and novae in Chinese sources

Author(s): Ho Peng Yoke, Ho Ping-Yü

Source: Vistas in Astronomy Volume: 5, Pages: 127-225 Published: 1962

trawled through this - fascinating paper but no Canis Minor events I can see. I think it came up as a false positive due to Canis Minor being depicted on star charts at the end of the paper in a western to chinese constellation star chart. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from StringTheory11 (t • c)

• In the first paragraph of the lead, I'm not sure what you mean by "in its actual form".

I believe, i sneaked that in for clarity. Was trying to express, that the Ptolemaic pattern and the modern constellation are -strictly speaking- not exactly the same. Patterns evolve: designations change, boundaries change, stars get added or removed. But as this is true for a lot of constellations, maybe that detail is not really useful. GermanJoe (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

was mystified for a moment - yeah, sorry GermanJoe I removed those words as I don't think they add much to the meaning. Canis Minor is not exceptionally different to most other constellations really WRT minor changes over time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No prob. In hindsight it really was a little trivial to add. GermanJoe (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would rename "characteristics" to something like "boundaries". Characteristics implies that it would be talking about other important factors, such the stars, which it does not.

good point....we've not discussed this before and I see your point. I think we'd have to change a few constellation articles.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Canis Minor contains only two bright stars" is a subjective statement. I would replace it with something like "Canis Minor contains only two stars brighter than magnitude 3".

yeah....brighter than magnitude 4 actually...changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a reason that the "Lambda Canis Minoris" designation is obsolete?

yes. Bode proposed it - it hadn't been used or thought of by Bayer or Lacaille - and nobody took it up. Pity really as it turns out to be an interesting star Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• The examples in the "stars" section seem to be somewhat cherry-picked. I would probably trim this section down slightly; for example, I don't think there is a need to mention VSX J074727.6+065050 or YZ Canis Minoris. If you disagree, however, then feel free to leave them in; this isn't a deal-breaker.

YZ CMi I think is important...will think about t'other. I do see your point though. These articles are at high risk of listyness.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents, I think talking about stars that either have really extensive literature or are mentioned in a couple of the popular astronomy guides makes sense; they're clearly important and there's more than basic information to write about them. I agree with Cas, YZ is probably worth mentioning, but the other may not be. I'll comb through some papers in the next couple of days when I have time. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

On thinking about it, I'd rather leave VSX J074727.6+065050 in actually. It's a dwarf nova, and they aren't common and I think worth noting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• In contrast, the "deep sky objects" section feels a little bare. If there aren't any other interesting objects, that's fine, but I feel that this section could benefit from expansion, especially seeing that the Milky Way passes through Canis Minor (which should get a mention).

Got that in and sourced....there is bugger all to write about! Not surprising as Milky Way would obscure galaxies but surprising there aren't more interesting nebulae etc. Oh well.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Other than these, looks good! StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion/closing comments - thanks muchly all for your input. I'm looking at the article now and feeling much happier as it is looking much more solid and professional looking. The one niggle I agree (naming of characteristics section) is a bigger issue for the astronomy wikiproject to tackle I think, and invite all to comment there at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canis Minor/archive1. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Glenn Goodart

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because to get ideas about how to improve before submission for GA review. Thank you in advance.

Thanks, Lawman4312 (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Urapmin people

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it significantly, and ideally I'd like it to get to Good Article status. The sources I've been able to find are patchy, so I'd particularly like some advice on what important information is missing.

Thanks, Mo-Al (talk) 06:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Sacred Cod of Massachusetts

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was able to pass it through GAC this June and after the work to the article I have done since, I feel it maybe able to pass FAC. The biggest issues I think might need to get ironed out would be the images in the article and how to tie in the "holy mackerel." Also, spelling and grammar are not my strong suits so any help in that sense would be great.

Thanks, Found5dollar (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Magicpiano

This article is fairly well on the way toward FA; I've got a few comments on fact and grammar, and have probably missed things that a copyeditor would change.

• Samuel Sewall was not the judge presiding over the Salem trials, he was one of several. (The chief magistrate then was William Stoughton; Sewall only later became Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court of Judicature.)

• Fixed, changed to "one of the judges".--Found5dollar (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• The 1776 chronology is backwards: by the time the DoI was read, the British occupation of Boston had already ended (evacuation March 17, 1776). This implies the fish was already missing in July 1776 if the British took it. Following up on this, you might locate sources that talk about British-occupied Boston, which probably had wood shortages (for both fuel and construction).

• wow. that was a blatant mistake on my part. I have removed the part about the DoI, and instead included a sentence about lack of wood and the presumed use of the cod for firewood.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• File:Sacred Cod 01.JPG, I'm sorry to say, is probably not a good image for a featured article, because it is out of focus or jittered due to long hand-held exposure. I see you took it -- you'll need a more sensitive (higher) ISO setting if the lighting in the chamber is poor. Best use File:Sacred Cod 02.JPG instead, which is sharp; File:Sacred Cod 03.JPG is also out of focus/jittered.

• switched out image.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would try to locate and add an image of one of the other colonial-era fish representations that you mention in the history.

• I added an image of the first New Hampshire Seal, but i need to do some moving around of images to make it fit correctly. Do you think the image of a swimming cod is needed?--Found5dollar (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• "the cod industry supported about 400 boats" in what year/decade? (Text suggests this is from the 1895 report, but it should be made explicit.)

• added "prior to the industrial revolution"--Found5dollar (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• "with dried cod being traded" --> "dried cod was traded"

• fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would mention the weight of the object in the Description section

• done--Found5dollar (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Is it "State House" or "Statehouse"?

• fixed all to "State House"--Found5dollar (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• "the Sacred Cod was found standing on it's tail" --> "its"

• fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• "behind a door in hallway" --> the/a?

• woops... fixed it.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• "It was placed on a bier and was carried by three Massachusetts Representatives, while being escorted by the Sergeant-at-Arms.[27] A procession to the chamber began and the Cod was carried as such to its new home." This can be simplified.

• simplified.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "On April 27, the Crimson gave the staff of the Lampoon an ultimatum to give the Sacred Cod, by midnight, to them and allow the Crimson to take credit for returning it or they would go public with their findings." Awkward.

• deawkarded... i think--Found5dollar (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "No charges were filed against in response to the "Cod-napping" Against what?

• deleted "against"--Found5dollar (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The next threat to the Sacred Cod came in 1941, when the Aluminum-for-defense Collection Drive in Massachusetts was mistakenly informed that the Cod was made of aluminum, and asked that it be donated to the war effort." I'd split this sentence.

• split.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

--Magic♪piano 21:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

---

List of FIFA Club World Championship and Club World Cup winning managers

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it almost fulfills the Featured Lists criteria, however any improvements are of course welcome.

Thanks. Arbero (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – My opinion is that this list will have a tough time meeting featured list criterion 3b, which says that FLs should not be able to be "reasonably included as part of a related article." With only nine entries, and no other information other than the year and club coached, it seems like it would not be unreasonable for the table to be in the main FIFA Club World Cup article. I have a feeling that FLC's reviewers will take issue with this, should the list be nominated there. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

My goal is to get this article to FA-status. A user recommended to concentrate on getting it to that status, rather than GA-status. Regards. Tomcat (7) 17:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Truthkeeper88

• Because I did the first peer review with feedback that I still believe to be valid, I won't do a full review this time, but because I've been watching this article for many many months through its various reviews I do have some suggestions that I'll add in the next day or so. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

General comments - these will be very general and I don't intend to go through the text line by line to pick out problems, but hopefully someone else will take on that task.

• My feeling for a long time has been that the page suffers from structural issues. First, at c. 11,500 words it's too long and this is a case where WP:Length should be taken into consideration. Some suggestions:

• Try to trim out around 2000 words.
• Consider combining and trimming the details in the "Personal life" section (c. 900 words) into the general bio sections.

• Merged his personality.--Tomcat (7) 12:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Consider combining and trimming the details in the "Beliefs" section (c. 1400 words) into the general bio sections.

• Not done, the section was created because it seperates the details.--Tomcat (7) 12:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Evaluate each bit that in the general bio and consider pulling out anything that seems like a "factoid" and simply there for the sake of being there

• Not sure what you mean.--Tomcat (7) 12:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Consider tightening and trimming the "Themes and style" section (c. 2200 words) (and the separate level 3 "Style" section is redundant), and maybe moving some of the material to subpages for the relevant works

• Removed Style, Themes and Style is already a very brief summary.

• Consider tightening and trimming the "Legacy" section

• OK, perhaps some quotes are redundant.--Tomcat (7) 12:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Consider creating a separate Bibliography of Fyodor Dostoyevky's work page, move the list of work there, and then keep only a small bit of selected "best works"

• No, because User:Khazar2 wanted to integrate summaries in the biography. You had told me to remove the sections, a decision with which I agree now.--Tomcat (7) 12:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• For clarity, I don't particularly mind where the information on his major works appears; I just meant it needs to appear somewhere in the article, particularly for an article that's so long and detailed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• If much of the biography can be trimmed down, then it would be possible to stream in a section about his works. A good example of a biography that does this is Vincent van Gogh - a page that did achieve GA status.

• His works are already described everywhere. Gogh was a painter.--Tomcat (7) 12:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• A random example of a paragraph that could use some trimming is here: "On 27 September 1837 Dostoyevsky's mother died of tuberculosis. He contracted a serious throat disease soon after, giving him a brittle voice throughout his life. The previous May his parents had sent Fyodor and his brother Mikhail to St Petersburg to attend the Nikolayev Military Engineering Institute, forcing the brothers to abandon their academic studies at the Moscow college for a military career.[note] On the way to St Petersburg, Dostoyevsky witnessed a violent incident in a post house: a member of the military police beat a carter, who subsequently took out his anger on his horse, whipping it. He referred to this incident in his serial A Writer's Diary. Dostoyevsky entered the academy in 1838, but only with the help of family members, who – unknown to him – had paid the tuition fees. Mikhail was refused admission on account of his poor health, which was the reason why Mikhail was sent to the Academy in Reval, Estonia; he was separated from his brother.[12][13]" > The details aren't tied together well and some can be tossed. Did his mother's death cause the throat infection (infection or disease?) and brittle voice? Can this be shoved into a note? The violent incident is too detailed and I'd suggest staying focused on the events at hand - mother's death, schooling, etc,. - and move the violent incident material A Writer's Diary page. Very confusing that he was sent away, tuition paid, but not admitted. If it's confusing, perhaps streamline and present simply as possible using WP:Summary style

• Done--Tomcat (7) 12:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Finally, a personal suggestion to Tomcat - try to step away for a time to regain perspective. Work on other pages for a month or so, and then come back to this.

Hope these suggestions are helpful and that someone else takes on a full review. I know and understand the difficulties involved in writing core biographies and I do see progress being made here. Good luck. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the Criticism section should be removed? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Rename the "Legacy" section to "Legacy and reception" and add the criticism there. And then trim down as much as possible. I'm unwatching here now to allow someone else to do a full PR. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Gateshead International Stadium

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This was recently passed through WP:GA and I'm considering giving it a run through WP:FAC. I had request a peer review a month or so ago and it was closed without comment for some reason(!) I'd be grateful if someone can have a look at this – I'm hopeless at things like templates and endashes and my prose is sometimes is a little unencyclopedic, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments – I feel bad that you didn't get a peer review the first time you asked for one, so I'll give you one now.

• Telford is listed in several citations, but I don't see any sources authored by the person of this name.
  

This has now been added.

• Also, I see one 1988 Telford cite along with a bunch of 1989s. Are they two different sources, or is the year wrong in one of the cites?
  

The 1989s were all wrong – the book is from 1988. These have all been changed.

• Refs 106 and 107 are to apparent newspaper articles, but the newspapers aren't provided, making it impossible to verify the citations.
  

For some reason I've used cite book templates here instead of cite web (further evidence of my inability to use wiki-templates). This has now been changed.

• Ref 113 is to simply "Tina". Is this a book or some other type of source? If it is a book, a page number and other info will need to be added.
  

It's a newspaper article. I've fixed the ref and linked an archive of the article.

• Authors in the two ref sections should be alphabetized.
  

Only one section now but done. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• For all references from newspapers or magazines, the publisher should be italicized in the citation. I see refs in which the Newcastle Evening Chronicle needs italics, more specifically refs 78 and 80. Also, make sure all of the references have access dates, so that you don't have to add them in the middle of an FAC.
  

These should now all be done.

• The two en dashes in the lead (not the one in the year range) should be spaced on both sides, not just one, if that's the way you want to have them, Either that or make them unspaced on both sides. This should be done throughout, as I see numerous areas where this is an issue.
  

I have simply never been able to get to grips with en dashes. I've spaced all of them save those in ranges.

• "Although the stadium primarily caters for athletics, it is currently also home to several teams." Athletics doesn't need a second link in the lead, and the "also" is one of a couple in the lead that could stand to be trimmed.
  

I've removed the superfluous link and some 'also's.

• History and development: "Gateshead council pressed ahead by looking to develop existing infrastructure with a view to overall regeneration." This appears to lack a citation, and it would be best if one was added.
  

Done. I've simplified the references here which were needlessly complex (paragraphs and whatnot).

• "commenced on 6 September 2010 was completed on time in summer 2011 and the corporate facilities are now open to the public." Feels like bracketing commas are needed after the two years. Either that or add "and" after the first year, with a semi-colon after the second year.
  

I've tidied that lot up by splitting into two sentences.

• "replete with ice rink, indoor golf course, restaurants and shops." Needs "an" before "ice rink".
  

Done.

• Last part of the section could use a reference, if one can be found. That also appears uncited at first glance.
• Gateshead Football Club: "Gateshead Football Club The original Gateshead F.C. played in the Football League". First three words appear to be intruding on the rest of the sentence.
  

Indeed. Rearranged to make actual sense.

• Structure and facilities: Period needed after 11,800.
  

Done.

• "The main stand is the Tyne and Wear Stand, a steep, cantilevered structure and which seats 3,300 spectators." Remove "and", as it is hurting the flow of the sentence.
  

Done.

• "Opposite is the East Stand, a 4,000 seat capacity stand...". Don't "seat" and "capacity" serve the same purpose here? I'd get rid of the second one.
  

Indeed they do. I have removed the redundancy.

• First bit of truly informal writing you were concerned about: "but the facility was somewhat bedeviled by problems". I think this could easily be made more formal while getting the message across just as well.
  

I've reworded this.

• Do they call it a "weights room" in Britain?
  

Ordinarily no, but there are two seperate rooms; one is literally a weights room and the other a gymnasium (cardio machines and the like).

I'm noticing quite a few issues in the writing, so I'm going to stop here for now. Take care of these items and I'll see what I can do to help on the copy-editing front. It does look like you've gotten a lot out of the article content-wise, and once copy-edited it should be at least a viable FAC candidate. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for picking this up so quickly – I wasn't expecting anyone to do so this side of Christmas to be honest. I've made the changes suggested above (save two, which I need to look into a little further) and would be grateful for further suggestions/comments. Thanks again... Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've begun going through the article and will add comments as I make progress. First, the lead says the 1974 Gateshead Games were the first athletics meet at this stadium, but that is contradicted by the body, which says there was a major meet in 1961.

The Gateshead Games were the first meet at the renovated and re-opened stadium. I've made a small change to reflect this.

• Athletics: I'm concerned about the appropriateness of "The games were to prove a watershed moment not just for Gateshead Stadium, but also for British athletics." How was winning this particular event "a watershed moment" for British athletics. That needs more explanation if it is to stay, and a more encyclopedic tone.

I've just taken it out.

• "In 2006, a crowd of 8,500 enjoyed unusually warm and humid weather...". The commentary about fans enjoying the weather slips into sports magazine-type writing. I think the sentence would be better without it.

Well. Gateshead is rather noted for the dreadful weather which usually greets athletes, but I've taken it out as I am trying to avoid this precise type of journalistic prose.

• Gateshead Senators: "when the Newcastle Senators, who played Northern Rugby Club". Played them in what? Or is that meant to be "had played at Northern Rugby Club"? I can't fix this without the knowledge of the club's history.

They played at Northern Rugby Club. I've corrected the typo.

• I'm not convinced that reference 73 is a reliable source. It looks like somebody's personal website, not the team's site as the citation claims.

The source is a redirect from the official site. If you click here and then links-Division 1 champions it takes you to this page. I think this page is therefore reliable, though I admit it is old and not very professional looking at first glance. Perhaps worth adding a note to the reference about the redirect?

That's a good idea. Something similar to the note in ref 23 should work. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Gateshead Football Club: The content in ref 79 should be attributed to the author, as it sounds like we're the ones saying that the club has a soulless stadium.

Can't find the author, so have attributed to the magazine.

• The part "but financing has been difficult and the move has yet to take place" can't possibly be cited fully by ref 83, since it was published in 2011. I recommend finding another source to support the updated part, or just removing it. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This should be easy enough to find a more recent source.I'll root around and see what can be found. This has now been done Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much again for this - these sort of nit-picks are exactly what is needed of this is to stand any chance at FAC. I also notice that you have done some much needed and much appreciated copy-editing. If anything else is spotted, please let me know. Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Important one here: Do you want the mentions of the various clubs to be in a singular ("its", "was") or plural ("they", "were") fashion? There are some inconsistencies currently, and I've seen entire FACs sink over this issue before. The prose reviewers will pay close attention to this, so it's important to get it sorted out now.
  

I've changed all to plural for consistency as suggested. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Gateshead Harriers: "Club officials received over 100 new applications for membership in the aftermath of the 2012 London Olympics will help the club to better performances in 2013." Grammar is flawed, but that could be fixed. More importantly, who is saying this will help the club? Again, without some attribution it sounds like we are offering an opinion on the subject, which we shouldn't do.
  

I had messed about with names and whatnot but ultimately decided just to take the latter part of the sentence out. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Gateshead Thunder: "Relations with the stadium have been strained at times". I'm not sure that a club can have a relationship with a stadium. I modified the sentence slightly, but this problem still exists. Are the relations with stadium management?

The source notes difficulties between the club and Gateshead Council, so I've added the council to the text. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Transport: Last sentence of the section could use a cite.
  

I can't find one, sadly, so I've taken it out. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• The websites in the bibliography need access dates, just like the ones in short cites.
  

Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Lastly, I'm not a big fan of the abbreviations in a few of the references. They aren't easy to spot in the bibliography, and I have a feeling the FAC source-checkers will comment on them. Better to take care of them now. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  

I've incorporated all of the online sources into the references, so there is only one abbreviation left and this is for a text source with an unknown author. I've left this one as it should be easy enough to spot now. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there is now just one outstanding matter (which might prove problematic). I'll have a look into this and we should be done... Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Bernard Lee on stage and screen

This peer review discussion has been closed.
With appearances in over 100 films, plus an extensive stage and television repertoire, Bernard Lee was a tireless character actor. He is best remembered for his role as M in the James Bond series, although also played notable roles in The Third Man, The Blue Lamp and a rare leading role in Whistle Down the Wind. This record of his professional work has recently been split away from the main biographical article and re-worked extensively. The goal after PR is to list for FL status. Many thanks for any help and advice people are able to give. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Brief comments from Cass

• "Lee's career spanned 1934 to 1981" - seems like there is a word missing, "from" or "between" maybe?

• From now added - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• "He returned to acting after the war and was offered a role part in the play "Stage Door" while awaiting his demob." - role or part?

• Rothorpe (talk · contribs) already cleared that one up for me. - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Check the entry to The Desperate Hours , as its year seems to be incorrect.

• It was - now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not too sure on the laws around overlinking within the tables. If its the same as FAC, check for overlinking to Embassy Theatre and St. Martin's Theatre.

• Should be OK: as the table is sortable, the order can change, so multiple links are OK. Overlink is geared towards prose to ensure readability, which isn't the case with tables, so FL takes a more flexible view. - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• On the second table, I would be consistent with the rank titles within the "Role" section. I would not abbreviate, instead I would use the full name.

• Agreed - now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• As per the overlinking comment above, if it turns out this applies to lists, there is a gross amount of overlinking to the BBC and ITV.

• As above: they should be OK. - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Finally, as per the rank comment above, check for consistency within this table too. At first glance I see Superintendent / Supt. Also, I would still use the full titles for Sergeant and Detective Inspector.

• Agreed—all soreted, as above - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Cassianto^Talk 19:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Uncle David

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been put together in a manner that is fully referenced and makes use of all available sources. It would be good to see it go on to GA review, but first of all it requires a peer review.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cast should be mentioned somewhere along the line. I prefer to see it in the plot section (as can be seen here or here). If there's good information on the casting process, etc, then you could go with a standalone cast section (like this), but I'm not keen on them without real-world info to flesh them out.
• Not sure "anti-conventional" shouldn't just be "unconventional" (while I'm at it, I've never seen "lambaste" with that E, but Chrome's spellcheck seems to say it's ok so I'm probably worried over nothing).
  • I've changed it to "anti-establishment" rather than "anti-conventional". I don't think "unconventional" really describes the particular scene. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Link to Isle of Sheppey?
• Probably best to go with "double" rather than 'single' quotes on "The Divine David".
• A book is titled, rather than entitled (it doesn't hold an entitlement to something. Unless it's been a very good book, I guess. Who's to stop it?). Same goes for the farewell show.
• A quick qualifier on who Westwood is might be useful—just replacing "and then for Vivienne Westwood" with "and then for punk designer Vivienne Westwood" should be enough.
  • Didn't she pretty much give up on being a punk in 1980, becoming "post-punk" or something ? I'll just call her a designer for now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• "but insisted that all he needed was a 30 minute break"—is this just one break or a break before each day/take/scene?
• "he felt that it was "quite hectic but a great atmosphere""—might be a good idea to slap an interpolation in there, and make it "he felt that it was "quite hectic but [had] a great atmosphere"".
• If there's nothing else under "Release" except the home media stuff, I don't see the need for two headings; just drop "release" and bring "home media" to a higher heading level
  • Added a bit more to that section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• I think the reception sections leans a bit heavily on quotes; some of them could be truncated or paraphrased to better effect.
• Images could do with some alt text.
• Overall this is a pretty decent article, certainly enough to make GA with ease. I'll have to point an old flatmate to the film, too, as it sounds right up his street. I tried looking for a few extra sources for you (AllRovi, BFI) but didn't find anything; given its themes I don't know if there's maybe any LGBT magazines or websites that might have covered it too (though the scope is well-balanced so you're not in any real need of extra reviews or the like if they don't exist). GRAPPLE X 00:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Grapple! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Momoe Yamaguchi

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is quite complete, but I am about the only person editing it for the last twelve months, and I think it would be useful to get some fresh input from other editors. I hope to hear from you, good things or bad things.

Thanks, JoshuSasori (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

---

UFC 140

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd eventually like to get this article towards a WP:GA nomination. I'm not sure I am happy with the article's current state but am unsure on how to improve it further.

Thanks, --TreyGeek (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Demographics of Filipino Americans

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominatee this page for good article review, and would like other eyes to review this article prior to submission.

Thanks, RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Pavel Nedvěd

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded and referenced all over the place and would like to clean up any outstanding issues before I nominate it as a good article. In particular, I would like:

• check if any BLP issue still needs a citation
• comments on the stats section

Thanks, C679 15:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

While the article is much improved, at this stage a good article nomination would be premature. This is mainly because of gaps in its coverage. While the GA criteria do not require everything to be addressed, the major things should all have good coverage. As an example, I found Lee Hughes in the queue of articles awaiting GA review, it does a good job of demonstrating the sort of coverage to aim for. More specifically:

• There is a big imbalance between the first half and second half of his career. The ten years of his senior career before Juventus are summed up in just two short paragraphs. Nedved was the fulcrum of the most successful Lazio side of all time, and this deserves more than a couple of brief sentences.

  added 12 references, many through HighBeam, which has expanded coverage of his Lazio stint.

• Likewise, in the international career section, more coverage is given to unremarkable group stage exits than the Euro 96 run that first brought Nedved to international attention (and led to his transfer to Italy).

  added four references and match-by-match for Euro 96, including suspension and first international goal.

• The circumstances of Juventus winning titles and then having them rescinded ought to be explained clearly. What prompted Nedved to play in Serie B instead of seeking a transfer?

  added more information about the scandal and the player's reasons for staying.

• What makes the following pages a reliable source?
  • http://www.soccer-fans-info.com/pavel-nedved.html
  • http://www.footballteamplayers.com/pavel-nedved-profile.html
  • http://www.footballsweepstake.com/players/player.asp?pageid=543&player=572 and http://pavelnedved.110mb.com/biography.html (these 2 are also dead links).

    all replaced except last one - no suitable alternative could be found.

• What were Nedved's main attributes as a player? Many well-developed football biographies have a Playing style section to cover this.

  created new section, moved nickname citations there and have expanded.

• Widely regarded as one of the finest midfielders of the modern era - by whom?

  removed and reworded.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Oldelpaso. I will delete the claim with the unreliable source if I cannot find a good reference for it soon. C679 12:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Casliber

Sorry I've been busy. Notes as I go.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Try to tidy up prose into paras - don't leave single sentences about the place.

  looks like you have addressed this yourself – thank you.

• In 1990, Nedvěd arrived in Prague, his nation's capital. - I'd drop "his nation's capital."...not that obscure....

  removed and reworded.

Thanks a lot Casliber. C679 17:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article needs to be reviewed for POV issue first. I think the article is about as neutral as possible, but wording should be reviewed. Second, it needs to be reviewed for structure and format. Especially the Other controversies sections needs to be looked at.

Thanks, Casprings (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not American and although somewhat aware of this controversy it's not something I've given a lot of time or thought to previously. This may have benefits and limitations for this review. Also, please bear in mind this is only my second peer review and the last one I undertook was sometime in 2011.

And thanks to everyone who took the time to write what I'm sure has been a very contentious article. I found it interesting, informative and well written. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any policy on the matter, but is it normal for an article that is currently a good article nominee to undergo peer review? FiachraByrne (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I put it on hold. Will use your comments to improve the article then hopefully take it to GA.Casprings (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll do the lead after I've gone through the rest of the article ...

Note. The Background section is entirely original research and synthesis of material outside the scope of the article. This article is not the place to argue the theory of Rape and/or Pregnacy from rape. Additionally, since the section is comprised of material that pre-dates this article it is clearly the attempt to write a research paper and link previous research to the 2012 election. This entire section has to be deleted as a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Arzel (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no original research in the background section and I'd advise you to read the sources used in the that section and consult the relevant policy pages (WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH) before making such claims. The section summarises secondary sources which deal with elements of the controversy – Akin's remarks – and situates them in a specific historical context. Original research applies when facts are introduced into an article for which no reliable source exists. This section is sourced to reliable sources which it summarises and therefore the charge of original research is misapplied. Likewise, the section does not infer original conclusions from its sources and therefore the charge of synthesis is also inappropriate.

There is no debate about rape in that section. It reports a relevant view of the incidence of pregnancy following rape and of some would-be physiological mechanism that women subjected to "forcible" rape have of forestalling pregnancy. As these views very much fall under the category of Fringe it is appropriate to state that they have no scientific validity and such statements are sourced to reliable authorities.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The subject of the article is in relation to the 2012 election. The background is not the background of the 2012 election and the view of rape related pregnacies, it is a research view of the question of rape related pregnacies. I have written enough papers to see the clear research presentation in this section. In a research paper it would be called the lit review aspect of the research. By creating this section you are in effect writing a research paper on the this article. Hence this section is contributing to Original Research. Furthermore you are trying to link previous research to this event which is Synthesis of Material. Simply put, any information included must be relevant to the article and specifically mention the effect regardinh the 2012 election. The big problem the approach being done here is that you, the editor, is framing the background outside of the scope of the article. If Casprings wants to write a research paper, I suggest he/she do it somewhere else, and the get it published in a journal. Arzel (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's telling that you haven't constructed an argument that is pertinent to any existing wikipedian policy, much less to that of original research or synthesis as defined on the relevant policy pages. This is an individual interpretation of what constitutes original research and as such you should seek community consensus before seeking to apply at individual articles. You've also introduced a distinction between what you think is appropriate for inclusion in the background to a given article without actually defining the basis for that distinction in any meaningful terms (other than your assertion that you are somehow able to identify said distinction having "written enough papers"). That the material is relevant for inclusion in such a section is determined in the first instance by its presence in reliable sources and not by the idiosyncratic interpretation of what is germane as advanced by individual editors. The sources, cited in the section additions, have identified the theories of Mecklenburg and Willke as pertinent to the topic of this article. In terms of improving the article, they make the controversy more rather than less intelligible and provide much needed context for the reader. The additional statements that the theories of the Mecklenburg and Willke are "medical inaccurate" and without scientific validity is derived from policy relating to WP:FRINGE - as these are demonstrably pseudoscientific medical theories it is necessary for the article to state that fact per WP:FRINGE/PS on the basis of reliable and authoritative medical sources per WP:MEDRS. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Background

• The background to these claims is lacking. They're obviously not pulling this stuff out of the air so there must be some kind of back history to this particular claim. Are there any available sources that account for its emergence? Such a context, if available, would improve the intelligibility of the article. Also, sources permitting, it might be useful to outline the implications of this claim for US abortion law.

• There is background to it. It is detailed in pregnancy from rape. I will try to offer a better summery and place tht as the main article. Thanks Casprings (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Done [2]. There may be more to add - particularly about Mecklenburg's wife. That he was inspired by Nazi experiments on ovulating women is an observation I'd be inclined to leave out. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated to the 2012 election controversy. Arzel (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's context which informs the controversy and is supported by the relevant sources.FiachraByrne (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• "US Republican politicians had claimed that pregnancy from rape is rare before the 2012 election cycle." This was a general statement endorsed by US Republicans and released just prior to the 2012 election cycle? The sentence lacks precision. It's obviously referring to some Republican politicians, I assume a minority, over a significant period of time.

• Actually I think taking out republicans and saying some pro-life politicians is better. Targets a smaller group and makes sure we are saying some of that group. Casprings (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless some of the politicians named in this paragraph are not Republicans I'd favour inserting "Republican" after "pro-life". Also I think you should change the text "before the 2012 election cycle" as it can be read as implying that such statements were made just before that date. I'd suggest: "During the three decades prior to the 2012 election cycle, several pro-life Republican politicians had claimed that pregnancy from rape was rare."FiachraByrne (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Done [3] FiachraByrne (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• If the statements in this paragraph are to be presented chronologically, I'd probably lead with Holmes. Also, I think the relevance of his confirmation as a federal judge is questionable and, as currently formulated, breaks the flow of the text. You could just refer to his successful nomination?

• I agree with that. I will change itCasprings (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The facts show that people who are raped—who are truly raped—the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever." Judging from the source There should be an ellipsis (...) before the second sentence of that quote.

• DoneCasprings (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• "He later apologized and later called his claim a mistake ..." Suggest: "He later apologized, saying he had been mistaken/in error ..."

• DoneCasprings (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Todd Akin and "legitimate rape"

• It might be better to move the image of Akin to the right hand side of the page, otherwise the first quote in that section will not be indented properly.

• DOne Casprings (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• "On August 19, 2012, Republican member of the House of Representatives from Missouri's 2nd congressional district and candidate in the 2012 U.S. Senate elections in Missouri, and long-time anti-abortion advocate Todd Akin said that victims of what he called "legitimate rape" rarely become pregnant." This sentence is too long, contains too much information and is difficult to read. Might it make sense to break it into two sentences, introduce Akin in the first sentence, and then his statement on "legitimate rape" in the next?

Also I think it might be important to introduce some specific context for Akin's remarks if any is detailed in reliable sources. Has he made any such statements before? Has he made any significant or controversial comments on rape and abortion prior to this incident? Is there anything from his background relevant to this controversy that might inform the reader? FiachraByrne (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

DOne Casprings (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Akin's comments almost immediately led to uproar;" Currently unsourced - you can support it with this source.

• DOne Casprings (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• "the term "legitimate rape" was assumed to imply belief that some types of rape are "legitimate", or alternatively that rape victims who become pregnant are likely to be lying about their claim." You might insert "the" before belief. I'm not sure if the text adequately reflects the sources. From those sources, the implication of the term appears to be that "legitimate" rape is equivalent to forcible rape - excluding other forms of rape (statutory rape, etc) as rape - and that trauma acts as a form of birth control. Although I follow the logic ("legitimate rape" implies "illegitimate [claims of being] rape[d]"), there's no suggestion in the sources that the term indicates that pregnant rape victims are lying (rather than that they are, for Akin et al., almost a logical impossibility). I'd rephrase this definition more carefully to reflect the sources and possibly look for better sources that might tease out a little more the implications and context of the term (I've had no luck finding any yet myself). Certainly, restate the claim which is that rape victims don't become pregnant and "legitimate" rape should be understood as equivalent to "forcible" rape

• Done. However, need more sources to get at what akin meant in his own context. Casprings (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

In one of the sources there was an interview with Akin where he said by "legitimate" rape he meant "forcible" rape. I'll try and find it. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Akin's comments were widely seen as being based on long-discredited pseudoscience; experts said the claims lacked any basis of medical validity.[14][15][16]" Akin's comments should fall under WP:FRINGE. Assuming you can find a good secondary medical source, per WP:MEDRS, you can go stronger than this in stating without in-text attribution or qualification that the claim is without validity. I've posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Rape and Pregnancy to see what's the best source for this. Having said that you don't won't to lose the reporting of the largely negative response to his comments so I wouldn't excise anything here.

OK. A WP:MED participant provided links to a primary study (already frequently referenced in the secondary sources of this article but not included in the article itself) and a secondary source (a statement by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists which is also not included in the article). These sources can be used to make an unattributed statement to the effect that Akin's claims are medically inaccurate and that there is no biological basis to the claim that raped women have a physiological mechanism to prevent pregnancy. I would then follow that or a similar statement of fact with the attributed comments above. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Done Casprings (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Iowa congressman Steve King supported Akin,[17]" I assume that King is a Republican but this should be stated.

• Done

• "who saw Akin's comments as representative of his long-held views;" While it seems a credible statement, the sources cited do not support it.

• Removed

• "Akin co-sponsored a bill with Congressman Paul Ryan called the "Sanctity of Life Act" in 2011 which sought to confer "personhood" to the zygote at the moment of conception in an effort to make abortion illegal even in the case of rape.[22][23]" Source: "Congressman Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate, was among the sponsors, along with Akin, of the "Sanctity of Life Act" in 2011. The bill sought to confer "personhood" at the moment of conception, in an effort to make abortion, even in the case of rape, illegal. I think the paraphrasing in the last section of that sentence is a little too close to the source for comfort.

  Reworded to bring out that he had supported limits in abortion, even in the case of rapeCasprings (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Akin's comment was widely characterized as misogynistic ..." Surprisingly, the sources don't support the claim that his remarks were misogynistic. The nearest one gets to that is from the third source which states that his comments "provoked howls of outrage" from women's rights groups. The most frequent characterisation from those sources is that his commentary revealed his deep ignorance. I assume, however, that it will be trivial to find a source to support the misogynistic statement?

• I just went ahead and removed misogynistic. Someone who looks at the peer review can always add it back with a sourceCasprings (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Scott Ross of NBC said that Akin's comments affected his Senate candidacy. [27]" This reads like a retrospective analysis. In fact, the comments were made as the furore was developing and were both predictive and qualified.

• Changed wording

• "Tom Cohen of CNN said that according to Republican Party officials, the debate "shifts the national discussion to divisive social issues that could repel swing voters rather than economic issues that could attract them in a climate of high unemployment and stumbling recovery".[28]" Unless he's seen as particularly partisan or potentially unreliable, is Tom Cohen of CNN a necessary inclusion. Also, I'd adjust the text so that the quote is in the past tense. Might it be better to say that: "During the crisis, Republican party officials were reported as stating that Akin's remarks had shifted "the national discussion ..." ?

  Changed wording per suggestion Casprings (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

End of part 1. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Reactions

• "Akin's remarks were strongly condemned by some Republicans." Given the examples which follow I'd prefer "senior Republicans" here.Casprings (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• DoneCasprings (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• "National Republican Senatorial Committee" Place (NRSC) in brackets following this committee name as you refer to this committee by acronym in the next paragraph

• DoneCasprings (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Republican super PAC ..." A PAC is what (Public Accounts Committee?)? Spell it out in first instance.

• DoneCasprings (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• "He described Akin's comments as "biologically stupid" and "bizarre" and said that "This is not ..." Comma should follow "and said that"

• DoneCasprings (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• " Mike Huckabee supported Akin by soliciting donations for his Senate campaign and accused the "Republican establishment" of a "carefully orchestrated and systematic attack. This should probably go into the following paragraph which contains examples of support which Akin received.

• Done Casprings (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• "A representative of the American Family Association cited Willke's 1999 article ..." This is the first time that Willke's has been mentioned. Having at this stage done a little reading of the sources, I'd suggest including Willke's in the Background section; he's obviously significant for the pregnancy-rape claim.

• Done. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Personhood USA spokeswoman Jennifer Mason said that ... "[we] are left with Reagan Republicans, who agree with the Republican Party platform on abortion, and Romney Republicans, a fringe group of liberals who compromise on human life." This is interesting context (Romney "weak" on abortion) and I wonder should some reference to this be included in the Background section.

• Done. In background section

• "President Barack Obama responded to Akin's comments by saying "Rape is rape ... And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we're talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me." This is a one sentence paragraph and the only part of this section which discusses the Democratic Party response. Might it be fleshed out with responses from other senior Democratic Party members?

• Not done, but will do it once I make other changes based on this peer review.Casprings (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's just a suggestion and dependent upon there being good sources to provide other Democratic reactions to the comments. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Akin gave two radio interviews in which he stated that he was in the election to win." I'd preface this by saying that despite intense pressure to step aside, Akin resolved to remain in the race.

• DoneCasprings (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Representative Phil Gingrey, an OB-GYN ..." What's an OB-GYN?

Done. Spelled out Obstetrics and gynaecologyCasprings (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Political Impact

• Two short paragraphs. Maybe amalgamate into one?

• Done

• "McCaskill lead Akin in this poll ..." Change to "led"

• DOne

More later FiachraByrne (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Richard Mourdock: pregnancy from rape is "something that God intended

• There are structural issues regarding how these various controversies link together coherently which I think I'll address at the end. Is there a single source that discusses all or most of these rape-pregnancy comment controversies of the 2012 election cycle?

• There are some links in the background section that tie many of these together.Casprings (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Present structure is probably best. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Any relevant background on Mourdock that might contextualise these comments? Has he made similar statements or been involved in similar controversies before? Is he identified with any particular wing of the Republican party or associated with any other pertinent groups?

• He had strong connections to the tea party. This should be added. Will work on this in the future. Casprings (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Richard Mourdock, the Indiana State Treasurer and 2012 Republican Senate candidate, became embroiled in a controversy after stating that pregnancy from rape is "something that God intended" during a debate on October 23, 2012 while explaining his opposition to abortion even in the case of rape." This sentence, in my opinion, is overly long and has too many clauses. Could it broken down into two sentences? Would it be possible to state that these comments came about 2 months after those of Akin's. That might at least give the reader a chronological sense of the evolution of the controversy or controversies.

• Done

• "The comments contributed to Mourdock's loss to Rep. Joe Donnelly" Again, I'm not sure the source can support that statement. The commentary is prospective - made before the outcome of the election - and looks quite speculative. It is reasonable to assume that the rape comments were detrimental to his electoral chances but to state that definitively I think you'd need a source published after the electoral outcome (and with some reference at least to actual polling data ideally). The current source can be used to say something like, "Commentators at the time predicted that Mourdock's remarks were likely to negatively impact upon his electoral chances ..."

• Added source Casprings (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Mourdock issued a statement which said..." When? Why? How long after his initial comments? Was he under pressure? There should be some context for this subsequent statement.Casprings (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Good point. The other statement needs a little context. Will develop a paragraph once I work through the rest of the peer review. Casprings (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "When prominent Republicans, including Senator John McCain, asked him to issue an apology, Mourdock refused." That McCain asked him to apologise is repeated in the Reactions section immediately following. Is it necessary to include it here as well?

• Sentence is removed.Casprings (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Reactions

• "The Romney campaign subsequently issued a statement saying "Gov. ..." Comma after saying

• DoneCasprings (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Senator John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee said, ..." Comma after Committee

• Done. I also used NRSC because it is defined in the Akin portion of the article. Casprings (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "President Obama said on the Tonight Show, "Rape is rape. It is a crime," and, "These various distinctions about rape don't make too much sense to me." This sentence accurately represents its source. However, it appears to me that Obama is not addressing Mourdock's comments at all and is instead repeating his statement following Akin's remarks. If that's what he does, that's what he does but is there another account of this interview - perhaps with more detail - where he actually addresses Mourdock's contention? Or perhaps Obama disputes Mourdock more fully elsewhere?

• I modified the sentence to make it clear that he was responding to a question about Mourdock. He went on to link it to women's issues, so the quote could be expanded. What he actually said can be found here.Casprings (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Dan Parker, chairman of the Indiana Democratic Party immediately criticized Mourdock, and said, "I'm stunned and ashamed that Richard Mourdock believes God intended rape", and that he is an "extremist" who is out of touch with Indiana." Comma after Party; both instances of "is" in last clause should be changed to "was". This is from a reliable source, etc, but it's certainly a misrepresentation of what Mourdock said. I don't suppose any other source addresses this?

• I can't find any source that deals with his statement, but certainly Mourdock himself states that he didn't mean that god intended rape. His statement is already in the article. Not sure what to add here but to fix the statement.Casprings (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

True. I guess I'm uncomfortable as its such a blatant misrepresentation of his views. Anyhow, it's sourced correctly and it is what he said. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Other comments on rape and pregnancy

• Structurally, this section is very problematic. I actually had a look at the talk page of the article for the first time just now, and there it was noted that there had been an attempt to organise the article chronologically by event rather than in a "person-by-person format" but that it had produced a disjointed mess. So I'm not sure how that might be handled but the current structure is not working, in my opinion. Would it be possible to get a link to the previously attempt to organize the page in chronological narrative?

Here is the last time there was a different organize that section. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012&oldid=525773169 Casprings (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'm inclined to go with the present structure for now. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Steve King

• Steve King: it might be relevant to state that King supports the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" [4] and to explain what that is and if anyone else significant to this general controversy supports this bill. I'm wondering also if this section might not be better either incorporating into the Akin section or immediately following it? When did he make these comments? How soon after Akin?

Having read a little on the above bill, I'd suggest putting some reference to it in the background section. It provides relevant context which makes these purported distinctions between putatively different forms of rape and their relationship to pregnancy and abortion far more intelligible [5].

I am going to come back for this. I am not sure that it really fits in the background section of the article. However, the comments might fit better in the Akin reaction section. Casprings (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Roscoe Bartlett

• I dislike the long extract from the transcript of Bartlett's interview. It's a bit long, but could it or sections of it be put in a quotebox or something?

  I dislike it also. I put it in a quote box, but it needs formatting. Casprings (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's better, I think FiachraByrne (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• "On August 30, 2012, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a ten-term Republican Congressman from Maryland was asked to clarify his position on abortion." Add that he was speaking at a town hall meeting.

  Done Casprings (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "... the government should take away a woman’s access to making informed decisions about her own pregnancy,"[93] Bartlett lost his bid for re-election to the Democratic challenger John Delaney. Removing the comma after pregnancy; put a period after the closing quotation marks. New sentence begins with "Bartlett lost ..." (" ... about her own pregnancy". Bartlett lost ...")

• DOne Casprings (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Once I've gone through the whole article, I'll revisit some of the points above in light of Baffle gab1978's removal of text and justification for same. I disagree with some of their decisions. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Tom Smith

• "Following Todd Akin's comments, Pennsylvania Republican Senate candidate Tom Smith was asked on August 27, 2012 by the Pennsylvania Press Club about his no-exceptions anti-abortion stance." The first source used to support this sentence details that these comments were made arising out of inquiries of whether he supported Akin's position. This detail should be included.

Done Casprings (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "because his relative had become pregnant out of wedlock." Change "relative" to "daughter". Source makes clear he's talking about his own daughter.

DoneCasprings (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Jim Buchy

• "Republican State Representative Jim Buchy (R-OH) ..." The meaning of R-OH is not clear to a non-American readers.

  Just stated he was from Ohio

• "The reporter asked Buchy why he thinks some women may want an abortion." Change to "why he thought".

Done Casprings (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "These comments were picked up by the national media, including the Rachel Maddow Show" They were critical of his comments? Supportive? Lampooning?

Added that the comments were criticized. Casprings (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Linda McMahon

• "During a debate ..." When, where?

Done. Casprings (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "McMahon's phrase "emergency rape" proved controversial and was commented on by the media." Why was this phrase controversial? What kind of comments did the media make about it?

• Section needs more context. Will comeback and add it. Casprings (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

John Koster and "the rape thing

• "John Koster, a Republican congressional candidate in Washington's 1st District, said at a campaign fundraiser on October 28, 2012 when asked if he supports abortion rights in some situations, Koster replied that he only supports abortion in cases where a woman's life is in danger." Way too long, too many clauses, construction faulty, use past tense. Fourth source for this statement also specifies that he explicitly excluded cases of rape or incest as exceptions to his anti-abortion position and this should be included here to inform the subsequent quotations. Also the source linked to above gives better detail and context of how these remarks were obtained and should, in my opinion, be included here.

Changed wording. May come back to work with this some more. Casprings (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wider impact

• "The overall response to the comments and controversies was negative, and were blamed for Republican losses during the election." "were blamed" should be changed to "was blamed" to agree with "response" but surely it was the commentary on rape rather than the response to that commentary which was blamed for electoral loses? You should probably cite several representative sources here to support this statement.

• Changed wordingCasprings (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "American political consultant and policy advisor Karl Rove in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal wrote" Place a comma after "Rove" and after "Journal" or move "wrote" to position after "Rove".

• DoneCasprings (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "On the federal level, the controversies were cited as causing or contributing to the defeats of Akin, Mourdock, McMahon, Smith and Koster.[122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130]" You should aggregate those nine citations into one footnote WP:CITEBUNDLE. Are there academic studies that look at the reasons for republican loses and electoral outcomes?

• Working with the citations, including this is on my to do list for the article. There are no academic studies, I don't think.Casprings (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I bundled the citations into a single footnote.FiachraByrne (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• "However, Sen. Patty Murray, the chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said "[The] offensive comments from Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock did not decide this election. It was a result of hard work and critical strategic decisions over many months."" OK. Notable I guess because of who said it but not a very informative comment (they would say that wouldn't they?).

• Yeah, I agree. It adds little. I will take it out. Casprings (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• "In an article in Salon, Joan Walsh wrote "suddenly Americans had to try to imagine how doctors or hospital administrators or law enforcement officials would decide what was 'legitimate rape,' as opposed to something else. Rape panels?"" Why this source? Is it representative?

• She is a reasonably well known writer. I have no real answer to why this source. I think it was someone of WP:N that was commenting on the effect on the election. Should it be removed? Casprings (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No. I was just wondering if you had an argument for its inclusion. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Conservative blog Hot Air linked Akin's remarks to a positive ten percent shift in US public opinion polls toward supporting legalizing abortion in all circumstances." "toward support for the legalization of abortion" Is there a better, more authoritative source for this observation?

• Well, the polls they cite, but using that would be WP:SYN. Not sure if another secondary source made the commentary. I will look. However, it is reasonable notable because it is coming from a well known conservative outlet. Casprings (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The comments also were credited with helping President Obama win the women's vote. Karen Hughes, a former George W. Bush adviser wrote in Politico, "And if another Republican man says anything about rape other than it is a horrific, violent crime, I want to personally cut out his tongue. The college-age daughters of many of my friends voted for Obama because they were completely turned off by Neanderthal comments like the suggestion of 'legitimate rape.'"" Is Karen Hughes the only commentator who has made this observation? Can you add more sources to support the statement. Maybe you could cite the CNN source, which you use for data on the exit polls immediately below, to support the statement about Obama winning the women's vote? Is the first sentence of this quote necessary and does it add to the article?

• The reason I like the comment is because it comes from a pretty senior GOP member. The problem is that the article is basically dependent on secondary sources that comment on the overall impact. The only real scientific measure I could find was a CNN exit poll that directly asked voters if it effected their vote. I added that to the Akin section. Casprings (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• "According to exit polls, 55% of women and 45% of men voted for Obama and 44% of women and 52% of men voted for Romney. Comments from otherwise low profile candidates such as Rep. Todd Akin, may have cost Mitt Romney the election and also reinforced for some voters concerns that the GOP is out of touch with women." Are there alternative analyses of the breakdown of voting patterns by gender? If so, should they be included here? Casprings (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, there are secondary sources that suggest it had a wider impact. That in of itself is WP:N. However, it is a rather difficult thing to really gauge scientifically. The only real means to do so is exit polls. I did find a CNN exit poll that directly asked if the Akin comment effected their vote. I added that to the akin section. Casprings (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• "These comments caused the Republican Party to look for ways to stop Republican election candidates from making similar comments about rape." "These comments", coming at the start of new paragraph, is unnecessarily vague. Change "Republican election candidates" to "its election candidates".

• Done Casprings (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist and senior adviser to the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, said..." Comma or colon after "said"

• DoneCasprings (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Anti-abortion lobby groups, such as the Susan B. Anthony List, launched training programs to keep candidates and lawmakers from continually making the same kind of comments on rape." Source: "And it may have added new urgency to a training program that’s already being launched by an anti-abortion group — the Susan B. Anthony list — to keep candidates and lawmakers from continually making the same kind of comments ..." The wording of the second half of this sentence is too close to source. Please rephrase (don't just change the position of the words; rewrite it).

• Done.

FiachraByrne (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is too short and should be expanded to adequately summarise the article WP:LEAD. You actually have most of the main points in the lead but it is a little too succinct I think.

• Expanded in two ways. One, is that I mention the national effect as being only possible and mentioned women voters. Second, I mentioned the possible effect of these other controversies. I don't know if you had any other thoughts. Casprings (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Overlink

• You have two duplicated links. One to the Washington Post and one to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). Remove these duplicate links.

• Must of fixed this in my editing to this point

Disambiguation links

• None [6]

Dead links

• 6 dead links tagged [7] using Reflinks

Present tense

• Generally, watch your use of the present tense; these are past events and should be written in the past tense.

• Also need to add to my to do list. The article should be looked at and put in past tense.

FiachraByrne (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Are we ready to close this peer-review? FiachraByrne (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have any other thoughts, I would love to hear them. This gives plenty of things to do to improve the article, and I look forward to working on the article based on your comments. However, I would be foolish to suggest it be closed, if you have more thoughts. That said, thank you for your efforts. Casprings (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I have much more to add for the moment. I'll keep it on my watch-list and revisit the article in a week or so, have a re-read of it, and see then if anything else that springs to mind. Good luck with the good article review! FiachraByrne (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Then thanks again for the help.Casprings (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Alben W. Barkley

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I completely rewrote this article a few months ago and learned that the jump from Kentucky governors to U.S. vice-presidents is larger than I expected. Nevertheless, after an RFC, some copyediting help from Collect (talk · contribs), and a good article review, I'm looking for a tune-up before I take it to FAC. I look forward to responding to comments as promptly as I can. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 03:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments. Just some copyediting notes. Please return the favor and peer review the article I have listed (Battle of Adwa) right below yours.

• There are several uses of a hyphen (-) where an en dash (–) should be used:
  • Jefferson-Jackson Day
  • Young-Russell Amendment
  • Taft-Hartley Act
  • Connally-Fulbright Resolution
  • Sheppard-Barkley Act

If my keyboard had an en dash key, these would be easier to get right the first time. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• As this article is about a US Vice President, all instances of Vice-President and Vice-Presidency should be changed to Vice President and Vice Presidency.
  • Not sure why I was thinking it had a hyphen. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Lead:
  • ...and as the 35th Vice President of the United States from 1949 to 1953.
    • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • link: "county attorney" and "county judge"
    • These were linked until the GA reviewer suggested they should be unlinked. Re-linked. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • In 1905, He was first elected county attorney for McCracken County, Kentucky. He went on to become county judge in 1909 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky's First District in 1912.
    • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph now, Link: "Senate Majority Leader"
    • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph: With Truman's popularity waning entering the 1948 Democratic National Convention, Barkley gave a keynote address that energized the delegates. Truman selected him as his running mate for the upcoming election and the Democratic ticket scored an upset victory in the election. Barkley took an active role in the Truman administration, acting as its primary spokesman, especially after the Korean War necessitated the majority of Truman's attention. * I think it break the sentences down better
    • • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ...presidential campaign. However, key labor leaders refused to endorse his candidacy because of his age, and he withdrew from the race.
    • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • also consider linking the following: "vetoed," "caucus" "keynote address"
    • Linked veto and keynote address, but I think I'll pass on caucus. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

--That's it for now. I will come back later to continue. Remember to also review my article. Thanks ---አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I look forward to the rest of it. No promises on the battle; military history definitely isn't my forte, and I'm really hoping to make some progress on articles related to John C. Breckinridge while I've got a break from work for the holidays. I'll try to keep a mental note and at least give it a read-through, though. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt (Part I)

Lede

• Is it really necessary to start the biography in the first paragraph? Can't you say a few words about what he's known for in the first and then start the bio in the second?

• Given the concerns expressed about the length of the article, I thought it best to keep the lead to three paragraphs, especially since I don't know exactly what might go in the first paragraph – if not starting the biography – that wouldn't be repeated later in the lead. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat taken aback by the term "liberal" being used to describe a supporter of Wilson from the Border States, given Wilson's well-known racial views. I will hold my nose and with one hand type "progressive". A quick search of the article says nothing about Barkley and race. I don't think you can get away without some mention in the body, and probably in the lede as well, as to his actions and views on race.

• It seems like Libbey made some passing mention of race, but I don't remember in what context. It wasn't really tied to his political activity, so I didn't see a good way to tie it in. If changing "liberal" to "progressive" avoids the issue, I can do that, but the literature I consulted calls him a liberal. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• "nearly secured the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 1923" I'm of the opinion that ledes should be tightly written, and this phase can be traded for the word "narrowly" before lost and the date and office can used elsewhere in the sentence. Similarly, the description of Barkley's 1938 campaign is ripe for cutting (the part about wrongdoing seems prime firewood to me). Possibly it can be combined with the Hatch Act sentence, but that seems a little much, too. I just feel that more should be said about Barkley and that these seem tangents. Barkley had a forty-year public career, draw from that perhaps. Can more be said about what he did as Vice President? I know he expressed himself fairly strongly on anti-communism.

• Agree on the gubernatorial contest, which I have fixed. I also trimmed the bit about the election against Chandler; although tighter, it doesn't now explicitly mention that he was re-elected, but the reader should be able to figure it out. I really do think the Hatch Act bit is significant, and both contemporary and modern sources make it clear that this election was a big deal. As for his anti-Communism stances, the sources I consulted don't say much, if anything. I have full confidence that you are correct; I just don't have anything I can cite. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Early life

• "Unhappy with his birth name, he adopted "William Alben" as soon as he was old enough to express his opinion in the matter." I would make it clearer as to approximately what age. Judging by the chronology, I don't think you mean age 21.

• Believe me, I tried to find something more specific. It wasn't in any of the sources I read. Not sure what to do here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• We can't do better than our sources, alas.

• "Adlai Stevenson". Since you mention the other guy later, you should disambiguate the two somewhere in the article. After all, you don't say when the first one was VP!

• For the nonce, I've included a parenthetical disambiguation near the first mention of the younger Stevenson, but I'm open to cleaner suggestions. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• "In late 1891, the difficult economic times that preceded the Panic of 1893 convinced Barkley's father to sell his farm and move to Clinton, where relatives told him of opportunities to grow wheat on tenant farms." Do difficult economic times convince people? Perhaps a rephrase. I gather that what is meant is due to the low prices for agricultural commodities in the early 1890s, Barkley Sr. couldn't make enough money to pay the mortgage and preferred to become a sharecropper, where there was more security.

• Reworded. Better? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Barkley enrolled at a seminary school operated by James M. Shelton.[9] He did not finish high school, but entered Marvin College, a Methodist school in Clinton that accepted adolescents, in 1892." Why "operated by" Perhaps run by is good enough, and is Shelton worth mentioning just for a name? These sentences could be easily combined along the lines "Barkley entered a (Presbyterian?) seminary, but did not complete his studies, instead enrolling at ... " Also, I would substitute "younger students" for adolescents. After all, college students are in many cases adolescents today, and that was probably more so in the 1890s.

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• " (now Emory University) " I would insert "part of" for those who expect to find the school in suburban Atlanta.

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• "afford his basic living expenses" perhaps "meet" rather than "afford".

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• "In Paducah, Barkley worked as a law clerk for Democratic Congressman Charles K. Wheeler," makes Barkley's job sound political when it was not. Perhaps "In Paducah, Barkley worked as a law clerk to Charles K. Wheeler, an attorney and the local congressman."

• Hadn't thought of that. Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• "he hoped that being associated with Wheeler would aid him in his future endeavors, but Wheeler's congressional duties frequently kept him away from the office." Wheeler's absence wouldn't stop Barkley from being "associated" with his office. Or do you mean he hoped for the congressman's personal patronage? And if he was there to read law, obviously he hoped to be tutored by the Great Man. Also, the word "he" or "him" switches subject too many times in this sentence for me to be happy.

• I think I fixed the he/him/his issue. As for how he hoped to benefit, the source isn't clear. I've changed "associated with" to "acquainted with and tutored by", since you make a good point about association. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Might be worth a mention that (as you know), the Gold Democrats' veep candidate, Simon Bolivar Buckner, was from Ky, so there was support for that position there. Is there any info on how Barkley came to rejoin the mainstream (Bryan) Democrats? A lot of Gold Democrats went Republican, but that may not have been a serious option in Kentucky.

• Yeah, I thought about the connection, but I'm not sure how to weave it in without going off on a tangent. Actually, the whole Goldbug/Silverite issue was a big deal in Kentucky Democracy. It split the party enough to allow Republicans, for the only time in the state's history, to elect back-to-back governors in 1895 and 1899 (although 1899 was overturned). As for his conversion to being a Bryan Democrat, I suspect it was politically expedient, but I can't cite that. May have also been the Goebel assassination, which somewhat united the divided party. Going Republican definitely wasn't an option. The Jackson Purchase, where Barkley was from, was for many years called the "Democratic Rock of Gibraltar"; Republicans didn't fare well there. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've come to believe "former congressman" is better than "former Congressman" because it's really being used as a descriptor, not as a title.

• I agree, but got my hand smacked for not doing it the other way in a previous peer review. Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• So did I, and no one is as zealous as the convert.

• "He read law while completing his duties and was admitted to the bar in 1901." Completing his duties? Also, if reading law was the whole point to his getting a job as a clerk to Wheeler in the first place, I'd make it a bit clearer.

• I didn't really like "completing his duties" either. What I want to convey is that, while working as a clerk for Hendrick and Bishop, he also read law, allowing his admission to the bar in 1901. And while the sources don't explicitly say that reading law was the point of him clerking for Wheeler, the fact that he took a job that offered no payment other than access to Wheeler's law library makes it pretty obvious, doesn't it? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Early political career

• A throwaway mention that Paducah is in McCracken County prior to this would make this go smoother.

• Added an upstream reference. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• "This was the only time in Barkley challenged an incumbent Democrat." An "ever" before "challenged" might go well. But if Lightfoot was a Democrat (I have the impression that Republicans were not big in Paducah), is it true?

• Added "ever" and deleted a stray "in". And yes, it is true, inasmuch as Lightfoot didn't actually run against Barkley. He retired. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• The Smedley matter seems overdetailed. Does the account of his trip to the hospital (and return) help the reader understand Barkley? Barkley's role in all of this seems minimal.

• I thought the details of his hospital trip showed the strength that Republicans ascribed to the Democratic machine in the county. It is connected to Barkley because he did the first investigation, which did not uncover the full amount embezzled by Smedley. Also, the Republicans in the county campaigned almost exclusively on the Smedley matter. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, but I'm not sure it's a point you need to illustrate. The savvy reader's already caught on about the state of play in the parties, and I'm not sure that telling them about the hospital trip clues anyone else in.

• OK, trimmed that bit. Does it look OK now? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"corvée system" If people were forced to work on the roads without pay, I would say so. Also, that sentence could use splitting.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Working on next tranche. If I haven't replied, I'm content.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's another batch:

US Representative

• "Prompted by First District Representative Ollie M. James' decision to seek election to the U.S. Senate in 1912, " But surely this was before the 17th Amendment. Why did Jones have to give up his seat?

• Not sure, but Libbey says James "decided to vacate his district to seek a seat in the United States Senate in 1912". This obituary also says he "ran for" the office, but that his opponent withdrew. In Kentucky: Portrait in Paradox, Klotter mentions a Democratic primary in July. Maybe this is the election he resigned to prepare for. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Very likely. Even before 1913, states were having primaries and advisory elections.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Woodsmen of the World was motivated by its potential political advantages" I would simply say "Woodsman of the World was politically-motivated" Simply lest people wonder what those potential political advantages are (and if Obama knows) (of course he does).

• And the wording is more concise to boot. Good change. Also, a nice, not-so-subtle dig at the Community-Organizer-in-Chief. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "1916 Sheppard–Barkley Act which banned alcohol sales in Washington, D.C.[48][49] It was passed in 1917" So why is it the "1916" Act? Surely people usually look to year of enactment, Coinage Act of 1965, for example?

• It was introduced in 1916 and failed, but reintroduced and passed in 1917. This was clearer before some copyediting designed to reduce the size of the article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Could it be made clearer in the second paragraph that we're talking about a prohibitionist faction of the Democratic Party, not the Prohibition Party? I was in doubt until the following paragraph, perhaps that material could be moved up.

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Barkley campaigned for Wilson's re-election in 1916, using the slogan "he kept us out of war"." This seems to say that Barkley used it, certainly he would have been far from the only one as that phrase was widely used.

• This was also clearer before the length-reducing copyediting. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• The lengthy dashed phrase about the Zimmerman telegram is unpleasing. Can that be massaged out?

• I would like to, but I'm not exactly sure how to balance the need to explain the telegram with the need to keep the sentence short and on-topic. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Something like "By early 1917, Germany had lifted all restrictions on attacks on neutral shipping supplying Britain and France, outraging many Americans. The publication in February of the Zimmermann Telegram, in which ... , also brought the United States closer to war."

• "Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war on April 2, 1917, and Barkley voted for the resolution two weeks later." Barkley sounds rather tardy.

• Good point. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Congressman J. Campbell Cantrill, who along with Stanley, led the conservative Bourbon wing of the party" Bourbon links to a description of the Gold Democrats who were rather extinct by 1923. I certainly don't use the term "Bourbon Democrats" in my 1896 articles because it was what their enemies called them. I don't know what to advise you about the 1923 vintage though. Judging by their name, you are saying they favored the repeal of prohibition?

• The source uses the term "Bourbon", but if it's causing confusion, let's just drop it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• (a "Busines Man"), I really think you need a sic here, if the spelling is as intended.

• Nope. Just a typo. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Bingham's campaign forced Barkley to declare his candidacy earlier than planned, but it was not successful outside Louisville". I think the sequence of events a bit easier to follow if you made this its own sentence and switch it and the previous sentence.

• Really? I thought it necessary to explain the "Business Man" moniker as soon after introducing it as possible. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I looked it over and I think you've done about the best you can do. It's confusing because of the surfeit of candidates, all of whose names begin with "B".--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• " in Danville, Kentucky" Kentucky can probably be dropped (really, where else would he go to broaden his appeal in Kentucky but Kentucky?) Possibly you might want to add a brief descriptor to say where in Kentucky Danville is.

• Both good points. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "based mostly in eastern Kentucky, opposed him" Why? Is it worth saying briefly?

• Is it not clear that the horse racing and coal industries opposed him because he wanted to cripple them by banning parimutuel betting and imposing a new tax on them, respectively? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• No, actually. In the 21st century, imposing a tax wouldn't be seen as necessarily crippling.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• " by the party chairman" I thought by the committee.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Best I remember, the sources say different things, but I'll change "chairman" to "leaders", which is surely accurate. I doubt one person made the decision alone. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Still more (hope to finish tonight)

• That's all I have time for at the moment. Sorry for the long delay. I got feedback on this, 3 GACs, and 1 FAC all together, so I'm playing catch-up. Hope to pick off the rest of these soon. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

US Senator

• "Hoover refused to call a special congressional session to adopt relief measures in early 1931, angering Barkley, but he was injured in an automobile accident in June," Ambiguous as to who was injured, and I don't quite understand the "but". I suspect the reason was that the Democrats were very close to control at least of the House after the 1930 election, they wanted a new session after March 4. During "early" 1931, at least up to March 3, Congress was in session, with a thumping Republican majority elected in 1928. This passage seems a bit dubious.

• The source actually says "late winter", but I can't adopt that wording, per WP:SEASON. The period in question is likely sometime from mid-March to May, but since the month or months aren't specified, I just tried "early 1931", which apparently didn't work either.

• "Roosevelt supporters offered Barkley a keynote address and temporary chairmanship of the 1932 Democratic National Convention " At the time, wasn't the temporary chairman also the keynoter? And why the "a" keynote address? Advise a link too.

• Not sure whether the temporary chairman was also the keynote speaker at that time. Also, I thought the source left the question open of whether there was one keynote or one keynote per day, but I have no problem changing it to "the", since a review of the source doesn't rule that out. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I"ve never heard of multiple keynoters but I've never really looked at the Democratic conventions of that era in detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• " a Kentucky Senator " lower case on Senator I think.

• Quite right. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• "appointed Barkley as his assistant" Deputy, I would think.

• The source says "assistant". Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hm. If I find something with a formal title, I may make a change. But I'm not strong on references from that era.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Republican chairman" Republican National Committee chairman (or RNC with a link if you want to save space).

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• "to succeed Robinson" I would add, as Majority Leader.

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• What was Barkley's position on the court-packing plan? I think for completeness, you should say.

• I don't recall seeing how he felt about it personally in any of the sources. Looking back at Libbey's biography, he stresses that Barkley's anti-Supreme Court comments at the DNC were his own, but that he wasn't consulted prior to Roosevelt's introducing the plan, so it wasn't a direct reference. It seems his efforts on behalf of the plan were mostly about party unity and loyalty to Roosevelt. Barkley's memoirs might say, but I don't have access to them right now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• " publicly non-committal" Hm. Publicly neutral?

• Works for me. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• This article contains "re-election" and similar words both with and without hyphen. Suggest consistency, no preference as to which you adopt.

• Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• The lede refers to Chandler's challenge being in 1938; the body speaks of it in 1940. Given Barkley was last elected in 1932, the former seems more likely.

• Not sure how I managed to screw that up. It was quite obviously 1938. Must have gotten confused with the NYT quote about the election's effect on the 1940 DNC. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• And 1940 wasn't a midterm election anyway.

• See above. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• " Chandler admitted his belief that he was destined to be president and that he saw the Senate as a step in his ascension" I think it is one thing to say that to confidants, and another in public, and which Chandler did should be clarified.

• Fair enough. The source actually says he was convinced he was destined to be president, but the author doesn't say how he came to that conclusion. Changed to reflect the fact that it is Klotter's opinion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, he did get to be baseball commissioner.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• "so he enlisted allies like Fred Vinson and the Courier-Journal to campaign on his behalf" Does a newspaper campaign? In a way it does, but it goes about it rather differently than Vinson did, so I'm not sure they can be lumped together like that. Also, that sentence contains the word "campaign" or a variant three times. At least one too many, I fear! Similar though less intense problem with "organized labor" a couple of sentences later.

• That is some ugly repetition. Fixed. Also removed the reference to the CJ, since your point is a valid one. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• "in the spirit of party unity, Roosevelt also made courteous remarks about Chandler.[108] In Bowling Green, he chastised Chandler for "dragging federal judgeships into a political campaign"" I suggest that there is a disconnect between the "courteous remarks" bit and the rather discourteous quote which follows that perhaps could be bridged better.

• Yes, that was the result of a poor copyedit on my part. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Barkley supported the bill and helped secure its passage" That rather steals the fire from the statement following that Barclay won the election, since you've just told the reader that Barclay was in the Senate in 1939. Can you shuffle things around to put this after?

• That is rather problematic, isn't it? I think I've fixed it in a way that makes sense. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• "and the worst suffered by a primary candidate in Kentucky's history to that time" I'd imagine Kentucky as prone to fringe candidates as the next place, so saying that it is the worst defeat ever by a primary candidate makes me think a little bit of clarification is called for here.

• Not sure what to do here, since I'm pretty sure that's what the source says. I assume the author was discounting fringe candidates, but I can't definitively say what parameters he had in mind when making the statement. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Up to you. It seems a bit dicey, but you've got the sources and see things in more context than me.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• You at some point should give the date of the primary election. And when you say that Roosevelt campaigned against conservative incumbents, do you mean in 1938 or 1940? If the first, there's a sequencing issue.

• The election date was August 6. The source does, in fact, say that Roosevelt campaigned against conservative incumbents in 1938. It references a 1939 Jasper Shannon article in the Journal of Politics to which I do not have access. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Well, possibly the primaries happened late in the season. After all, it was tantamout to election.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Since you seem to be reaching back in time slightly, perhaps "had failed" for the first sentence in "floor leadership"?

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Roosevelt told Barkley that some Democratic partisans hoped to nominate him for president at the 1940 Democratic National Convention, but Roosevelt intended to seek a third term, and the German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, deepened his resolve" It is less than clear exactly what part of that Roosevelt told Barkley.

• Hopefully clearer now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• " during and after the war, he advocated creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine" Some doubt as to who "he" is.

• Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• " The power of labor unions had expanded under Roosevelt and the Democrats; consequently, in the 1946 elections, Republicans wrested control of both houses of Congress from the Democrats for the first time since the Great Depression and gained control of the majority of state governments." I don't get the consequentially. You do not show that the power of labor unions led to the Republican victory. Additionally, having the discussion of the Republican tucked between two discussions of unions is awkward.

• Hopefully fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• "for an unprecedented third time." Except you mention him making it in 1932, 1936, 1940, and now this one. I'm guessing the 1940 one was not a keynoter since he was the permanent, not the temporary chairman.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• You may be right. The 1940 address is not specifically called a keynote. Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• And concluding:

Veep

• "When Congress created the National Security Council, they " shouldn't it be "it"?

• Sounds awkward to me, but it's probably correct. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• " Illinois Senator Scott W. Lucas " Majority Leader, no?

• Yes, I think so. Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Barkley arrived by bus in Chicago? While I know delegates did, it's odd to have the veep do so.

• You would have expected what mode of transportation instead? The Libbey biography says he walked from "the station". I'm pretty sure the Davis source says it was a bus station, but I'll have to find that one again to be sure. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Can anything be said about Barkley's very self-depracatory, folksy speaking style at some point in the article?

• Several sources mention it, but I'm not sure it rises to a level of notability to merit inclusion in this article, particularly since concerns about its length have already been expressed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nice job.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay in responding. Real life and feedback on multiple articles I'm working on conspired to make finishing this difficult. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in responding but I'm on a research trip which is why I'm doing this at 3 am! Anyway, it looks good. Don't let my quibbles stop you from putting this forward at FAC (he will be the second vice president there, since Andrew Johnson's there). Sources are imperfect and we just have to do the best we can with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Lore Alford Rogers

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this person had a significant impact in the advancement of the human race, scientific progress, and industrial production. The article is also very very well sourced. This is an extraordinary candidate for WP:GOODARTICLE and even WP:FEATUREDARTICLE due to the vast amount of sources provided. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Singani

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it would benefit from becoming a class A article with featured article a possibility. Neutral eyes are always a help. Thanks.

Thanks, DGFritz (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Percy Fender

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Fender was one of the more interesting characters around in cricket before the Second World War. I'm hoping to take this to FAC at some point in the new year. As usual, any prose comments but particularly anything impenetrable to non-cricketers. I'm still hoping to cut the article back by 500 words or thereabouts, so please let me know of anything that really doesn't need to be there. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... The least I can do, after your help on Larwood. I can't promise a line-by-line commentary, but I may be able to help you lose the 500 or so words to which you refer above. And it may be a day or two before I get there (trouble at t'mill). Brianboulton (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As a starter I've looked at the lead, which I believe can be reduced by removing minor details and repeated information, and by some careful rephrasing. The current lead has 411 words; my suggested version (below) has 318:

Percy George Herbert Fender (22 August 1892 in Balham, London – 15 June 1985 in Exeter, Devon) was an English cricketer who played 13 Tests and was captain of Surrey between 1921 and 1931. An all-rounder, he was a middle order batsman who bowled mainly leg spin, and completed the cricketer's double seven times. Noted as a belligerent batsman, in 1921 he hit the fastest recorded first-class century, reaching three figures in 35 minutes which remains a record in 2012. On the basis of his Surrey captaincy, contemporaries judged him the best captain in England.

As early as 1914 Fender was named one of Wisden's Cricketers of the Year. After war service in the Royal Flying Corps he re-established himself in the Surrey team and became captain in 1921. His captaincy inspired a team which lacked effective bowlers to challenge strongly for the County Championship over the course of several seasons. Besides his forceful though occasionally controversial leadership, Fender was an effective performer with bat and ball, although he lacked support as a bowler. From 1921, he played occasionally for England but was never particularly successful in Tests. Despite press promptings, he was never appointed captain of England, and following a clash with the highly-influential Lord Harris in 1924, his England career was effectively ended. Further disagreements between Fender and the Surrey committee over his approach and tactics led the county to replace him as captain in 1932 and to end his career in 1935.

A very recognisable figure, Fender was popular with his team and with supporters. Cartoonists enjoyed caricaturing his distinctive appearance, but he was also well known outside cricket for his appearances and activities in society. In addition to his cricket career, Fender worked in the wine trade, had a successful career in journalism, and wrote several well-received books on cricket tours. He worked well into the 1970s, even after going blind. He died in 1985.

You may think this is too savage a cut, but I think it serves the purpose of the lead; brief and to the point, and keep the details in the main article. It's entirely up to you what you do with this suggestion! Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that looks pretty good to me, and I have adopted your wording with a little tweak to make it clear he played Tests for England. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Early years

I have tweaked the prose a bit, nothing major. If you want to cut you could generalise Fender's aptitude for sports rather than listing all those he was good at. One question: he was born in Surrey, went to school first in Surrey then in London. So why was he watching Sussex at Hove, Eastbourne etc? Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Cut the sports list. On the Sussex issue, he often stayed with his grandparents who lived in Brighton, which is where his qualification came from. It mentioned this in the next section, but I've added a mention here too to clear it up. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: I suggest you ignore the dab signal on High Master. There is no other useful link that explains what the term means. If it really bothers you, I'll create a stub: High Master (academic) that we can pipelink to. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That may be a good idea. As I'm a little clueless on these matters, I'd be obliged if you could handle that one. It is guaranteed that someone would complain at FAC! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, and put the pipelink in place. What's the betting that some creep will decide to delete the article as "lacking content"? Wait and see. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sussex career

I've done minor tweaks again.

• Date for his debut match v Notts?
• Suggested trim: Cut out what's between "...end of season" and "In total, he scored...". Nothing of great interest there.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Done both of these; for the latter, I salvaged the part about bowling medium pace as he changed his style later and would like to make the distinction. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Move to Surrey

• "To facilitate this..." - what is "this"?

• Sorted. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "funds and lyrics" is a mismatched pair that doesn't work. A bit more explanation is necessary. "Some musical shows" is very vague.

• I've tried re-wording. The source was a little vague too, but I'll dig a bit. Is this any better? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "By the end of the 1914 season, Fender had both convinced his father that he could successfully pursue a career in county cricket, and improved as a cricketer to the point where he was chosen as one of Wisden's Cricketers of the Year." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Cricketers of the Year are announced the following spring, so both of these things could not have been apparent at the end of the 1914 season. In any event, linking unrelated events like this together leads to awkward prose. Suggest: "By the end of the 1914 season, Fender had convinced his father that he could successfully combine cricket and business. His improvement as a cricketer was ercognised when was chosen as one of Wisden's Cricketers of the Year for 1914."

• Adopted this. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would trim the last couple of sentences. Suggest: "The season ended prematurely because of th outbreak of war in August 1914. Surrey had established a commanding lead in the County Championship table; as their nearest challengers had no objection, the MCC declared them as county champions".

• Adopted your wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Career in wartime

• Minor tweaks only - no real scope for serious trimming though I've managed a bit. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Much appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Resuming:

Appointment as Surrey captain

• Old review chestnut: do captains "win" matches, or do they lead sides to victory?

• Sorted, although you would think I'd know better by now! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• "His captaincy was very influential: I think, in this context, it's "effective" rather than "influential" (who was it influencing?)

• Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• "in one of the last games of the season" (second para): clarify that you mean 1920, having apparently moved on from there in the previous paragraph. Incidentally, the lead dates Fender's fast century to 1921, while Wisden says 1920.

• Oops. The lead is wrong, courtesy of yours truly! I've clarified 1920, which the whole paragraph should be about as that was the year of the record. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• The final paragraph obviously relates to 1920, butv again this needs to be clarified.

• See above, the whole thing should be 1920, as he scored the century in 1920. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Up to you, but I don't like "Johnny" (not encyclopedic"

• Tend to agree: went for JWHT, and also switched "Reggie" for "Reginald". Sarastro1 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise I have done a bit of light ce and trimming. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Test match cricketer

• The controversy between Tennyson and Armstrong (something to to with the declaration rules, I think) had nothing to do with Fender, and you could save a little text by omitting this info.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Fender's best batting came for teams other than Surrey, but Wisden described his fielding as "dazzling". Two unrelated facts should not be linked by "but".

• I've added that it was Wisden that made the batting comment, and reworded slightly. The "but" is still there, but should hopefully work now. Hopefully. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor prose trims. Continuing... Brianboulton (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

More

Peak

• What office did Harris then hold, that entitled him to decide on players' regisrations and throw his weight around generally? MCC committee menber?

• All round big cheese. Added a sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a "cricket terminology" link that will help readers to understand "matting wickets"?

• Not really. Rather than adding to the mess that is the cricket glossary article, I've added a note for the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The usual minor prose tweaks, saved a couple of dozen words. No further suggestions.

Controversy

• Possible sentence for the chop: "Further publicity came his way which may have soured his relationship with Lord's when his engagement was leaked by the press during the second Test." Not obvious why this would have upset Lord's, and not worth time explaining.

• Agreed and cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Possibly misplaced sentence: "In the following seasons, they dropped steadily and by 1929 were tenth." I got a bit muddled when, immediately afterwards, you jumped back to 1926. Perhaps the sentence could be deferred, or even left out?

• Left it out as the previous sentence makes much the same point, and added a comment for 1929. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• This observation could be relegated to a footnote: " In his survey of England cricket captains, Alan Gibson suggests that Fender and Carr were the only two realistic candidates by that time—other county captains either lacked the skill to play Tests or had already been tried and discarded."

• I think, if this is to be kept in (and I think it should be for the moment), it is better in the main body. It would not really add anything as a note, and sort of explain the narrative a little. If you are not convinced, I'd be easier to persuade that the comment should not be there at all. But for the moment, I'd prefer it to remain. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Late 1920s

• Gibson should have done his homework better. In 5 tests against the 1920-21 Australians, Fender scored 198 runs at 24.75 and took 14 wickets at 37.28. In his remaining Tests, all against South Africa, he scored 182 at 15.17 and took 15 wickets at 44.2. So his batting and bowling figures against the all conquering Australians were considerably better than those against the (then) feeble South Africans. In the circumstances, since Gibson's comment is plainly inaccurate, I'd advise dropping it.

• Regretfully agree (I'm very fond of Gibson!) and removed. Gibson is not the only one who should have done his homework better! Sarastro1 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments on final sections to follow

Last instalment !

Involvement with Bradman and Bodyline

• Minor copyediting - some text rearrangement towards the end

Resignation and retirement

• Who, prior to the 1936 season, suggested to Fender that he should play fewer games?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Batting, bowling and fielding

• A pity the photograph tells us so little about Fender's batting style. He might as well have been chopping wood.

• I agree, but we're a bit stuck. There is a marvellous photograph here and a few more here, but I cannot find a date or place of first publication, although I suspect some may be PD. And there is no chance of a fair-use image. However, I should be able to add a caricature of him. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that 24 runs in an over is special enough to be worth a mention, particularly for today's readers. 30+, yes.

• Cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Er, I don't believe for a moment he hit the ball "132 yards out of the Oval". That would be a hit of around 300 yards. He may have hit the ball out of the ground, a distance of 132 yards from wicket to landing place. Needs clarifying.

• That was pretty much what the source said, but I think it means 132 yards, which took it out of the ground. I simply cut "out of the Oval". Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it's possible for him to "catch balls some distance from him". I kind of know what you mean, but I think it needs rephrasing. Perhaps: He could move quixkly to catch balls hit some distance from him".

• Went for your wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Captaincy

• I dislike "possibly rooted in truth", unless it's a quote, (according to...)
• The last paragraph, apart from the final few words, is not about Fender's captaincy, and should be relocated in the article.

• Moved this to previous section. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• In general, I feel that this section could be cut. It repeats information (e.g. about Fender's early declaration tactics) already covered, likewise amateur and professional gates (which were really part of his battles with the establishment rather than his captaincy).

• I've taken out some of the repetition, but I think most of the section needs to remain (including one or two sort-of-repeated facts) to give a picture of his overall approach to leadership. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Cricket journalism

• It should be possible to give the titles and publication details of Fender's five books, perhaps in a listing à la Cardus, though obviosly not so long

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I cut the bit about his bookd being valuable, as I wasn't sure of the relevance. You might decide to reinstate.Checking with ABE Books, I see that he is the author of The ABC of Cricket and was a contributing author to The Lonsdale Library Volume VI. The Game Of Cricket. You may wish to mention these.

• No problem. Mentioned the first, but haven't added anything of which he was not the main author. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal life

• You mention "his father's stationery firm"; earlier, Fender senior is descibed as "the director of a firm of stationers" and then there is mention of "the firm of paper manufacturers and stationers of which his father was managing director". We need to be clear: did Robert Fender own the business, or was he merely a senior employee? If the latter, it shouln't be described as "his father's stationery firm".

• The sources say director. I'm not sure I see a problem, even if he was an employee. If he had worked in, say, the same factory that his father was a machinist, I think it would be OK to say "his father's factory" without necessarily implying ownership. And the sources are vague enough that I am not too sure of the best way to word it otherwise. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's a bit disconcerting, after reading right through the article, to find oneself back in Fender's early life. I don't think we need reprise his woking for his father's firm; I'd begin the section at: "[Fender] worked for his father up until..."

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Likewise I would transfer the last two paragraphs of this section into the earlier "Retirement" section, which more or less abandoned Fender in 1936 and left readers wondering until now what he did next.. It is easier for the reader if you keep to the main chronology of his life.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That more or less finishes my review. During its course we have lopped off about 350 words, with maybe a few more to follow. It's still a long article, but that's mainly because Fender was an interesting cricketer; the text is, happily, not cluttered by yards of match-by-match performance accounts, as used at one time to be the case. I think a little further work will quickly render it FAC-worthy; if you want me to take a final look, please ping my talk. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged for your help and edits. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Circus (Britney Spears album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Circus is one of the few articles related to Britney Spears that does not have a good-article grading. While nominated in the past, the article was not promoted and today stands at a B-grading. Over the past couple days, I've worked to remove/replace dead links within the article, remove unsourced information, remove irrelevant information, and make grammatical edits throughout the article. Before looking into proposing the article for good-article status, I would like another opinion to look through the article and make suggestions/changes as needed to make the article the best it can be.

Thanks, WikiRedactor (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

{{doing}} Check back with me if I haven't responded in a day or two. Thanks! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• My overall thoughts are that the article is pretty good, and has certainly greatly improved from the state in which it was previously nominated, but it needs some work.
• The prose could use a bit of a comb-through, there were a couple spots that stopped me, among them:
  • "...from critics, who drew heavy comparisons to Blackout." What does this mean? Why did critics draw heavy comparisons to Blackout? That in and of itself doesn't really tell me much unless I know more about the previous album.
  • "Spears embarked on four legs of the tour visiting North America twice performing elsewhere in Europe and Australia." This comes out ungainly and is a run-on sentence.
  • Watch for redundancies in your language, such as "released a promotional music video for "Kill the Lights" for additional promotion", "The third single "If U Seek Amy" created controversy for its double entendre, but managed to peaked at number 19 in the US."
  • I feel like I'm missing info here: " despite no official confirmation, he was pleased with the progress made, as well as the range of producers involved with the project." I'm not sure what official confirmation means (I assume it's relating to the previous bit about recording in the summer, but when was he pleased with progress?)
  • "When I went in with Luke" - who's Luke?
  • "It was then confirmed that Jim Beanz would be the vocal producer and co-writer of the album, calling her "a true professional" and calling her "amazing" -- why was it "then" confirmed? The previous content was about producers with no time periods specified. The pull quotes about Spears being 'amazing' seem a bit over the top and unnecessary.
  • "Rodney Jerkins,[21] Sean Garrett,[22] and Taio Cruz,[23] among others all announced they were working with Spears, though their tracks are not included on the official track listing." -- who are the others? Why are they being mentioned if they aren't named?
  • I'm noticing a lot of unspecific subjects at the beginning of sentences, such as "She described" for I assume Spears, when her last mention was in the previous subsection.
• For comments on the musical style and specific reception, reference the critics instead of treating their comments as fact, or providing generalities "The tenth track "Mannequin" is a dance-pop song with a trip hop influence, with some critics noting it for being "risky" and "futuristic"[43] while others said her vocals sounded "lifeless"." Looking at the refs there that's only two critics, which does not make "some" in any case.
  • "The A.V. Club gave the album a positive review" — publications can't really say anything, it's the critics that do; so cite who these people are!
  • The reception section currently reads like a laundry list of critic reviews. I'd suggest grouping critical comments into related chunks, like lyrics, composition or music, overall impressions, etc. rather than just reciting each reviewer one after another.
• Missing something here: "The song also entered the Pop 100 chart, peaking at number fifty-seven, and at "
• The structure of the article seems a bit awkward...
  • Why is there repeated content in the "singles" section? (Especially regarding the If U Seek Amy business.)
  • Why does the singles and promotion sections come after the "reception"? It would logically follow that you should cover the publicity before release before the post-release reception.
• I didn't take a look that hard at references, but what makes the following reliable: Hitquarters.com, Rockonthenet.com, and the various international chart sites? Are these the official ones?
  • You've got a few dead or dead-end links that don't service refs.
• If you have any comments, ping me on my talk as I don't watchlist peer reviews. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Colombo

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This page has undergone many changes over the years.(Last review was in 2007). What should be improved in it before it is submitted to WP:GAC or WP:FAC? Thanks, Pheonix (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Dana Boomer

It looks like there has been quite a bit of work put into this article, which is great! However, there is a good bit of further work needed, especially on referencing, before the article is of a quality to be nominated at WP:GAN. WP:FAC necessitates that an article be as close to perfect as articles on WP ever get, so even more work would be needed for that level. Some specific thoughts:

• Quite a few areas needing referencing (note that I'm only listing the ones that any reviewer at GAN would require sources for - some reviewers at GAN and any reviewer at FAC would require sources for additional areas):
  • After independence section, second paragraph
  • Landmarks, majority of section
  • Education, second paragraph
  • Annual cultural events and fairs, majority of section
  • Sports, majority of section
• A few tags that need to be addressed:
  • "When?" tag in Landmarks section
  • Dead link tags throughout references
• Besides the links already tagged as dead (which I didn't check for reliability), there are a number of issues with existing references:
  • What makes Ref #4 (World Executive) a reliable source?
  • What is going on with Ref #9 (Prof. Manawadu)?
  • What makes Ref #32 (Colombo Economy) a reliable source?
  • Ref #34 (Ministry of Defence & Urban Development) needs to be fixed.
  • What makes Ref #50 (Galle Face, Hotel) a reliable source?
  • What makes Ref #55 (Kermeey.blogspot.com) a reliable source?
  • What makes Ref #56 (Reddottours.com) a reliable source?
  • What makes Ref #57 (Colonialvoyage.com) a reliable source?
• All web references should have a publisher and access date. References should use the same formatting style throughout the article.
• Language is used throughout the article that requires especially close attention and sourcing to make sure it is not POV - "majestically", "famous", "most elegant", "most popular", etc.
• Text should not be sandwiched between images, as it currently is in several places.
• Sections composed only of bullet pointed links (such as the Suburbs section) are generally frowned upon. Add some text, tell readers why this important, which suburbs are the largest, economically most important, etc.

As I said above, it looks like a good start has been made. This is in much better shape than some other city articles I have seen. However, additional work, mostly focused on references, is needed before this article meets the good article criteria and/or featured article criteria. Let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

---

List of AFL debuts in 2008

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I aim to get it to FL status as there is very few featured content within the sport of Australian rules football. I believe the article is complete and is well-referenced. Any comments would be greatly appreciated as this is my first attempt at this process.

Thanks, Allied45 (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I am hoping to get the article to FA status and require input from uninvolved editors. Thanks, Darkness Shines (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I usually spend some time on military history peer reviews ... on this one, I see you did respond to some of Nick-D's comments during the FAC for this article, but many of the things he objected to weren't addressed. I generally find Nick to be quite clueful, and I'd like to see more action on comments from the FAC before I make any new comments here. It would, of course, be great to have a featured article on this subject, especially on both a country and a topic that are important and underrepresented on Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had covered them. Can you let me know what I have missed please. I am hoping to grab STFG to copyedit it again before it goes up for FA. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sure. I'll repeat a few sentences from Nick's comments (without quote marks) about specific sentences that you may or may not have tackled already ... I don't see any changes to the article text in response. See his full comments, please:
  • ... many sentences are rather breathless (for instance, the first sentence)
  • It would have been extremely difficult for Pakistan to have prevented its two halves from being cut off from each other, no matter what forces were stationed where, given the country's geography.
  • "Observers suggested" - who were these 'observers'?
  • Most of the 'International reaction' section appears to be referring to the international reaction against all of the atrocities, and has no focus on the rapes.
• I'd like to add on Nick's last point: at the Military History Project, we deal with really heart-wrenching topics on a daily basis, with less than our share of wiki-drama. There are a number of tricks to keeping the drama manageable ... one is staying on topic. I'd like to see more articles about genocide in Bangladesh ... but I don't want to see a whole section on international reactions to genocide but not war rape in this article, because this article is about war rape. - Dank (push to talk) 13:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the international reactions is that politicians tend to lump all atrocities in as one. Hence very few sources that I can find refer directly to reactions regarding the rapes.

This article should mostly stay on the topic of the rapes ... it's fine to provide context, so that people understand what happened, or understand that it was likely that it would happen, but a whole section of reactions where you don't mention the rapes is too long off-topic for this article ... it would be fine in other articles. - Dank (push to talk)

I have looked over the article but am buggered if I can see "Observers suggested" can you put a clarify tag on it?

It's in the third paragraph of the Aftermath section. - Dank (push to talk)

Re the two halves bit, that can be dropped easily enough. Would the history project be able to find sources for the international reactions? I have not worked wit ha project before so have no idea what they do. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Our project is quite active ... if you post a request on our talk page, WT:MIL, you'll probably get some help. - Dank (push to talk)

Looking at the source for that line now, it just says observers and gives no name of groups nor individuals. Should it be cut?

I would cut it if nothing more specific is found. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I can try and find a better source as well. I will search again fir international reactions to the rapes, it ain't easy, this is a forgotten crime. Thanks for your suggestions. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to peer review. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

---

The King and I

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… Ssilvers and I plan to nom it for FA and we'd like feedback before we do.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Very odd classification – a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical under "Language and Literature". Are you sure about this? Great choice for an article, though. Brianboulton (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Where should it go then?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, operas and musicals generally go under Arts (which is where I see you've put it now). I'll try and review it soon - got a few problems at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Some initial comments on the lead and early sections:

• Since Brynner is specified as Russian-American, should Lawrence be identified as British?
• "Lawrence died unexpectedly of cancer a year and a half after the opening, and the role of Anna was played by other actresses during the remainder of the Broadway run of 1,246 performances". The word "other" bothers me slightly, as being obvious in view of Lawrence's death. Would a better word be "several", or maybe "various"?
• "...in the hope that Avis would become the lady her mother pretended to be". Not sure about this – reads like a bit of editorial judgement.
• "Inception" does not seem adequate as the section title. Much of the content of the section, e.g. Hammerstein writing scenes in NY & London, Rodgers devising "exotic music", the composition of "Hello, young lovers", etc etc, is concerned with the writing and composition rather than the inception. Suggest divide the section or retitle "Inception and Creation"
• "Landon's William Morris agent" reads oddly. I know there's a link, but perhaps a brief explanation could be given?
• If possible avoid "...Lawrence. Lawrence..." perhaps by merging the sentences: "...ideal for Lawrence,[5] who purchased the rights to adapt the book for the stage."
• "Since any romantic feelings between the King and Anna could not be celebrated in song in 1951..." Why was this the case?

R&H broke a lot of taboos, but the King having an extramarital affair would have been pushing things for 1951. I'll make it clearer.

I don't think the problem was that it was extramarital, the problem was that it was an apparently interracial relationship between a white woman (since Anna was supposed to be white) with an East Asian king. In South Pacific, R&H had dealt with an interracial relationship, but it would have struck audiences as inappropriate for an East Asian king to be singing about his love for his white governess, and vice versa; so instead their romantic feeling were portrayed as present but suppressed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Characters, e.g. Tuptim and Lun Tha and later, the "Kralahome", are first mentioned without identification. It would be helpful to be aware of who they are.
• Brynner - an established television director: maybe mention that Brynner's career had developed in this way, rather than just stating the fact. What sort of stuff was he directing?
• "Sharaff was quoted as saying, "The first-act finale of The King and I will feature Miss Lawrence, Mr. Brynner, and a pink satin ball gown." I'm afraid I don't understand the purpose of this sentence at this point.

I love this sentence. It shows that the designer herself understood the over-the-top nature of the huge hoop skirt that was designed to show how out of place a Victorian British woman was in the court of Siam. I've tried to clarify it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• "some mocking" → "some mockery" ?

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, we'll work through these. Still some rust to be shaken off the R&H, I fear.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Those things are all done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I tweaked a couple of things in the article per my comments above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A few issues with the Plot section

• The wives are "panicked by the "evil eye" and lift their skirts over their heads as they flee." We are told this immediately after being told they had virtually nothing on under their skirts. I thought The King and I was a family show, not a nudie-fest.

According to my copy of the script, a wife screams "Evil eye! Evil eye!" followed by the stage direction, "The wives in an uncontrollable stampede throw their hoopskirts over their heads and rush out. From the look on SIR EDWARD's face, it is clear that they should have been supplied with undergarments." In every production I've seen (and the movie), the skirts are only lifted in the direction of Sir Edward, et al. The "practically no—undergarments" is how Anna expresses it after she realizes this a bit earlier on. Not sure what you're asking for.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not asking for anything, just being facetious. Sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry myself, oversensitive I fear.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• "It develops that..." Slightly odd choice of verb, at least to Brit ears. The sense is "emerges"; would this be a better word?
• "Lua Tha is found dead": surely this requires a word of explanation - how he died, by whom etc?

INTERPRETER: "The man—the lover has been found. He is dead." Other than Tuptim saying "Dead ... Then I will join him soon ... soon" as she is dragged off, that's all we get on either of them. Neither is mentioned in the remainder of the play.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Do we know what happens to Tuptim?

Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

On the Lua Tha/Tuptim matter, to prevent readers wondering as I did, I'd add a short sentence in the plot section, along the lines "Nothing more is heard of Tuptim's fate"

A few more points:

• Nitpicking, but the overture and entr'acte are not "songs"
• Any known reason why Landon got the cold shoulder?

The source says that she had sold her rights, had no say in the play, and "to her chagrin" was not invited to opening night.

• Maybe specify "London's West End". Not everyone will use the link.
• The sentence "For three months in 1952, Alfred Drake replaced Brynner." intrudes on the topic under discussion, nmaely Lawrence's failing health and declining performances.
• "Dr. Bill Cahan" - we don't normally title people this way, maybe "Bill Cahan, a doctor". My worry at this stage is that the focus of the article has moved too far from The King and I, to concentrate on Lawrence and her illness. Scope for some trimming, possibly?
• "he actually missed several" → "he missed several"
• "... the last City Center Light Opera production for three weeks in May 1968." Suggest a comma required after "production". Also perhaps "final" rather than "last"?
• wikilink "lip-synched"
• "Renshaw also focused on the spiritual elements of the piece, asking choreographers Lar Lubovitch and Jerome Robbins to create a "spiritual" ballet..." - It should be possible to avoid the "spiritual" repeat.

"sacred"? "Buddhist"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I massaged that text.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Lady Thiang was, again, Taewon Yi Kim". I think a "played by" needs to be inserted

I think it's acceptable in American English to say it in this way. "The King was, again, Yul Brynner".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the last few sections yet, but will leave any comments on these shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, except where commented upon, we've adjusted those.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Last few bits

• "took over for Duncan" → "took over from Duncan"?

No, this is correct American usage. See this newspaper headline. I see that UK newspapers use "from". -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• What is a "limited engagement"?

It is a theatrical run that has an announced end date. The usual indefinite run is called an "open-ended" engagement. See this headline from Playbill, which does not think it necessary to define the term. I think the words are self-explanatory enough to satisfy a general reader (although if anyone sees an applicable bluelink, I don't mind linking it), and that anyone who is really interested in the different types of theatrical engagements will know is terminology already. Note that we use it in over 200 Wikipedia articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Technical musical terms such as "seconds" need to be linked, though which of the five disambiguated musical seconds is referref to is anyone's guess. Also "triplet", "quarter note".

Good idea. Done, except that, Wehwalt, I can't find a link for "6/2 chord". -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the world will wobble and continue on without it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Recordings: I'm a little worried about the neutrality of this section, which includes critics' recommendations and has a somewhat promotional feel. It may be wise to rethink the section.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Link Gilbert and Sullivan

Done. - Ssilvers (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "to a certain extent he was coasting on his charisma" - identity of "he" not clear.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• A general point: you have separated the record of performances and revivals from their critical reception. I don't know if this is a good idea; it leads to some repetition. Perhaps worth a thought?

Yes, definitely worth a thought. We will review this carefully and decide where each quote/reception comment goes. Our goal is to avoid repetition, but I think that if they mostly concern the performances of the actors, rather than the reception of the revival as a whole, that for subsequent performances they should go in the "Production" section rather than the "Reception" section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That concludes my reading. As ever, the detail is very impressive and I can see no serious problems to be addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these detailed comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My thanks as well, and glad we have have a non-coin to offer reviewers! Ssilvers, let us confer on article talk on what should be done in view of the above comments. I think the major issue is the fact we basically run through the production history once to tell the readers about who was in them, and once to tell the reader of the reviews. That's only going to be more blatant with the three remaining R&H (not counting the movies later adapted into play), each has very long production histories. I guess the question is, do we combine them? But let's take it to article talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley - first few; more to come:

• Creation

• "he wrote a second scene in the British capital" – perhaps just "while there"?

I added "while", but I think "there" might be ambiguous in this complex sentence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Hammerstein originally had a very different conception" – different from his later version, I assume, but the matter could be clearer

I just looked at this very hard, and I think it is clear as is. All of the ways I came up with to make this explicit were longer and clunky - the best was: "the scene that, in the final version of the show, includes 'Shall We Dance'". I really don't think anyone will be confused, but if Tim or Wehwalt has an elegant solution, good. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "free of articles, as are many Oriental languages … even when he sang, especially in his one solo, "A Puzzlement"" – not wholly free of articles, evidently

I added "mostly". -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Casting and tryouts

• Are the first five sentences of the first para all corroborated in ref 28?

• Original productions

• "On the day of her funeral, The King and I cancelled its performance" – has any play ever cancelled a performance of itself?

Redrawn. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Brynner reprises the role

• West End – blue linked here, but not at previous mention Tim riley (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree - it is not necessary to link it again, as it was linked twice already in the early part of the article. Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these, Tim. Wehwalt, can you address Tim's question about the Hammerstein book reference? Looking forward to the rest of your comments, Tim! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm away from home until the 19th and do not have my references (on this anyway), with me. Those two pages are not part of the Google Books preview, but they're talking about TKaI on page 206, so that's a good sign. Assume it will be checked when I get home and corrected if necessary.

Second and last batch from Tim

• 1991 to 2002

• "…director Christopher Renshaw's Australian production" – I think this might flow better if you omit "director", which is implicit.

Redrawn for precision per Hischak, p. 150 and to avoid saying "production" so many times. Renshaw was not the producer, only the director. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The production came to Broadway" – "came"? or "went"? Depends where you live. Better to reword with geographical neutrality.

Good point. Redrawn. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Both the book and score were revised and adapted" – This whets the appetite without satisfying it. How were they revised and adapted?

Thanks. I reviewed the sources and re-organized the first two paragraphs, fixing some details. I don't think the music was significantly altered (the only reference to music is that a reprise of "Shall we Dance" was added) so I deleted that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The revival was well-received" – I get in a tangle with hyphens in such constructions, but I think (mind, I say I think) you can leave it out here.

Quite right! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• 2004 to present

• "at Royal Albert Hall" – at the RAH, please, unless you want a penny curse delivered by return of post.

Is that OK with you, Wehwalt? I'm making the change as Tim suggests, but this is an American English article.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it works in American English either way, so I would bow to Tim on this. It's not like us calling Liverpool F.C. a "soccer team" in Carousel rather than a football club.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Film and television versions

• "and although it cut a few songs, reviews were enthusiastic" – your "although" implies that pruning songs should have brought down critical wrath. A touch tendentious, possibly.

Redrawn to avoid the implication. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Recordings

• "The original cast recording was released by Decca Records" – I am perfectly prepared to be shot down, but I thought Decca was called London Records in the US in those days.

Wehwalt? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll check Hischak when I'm home on Saturday. Certainly the best source and I will compare with other sources if need be.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• "his sole use for that CD is as a coaster" – no quibble here, just to record that I nearly fell off the sofa laughing: an excellent inclusion.

Yes, it may be challenged at FA, but it's too good to cut prospectively. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Critical reception

• "that paper's reviewer" – I think this mention of the NY Times is far enough away from the previous one that elegant variation is otiose and you could, with advantage, just mention the paper by its title.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk)

• "with The Financial Times called it" – either "when" or "calling".

Yes, I think we meant "calling". -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I extravagantly enjoyed this article. Please prod me when it gets to FAC. It will sail through come what may, but I'd like to add my support. – Tim riley (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these excellent comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

My thanks as well. Ssilvers, shall we close the peer review?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

May as well leave it open until we finish our review of the footnotes. Note that Tim noted a couple of new issues above that I was unable to resolve. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I've responded above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

---

List of awards and nominations received by House

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to FLC eventually. The refs are not completely done so I am hoping for some comments on the content and format.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Image could use Alternative text. (see WP:ALT) Greatuser _(t@lk)^{My edits} 12:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I believe "List of accolades" is preferred to "List of awards and nominations"; I've certainly been asked to make that move in past FLCs.
• Don't see the point of adding the "within US" summary; other similar FLs don't segregate like this (here [[are List of accolades received by Miami Vice examples)
• The "Other US awards" table should probably use year as the primary sort. Out of interest, is there a particular cut-off point you're using to determine what gets a section and what doesn't? There are, for example, more TP de Oro awards than WGA ones.
• The images should probably be given the |upright command, it would help lessen the amount by which they're all bleeding into other headings.
• The prose for each section should be expanded or omitted; just listing numbers makes it seem a little bitty. I tend to highlight the "bigger" awards when possible, noting who won when the subject lost (for example, "Directors Lee H. Katzin and Paul Michael Glaser both vied for 1985's Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series award, which was ultimately won by Karen Arthur for her work on Cagney & Lacey." from List of accolades received by Miami Vice#Emmy Awards).
• All those tables are going to need row and column scopes; the FLs I've linked to should give you examples of how that's done. GRAPPLE X 01:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment – Work on red links required, I think. Thanks, Zia Khan 15:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Persians in Bahrain

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I firmly believe that this page, with much needed edits, can became a Good article. However, I have no clue on where to start so I appeal to the kind Wikipedians to offer me advice. Any feedback is very much appreciated.

Thanks, Droodkin (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Ely and Littleport riots 1816

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article failed a GA nomination a few years ago. I have recently addressed all outstanding tasks from that nomination. I would like to re-nominate this article as a good article. Please peer review this article with that objective in mind.

Thanks, Senra (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Introduction (Joja)

I assume you have looked at the automated tips.

Nope. But I have now  Done --Senra (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I made one pass over the introduction. Here are my comments:

• Overview: I think the reader is able to infer what the riots were but I think the general why's and what's of the event can be improved and made more explicit without a large burden of detail.
• First sentence:
  • The phrase, "against a background of similar unrest throughout the country following the Napoleonic Wars", is very vague and does little to explain what the riots were about. Instead we only imply the cause of unrest in this case in the second sentence, whereas this seems to me to be information that should be covered in the first sentence.  Done --Senra (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "the country" - Not every reader will know Cambridgeshire is in England.  Done --Senra (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• The action of the third sentence appears to be happening in the inn, since no location is specified. However, that seems unlikely, yes? {[done-t}} --Senra (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• The phrase "see printed bill pictured" is awkward. Perhaps "see printed bill (reproduced at right)"?  Done --Senra (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• I think the whole introduction is too detailed and overly specific in dates and numbers. I'd rather see a nice, juicy summary than all these facts and figures:  Done --Senra (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Very specific numbers of people: "56 residents", "18 men", "82 rioters", "Twenty-three men and one woman", "nine men", "a trooper was injured, one rioter was killed and at least one went on the run" partially done --Senra (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Days of the month - only provide these in the body. Perhaps a date range in the first sentence (paragraph?) would be sufficient. {[done-t}} --Senra (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Sentencing details in the last paragraph are also excessive for the lead. {[done-t}} --Senra (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• "conflagration at The George and Dragon": a conflagration implies there was a fire but I don't see mention of that in the body. On the other hand, as an attempt at poesy, I much prefer it to dull numeric and day-by-day details, but let's juice it up without stretching the facts. This is not a word I would use myself so it is probably sourced (see note below) but on your advice, I have changed this to 'altercation'  Done --Senra (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope this is helpful - I welcome feedback on my feedback. I'll try to get to the rest as I am able in the next few days. Jojalozzo 06:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it is very helpful. I am not a good lead writer but I have done my best. With your permission, I wish to seek help from another editor to write the lead? Or perhaps we should wait until you have completed the review? --Senra (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Note: I no longer have the sources. It will take me a while to obtain one of them via inter-library loan. As a result, I may be reluctant to make some changes until I can check the source for that change --Senra (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The introduction is much more readable and offers a good summary. Nice work. When you think we're ready, I'm willing to make a copy edit pass. Jojalozzo 20:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you though Dr. Blofeld did more on the lead than I. Incidentally, I was not aware that you are a copy-editor too. Now I know. The reason I asked for one was because you drew my attention to the automated tips which contain the instruction: "Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work". I know that it is New Year so I am in no rush. However, when you are ready, please finish the review. In addition, I would also welcome your opinion on my earlier removal of Talk:Ely and Littleport riots of 1816#Evidence section on the basis that it was too much detail --Senra (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Background (Joja)

This section is in good shape generally:

• "Replies to the Board of Agriculture in February, March, and April 1816 documented..." is awkward. Replies from whom, to what? Maybe "documented" could be replaced by something simpler like "said" or "included".  Done --Senra (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think the source supports the calculation of 2012 loaf prices. A loaf of bread costs more than the wholesale price of the wheat that goes into it.

• Not sure about this. I agree 2012 values are not in the sources. However, I understand from previous FAC's and from WP:CALC that it is not WP:OR to carry out routine current-value calculations provided the source of such calculations are made explicit. In this case, unless I am missing your point, in early 1816, a quarter of wheat cost 52 shillings (£153) rising to 103 shillings (£303) in December and the 2012 per loaf costs of between £3.50 and £6.70 reflect that --Senra (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  I understood the last sentence of the section to say what the price of a loaf of bread would be if we paid for the wheat at 1816 wheat prices adjusted for 2012. My point is that the source only tells how much wheat goes into a loaf but nothing about the cost of making the loaf. There are other costs in making bread than the raw, wholesale grain price (labor, energy, other ingredients, fixed costs). Jojalozzo 23:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

* OK. Fair enough. I'm not an economist so this is going to be very difficult. Hansard does not have digital text for 1816 but it does for 1815. The best I can offer is ...

At the present price of 60s. the quartern loaf was 1s. and therefore at 80s. one third more, the price of the quartern loaf must be 1s. 4d.

— Earl Grey, Earl Grey State of the Corn Laws (13 March 1815). http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1815/mar/13/state-of-the-corn-laws#column_137. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. col. 137. {{cite book}}: |chapter-url= missing title (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Thus I guess I can replace "To put that into perspective, ..." with "In 1815 in the House of Commons, Earl Grey said 'At the present price of 60s. the quartern loaf was 1s. and therefore at 80s. one third more, the price of the quartern loaf must be 1s. 4d.'" (sourced to Hansard) and 2012 prices added?

Quartern loaf n. b: A quarter of a pound (in later use Eng. regional)"quartern". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)

--Senra (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we can use the Earl Grey source to make the point that bread was very expensive for people making 8 to 9s a week by saying that a pound of bread was over 5s. Jojalozzo 01:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Senra (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think we need "through £5.00" in this range of prices: "£3.50 through £5.00 to £6.70 at 2012 values per loaf of whole wheat bread".  Done --Senra (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• I think it might be clearer to add "(28 pounds)" after "quarter".  Done (I think) --Senra (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Note iii is a little confusing. I think it's clearer to say "which makes 90 one-pound loaves" instead of "making 90 by one-pound loaves" and "making 45 loaves" instead of "= 45 loaves".  Done --Senra (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Jojalozzo 21:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Surrounding area (Joja)

I've been mulling over a response on this section for a few days. I don't have access to the sources so some of this is inference. I think it will be easiest to copy it here (green text) and intersperse my comments.

There was rioting in the first months of 1816 in West Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire;[10]

• Does "first months" include May? If so, is this statement the introductory sentence for the paragraph?
• When we say "Cambridgeshire" do we mean Cambridgeshire, but not Littleport? Maybe we simply mean Cambridgeshire in general perhaps including Littleport but nowhere specifically or notoriously?

• ✗ Not done I have checked the source and yes, we do not mean May and we do include Cambridgeshire --Senra (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

on 16 May in Bury St Edmunds and Brandon in West Suffolk; also in Hockwold, Feltwell and Norwich in Norfolk;

• Do we need this detail if we're not going to describe the events?

• ✗ Not done Unsure if we need this. The opening sentence says there was rioting around. Then we go into may and mention some specific cases. I guess I am trying to show that Littleport rioting was not isolated --Senra (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

then on 20 May in the morning a meeting was held in Southery, Norfolk.

• This sentence appears to be leading into a real story. Suddenly, we're transitioning from very general to very specific both in time and space and it sneaks in at the end of this long sentence.

• Unlike the others, this one is described in more detail --Senra (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The group, including a Thomas Sindall,[11] marched through Denver to Downham Market, both in Norfolk, to meet with the magistrates at their weekly meeting at The Crown.[12]

• An abrupt transition from a meeting to a march - how are they connected? What was the purpose of the meeting and the outcome? I think there may be an opportunity to describe their demands instead of further down.
• "The group" is not very descriptive, especially since in the next sentence we use "1500 rioters".
• My suggestion: strip off the last part of the first sentence and combine it with this one in a new paragraph:

  On the morning of May 20, a meeting was held in Southery, Norfolk to <describe purpose of meeting here, maybe with the resolution that they wanted work and two-shillings a day>. The meeting was followed by a march, 1500 strong, led by Thomas Sindall, through Denver to Downham Market, both in Norfolk, to meet with the magistrates at their weekly meeting at The Crown.[12]

•  Done I think. Not quite as you suggest. Let me know what you think --Senra (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The 1,500 rioters, mainly men but some women, besieged The Crown until the magistrates agreed to allow a deputation of eight rioters inside to make their pleas;

• The 1,500 rioters": were they rioters already when they're just marching? Maybe "The mob"?

•  Done Mob it is. This one is my fault. Source says mob. I paraphrased it to rioters. Thank you for the correction --Senra (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

to have work and two-shillings (£6) per day.

• This should be preceded by a full colon, not a semicolon, but I think the flow would work better if it was in parenthesis. However, I'd prefer to fit this into the part about the meeting if possible.

•  Done --Senra (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The magistrates agreed but they had already called the yeoman cavalry from Upwell, who arrived at 5 pm. Backed by the troops, the Riot Act was then read in the market place by Reverend Dering[v] causing further tussles, which only subsided after arrests started to be made.[14]

• If the pleas are moved to an earlier sentence then tweak this to say "The magistrates agreed to the rioters demands but...".
• I'd drop "only".

•  Done at least partially --Senra (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how to handle the imbalance of the general opening of the section and the very specific ending. This is emphasized by the section title which is very vague. I think it might help if the section were renamed to something like "Precedents" or "Preceding events in the region", something that includes time as well as geography.

{[done-t}} --Senra (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

These are some general ideas which I hope can guide improvement. Jojalozzo 01:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Senra (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Awaiting two books as I don't want to make radical changes without consulting the sources. I expect them by the weekend --Senra (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• The books have arrived but as I had a (rare) liquid lunch today, I feel it sensible to leave making any changes until tomorrow :) --Senra (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• This is difficult as I am neither a good prose writer nor am I a sociologist. Contemporary writers, such as the member of the Inner Temple writing in 1816 (from reprint by Warren 1977) or the Cambridge Chronicle of May 1816 (from transcribed extracts 1981), blame the rioters themselves. Modern writers, such as Peacock (1965), Gerrard (2003) and Goulden (2008) do not establish a direct cause. Certainly the Corn Laws (55 Geo. 3 c. 26), first enacted in 1815, led indirectly to a rise in the price of bread during the next few years. There was high unemployment during the period, especially in the agrarian Fens. The recent end of the Napoleonic wars may have aggravated unemployment though a recent Wikipedia IP editor suggested returning veterans could at least have a pension. Resistance to enclosures may have been a factor (Peacock 1965). The was sporadic rioting throughout the country and the government, "fearing a French style revolution" (Goulden 2008), billeted the army at strategic places. There was a riot on the 20 May at nearby Southery which moved to Downham Market where, initially pacified by magistrates, rioters were arrested and two were eventually tried at Norwich Assizes and hanged in August 1816 --Senra (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I have done it. At least reworded it slightly and taken on some of your suggestions --Senra (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Littleport section (Joja)

I made a copy edit pass and have a couple of questions:

1. Paragraph 2: Henry Martin is identified as a farmer but he is "disregarded for his running of the parish". I think we should identify him as both a farmer and as whatever his role is in running the parish (it's not my understanding that a farmer would run a parish).

•  Done according to source he was overseer of the poor in 1814 --Senra (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Paragraph 5: Vachall and family walk to Ely and arrive at midnight in the second sentence but he and family are picked up "walking towards Ely" in the last sentence. I assume we have conflicting sources. How can we resolve this?

•  Done resolved after consulting sources --Senra (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

1. May we assume the "Mr. Martin" in the post-chaise is not Henry Martin? If we know that, it might make sense to clarify it parenthetically. If we do not know whether it is Henry or not, then let's leave as is.

•  Done with reference to Johnson (1893) p. 15 who says "Evans and another gentleman". However, Peacock (1965) p. 99 does say (or surmises) that it is indeed Henry Martin the farmer in the post-chaise with Evans. I'm sticking with Johnson on this occasion--Senra (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Jojalozzo 22:31, 13 January 2013 UTC

Trial (Joja)

This section is pretty dry and not very informative. Indictments were made (for what?), testimony happened (saying what?), jury was addressed (saying what?). If the meat of these events aren't critical to the story (and I doubt they are) then I don't think the fact they happened is important to us. Does it matter on which day these events occurred? It might be better to shorten the whole section, point out the highlights and list the verdicts. I am willing to take a crack at condensing if we want to go that route.

In case we want to keep it more or less as is, I have a couple of quibbles:

• On Wednesday, it says "Five defendants were then indicted. Mr Gurney addressed the jury. Two witnesses testified. A verdict of guilty was returned against Harley and Newell whilst Warner and Stibbard were acquitted.". There are five indictments but only 4 verdicts. Maybe it should be four indictments or maybe we left off a verdict?
• On Thursday we have "Four witnesses called were Elizabeth Carter following which Mr Justice Burrough summed up." Please rectify this - did this have all four witnesses at one point and, if so, is it important? Maybe we can drop "were Elizabeth Carter"?
• On Friday we have "a considerable farmer". What is that?

• Warren (1977) p. 57 (reprint of 1816 trial report) says "HENRY BENSON, a considerable farmer, who was out upon bail, was then put to the bar, and indicted for exciting and instigating divers persons to commit riots in the town of Ely". Perhaps he is large and excitable? Farmers eat well and are jolly I think. Actually, I feel this is an important fact if it can be woven in. We assume this farmer was rich because the court asked for his surety of 400l. Poorer rioters were hanged. An injustice? --Senra (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• There are a number of mentions of the currency abbreviation "l." as in "400l." or "1l.". Please clarify that.

• the currency abbreviation "l." as in "400l." is discussed in Guinea (British coin) but in context here I think it means 21 shillings. Warren (1997) p 62, which is a reprint of an 1816 trial report, says "Each of you may give his own recognizance of 50l. and find two sureties for 10l. each, or one surety for 20l" whilst Peacock (1965) p. 126 says of the same event "Each had to give a recognizance of £50 and find two sureties of £10 each" --Senra (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see mention of that abbreviation in Guinea (British coin). Please help me find that. In any case, we need to clarify this and we should not use an abbreviation if it is ambiguous. Jojalozzo 23:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Jojalozzo 00:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

{{doing}} I missed this; sorry. I will follow the 1965 source --Senra (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done in this edit --Senra (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am happy for you to have a crack at shortening "the whole section, point[ing] out the highlights and list[ing] the verdicts". As I am sure you can tell, paraphrasing and citing the current contents of the article combined with the removed section took time. It would be sad to see it all go. However, it is reporting the key facts that is important so carry on. I will probably need to check your result against sources but that is not a problem --Senra (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I mostly added the charges in each case. I think that provides enough substance to justify the rest of it. It's hard to get the right balance so that section isn't unduly long. Jojalozzo 05:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath (Joja)

This section is good, except the play mentioned in the last sentence is not part of the aftermath. Perhaps start a new section for "Popular culture references" or, if there's just that one sentence for popular cultural references, add an entry in See also for The Fool (Edward Bond play). Other than that I think its ready for GAN. Jojalozzo 18:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done OK. Great. Thank you so much for this review. You put a lot of work into this and I really appreciate it --Senra (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Blofield

• [For the record, Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) kindly responded to my plea for a copy-editor]

Article is pretty good Senra, well written and sourced, well on the way to featured quality actually, it should easily pass GA. One thing which stands out is your use of "Mr", we don't generally refer to people in articles as Mr and Mrs to my knowledge. Some of the sentences if anything are oversourced, I'm not keen on many citations in the middle of sentences unless after commas, I believe it disrupts reading, and I think that some of the notes are a little unnecessary. Also, not sure why 1816 is in the title, these were the only riots? If it must be in the title I'd put it in brackets or word it as Ely and Littleport riots of 1816.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Dr. Blofeld: The Mr. & Mrs. titles agreed. They are probably as a result of me sticking too much to the sources. I will run through and check for other occurrences. 1816 was from sources. Let me think on that one if I may though I like "Ely and Littleport riots of 1816". Thank you for passing through it. Much appreciated --Senra (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• I have removed the title from those people who have a first name such as Mrs Rebecca Cutlack-->Rebecca Cutlack but I have retained the title for those without a first name such as Mr Clarke --Senra (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's fine.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• The article name has been changed from Ely and Littleport riots 1816 to Ely and Littleport riots of 1816 as per this request --Senra (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Piotrus:

• {Inflation} template needs fixing;

•  Done The {{Inflation}} template issue was a general issue not just an issue within this article.Anyhow, it got fixed--Senra (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• refs: 1) can we replace Britannica ref with something better (a non-tetriary soruce)? 2) Cary 1817 needs to be standardized to the other book ref format used

•  Done Britannica replaced by OED; Cary's fixed - title was too long and was failing silently --Senra (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• overall reads and looks well, seems a fair game for GA

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thank you --Senra (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Celuici

• Those inflation figures in brackets are fairly confusing. Many readers who (understandably) do not closely follow the footnotes will not realise that they are inflation-adjusted values, and I doubt that many people would know the current value of a quarter of wheat anyway so they don't reveal much. The use of RPI is also questionable -- nowadays people spend a much smaller proportion of their income on foodstuffs and are thus much less affected by price rises. So, again, I'm not sure what value these inflation-adjusted figures actually have much value in helping the reader to understand the article. Celuici (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• ✗ Not done on a personal note I would like to include figures as per source and inflation adjusted comparative figures. How this presented to the reader is open review. For the record, I previously had an end-note attached to every inflation figure. This was removed following a previous peer-review --Senra (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• help this is not my area of expertise. I recall carefully reviewing worth before adding these inflation figures two years ago and I also recall seeking help from other editors at the time. However, feel free to make a recommendation --Senra (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we can strategically place a few inflation conversions to give the reader a sense of the values that they can then apply mentally as they read on. Jojalozzo 23:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• The sentences beginning "Vachell was later to sue the..." seems like a lot of information to inclose in brackets. I think this information is relevant enough to be included in the text directly. Celuici (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Done --Senra (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Model (art)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have done most of the editing to bring this page to a point where it is as complete and accurate as the subject warrants, and would like feedback on how to proceed. Thanks, FigureArtist (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

---

On the Pulse of Morning

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was a little disappointed with its GAC and would like more feedback before submitting it to FAC.

Thanks, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll pick this up Christine, but give me a few days. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• "With her public recitation, Angelou became the second poet in history to read a poem at a presidential inauguration, and the first Black and woman." > this is a bit awkward. I tried, unsuccessfully, to recast it. Somehow would be better to streamline to get across the point of first African American and woman; second poet to read at an inauguration.

Yah, I know it's very awkward. The most grammatical would be "...and the first Black woman", but this doesn't emphasize the fact that she was the first of both groups to do so, which is something the source emphasizes. Perhaps when I bring the article to FAC, they'll have better ideas about it.

• "(Robert Frost was the first inaugural poet, at the 1961 inauguration of John F. Kennedy.)" > this too is awkward in parens. I think if the previous sentence can be recast better than this should be part of the recasting to get Frost into the mix so that you don't have a parenthetical statement in the first para of the lead

Hmm, I wonder if striking the statement would solve the issue. It may not be necessary to include the info in the lead. What do you think?

Background

• "Although she was best known for her autobiographies, many of her readers identified her as a poet first and an autobiographer second" > primarily known as a poet rather than a autobiographer? Something like that?

Ok, I was trying to avoid the passive voice, but your version is tighter.

• Link Stamps, Arkansas ?

Sure.

• "Mrs. Flowers encouraged her to recite them, which helped bring her out of her muteness." > the muteness might need some explaining. Presumably because of the rape? Probably it can be shoved into a note, but since it made me wonder, will make other readers wonder too.

Got it. I also separated the sentence into two, since it was long after the clarification.

• "representativeness" > I noticed this in the lead and thought it was a direct quote. I'm think it might need a bit of explanation to the average reader why Angelou is considered representative and what she's representative of. The country? Our society? I might be the wrong person to be reading this, but for me the chasm between Frost and Angelou is huge, so maybe that needs a bit of explanation. Something along the lines that in 1961 Frost was considered to be the poet who "represented" the people. Probably can shove this into a note too, and maybe add a bit to the article about Frost's poem.

I believe that my changes fulfill your request. I defined "representativeness" a bit more; as it states in the following sentence, Angelou's role as inaugural poet meant that she represented the American people (and the president) like Frost did. I discuss Frost's poem later, in the "Themes" section, when I compare Frost's poem to Angelou's, so I don't think that it's needed here.

Themes

• "On the Pulse of Morning" has been compared to President Clinton's inaugural address, given immediately before the reading of the poem. Angelou's poem shared many of the themes in Clinton's address, which included change, responsibility, and the President's and the citizenry's role in establishing economic security." > the first sentence begs the question of who did the comparing and can probably be dropped (or moved elsewhere) because the second sentence works well as a topic sentence for this section

You're right, of course. Great suggestion; happily followed.

• "Critic Zofia Burr compared Angelou's poem with Frost's, stating that the mostly negative reviews of "On the Pulse of Morning" by poetry critics neglected doing so" > I'm having some trouble parsing this sentence

Most likely because it wasn't very clear. Hopefully, the changes I made rectified it.

• Merely suggestions here, but I think the themes section would benefit with a bit of reorg. It looks like the small para at the bottom might fit well with the first para - either as part of it or directly below. The section about Frost vs. Angelou should be its own para and needs a bit more explanation. As written, it says that Burr compared the two poems (looking for similarities?) but then many differences/contrasts between the two are presented. So somehow you need to explain clearly that although Angelou's was in some ways similar to Frost's it was in many ways different. I'd split the section discussing the influences of other poets into a separate para.

Critical response

"According to Lupton" > A bit jarring as the opening sentence because I've forgotten who Lupton is and had to scroll back up to find. Probably best to reintroduce here in the body. Note: this may not be strictly necessary because I've take sooo long to read through this.

Same sentence and the next which I think is a bit long - some rejigging might help: "According to Lupton, "On the Pulse of Morning" is Angelou's most famous poem. Lupton has argued that "Angelou's ultimate greatness will be attributed" to the poem, and that Angelou's "theatrical" performance of it, using skills she learned as an actor and speaker, marked a return to the African-American oral tradition of speakers such as Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X.[2]" > maybe something like this: "Literary critic Jane Lupton writes "On the Pulse of Morning" is Angelou's most famous poem, stating that "Angelou's ultimate greatness will be attributed" to the poem. Angelou's "theatrical" performance of it, using skills she learned as an actor and speaker, marked a return to the African-American oral tradition of speakers such as Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X.[2]"

MoS

• I think I fixed any issues I found

Prose

• To be honest I've learned that I'm not really all that great with prose. I do see a few areas that might need some tweaking but suggest you find someone better than I am to do it. One person who comes to mind is Maria.

Sources

• I saw a couple of refs that said "retrieved on" and others without the "on", so check that those are consistent.

Images

• Look good. Would be nice to find something to put in the lead, but that's just my own preference. Also the pic of Clinton is a bit dark - maybe find one that's a bit brighter?

I've made a few copyedits. Please feel free to revert anything you don't like. Very nice work on Angelou, as always. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm good with your changes. Thanks for the input, and for your kind words. Let me know if you want me to do anything else. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry this is slow. More tomorrow. I haven't had time to look at your changes yet, so sorry about that too. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Okay - done! This is a nice article and I enjoyed reading it. I haven't checked your changes yet - but hopefully will get to that tomorrow night and of course will keep this review on watch. Good luck with the article. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Till the World Ends

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because so many content has been added since it was reviewed that I want to make sure that the prose quality and sources are good.

Thanks, Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 23:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Toronto Blue Jays mascots

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm looking to get advice on whipping this into GA shape. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

---

End time

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have rewritten most of it, particularly the sections on smaller religious groups and essentially every faith except Christianity, which I felt was well referenced with good inline citations. I and am interested in all faiths, but would appreciate feedback for the individual religious belief systems (Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Nordic, and especially Buddhism) to make sure their religious doctrine for the "end of time" or "End of days" is appropriately summarized. Best, Ramwithaxe ^talk 23:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Management of baldness

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have rewritten it from discussing only androgenic alopecia to all types of alopecia. I have added numerous inline Pubmed citations, and added updates from scientific and news literature. It is an incredibly broad subject, but I think I have managed to encompass it. Would very much appreciate your wise feedback.

Best, Ramwithaxe ^talk 23:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Titan (supercomputer)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Looking to get this to FA status. I think the issues raised will be the quality of prose and perhaps there is excessive detail in the research projects section. Thanks in advance, James086^Talk 17:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Jafar Panahi

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is the article that I would like to see featured above all others and I think it is important.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just a passing comment, but consider breaking the sections "Early Life", "White Balloon", "The Mirror" and "Offside" into more paragraphs; having one very large paragraph makes it difficult on readers. Thanks for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... Please poke me on my talk page if I haven't added comments within a day or two. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. I feel very strongly about this page and would like to do anything I can to improve it. Thank you very much.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's my comments on a pass of the article. For background, I know absolutely nothing about most foreign films in general, Iranian films in particular, so I'm approaching the subject with no foreknowledge.

• The lead begs questions of how Panahi can co-direct a film while being imprisoned, unless it was produced before the ban.
  • I guess that could be clarified. It was made secretly and illegally.
• Kind of odd we mention his first book at age ten and then jump back a year for the film content in the next paragraph ("Early life" section.)
  • Its also a bit awkward because the second and third paragraphs in that section deal with Panahi's interest in filmmaking specifically, but I could find a pace to put it in there without disturbing the flow.
• Is there anything relevant to Panahi during the revolution? Seems like there's a bit of a gap in the article, going from late childhood and then skipping his teens entirely.
  • I agree, and the biggest problem has been finding content. As far as I know there are no full biographies about Panahi's life. Until I find something there's not much I can do.
• The "other work" section feels like a laundry list without context. Perhaps more could be added to flesh out these minor works and they could be better integrated chronologically into the article?
  • Yes but its set up so that each feature film has its own section. I think if anything I'd rather expand that section to also include information about work that Panahi has done on other people's films.
• Not all the critics and organizations seem to be properly referenced in regards to who fought for his freedom from imprisonment.
  • I never really worked on that section very much, it was pretty big when I first started working on this page. I'll check these references.
• The section on responses to his imprisonment feel a bit disjointed; they can probably be better condensed and summarized rather than a blow-by-blow sequence of events.
  • Same as above. Either I or a copy editor can fix this up.
• The biggest stumbling block for the article is the prose. I'm going to assume that English is not your first language; for the most part the grammar is correct, but the article feels a bit stilted and it's hard to read. I will see what I can do but you probably also want to get someone else involved as well, perhaps from the WP:GOCE.
  • We're all entitled to our opinions. Cheerio o matie!

Otherwise, I think the article covers most important aspects adequately and I didn't feel lost or that there wasn't enough explanation. I didn't take a heavy look at the sources as of yet but I will attempt to do that when I do a line edit. On a glance some of the references gave me pause; as undoubtably many of the sources are foreign-related you might need to give them more justification as to why they are WP:RS. I don't watchlist peer reviews, so if you want me to respond to something just ping me on my talk. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Thank you.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    

---

List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has the potential to be a FL. This Peer review would help the list for further improvisation.

Thanks, —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "Debuting at Bollywood with The Hero (2003), she received the Stardust Award for Best Supporting Actress in 2004." → She made her acting debut at Bollywood with The Hero in 2003, and received the Stardust Award for Best Supporting Actress for her performance in the film.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 17:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• That year, she won the Filmfare Award for Best Female Debut for her role in Andaaz (2003), as well as the Filmfare Best Villain Award for her performance in Aitraaz (2004); she became the second and last woman to win the latter before the category was retired in 2008. → In the same year, she featured in Andaaz which earned her the Filmfare Award for Best Female Debut for her role. She won the Filmfare Best Villain Award for her performance in Aitraaz in 2005; she became the second woman, after Kajol, to win the award before the category was retired in 2008.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 17:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• She then starred in Fashion (2008), → "in 2008" I don't know why are you using these brackets every time?

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 17:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Same for "Kaminey (2009)" and "7 Khoon Maaf (2012)"

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 17:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• In 2012, Chopra released under .... don't start a sentence with "In....." put it at the end of the sentence

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 17:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Same for "In 2008, she was ...." there may be others...

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 17:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Colours shouldn't be used alone, you need to use symbol along with the colours and check them against WP:ACCESS.

Resolved and Explained below.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 17:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Zia Khan 20:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

please, take a look now, I think it's look more good now.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 02:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

None of my concerns is addressed yet, you've just introduced a new paragraph to the lead section. Zia Khan 06:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, your issues are resolved. Thank you for the help.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 17:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Zia, I did some copy edit of the lead to make it flow better. Care to take a look? I still believe the references can be improved though. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think, you should point out weaknesses rather than correcting everything, coz what I know about peer review is that other editors point out mistakes and nominators addresses them not others.....pls follow the rule and please point out mistakes.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 16:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Check the use of WP:endash and WP:MDASH for years ranges. Zia Khan 17:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 17:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just a comment. "Colours shouldn't be used alone, you need to use symbol" ehm no. The text inside the box is enough to meet accessibility. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Is that so? Than I'll need your comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan/archive1. Zia Khan 17:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Let me take a look. This is studied on a case by case basis. Mostly, awards and nomination lists are excluded from thr use of a symbol. Sorry if I was too brief and lacking substance in my previous comment (I was eating). — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No problem, I'm just curious to learn somthing new! Zia Khan 17:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Okay. I have taken a look. This is why your list needs the use of symbols, and why this one doesn't: This list has three options: won, nominated and pending. Such information doesn't need the use of a colour to give any value to its meaning. Also, those fields are rendered with three different templates already meeting WP:ACCESS: {{won}}, {{nom}} and {{pending}}. The difference with your list is that you don't use the colours on a defined sequence and, in the leyend, you have two fields without using any colour. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Thanks for that. Zia Khan 17:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
            • You're welcome. I have supported your list. Good luck :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

More comments

• "Aitraaz" should be in italicised and also link it

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 18:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Born in Jamshedpur, India on 18 July 1982 and raised in many cities across the country, Chopra moved to Newton, Massachusetts and later to Cedar Rapids, Iowa for higher studies.[1] After spending four years in the United States, Chopra returned to India where → No need of this, I think

Removed.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 18:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Still not done. Remove "Chopra returned to India where". Zia Khan 21:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Done already.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 02:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• She then..... → Chopra then....... start new paragraphs with names

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 18:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• including the National Award and Filmfare Award. → "the" before Filmfare

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 18:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Chopra's first single → what is a single? you may link this

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 18:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• rganisation groups awarded Chopra achievement honours. → don't understand what are you saying?

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 18:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Zia Khan 18:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Link "Hindustan Times" in ref at first use. Zia Khan 21:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 02:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 6 needs author name, there may be others check them.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 02:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Zia Khan 21:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• I had worked hard on the references too, don't has much issue.:AllDone.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 02:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments – This definitely looks improved from the state it was in at its first FLC. Still needs a little work on various prose and other issues, though.

• I count 80 nominations in the infobox listing, not 79 as the totals and lead claim.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "in categories mostly ranging from Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress." This isn't really a range; maybe you could try a semi-colon before this and then "most were in the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress categories."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Without the "were" it should be something like "awards and nominations, mostly in the categories...". Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 17:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi-colon in there now should be a comma. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 02:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• "various film and fashion organization groups has awarded Chopra several achievement honours." Would be much cleaner prose-wise as "various film and fashion organizations have given Chopra honours."

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Chopra was declared the Topmost influential Indian...". I'm thinking that "Topmost" should be a decapitalized "most" instead.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The Apsara Film & Television Producers Guild Awards is presented by...". "is" → "are".

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The Bengal Film Journalists Association Awards is the oldest association of film critics in India". The awards themselves can't be the association. Replacing "is" with "are presented by" should be an adequate fix.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Bollywood Hungama Surfers' Choice Awards: "Chopra has won the award for the Best Actress in two consecutive years." Second "the" should be removed.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The Filmfare Awards is one of the oldest...". "is" → "are" again.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Global Indian Film Awards: En dash needed for the year range.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In "between 2005 to 2007", "to" should be "and". Alternately, you could try "from" before the years. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 17:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The GQ Men of the Year Awards is presented by GQ magazine." "is" → "are" once again.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The Lions Gold Awards is an annual accolade..." → "The Lions Gold Awards are accolades presented annually...".

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Also, are these awards given to "the Indian film industry", or people in the industry?

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• National Film Awards: "the" needed before International Film Festival of India, and "Indian government's".

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The awards are presented by the President of India. Due to its national scale, it is considered...". Since "awards" is correctly plural, "its" and "it is" should be "their" and "they are", respectively.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sabsey Favourite Kaun Awards: "was annually presented" makes more sense as "were presented annually".

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The Stardust Awards is presented by Stardust magazine." Again, "is" should be "are".

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Zee Cine Awards: Another en dash needed for a year range here.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Here, for "in 2009 to 2010", the first word should probably be "from" instead of "in". Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 17:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Chopra now has five nominations for the Zee Cine Awards, not four. This needs an update, and may be why the nomination totals were off before.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Another en dash is needed in the title of her 2009 Cineblitz Award.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you did to the award title, but it should be the way it was before, except that one of the dashes used elsewhere in this section should go between the award name and category. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 17:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Recognitions: First, this isn't a word commonly used and another title is going to be required for the section.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I still see the same title. Is it ever used in the media? We don't see it in the U.S., and I'm curious as to why they wouldn't go under other awards. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 17:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• First word of "achievement honours" should probably go, as the two words sort of duplicate each other.

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• All caps in one of the references in cite 24 ("D-Day") should be made into sentence case instead

Done.—PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Giants2008 (Talk) 00:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry

• Bollywood film debut.

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 03:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The same year, Chopra received four nominations for her part in Andaaz", four nominations in which all award ceremonies?

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 03:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• for her part in Andaaz -> for her work or something like that would be better.

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 03:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• second woman-> second actress; the sentence needs a source as it's not verified by the source.

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 03:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The sentence "for which she won every "Best Actress" award in India" doesn't sound good. You mean she won awards even at the state level?

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 03:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The "Other awards" section contains a list of non-notable awards. Is it an indication that this list contains each and every single award that she won till date.

I didnt understand your issue on this.—PKS ^(TALK) 03:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The section has a lot of non-notable awards. Are you sure that each and every single award that she has won to date has been listed in the page? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, every award, she has won is listed here.—PKS ^(TALK) 02:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• From 2009 to 2012, Chopra received 30 nominations is not verified by the source.

Infobox has every numbers..—PKS ^(TALK) 03:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The following year, Rediff ranked her first on their annual listing of "Bollywood's Best Actress". Eastern Eye twice ranked her at the top of their list of "World's Sexiest Asian Women": unsourced.

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 03:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Yash

• No need to include As of December 2012, Chopra has received 53 awards from 81 nominations.

This is very much needed, see List of awards and nominations received by Madonna.

• She participated in the Femina Miss India 2000 contest, winning the Femina Miss India World title. - She participated in the Femina Miss India 2000 contest and won the Miss India World title.

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• After that, she competed in the Miss World pageant, where she was crowned Miss World 2000 and Miss World Continental − Asia & Oceania. - no need to use After that - you can use Eventually instead. - Also remove , after pageant

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• During her nine year career, Chopra has received various awards and nominations; most were in the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress categories - Chopra has received various awards and nominations; most in the categories of Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• She made her Bollywood film debut in The Hero in 2003 for which she received an award for Best Supporting Actress at the Stardust Awards. - She made her acting debut at Bollywood with The Hero in 2003 for which she received the award for Best Supporting Actress at the Stardust Awards.

She made her Bollywood debut in 2003 not acting debut, her acting debut was in 2002.

• The same year, Chopra received four nominations for her part in Andaaz, and she won the Filmfare Award for Best Female Debut - The same year, Chopra received four nominations for her part in Andaaz and won the Filmfare Award for Best Female Debut

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Chopra then starred in Fashion in 2008 for which she won every "Best Actress" award in India, - Chopra starred in Fashion in 2008 for which she won every "Best Actress" award in India,

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Chopra's first single "In My City" was released in 2012 by Interscope Records and won her a People's Choice Award for "Best International Debut" and three nominations at the World Music Awards. - Chopra's first single, "In My City" which was released in 2012 by Interscope Records won her a People's Choice Award for "Best International Debut" and three nominations at the World Music Awards.

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Apart from acting awards, various film and fashion organizations have given Chopra honours - Apart from acting, various film and fashion organizations have honored Chopra

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• She was chosen as Goddess of Atlantis in 2008 for the inauguration function of Atlantis, The Palm, a luxury holiday resort in Dubai. - She was chosen as the Goddess of Atlantis in 2008 for the inaugural function of Atlantis, The Palm, a luxury holiday resort in Dubai.

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Later, she became the first Indian actress to cast her foot impressions at the Salvatore Ferragamo Museum, Florence. - Rmv Later

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• People and Maxim magazines declared her the best dressed woman and the "hottest girl" in India for 2011. - People and Maxim magazines declared her as the best dressed woman and the "hottest girl" in India in 2011.

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Chopra was declared as the topmost influential Indian in the social media circuit by Pinstorm India. - Chopra was declared as the most influential Indian in the social media circuit by Pinstorm India.

Done.—PKS ^(TALK) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

— Yash ^[talk] 15:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin: I decided to get down and dirty, and performed a copy edit to the lead. See what you think. The biggest weak point for it was the repetitious flow. It read like a list and sentences were structured the same. I've done my best, but if you can read the lead aloud and spot any rough and repetitive spots, be sure to fix those. The lead is an FLC's biggest chance to give a positive impression to the reader and if it suffers, the whole article does. This one's a bit tricky: there's quite a lot of the word "of" in the lead and it doesn't sound pleasant the way it is placed throughout. It is important to vary the prose, and sometimes that is easier said than done. Get creative: rearrange words, phrases, and even remove needless phrases. Nevertheless, I think the introduction has improved. Hope this helps. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

will definitely do that. Its waiting Copy/edit from GOCE and would definitely would be free in one week. Hence, waiting for it.Prashant  Conversation  03:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Done

Thank You Everyone for your help. I think the list has improved and is much better now.Prashant  Conversation  20:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Bronchitis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed Bronchitis for peer review because I would like some feedback on how to continue to better the article. It's currently at C class and I've been adding secondary and tertiary sources for references but would like more ideas on other things the article could use.

Thanks, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Some comments from lesion

I think more experienced editors will be able to give more extensive advice than I. Initial impression is well referenced article and the info here is thoughtfully worded. Issues are not so much with content but layout to conform with MOS (This page should generally follow the MOS for diseases/disorders). If you are looking to get to GA status, this is also good reading Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. As per the above, we are missing a few recommended sections...whilst they are not mandatory, I think this article could easily fit this better. E.g. move sections acute, chronic and protracted bacterial into a classification section. Note also these sections contain info that might be more appropriate in other sections. This will likely make some new sections which are too short, and these might need slight expansion to counter this.

• Classification
• Signs and symptoms or Characteristics
• Causes
• Pathophysiology/Mechanism
• Diagnosis
• Prevention
• Treatment
• Prognosis
• Epidemiology
• History
• Society and culture
• Research directions
• Special populations
• Other animals

•  Done

• The hatline "not to be confused with bronchiolitis" I have not seen before...usually they read, for the disorder of inflammation in the bronchioles, see bronchiolitis" or similar.

Don't know how to fix this, that was there before I got to the article. If you know how to fix that, please let me know and I will try.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Much medical terminology that might not be understood.

• Differential diagnosis could do with parenthesized lay term or wikilink in lead
• Acute and chronic could do with parenthesized lay term or wikilink
• Epithelium could do with parenthesized lay term or wikilink
• Symptomatic treatment "
• Secondary infections "
• Productive cough
• fibrotic
• lumenal
• wet cough
• would be nice to have some explanation of how the Pulmonary function tests are performed and what the volumes are?

Hope this is useful.lesion (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Epithelium already had a wikilink, differential diagnosis is gone, secondary infections...I can't really find a good wikilink. The infection page description for secondary infections is terrible. Luminal, fibrotic, productive cough are taken care of. Thinking about the other ones.

Apologies re epithelium, missed that. Feel free to use what ever terminology you want, as long as there is a way for people to understand if they haven't heard it before, either with bracketed lay term or wikilink. Re secondary infection agree poor section, but maybe one day that page is better? (or maybe try Superinfection? ... possibly something slightly different) Should still wikilink a term regardless of quality of other page imo. Just a thought, enjoy developing this page. lesion (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Zad68

Round 1

TylerDurden8823 tore this up.

Over and under wikilinking: Common terms like "cigarette somking" and "air pollution" probably don't need to be wikilinked, all the terms in "coal mining, grain handling, textile manufacturing, livestock farming" probably don't need wikilinking. Can you find a wikilink target for some of the nonlinked technical terms like "fibrotic", "differential diagnosis"? I kept the cigarette smoking but changed it to the health effects of cigarette smoking page instead of just cigarettes, etc. More of the technical terms are now wikilinked. * Done From what I was told: You put the wikilinks into the lead and body as 2 separate entities. For example, "bronchi" is wikilinked in the lead but not body, but should be in both places. You also have a nice explainer note in the lead about what "bronchi" are (fundamental to the understanding of the topic), but that explainer is not in the body. The lead is considered its own stand-alone item. Nearly every term in " About 90% of cases of acute bronchitis are caused by viruses, including rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, adenoviruses, metapneumovirus, parainfluenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus, and influenza.[4] Bacteria, including Mycoplasma pneumoniae,[4] Chlamydophila pneumoniae,[4] Bordetella pertussis,[4] Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Haemophilus influenzae, account for about 10% of cases.[5]" is wikilinked. Do you need all these terms? This part seems important since these are the direct viral/bacterial causes of acute bronchitis and readers may want to click on a wikilink to find out more about these pathogens. I'm not really clear on why these should not be wikilinked. I'm working on readjusting the wikilinks discussed earlier in your comments though.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC) You don't need a {{Main}} containing the phrase of mentioned term that has its own article. Like in section Chronic bronchitis, you have "Main article: Chronic bronchitis" and then the first words of the section are "Chronic bronchitis, a type of...". Just wikilink Chronic bronchitis and get rid of the {{Main}}, that's what a wikilinki is for.  Done The list of five refs after "and metal molding may also be a risk factor for the development of chronic bronchitis" is ugly. Look into using a note to bundle the refs, or see the recommendations in WP:CITECLUTTER and WP:CITEMERGE. Down from five to three now. * Done You shouldn't have a one-sentence paragraph, like at the end of section Chronic bronchitis.  Done Per WP:MEDMOS don't use "should" (as in "antibiotics should not generally be used") because that appears to be giving medical advice (try "antibiotics generally are not recommended"). Same thing with patient ("Using antibiotics in patients without bacterial infections..."). Avoid "patient."  Done Treatment: There is far too little content about treatment. There's one very general sentence about treatment, only for acute. Once more coverage of treatment is there, update the lead. The lead is missing any mention of treatment and really needs it. Needs more prevalence too. I see just one sentence in Chronic, attached to a paragraph about causes. The items in External links really are not worthy of external links. They are links to two other encyclopedia-type treatments for the layperson. This Wikipedia article should cover everything those two articles in External links covers, and should cover it better and more completely than they do, so that those two items would not be in the External links section. Agreed.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC) In the lead, I'd change "Bronchitis can be divided into two categories, acute and chronic, each of which has its own distinct etiology, pathology, and therapeutic approach." tp "Bronchitis can be divided into two categories: acute and chronic." The end of that sentence doesn't really add any information. The wording in the lead needs to be very efficient and information-dense.  Done Consider removing this whole sentence from the lead: " In addition to acute bronchitis, the differential diagnosis for an acute cough may include: allergic rhinitis, asthma, common cold, exacerbation of congestive heart failure, exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), gastroesophageal reflux disease, cancer, pneumonia, postinfectious cough, postnasal drip, sinusitis, and viral syndrome.[4]" It's very long and doesn't really add information fundamental to the understanding of bronchitis. I thought this sentence would be important (though I agree it was long) because the question of what else it could be is an important one but, for the moment * Done Maybe pick the three most common differential diagnoses, or can you describe the diff diags categorically? I'm sure that can be arranged but I'll get to that later once I've restructured the article.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC) As pointed out above, the article should be restructured according to Wikipedia:Medmos#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes.  Done I would like more background and explanation of the mechanism, and some context about the system bronchitis affects. "However" is used twice in Chronic, both times inappropriately. Same thing in Diagnosis.  Done There are three different kinds of bronchitis listed now, I'd like to see the relative prevalences of each. Diagnosis: This sentence appears to be missing a verb: "Due to the nonspecific signs and symptoms exhibited by bronchitis patients, diagnostic tests such as a chest x-ray to rule out pneumonia or other explanations for the observed cough, sputum culture to rule out whooping cough or other bacterial respiratory infections, or a pulmonary function test to rule out asthma or emphysema"  Done I see several different ways "explainer" phrases are done: After a comma: Bronchitis is inflammation of the mucous membranes of the bronchi, the airways that carry airflow from the trachea into the lungs After a dash: Unlike other common obstructive disorders such as asthma or emphysema, bronchitis rarely causes a high residual volume-the volume of air remaining in the lungs after a maximal exhalation effort. In parentheses: Wheezing and shortness of breath can be treated by reducing bronchospasm (reversible narrowing of smaller bronchi due to constriction of the smooth muscle) ... Pick one and make it consistent. My preference is for parentheses.  Done Sourcing: I see you're using websites for sourcing medical info. You've picked good ones, like Mayo Clinic and American Lung Assn, and they'll probably be good enough for GA, but my understanding is that they won't pass muster for FA. Unfortunately, limited resources that I'm dealing with. I've done PubMed searches for acute, chronic, etc. bronchitis and put in what I have access to or what looked relevant. The tertiary sources what I was able to find online. No idea what other sources to use if these are not sufficient though my thinking is I'd like to get it up to GA first and then worry about FA status when it's nearing GA. If you have ideas for better sources/additional sources, I am open to suggestion.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Have you tried Wikipedia's resource exchange? Or ask Doc James, he's gotten me several sources. You can also get at least pieces of textbooks from Google Books and Amazon. Zad68 05:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC) I have tried the resource exchange with some success lately. However, in this case I don't think it's going to help much since I combed through the literature (at least on PubMed) fairly thoroughly. It's definitely possible I missed some good ones I guess. That's a good idea asking Doc James, he has been helpful in the past. I was under the impression that textbooks would be considered tertiary sources, is that not right? Biosthmors told me that tertiary sources are okay but that the emphasis should definitely be placed on secondary sources.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Source PMID = 9071245 is an old primary study and does not pass WP:MEDRS. The way it is being used is unacceptable, it is not nearly a strong enough source for "Most cases of bronchitis are caused by a self-limiting viral infection and resolve themselves in a few weeks." This is a serious WP:V problem and must be fixed ASAP. Source PMID = 21857781 and source PMID = 22161409 are awesome and those are the kinds of sources (if you can get them) you should be using for everything. I'm guessing this is the old 1997 paper. I agree, that was also there before I got to the article and I'll be sure to replace it with something much more recent. There was a lot more wrong with this article than right when I got started though admittedly I made a few missteps here and there. Probably tired while editing.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC) There's something sourced to "Chronic Bronchitis", Times Essentials. It really should be sourced to the underlying A.D.A.M. reference work. Enough for now... I'll check in later. Zad68 04:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Nice work... Zad68 03:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Round 2

Lead

• "Bronchitis is a general medical term signifying an inflammation..."--how about "Bronchitis is an inflammation..."
• "the larger and medium-sized airways that carry air from the trachea into the more distal parts of the lung parenchyma" -- simplify, how about "the larger and medium-sized airways that carry air from the trachea into the lung"?
• "those who are immunocompromised, appear to be at increased risk"--how about "those who are immunocompromised, are at increased risk"

•  Done

• Still needs treatment

Added to it :* Done

• Diff diag... I know you're coming back to this one simplified wording.

Sure, we can try that bronchitis is an inflammation, that was uploadvirus who wrote that and the second bullet point. Uploadvirus felt that these two things would help readability. Does it seem to hinder that cause rather than help it in your opinion? I'm not certain if it has been established if immunocompromised people are considered at "increased risk" or whether being immunocompromised is considered a risk factor since there is a subtle difference between the two but for now it's changed since appear doesn't seem to fit well. I'm going to have to scale my efforts back a bit for about a week and then I can do more with treatment, etc. I'm also not sure what you're talking about regarding differential diagnosis since it's not on there yet. We discussed trying to classify it by type or just putting the top three differentials on there.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Classification

• "Acute bronchitis is a self-limited infection of the lower respiratory tract causing inflammation of the bronchi and is characterized by an acute illness with a duration of less than three weeks, cough as the main symptom, at least one other lower respiratory tract symptom such as wheezing, sputum production, or chest pain, and cannot be better explained by another diagnosis."--long run-on sentence, split up

I wanted to make sure everyone was clear that it was all one idea/definition but :* Done

Prevalence

• Can you find more content

I will soon. Been working on hunting down leads for the history section. Going to work on prevalence, pathophys, etc. soon.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

History

• Obviously. You don't need to go nuts, just like one paragraph is probably all you'd need, unless bronchitis has a long, storied, fascinating history.

•  Done

• If possible some more dates in here, the only one is 1808. What year did bronchodialtors become available?

Sources

• (continuing from above convo.)--You have the secondary and tertiary idea right. Tertiary is great for well-accepted background or historical info. What the lung is and how it works is well-established by now, and tertiary sources are great. You need secondary sources esp. for things like up-to-date prevalence figures, latest theories about causation and treatment, etc.
• Don't forget about "There's something sourced to "Chronic Bronchitis", Times Essentials. It really should be sourced to the underlying A.D.A.M. reference work."

•  Done

Wow what a huge improvement. You're very, very close to GA. The first time I read through the article I didn't really get the concept behind what the article is talking about. On this read-through, it's so much more clear. I feel like I actually learned something on this read through, great job. Zad68 19:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about the Times article. That may end up being a merged citation but I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Any suggestions for what to do about the secondary bacterial infection bit? I just linked it to the infection page which briefly discusses secondary infections but I feel like it is a bad page for those looking for a better explanation. Do you think superinfection might be better? Or is this just one of those just wikilink it moments? Thanks for the compliment, I'm trying to make it better so I'm glad to hear that it's going well. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Round 3

• Lead--You'll have to come back after the rest of the article is done to make sure all the new content you added is reflected in the lead--again no treatment in there yet, and there should be just a mention of history now that you have a section for it
• "Typically, acute bronchitis is characterized by an acute illness with a duration of less than three weeks, cough as the main symptom, at least one other lower respiratory tract symptom such as wheezing, sputum production, or chest pain, and cannot be better explained by another diagnosis." -- very long sentence, can you break up? Or at least fix the grammar and tighten/copyedit, consider: "Acute bronchitis is an acute illness lasting less than three weeks with coughing as the main symptom, and accompanied by at least one other lower respiratory tract symptom such as wheezing, sputum production, or chest pain." -- do you really need ", and which cannot be better explained by another diagnosis."? It sounds tautological.

The "and which cannot be better explained" bit was part of the definition from the source but I can how that might come across as redundant:* Done

• "2" and "3" should be spelled out here, see WP:MOSNUM, this is required for GA

•  Done

• "Protracted bacterial bronchitis is defined as a chronic productive cough, with a positive bronchoalveolar lavage, that resolves with antibiotics." - probably get rid of the commas

•  Done

• "supplemental oxygen"--capitalize

•  Done

• "Oxygen supplementation can result in decreased respiratory drive, leading to increased blood levels of carbon dioxide and subsequent respiratory acidosis."--unsourced

•  Done

• "Most cases of bronchitis are caused by a self-limiting viral infection and resolve themselves in a few weeks.[citation needed]"--consider: "Most cases of bronchitis are caused by a self-limiting viral infection and resolve without intervention in a few weeks.[citation needed]"

•  Done

• History--you don't really need that same one ref repeated every sentence if it's the only ref used, just put one at the end of the paragraph. Generally history sections have large amounts of context pulled from only one or two sources, as opposed to the medical content sections which often have lots of refs. I understand, you build up the "ref every assertion" habit in the other parts of the articles and you do it to history too, but you don't need to.

•  Done

• History--looks great! You found a great ref and that one paragraph is probably all you need.
• Images-- can't you find some more? Something to break up the text.

• Overall--keep it up. Zad68 04:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll get to work on these but I don't know how to upload images to wikipedia and I don't know how to add a picture to a wikipedia page. The last time I looked I couldn't find a free picture to use. I've been looking for a reliable source for the oxygen supplementation bit and so far have come up empty. I don't think it will be terribly difficult to find the self-limited viral infection bit and I know the epidemiology section needs to be more robust. I'll take a more detailed look at your third round in a little while and start.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • No excuses! Uploading images is easy, just use the image uploader tool, the one thing you need to be careful about is copyright and licensing issues, so ask about that. There's also a bunch of images already, look through what has already been uploaded. Also, look at these results: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=cough&fulltext=Search What would be REALLY great is if you were to look through the sound files that are named like "File:The-description-of-cough-sounds-by-healthcare-professionals..." and find the ones relevant to what a bronchitis cough sounds like. Zad68 15:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
      • That link didn't go anywhere and I haven't been able to find any public domain pictures on wikipedia that are of bronchitis related pathology. I realize a histopathology slide showing the pathological consequences of chronic or acute bronchitis would be a nice addition. Next up I think will be epidemiology stuff if I can find it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Weird if the link didn't work, I just tried it again and it works for me. I really want you to look through the File:The-description-of-cough-sounds-by-healthcare-professionals... files, there's something good in there I am sure. Zad68 17:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
          • It works now. I'll try again later with that.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Okay, so, I looked through the cough search and most of the search was irrelevant. The only thing I found were some cough sounds from a paper that made the sounds public domain but the problem is that while there were two COPD coughs which had mucus and wheeze, it is unclear to me whether they have chronic bronchitis or emphysema or both. They often coexist from what I've read. If you think a COPD cough is sufficient, we can use that. I don't know how different the cough is between a COPD patient with chronic bronchitis and a COPD patient with emphysema. It may not be different at all. Let me know what you think.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Thanks for looking... I was really hoping there would be something specific for this bronchitis. In my opinion it'd be worth it to try to track down some info on whether a general COPD cough sound would be useful for this article. If I were you I would ask at WT:MED. There are some actual physicians there who might be able to help. A physician might be able to tell you a COPD sound file would be useful.

Thanks

Thanks guys, that's plenty to work on and it'll take me a little while but I think I'll be able to incorporate your suggestions and fix the article up. There were definitely some things here that didn't come to mind right away and some policies of which I was unaware.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Delighted you appreciate it! You're definitely moving the article forward and it's well on its way... Zad68 04:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so, the article has changed dramatically now. I have restructured the entire article according to the guidelines set by Wikipedia: MOS of Diseases. Please have another look and continue with your feedback. I'll continue addressing the points you mentioned earlier and yes, some sections are smaller or not filled in yet as predicted earlier and I will try to address this as quickly as I can.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It is dramatically improved. Sourcing is top-notch. Your prose style has definitely improved, I find very little to pick on. Flush out the rest of the content sections and fix the lead, and nominate it for GA. Zad68 04:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of the prose wasn't mine haha. My prose is normally quite respectable. If I'm tired, perhaps it falters on occasion. Can you be more specific when you say flush out the rest of the content sections? I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. Glad to hear it's basically ready for GA and just needs the lead to be fixed. Regrettably, I'm not sure I will have the time to see this to completion and I may need someone else to put the finishing touches on it since I'm getting rather busy. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

---

IPad (4th generation)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to get to GA standards and would like to see if any sections need fixing or expanding.

Thanks, YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 04:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from James086

• "designed, developed and marketed" - would "produced" be better? It seems logical that as the producer of the iPad Apple would do these things.
• "the new Apple A6X" - I would remove the "new" because it sounds like advertising and the chip won't remain new forever.
• The Retina Display isn't new to this model so I wouldn't bother mentioning it in the lead, just the Lightning connector and A6X
• The article switches between "fourth-generation" and "fourth generation".
• I would expect a newer device to outperform its predecessor, it's sort of a vague thing to say in the lead. Perhaps note that it's roughly twice as fast as the 3rd gen in CPU tasks.
• In History "before unveiling and introducing the fourth..." - just one of those words will do.
• In the second paragraph of History I don't believe this bit is necessary "which include several European, East Asian and North American countries". The infobox gives that information and it causes repetition of the word "countries" within the sentence.

According to other editors, most if not all information in the infobox should be mentioned in the prosed, I took that into account when I added that sentence. Perhaps it might be suitable to switch between "nations" and "countries", although nations does seem to pertain more to diplomacy. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib

Perhaps "across Europe, East Asia and the Americas"? James086^Talk 14:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• In Software "platform for iOS developed and maintained by Apple" - I don't think it needs to mention that it's maintained by Apple, it seems quite logical. If you feel it necessary perhaps just say "access the Apple App Store..."
• Perhaps note that the translation from speech to text takes place on Apple's servers (In the additional information) as the reason for requiring the internet connection.
• Refs 13, 26, 36, 49 and 51 will likely change as soon as a new model is released, can the information be found elsewhere? Alternatively the website could be archived so that the current version is always accessible.
• I have to go now but I'll return and keep reading through the article, likely tomorrow. James086^Talk 18:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• In hardware it mentions switches, I would have said buttons, but is there some reason for switches?
• Also I would have said it has 4 buttons and 1 switch: home, sleep/wake, vol up, vol down and the switch being the thing above the volume that varies. Even though the volume button has only one piece of plastic on top of it there are 2 buttons underneath I think.
• I wouldn't bother comparing it to the iPad 2 in weight, just the iPad 3. I'd suggest saying something like this instead "The WiFi only version weighs 652 grams while the cellular model weighs 662 grams, each are 2 grams heavier than their respective predecessor."
• The article says CPU but GPU and RAM are written out in full. It should stick to one or the other. The acronyms would be fine in this case because they are such commonly used abbreviations, but written in full is also fine.
• It should mention that the cost of parts is in USD
• "included 12 W USB power adapter and USB cord with a USB connector at one end and the new Lightning dock connector at the other end." - could be shortened to "USB power adapter and Lightning connector". It's just repeating the USB bit and it's not a Lightning dock.
• I don't think the source for the battery life is a reliable one. I'm sure battery life is tested in many reviews so it should be easy to find one with proper testing.
• The last 3 sentences of the hardware section are very short, I think they should be combined because it feels like a list and the shipping price isn't really relevant. Also USD.
• The sentence about the battery life of the iPad 2 is a bit confusing, perhaps just say "battery of the updated iPad 2 is able to..."

Comments - Based on the Good Article criteria, do you think this article would pass the review? I'm obviously bias towards it so my opinions on it are worthless. Lols YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks to be well on its way to becoming a good article. I won't review it for GA so that another set of eyes has a look first but I would pass it once these are changed (or not if there's a reason not to). Nice work. James086^Talk 14:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that provided me with a great amount of confidence, I'll nominate it for GA if you don't have anymore recommendations. Anyways, thanks for the amazingly clear and thorough review! YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No other recommendations that I can think of. I'm sure there will be other minor changes suggested but that's all that I see. :) James086^Talk 12:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all the issues that you have raised except the referencing one. It's fine for now but if Apple does decide to change webpages, it shouldn't be too hard to find an archived version of the page on archive.com or cite another site with the specs. Anyways thanks! YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Toronto Light Opera Association

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is very well sourced and very well developed. It is also a nice candidate for a WP:GOODARTICLE if we expand it by using the given references. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... Hi, I will review this article for you just might take a little while. It is great to have more articles about theaters on Wikipedia and you have a good start here. Just by quickly looking at the article I can give you two things that will help. First of all the box at the top of the article needs to be dealt with, and secondly take a look at the automated tips in the toolbox here for some standard fixes. I'll work on reviewing some more later today--Found5dollar (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Review – This section is under review or has been partially reviewed by User:Found5dollar.

Ok so here we start...

Infobox

• Your link to "Bill Wright" leads to a disambig page.
• Can someone be a notable member if they are a red link?
• You might want to think about using Template:Infobox theatre instead of the choir infobox as this is a theater troupe, not a choir... in fact the more I look at the parameters in the infobox I am almost positive it is not right for what this article is for.
• Your infobox image needs alt text.

Lead

• The dates the Association existed should be worked into the lead, not just in parenthesis.
• You only have to link places, such as Toronto, the first time they appear in the article. Be careful of overlinking. Do you really need to link to what an "association" is?
• "It only took a few years for the organization to become locally renowned" seems a little biased to me.
• "Regardless of its high praise" again, biased?
• Try not to cite things in your lead.^{[see comments below]} All of the information in it should be found elsewhere in the article where it is sourced. The lead is there to summarize the whole article not introduce information that is not expanded upon anywhere else.

Notable members

• Any section such as this should appear at the end of an article, before the references.
• This whole section is basically about one guy. It should either be moved to his article, or greatly reduced to not give him undo weight.
• Again, your link to "Bill Wright" leads to a disambig page.

Productions

• Usually a list of shows performed at a theater is discouraged, but in this instance since there are so few and it is central to the association's main goal, it seems fine to list them.
• You have basically told me the same thing twice here, once in text then again in a list. I do not think the list is needed.
• Can you expand this section? Delve more into the history of the productions, talk about the "notable members" that were in each production, maybe dedicate a paragraph to each season of the association. This might be best accomplished by changing it from a "productions" section to a "history" section.

Other

• The "external links" section is being used incorrectly. that section should be for other websites that have information about the Light Opera Association that a reader might find helpful, not how to access the references.
• I really want to know more about the founding of the company. Why and how did Fred Mawson found the Light Opera Association? Why did they only do Gilbert and Sullivan?
• I want to learn more about why the Association stopped producing shows. Did Mawson die? Did they run out of money? did interest in Gilbert and Sullivan wain? Did it turn into another theater company? None of these questions are answered by the article as it stands.
• Did the company win any awards? You also tell about praise the Association received from local papers, was there any negative press? did anyone not like their productions for any reason?
• What venues did the Light Opera Association use to produce operettas in? Maybe include a picture or two of various ones.
• You might want to read through Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners as right now your references are formatted in any of a number of ways. Try to standardize that.

In general there are a lot of facets of this organization that this article does not touch on. it would be great to get a fully rounded picture of what the Toronto Light Opera Association was. Good luck with flushing out the article more and if you have any questions feel free to ask me.

Reviewed by --Found5dollar (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 Question: Is this the right place to add comments about this review by the creator of the page? Or should I add them on the reviewer's talk page? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Here Anne. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Okay then:

Thank you, Found5dollar, for your insight. It has been very helpful.

I removed the Bill Wright link. There is no page about this Bill Wright at this time. I'm not sure how that got there.

Red links: Some of these people should have a page; it's hard to tell which just yet.

Info: User Ahnoneemoos added the infobox template. I'll pass the buck here....

Lead: I'm working the date in as suggested. Some of those excess links were added by overly enthusiastic contributers; I've removed some of them, but they might come back... I agree about the "renown" comment, which was added by an opera enthusiast, and I'll tone it down.

Your comment about not putting citations in the lead paragraph is interesting. I guess I was afraid if I didn't justify everything someone would delete the article. I'll see if I can move the citations later in the article.

Notable members section: I think I have improved this with information about more of the principal players.

Productions:

I've combined the duplicate sections into one compromise format.

I certainly plan to add new information to this section. The newspaper in Toronto which had the most theatre news has never been digitized or indexed, and it's an hour's drive to the nearest spot where I can see the microfilm, so this will not happen at once.

Changing the title to "history" is a good idea; that will help me move some of the citations out of the lead paragraph.

External Links - I felt it was important to explain why I had so many references that couldn't be viewed by others. I put this in a section called "Notes", and another user told me that this was incorrect and added them as external links. Is there a better way to put it? Or should I move this information to the talk page?

I will keep trying to find out more of the details that you would like to see. Maybe I'll find a Toronto resident to help me.

—Anne Delong (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You are doing a really good job at moving the article along. Let me know when you get more fixes done and I would be happy to take another look or help you in any other way you need.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 Warning. Anne, a peer review is just a suggestion. You don't have to do every single thing listed here. For example, Found prefers to not put references in the lead but that's just a suggestion. I would actually suggest the contrary 'cuz if it's not referenced someone might remove it or tag it with {{citation needed}}. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ahnoneemoos. I didn't say to put un-referenced information in the lead, just that there should be nothing in the lead that isn't referenced elsewhere. If the information is referenced else where in the article then you do not need to cite it in the lead, as it is should be more generalized there. Read WP:CITELEAD if what I said was confusing. Sorry if it was.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow. i just re-read what i worte and was apalled by my "Try not to cite things in your lead." That is quite possibly the worst "not at all what I meant to say" I have ever done on Wikipedia. Just read WP:CITELEAD to see what I meant by it.--Found5dollar (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment:. The use of "high praise" and "renowned" does not constitute WP:BIAS in this article since the association was called "an excellent organization" by the Toronto Daily Star (see references). It also only took them 6 years from being formed to receive such a review, which constitute a few years and establishes their renown. It's just WP:COMMONSENSE of adding 1+2=3. Regarding red links, see WP:REDLINK. It is not only encouraged but necessary. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well then, what you just wrote here should be in the article! The way it was written in the article just seemed like the writer was being biased, but if you quantify it with who said what and when, and why that is important, and perhaps add other reviews that were negative then no one would think it seems biased. In terms of redlinks it is just funny that all of the people that are claimed to be "Notable Members" are not notable enough to have wiki pages. That can be telling. I'm not trying to argue with you, You requested a review and I and I am supplying you with what I feel needs to be changed to get the article through GAC like was asked. If you don't agree with something, don't do it, I'm just trying to help out.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF, not WP:ARGUE. ;] —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

 Comment: You might want to think about using Template:Infobox theatre instead of the choir infobox as this is a theater troupe, not a choir... in fact the more I look at the parameters in the infobox I am almost positive it is not right for what this article is for. --Found5dollar (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Ahnoneemoos added the infobox template. I'll pass the buck here. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Found, just WP:BEBOLD and change the infobox. I'm not familiarized with these topics so I put the one I found first. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As I haven't done any research into the organization, I feel i am not the best oen to be filling in the info box. Here it is again Template:Infobox theatre), the parameters are pretty well spelled out on the template page.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 Discussion ongoing...
I looked into {{Infobox theatre}} and the problem is that template is more for the building per se. I have been looking around and the only infobox that comes close to this article is {{infobox choir}}, {{infobox musical artist}}, and {{Infobox organization}}. However, I can create a template for {{infobox ensemble}} which would cover these kind of articles and others. What exactly should I put on it? I'm not familiar with these topics, I'm more of a politics guy. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Coming from project opera but not speaking for the project, I think "ensemble" is too vague a term, I would think of a vocal ensemble or a chamber music ensemble first. I think {{infobox theatre company}} might be a good idea. Another option would be to include more parameters to "theatre", to cover the company aspects, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Like Gerda, coming from project opera but not speaking for the project, I changed the infobox to Template:Infobox organization (with limited fields). Frankly, I would leave it at that. The one for the choir is unsuitable and too rigid, leading to inaccuracies. For example, Gilbert and Sullivan were not an "influence" on this organization. Their works formed the core repertoire—not the same thing at all. I note that another box has been added with the repertoire. I don't recommend this. It is entirely redundant to the production section, clutters the page, and is potentially misleading. Did the TLOA perform only Gilbert and Sullivan? If not, the box is misleading. If they did perform only their works, then the purpose field in the main infobox should be changed to "Performance of operettas by Gilbert and Sullivan." Voceditenore (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I got this. The problem is the way the article is redacted. I want to be able to see the repertoire of productions as a list, not as prose, so that I can skim through it quickly. I think the best thing would be to merge the section "Productions" into "History" without the {{div col}} We should then have a separate section called "Productions" that lists SOLELY the productions and their years. What do you guys think? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with you on that solution. Also, the 2 column presentation of extended prose is not a great idea. It looks very cluttered and is difficult to read, particularly on small screens. There's no real reason for it—it's not like we're short of space :) Voceditenore (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what information the infobox is supposed to present in a "condensed" form. The first five sections of the infobox take up much more space and are more difficult to read than the one opening sentence, containing the same information. Then there are seven red-linked names in the infobox; these names are not linked in the article's prose. Both treatments indicate that these people are not highly notable, so why list them in the infobox. The infobox also does a great disservice to the presentation of the lead image; without such boxed contraints, it could be shown to much better effect at a size of 300 horizontal pixels.

I agree that the columnar presentation of the production history is awkward to read and presents unnecessary typographic challenges: in my view, the title of The Mikado in 1947 is broken between the bottom of one and the top of the next column.

While I'm here: that navigation template {{Opera companies in Canada}} looks quite awful; it starts with a red link which is never a good idea in navigation templates, and then uses way more space than necessary to list 14 companies in 5 lines which could be done in 2. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to get rid of the column format. I found three more reviews today on microfilm at the Toronto Reference library, so I will be adding more information to each year. The Repertoire box makes the columns even narrower, particularly for people who don't have high resolution screens.

Also, I was asked of there were negatives comments from reviewers that should be mentioned to offset the "praise". I know it's a problem that the references are not on line, but in the three reviews that I have just found there was not one negative comment, only more praise. Either the reviewers were very easy to please, or these productions were very well done. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the infobox question settled? If so, I would like to change the "key people" Some of the people in that section are notable for things that they did after leaving the organization, so they aren't "key". Instead I would add the stage director Alfred Kidney, and the pianist Winnifred Smith Stewart, since they were vital to every production. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made several changes based on the discussion here.

1. I removed the image from the infobox to a place where it can be better displayed. I completely agree with Michael Bednarek on this.
2. I removed "Key people" from the box and replaced with the stage director and pianist
3. I incorporated the repertoire into the infobox (if people think it's absolutely nececessary to have it at the beginning of the article—I don't, but that's a separate issue) and removed the separate and highly cluttering box.
4. I slightly edited the Productions section to put the bit about 1944 having no productions due to the war in the History section and removed the double column format.
5. I moved {{expand article}} to the External links section which I think is more apt as that's where the sources for expansion are located. Do we really need that big ugly banner at the top of the article as the first thing the reader sees? I think not :) Actually, I've now removed this completely and per WP:EL and Found5dollar's comments, also the external links which do not lead directly to any sources simply places to look for them. That kind of meta-commentary stuff belongs on the talk page, not in the article. Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
6. Finally I edited the {{Opera companies in Canada}} template to fix the red link and make it more compact. Again, I totally agree with Michael on this one

Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As the original author of the infobox and what not I would like to make it clear that I fully agree with the changes being made. I will also abstain myself from contributing further to this article as it is out of scope of my area of expertise and I believe there are others who might be better suited for this such as everyone else involved in this peer review. Please do take Anne under your tutelage as I have more new editors coming in from WP:AFC and Anne seems to be well under way. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Production details

Wow! I keep waking up in the morning to find all of these changes. I take it that most of the people who have taken an interest in this page are not from Ontario. The page looks much better after Voceditenore's edits. A question: From reviews and programs, I now have the names and parts played of the principal players in a number of the productions. Is it appropriate to add this much detail? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I don't think any of us are from Ontario, we're just from "opera land". Anyhow, re the detail... it may be excessive, especially if the majority of the cast are not notable singers. I would only single out cast members for a production if they have a Wikipedia entry or are clearly notable enough to have one. However, review commentary would be appropriate including that which mentions a specific singer, regardless of whether or not they became notable. Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability in Opera

To be notable in opera, is it enough to have played in many productions (for example, in the article Bert Scarborough played in at least thirty productions over 42 years.) Or would he need to have played principal parts? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not so much notability in opera as notability in the Wikipedia sense, which is not to be confused with accomplishment, quantity of roles, or length of career. The subject has to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources or fulfill one of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO (adapted for classical performers). However, in practical terms, if they fulfill one of those criteria, they generally have also received significant coverage. Howard Mawson and Elizabeth Mawson are examples who pass the criteria—entries in The Canadian Encyclopedia, authored obituaries in the mainstream press (as opposed to family authored death notices and paid-for obituaries), etc. Voceditenore (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Stanley Donen

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been copy edited and I would like a final Peer Review before nominating it for GA status.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Greed (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has gone into this page over the past few months, resulting in a successful GA nomination and two copy edits. I would now like a Peer Review for FA status.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• This article has recently gotten a peer review from a Copy Edit request- See its Talk Page.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  

---