Wikipedia:Peer review/June 2010

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.

---

Ontario Highway 401

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs a thorough copy edit before heading to WP:FAC. My grammar is terrible, but the good intention is there :)

Thank you, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems comprehensive, and it's certainly an interesting highway. Unfortunately, PR is the wrong place to look for a copyeditor. For a complete grammar check and copyedit, you might have luck asking one of the copyeditors listed on the volunteers page at WP:PRV.

• The article may have a few too many images for a pleasing layout, although you may be able to move them around to better effect. Three things to avoid are text sandwiches between images on the left and images on the right; images that overlap sections instead of fitting entirely within a single section, and images that bump against or displace subheads or editing buttons. I see a text sandwich in the "Route description", a text sandwich and a head displacement in "Southwestern Ontario", and so on.

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this page find a small number of problems with dead links and dabs as wall as several images that lack alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. Finetooth (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• With regard to the text sandwiching, what resolution should I be using to test it? The alt texts I'm aware of, have been slowly chipping away at them :) Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of a standard setting, and I doubt there is one since readers use whatever settings they like. When anyone says my images are overlapping sections or otherwise behaving badly, it's usually a close call, and I make minor adjustments such as moving an image up or down a bit. It helps sometimes to look at a particular article on multiple screens to get an idea of the range of appearances. Finetooth (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nikkimaria's comment: The automated peer review will also offer some suggestions for what to look for before heading to FAC. I'll take a look at the copy-editing situation shortly...Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, although alt text is useful and beneficial to some readers, keep in mind that it's not currently a requirement for FA. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Jhfortier's comments: I shall copyedit as I go, but major comments will go here. Upon my first read-through, the following issues popped out at me:

• Most of the highway occupies only a portion of the 91.4 m (300 ft) right-of-way purchased by the original planners. I think this is meant to indicate that along most of the route there was a width of 300ft bought, but am not certain. This could due with some clarification, perhaps something to the effect of "Although the land purchased/set aside for the 401 is about 91.4m (300ft) in width, most of the highway does not occupy the full allotment." or something to that effect.
• The just-in-time inventory systems of the highly integrated auto industry of Michigan and Ontario have contributed to the highway's status as the busiest truck route in the world, carrying 60% of vehicular trade between Canada and the US. This could also use some clarification; I realize that the wikilink will elaborate on the topic, but even just saying "The just-in-time inventory systems, which do blah blah for the highly-integrated..." would improve the clarity of this part.

• "Tall mall median barrier" -- what is this? A quick google search didn't reveal much, perhaps this is a typo?

• Due to the lack of engagement along the flat and straight lengths of highway,he section of the 401 from " This sentence is a bit troublesome; I get the feeling it's meant to say something like "The flat, straight lengths of highway tend to cause drivers to lose focus, and result in car accidents etc". The term "lack of engagement" is a bit vague here, and could be re-worded.

More to followJhfortier (talk · contribs ) 04:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right about the first one, and the third is a typo (they are Ontario Tall Wall barriers)

The second I'll change it to "the just-in-time auto parts delivery system of the highly..."

The fourth, I used a term that several media outlets (Cbc, City, Toronto Star) used to describe the highway, but I agree that it could be clarified. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued

• Route = Overall, this section is really well done. I made a few little changes here and there, but was really impressed with how in-depth and interesting the information was. Nicely done.

History

• "While initially gravel and today only a two-lane road, it was a fully paved four-lane roadway by the end of the decade." This could use some clarification.

• "its new extension to Newcastle and Highway 2S were designatedHighway 401, a move scorned by one critic" Perhaps explain why this was scorned?

• A lot of the changes I made here were to do with tenses and some extra words, but overall I've found this article quite well-written. Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 21:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• Future A few changes made -- overall, a good section, with lots of well-researched facts.
• Images - As Finetooth mentioned above, there are a lot of images here. You might consider removing one of the two old photos of interchanges; the photo of Highway 2A; and one of the two "construction" pictures from the Futures section.

• Redlinks - I haven't removed any of these, in case one or more of the major editors of this page are looking to start these articles in the near future, but you might consider removing some of the Wikilinks to minor highways, which are unlikely to be written in the immediate future.

• Overall This article looks excellent, and I've seen a number of good editors making edits throughout the PR. Best of luck taking it to FA! Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both Nikkimaria and Jhfortier for your in-depth examination of the article! With regard to the redlinks, I find that it is useful for any article that could ever be written that wouldn't be deleted. All numbered county roads have a potential, and at the very least they will be linked to their appropriate county's list of roads in due time :)

As for the images, the ones that I feel need to go are the pictures of the highway today. Boring, and next to zero encyclopedic value. Three is good, maybe four. I count eight that don't serve a second purpose (ie illustrating signs and such). The historic photographs offer something unique that can't be found on most of the external links. But I digress, I agree that the number of images needs to be reduced. I'm going to go make some of the other fixes right now. Thank you very much again, wish us luck at FAC! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt, Floydian, that you'll use excellent judgement when trimming down the number of photos. I'm glad I could help out the smallest bit on this article, and I'm sure you'll do well at FAC! Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 20:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Triangle (The Beau Brummels album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on nominating it for GA. Before doing so, I would appreciate another set of eyes having a look. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Thanks,  Gongshow ^Talk 20:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This generally looks good to me. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

• "Triangle reached number 197 on the Billboard 200 albums chart and received mostly positive reviews, with critics commending Elliott as a songwriter and comparing Valentino's vocals to those of Bob Dylan." - "With" plus "-ing" is usually a bit awkward. Suggestion: "Triangle reached number 197 on the Billboard 200 albums chart and received mostly positive reviews; critics commended Elliott as a songwriter and compared Valentino's vocals to those of Bob Dylan."

• Fixed.  Gongshow ^Talk 05:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Collectors' Choice Music reissued the album in 2002." - I don't think the link to reissue is needed. It would be good to eliminate or move it for another reason as well; it forms a kind of awkward link bump with Collectors' Choice Music.

• Fixed.  Gongshow ^Talk 05:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Background

• "Titled Beau Brummels '66, the album—a collection of cover songs—was a commercial and critical disappointment due to a combination of poor sales and the decision by Warner Bros. to not release the band's original material, which had been recorded by the band in early 1966 as their previous label, Autumn Records, collapsed." - Too many clauses, perhaps? I'd try to break it up in some way, maybe two separate sentences?

• Fixed.  Gongshow ^Talk 05:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Composition

• "Triangle also features strings, brass, woodwinds, harpsichord, and numerous types of percussion." - Perhaps link the least familiar of these, harpsichord?

• I agree that's it's the least familiar of these instruments. It is mentioned and linked in the previous sentence, so I just removed it from this list altogether.  Gongshow ^Talk 05:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Track listing

• All but two of the names in this list are written last name first. Travis and Newman could be reversed with pipes inside the links; e.g., Newman, Randy.

• Definitely agree that the list's format should be consistent. Fixed.  Gongshow ^Talk 05:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• The image needs alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.

• Added.  Gongshow ^Talk 06:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, as always, for your suggestions. They were extremely helpful and I appreciate the time and work you put into this review. Thanks again!  Gongshow ^Talk 06:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  

---

List of Madonna concert tours

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate the article for Featured List and just want some inputs as to whether the language or the show of the article is fine. Thanks, --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My suggestions:

Intro

• Her debut, The Virgin Tour in 1985, was based in North America only. > Her 1985 debut, The Virgin Tour, was based in North America only.

• In 1987 she embarked on her first worldwide concert the Who's That Girl World Tour, which visited Europe, North America and Japan. > In 1987 she embarked on the worldwide Who's That Girl World Tour, which visited Europe, North America and Japan.

• It was critically appreciated for Madonna's showmanship and the exquisite dresses.

• She then followed this with the Blond Ambition World Tour in 1990, which was called by Rolling Stone as "the best tour of 1990." > She then followed this with the Blond Ambition World Tour in 1990, which Rolling Stone called "the best tour of 1990."

• In 1993, she embarked on The Girlie Show World Tour which had her visiting for the first time to Israel, Turkey, the Latin America and Australia. > In 1993, she embarked on The Girlie Show World Tour where she visited Israel and Turkey for the first time, followed by Latin America and Australia.

• Madonna did not go on the road again until 2001, when she toured with the Drowned World Tour. > Madonna did not go on the road again until the Drowned World Tour in 2001.

Tours

• The Virgin Tour was the debut concert tour of Madonna. The tour promoted her first two albums, Madonna and Like a Virgin. > The Virgin Tour was Madonna's debut concert tour. It promoted her first two albums, Madonna and Like a Virgin.

• The 37 concert dates of the Who's That Girl World Tour played to 2.5 million fans. It Madonna's first world tour, reaching Asia, North America and Europe. > The 37 concert dates of the Who's That Girl World Tour played to 2.5 million fans. It was Madonna's first world tour, reaching Asia, North America and Europe.

• Inspired by the 1972 film Cabaret, the tour was a widely publicized and media reported tour, mainly for its juxtaposition of Catholic imagery and sexual content. > Inspired by the 1972 film Cabaret, it was widely publicized and reported in the media, mainly for its juxtaposition of Catholic imagery and sexual content.

• Rolling Stone called it an "elaborately choreographed, sexually provocative extravaganza" and proclaimed it "the best tour of 1990." > Rolling Stone called it an "elaborately choreographed, sexually provocative extravaganza" and proclaimed it "the best tour of 1990."

• In 1991, a documentary film, Truth or Dare (aka In Bed with Madonna), was released chronicling the tour. > In 1991 the documentary, Truth or Dare (aka "In Bed with Madonna"), was released chronicling the tour.

• The tour was chronicled in a documentary titled I'm Going to Tell You a Secret. > The tour was chronicled in the documentary I'm Going to Tell You a Secret.

• The Sticky & Sweet Tour was the eighth worldwide concert tour by American singer Madonna to promote her eleventh studio album, Hard Candy. > The Sticky & Sweet Tour was the eighth worldwide concert tour by Madonna and promoted her eleventh studio album, Hard Candy. (It's already been established that Madonna is an American artist.)

Now then, care to look over List of M*A*S*H episodes? Jimknut (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Jimknut. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Pet Shop Boys discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done alot of work improving this article recently, sourcing, formatting, layout content etc and would like some idea on how to improve it before nominating for FL. Especially with the lead.

Thanks, Mister sparky (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The lists are excellent, but I found the lead rather heavy going. There are numerous individual prose points that need fixing, but I wonder, is there any way it could be made a bit more interesting, or at least a bit more varied? Also, I notice that most featured discographies have considerably shorter leads. Here are some individual points, but really, the whole thing needs working on.

• Lead prose
  • First line: "comprises" a better word than "contains"
  • Second line: "a number of" is rather vague. Also, I'm not sure that "appearances" is the right word here
  • "Parlophone Records released the duo's debut album, Please, in the United Kingdom in March 1986." Wouldn't it be better to follow this sentence with the album's history, rather than inserting a couple of sentences about the duo's debut single before returning to the album?
  • "After the success of Please they released..." "They" needs to be specified (e.g. "the duo")
  • "...a duet with Dusty Springfield" Can a duo have a "duet" with someone else?
  • The sentence beginning "In the summer of 1987..." has two "ands" in it, and needs to be split.
  • Two "ands" in the following sentence as well. This time you need to rephrase
  • Another two "ands" in each of the first and second sentences of paragraph 2. This is something of a style habit, which needs to be avoided. In the second sentence, "peaked" not "peak"
  • "In 1993 the Pet Shop Boys infamously re-invented their image..." Why was their re-invention "infamous", which means disreputable, shameful, dissgraceful, scandalous etc?
  • "...the only Pet Shop Boys album, so far, to ever reach number one in the UK." You can't have "so far" and "ever" together. Delete "ever".
  • "The following year they released the 1994 Comic Relief single, "Absolutely Fabulous", under the artist name of 'Absolutely Fabulous'." Is there a less clunky way of giving this information?
  • "best-of", an informal expression, should be in quotes.
  • "Then in December 2009..." Delete "Then".

Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

thank you! as usual your comments are very helpful and make alot of sense :) Mister sparky (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

---

1975 Australian constitutional crisis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it for FA soon and would like feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments You'll never get an article this controversial through FAC. Believe me, I've tried. Anyhow:

• Senate:
  • You need to explain some more relevant bits about the Senate. That the government is formed in the House because (a) it is the the more democratically elelected house and (b) it has the power to originate money bills. However Fraser (and others) argued that in order to govern, a government should have the confidence of both houses.

• Governor General:
  • Prior to the 1975 crisis the Governor-General's reserve powers, including the power to dismiss a prime minister, had never been exercised. This is untrue. Governors General had vetoed legislation in the early years. What you mean is: the power to dismiss a prime minister had never been exercised.
  • The crucial point is the convention that the Governor General acts only on the advice of her ministers. However, in this case, the Governor General acted against the advice of his ministers.
  • The Queen has tenure, and she couldn't be sacked. But a Governor-General holds office at pleasure, and if he ceases to please then he can be removed by a Prime Minister. However, neither of these points is actually true. The Queen's tenure depends on legislation of the UK Parliament; and the removal of the Governor General depends on the Queen acting on the advice of her ministers, and if the Governor General does not have to, why should the Queen be expected to?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • It is entirely wrong to say that the Queen's tenure depends on legislation of the UK Parliament. The UK Parliament has no powers to remove her; she is in for life unless she voluntarily abdicates. Parliament could in theory pass legislation to abolish the monarchy and make Britain a republic, but while the monarchy remains there is no parliamentary control over who occupies the office. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Really? What happened to Richard II, Charles II and James II? They were deposed by acts of parliament. The UK parliament has asserted that it can impose such terms and conditions on the monarchy as it sees fit, and has done so. There are laws that control the succession, and the occupant can be changed by law. There was a convention that Australia had to be consulted, but in recent years this has been interpreted by the UK government to merely mean that Australia gets informed of changes that it is going to make. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I should have added to my comment "provided he or she acts constitutionally". But this isn't the main issue on this article so I will say no more. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Charles II? Really?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Oops, wrong Charles `:o Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am running a fine line here because non-Aussies (I am not Australian) are going to need an introduction to the Oz political system as in effect in 1975. But I don't want that to be the focus. Should I differentiate between reserve powers set out in the Constitution (ie., Governor General withholds assent per Sec 58) to those not? (Kerr fires Whitlam).

Well, I am an Australian :) The crisis is of interest beyond Australia though, because other countries (like Canada) have similar political systems. The constitutional fallout of the political crisis was all about differences of opinion about the meaning of the constitution, literal versus conventional. So these should be carefully spelt out. (Kerr fired Whitlam under sec 62.) Part of the problem was Kerr's background as a lawyer, which tempted him to seek a legal rather than a political solution to the crisis. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that this is so controversial it will fail because of that. After five articles dealing with Richard Nixon, I am reasonably content I can deal with controversy.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I just got through a bruising encounter on Douglas MacArthur, which was more controversial than I expected. If you know how to shepherd controversial articles through, any advice you can offer would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Always be calm and friendly during the FAC, no matter what happens I will play with some language over the next few days. I agree, there needs to be language in the introduction explaining that it is convention that the Governor-General takes the advice of the government in the office. And incidentally, part of Whitlam's blind spot in all of this is forgetting Kerr was a judge and a lawyer, and treating him like Hasluck, a defanged politician.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: This is a trifling comment but possibly useful. The dab tool in the toolbox above finds one dab, "dismissal", and the alt-text tool shows that the images lack alt text. It's probably good to add the alt text even if it's not required at the moment. I recently added alt text to my older FAs, and it took quite a while; I wouldn't like to fall behind again and have to add a pile of these later. Finetooth (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I will take care of those before nominating.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Prose review: This is the first part; I will try and complete tomorrow (or Wednesday at the latest)

• Lead
  • The opening sentence is too complex (around eight statements of fact) for an introduction to the topic. Trouble is, as written it's not that easy just to divide it; there may have to a little rewriting around it. Nevertheless, I would advise that this is done.
  • Will your readers understand "appropriations" and "supply" in this context? They need to know that the terms are financial, and that a government's ability to function depends on the passage through parliament of these bills.
  • "It urged Kerr..." "It" refers to the Opposition, which is referred to as "they" in the previous sentence. Apart from which, "it" has become somewhat removed from its subject. I suggest: "The Opposition urged Kerr..." etc
  • Third paragraph opens a little heavy-footed. I suggest: " On 11 November 1975, in an attempt to break the deadlock, Whitlam sought Kerr's approval for a half-Senate election. Instead, Kerr dismissed him as Prime Minister and shortly thereafter installed Fraser in his place."
  • "The Coalition": this is unexplined. Perhaps, at first mention: "...the new government, a coalition of the Liberal and Country Parties,..."
• Constitutional
  • We need to avoid some repetition here: "...in exercising the reserve power. The reserve powers are those powers..."
  • In the last paragraph you say "where the question arose..." I think "where these circumstances arose" would be stronger.
• Political
  • "It enjoyed a nine-seat majority..." Once again, "it" is not clearly defined. This should read "The new government enjoyed..." or some such.
  • Another rather unwieldly sentence, which also has a double "...ing" towards the end: "At Kerr's request, Whitlam informally agreed that if both men were still in office in five years, Kerr would be reappointed, and secured legislation to address Kerr's financial concerns about the position, including authorising a pension for the Governor-General or his widow." The sentence splits quite easily: "At Kerr's request, Whitlam informally agreed that if both men were still in office in five years, Kerr would be reappointed. Whitlam secured legislation to address Kerr's financial concerns about the position, and authorised a pension for the Governor-General or his widow."
• Scandal and vacancies
  • There is not really a sense of "scandal" in he loans affair as described here. It seems an unconventional, and perhaps undignified way for a government to raise money, but it doesn't seem scandalous - unless there were backhanders or bribes, etc. Later, I see mention of Cairns and his affairs; perhaps this information should be merged into this first paragraph?
  • Third paragraph: I think it needs to be underlined that Whitlam's careless loss of this Senate seat was the first step whereby the Opposition was able to acquire a Senate majority.

Well ... it really wasn't. Bunton voted with the ALP on all the crucial votes of the crisis. We started out 29-29, with two independents. One independent (I don't bother to mention this) joined the Liberals, so it was 30-29 Coalition, with Senator Hall the sixtieth vote, and he generally voted with the ALP. So it was effectively 30-30. What hurt was the loss of Senator Milliner and his replacement (so to speak) by Senator Field. That made it 31-29 Coalition, and Field's leave of absence 30-29. The Murphy/Bunton did not immediately hurt the ALP, except they exchanged a reliable ALP man with an independent who probably didn't vote the ALP way all the time on matters outside supply.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• • "Whitlam had offered Barnard a diplomatic post..." This is the first mention of Barnard, so we need his full name and should be told who he was.
• Deferral of supply
  • "If the ALP won Field's and Bunton's seats, and one seat in each territory, and if the second ACT seat was filled either by a Labor candidate or by an independent, former Liberal Prime Minister John Gorton, now estranged from his party, Labor would have an effective 33–31 margin, at least until 1 July." This, with all its conditional clauses and explanatory phrases, is very difficult to follow, and should be simplified. In any event, how significant to this particular story are these various ifs and buts? They relate to a hypothetical 1976 situation, by which time our story will be over.
  • "It could be a question of whether i get to the Queen first for your recall, or whether you get in first with my dismissal." There's a lower case "i" in the quote - is this a typo?
  • First mention of "MHR" needs an explanation
• Consultations and negotiations
  • "Throughout the crisis, Kerr did not tell Whitlam of his increasing concerns about the crisis,..." Last three words are redundant.
  • "...and that Whitlam's decision not to call a House election could not be influenced by him." The double "nots" are most confusing. Could this be rephrased for clarity. (...and that he would thus be unable to influence Whitlam's decision not to call a House election"?)
• Kerr reaches a decision
  • Section heading has a non-encyclopedic feel. Could be just "Decision"
  • "He decided that as Whitlam could not secure supply, and would not resign or advise an election for the House of Representatives, Kerr would have to sack him." This is awkward, because it is not obvious that "He" and "Kerr" are one and the same. Suggest something like: "The Governor-General decided that as Whitlam could not secure supply, and would not resign or advise an election for the House of Representatives, he would have to sack him."

OK, good stuff. Looking forward to the remainder. May be a couple of days before I get to it but I will fix them before I take it to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Continuing:

• Meeting at Yarralumla
  • I suggest you make the image caption a bit more informative, at least to the extent of explaining that Yarralumla is the Governor-General's official residence.
• Parliamentary strategy
  • "Labor strategy had been to put pressure on the Coalition senators, and to that end, the Labor leadership had planned to introduce a motion that the Senate pass the appropriation bills." What "pressure" did this plan create?
• Dissolution
  • "...who advised him that 21 bills fulfilled the double dissolution provisions of Section 57..." Have I missed a part of the story? What's this about 21 bills, etc?

The appropriations bills did not fulfil Sec 57 as they had not been passed twice by the Representatives with a three month gap between. However, there were 21 bills which, over the course of the year and a half since the last election, fulfilled the Section 57 requirements. Without citing bills which fulfilled Sec 57, there could not have been a double dissolution election, the best that could have been done was an election for the Representatives and half the Senate. Kelly writes Kerr would have accepted it, but he preferred the double dissolution as it allowed the people to pass on all the legislators.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• • "Whitlam later stated that it would have been wiser for Scholes to take the appropriation bills with him, rather than having them sent ahead." Again, I can't fit this information into the story I've been following.

As a means of making a deal. Whitlam reinstatement for supply. There are other things they could have done, like having the House revoke its passage of the bills. I may slice this, it is getting too much into the wudda cudda shudda of things Labor could have done if it really wanted to escalate the crisis. For example, Whitlam has said he could easily have gotten the crowd to march to Yarralumla.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• • "Even as Scholes and Kerr spoke..." Not really encyclopedic - perhaps lose the "Even"?
• Campaign
  • "During the campaign, the Kerrs purchased a Sydney apartment and Sir John was prepared to resign in the event that the ALP triumphed". The "and" conjunction is wrong; could be a comma after "apartment", followed by "as".
• Participants and legacy
  • Slightly awkward title?
• Ambiguity: "Christopher Boyce, an employee of a CIA civilian contractor and convicted Soviet spy..." It needs to be clear that Boyce, not the civilian contractor, was the convicted spy.
  • Pronoun confusion in the following: "However, he has also written that in 1977, United States Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher made a special trip to Sydney to meet with him and told him, on behalf of US President Jimmy Carter, of his willingness to work with whatever government Australians elected, and that the US would never again interfere with Australia's democratic processes." The identities of the various hes and hims needs some clarifying. I would also find a way of adding emphasis to the "again", as that is the main point of the quote.

That's my prose review. In general the article read very well and was genuinely gripping for a politics story, even though the ending was known. I'm sure this will polish up into featured quality and I'll look out for it there. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I will put in the things I have not questioned and modify to make those things clearer. Depending on internet access availablility, I will get this to FAC within the next two or three days.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because: I am hoping that an experienced biography editor could help refine the style of writing and make it easier to read. I am looking for the article to be peer reviewed, without drastically changing anything other than the style of writing. I am not familiar with academic terminology, and believe there may be some room for revision in the information on "Education and Research". I know that the flow of the article also needs some help. Any help would be fantastic. Thank you for your time,

Thanks, Sn0fl4k3 (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This appears to be a personal vita rather than an encyclopedia article and to involve a conflict of interest. Please see WP:Promotion and WP:COI. Wikipedia is not the place for this.

• Significant parts of the article lack sources and therefore violate WP:V. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one reliable source per paragraph (except the lead) and to provide a source for each set of statistics, every direct quote, and every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned.

• The sources should be reliable per WP:RS. Generally, blogs and personal web sites are not considered reliable. Reliable sources would include books, newspapers, magazines, government web sites, and other publications subject to editorial scrutiny.

• The article includes a lot of unnecessary detail, most likely because it is promotional rather than neutral. For example, it is unlikely that a true biography would include a section called "Post Graduate Education & Current Research".

I think I need say no more. Finetooth (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will begin working on this. Sn0fl4k3 (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

African philosophy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because:

1. Depending on cultural viewpoint, the material may or may not appear to meet verifiability standards. I think it does generally reflect a faily verifiable view of African Philosophy. What do you think?

2. Many authoritative articles in modern African Academia are not widely publicised in the west. I want to hear from African academia (and hopefully get their help improving this page).

3. Wikipedia is global. Do you see a western cultural bias on African issues?

Thanks, DrJenkinsPhd (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

From Philcha

Verifiability

• Verifiability is a policy that is policy that is enforced in all versions of Wikipedia. This article has just 1 citation, and that appears a self-published source, in other words it will not meet Verifiability. As a result, the article is in danger of deletion. There are tactics that can delay this, but the only reliably safety is in good, relevant citations. --Philcha (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• To find good sources and use them to build citations:
  • I suggest you use Google Scholar, the academics' version of Google, as basic Google is likely to have too many self-published sources. --16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I recommend this citation building tool as it covers a wide types of source (book, academic article, Web page, etc.). When you've completed all the fields, you ask the tool to draft the citation in the box at the bottom, and copy the citation into a ref in the article. In each case I suggest you complete all the fields, to make sure that your include those that are required. It's easier to use 3 tabs in your browser, preferably arranged next to each other. This will seem very complex at first, but in a week or do you will do it automatically. --Philcha (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cultural bias

• The Western and Middle European countries are extraordinarily homogeneous in their cultures, economies and philosophy. Other regions of the world have much greater variety, and perhaps Africa most of all. For example: Mediterrean Africa is Muslim; what is now Ghana build the Ashanti Empire distinctive civilisation, and later became a major centre of the slave trade; some tribes are herder or hunter-gathers, etc. Jared Diamond's "How to get Rich" describes factors that explain the homogeneous and dominance of Western and Middle Europe. --Philcha (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Use more neutral language

• At present the article looks like a sales brochure. Neutral point of view is another policy that will be enforced, and language is a part of that. --Philcha (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it could one day be a featured article. The article is GA, and during the review, a user left a comment stating that it is close to being an FA: Talk:Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/GA1. I nominated it for FA earlier in the year and it failed. They asked that I open a peer review. I would like to know how I can improve the article so that it can be an FA.

Thanks, William S. Saturn (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/archive1.

---

Cyrus B. Comstock

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to submit this for GA review and would appreciate any suggestions as to how I might improve the article. Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting, well-written account, fairly broad in coverage, reasonably well-illustrated, stable, neutral, and verifiable. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

Citations

• Although each paragraph in this article has at least one citation, in a few cases the only citation occurs early in the paragraph. Other sentences and claims follow, but since they are not linked to a source, it's hard to tell whether they meet WP:V or not. For example, in Early life and education, the last two sentences say: "Following his graduation, Comstock was assigned to the Army Corps of Engineers and assisted with the design and construction of several fortifications. He also served as an instructor of engineering at West Point." If this is supported by the citation in the middle, it would be better to move the citation to the end so that it will be seen to cover all the claims in the paragraph. If, on the the hand, the claims in the last two sentences are supported by some other source(s), you need to add another citation or citations.

Telegraphic heads

• I would make some of the heads more telegraphic. "Early life and education" would be fine as "Early life". "Military commission on the Lincoln assassination" might become "Lincoln assassination". "Later work with the Corps of Engineeers" might become "Corps of Engineers".

Lead

• Rather than making the opening paragraph a one-sentence orphan, I'd consider combining it with the first half of the second paragraph, and starting the new second paragraph with the sentence beginning, "The most significant phase of Comstock's career... ".
• "After graduating the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1855... " - Perhaps "After graduating from" rather than "After graduating"?
• "Later, Comstock continued in the service of the Army Corps of Engineers and took part in several engineering projects, most particularly the Mississippi River Commission of which he was president." - Since a commission isn't a project, perhaps this would be better: "Later Comstock continued with the Army Corps of Engineers, took part in several engineering projects, and served on the Mississippi River Commission, of which he was president."

Civil War service

• "At the commencement of the Civil War, Comstock, then holding the rank of first lieutenant in the Regular Army was from West Point to Washington, D.C." - This doesn't make sense as written. Is a word or words missing? Probably "sent" is the missing word.

Lincoln assassination

• "Comstock was removed from the commission after his protests, ostensibly because he served on Grant's staff and, because Grant had been a potential target of the conspirators, Comstock could not be counted on to act impartially." - A bit awkward. Make two sentences out of it, perhaps? Maybe the second one could be "The X also removed him because Grant had been a potential target of the conspirators, and X felt that Comstock could not be counted on to act impartially." I say X because it's not clear who removed Comstock. It would be helpful to add that bit of information.

Corps of engineers

• Link "geodetic survey" to Geodesy?

See also

• The two portals overlap two sections on my computer screen. I'm not sure how useful they are since they are not directly related to Comstock.

Notes

• Page ranges take en dashes without spaces.

Images

• The Matthew Brady photo of Grant and his staff is good, but the source link on the image description page does not work. It would be good to fix the link, if you can. I wanted to use it to see if a larger file size might be available. If you can find the original and repair the link, you might also be able to upload something bigger than 131 kilobytes.
• I'd recommend cropping the text from the bottom of the Comstock mug shot. It's too small to read. You could then add the same (or modified) information as a caption, and it would appear in a normal type size.

Ideas for expansion

• In several places in the article I found myself wanting to know more. For example, the phrase "engineer in charge of the fortifications of Washington" made me want to know what those fortifications consisted of and what exactly Comstock's role was in designing or building them. Ditto for "faced with the difficult task of constructing pontoon bridges over the Rappahannock River". I wanted to know more about the exact difficulties, and an image of a pontoon bridge (especially one over the Rappahannock if any exist in the public domain) would be interesting. Ditto for "set to work on improving the siege works". I wondered what exactly these seige works consisted of and what happened to them, how they were used. Ditto for "During the campaign, Comstock played a key role in coordinating the movements of the various corps of the army and personally conveying Grant's orders to the corps commanders." I wondered exactly what that meant; in the abstract it sounds like he told people where to go and acted as a messenger, but the specifics must have been more impressive than the abstract notion. Anyway, I'm sure you get the idea.

Alt text

• The alt-text checker at the top of this review page shows that the images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. These are great suggestions. In particular, I was looking for ways to expand the article, so it was very helpful to hear about areas where you wanted to know more. I hope to start the revisions this weekend. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I am absurdly late in getting to this, I wanted to record, just for the record, that I have acted on your very helpful suggestions. Many distractions have prevented me from getting around to editing this article, but I have implemented nearly all your suggestions. The one exception, unfortunately, are the areas where you have indicated you desired more information...regrettably the source information just isn't there to allow me to elaborate. But I will continue looking. Thanks!Historical Perspective (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

---

List of number one Reco-kyō Chart singles 2006-2009 (Japan)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this to see what it needs to take it to a featured list level. Looking at List of number-one albums of 2008 (Japan), it doesn't seem too far off. Thanks for any pointers! --Prosperosity (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is certainly not my area of expertise, and perhaps for that reason I found it interesting. I have only a few suggestions, mostly related to prose and style.

Title

• Date ranges in Wikipedia articles take en dashes rather than hyphens. The title should be changed to:

List of number one Reco-kyō Chart singles 2006–2009 (Japan)

• Fixed. --Prosperosity (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Parentheses

• I'd suggest using parentheses more sparingly. Alternatives include commas and em dashes or re-writes that avoid the need for parenthetical remarks. See example in Lead below.

Lead

• "The monthly highest-selling ringtones in Japan were ranked by the Recording Industry Association of Japan from August 2006 until February 2009, on the Reco-kyō Chart (レコ協チャート, Record Association Chart) (formally the Yūryō Ongaku Haishin Chart (有料音楽配信チャート, Paid Music Distribution Chart))." - Nested parentheses are confusing. Suggestion: "The monthly highest-selling ringtones in Japan were ranked by the Recording Industry Association of Japan from August 2006 until February 2009 on the Reco-kyō Chart (レコ協チャート, Record Association Chart), formally known as the Yūryō Ongaku Haishin Chart (有料音楽配信チャート, Paid Music Distribution Chart).

• Fixed, I think? I definitely switched a lot of the wording around, it's much more readable now. Prosperosity (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Wikilink ringtones in the opening sentence?

• Fixed. Prosperosity (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• "the identically named RIAJ Digital Track Chart" - I found this statement puzzling at first because it seemed to be saying that "RIAJ Digital Track Chart" was identical in name to " Paid Music Distribution Chart". I'm not sure how to fix this except by deleting "identically named"?

• Fixed, with a bit more clarity. Prosperosity (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Three songs are tied for the most months charted: Thelma Aoyama feat." - What does "feat" mean in this context?

• Fixed. Prosperosity (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• "of all-time in Japan across all formats (digital, physical, etc) - It would be better to fill in the meaning of "etc." or else delete it. What does "physical" format mean? I think it would be more helpful to name the formats.

• Fixed, though it's a bit difficult now. I can't exhaustively list out all the Japanese formats ever used (vinyl, MD, 8cm single, 12cm single, etc.) because that gives the false impression that the song was released in all of these. Prosperosity (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• One-sentence orphan paragraphs are generally frowned upon. Better would be to combine the two one-sentence orphans at the end of the lead.

• Fixed. Prosperosity (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Other

• The alt-text tool at the top of this review page shows that the images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.

• Fixed. Prosperosity (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• The dab checker finds one link that goes to a disambiguation page rather than the intended target.

• Fixed. Prosperosity (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope these few suggestions are helpful. Finetooth (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for having a look at the page! It's a great help. --Prosperosity (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Mark Steel's in Town

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote this article to FA status. I've tried to expand the article and new details have been found out. However, I just want to make sure everything is OK before I nominated it for FA.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Some comments:

• "Other than Steel, Pete Sinclair was the only other writer, providing additional material." Citation? I'd redlink Pete Sinclair; as a comedy writer someone might write an article about him.
• Do we know who commissioned it? Who else worked on it? Some info here.
• Has it been re-broadcast, on Radio 4, BBC 7, or in other countries?
• "The research sometimes took place close to the recording date, for the Walsall episode, but Steel carried out almost no research until ten days before the recording." That sentence doesn't read well. It is ambiguous what the meaning is: state clearly how long in advance the research was usually done and any exceptions. I can't work out from this when the research in Walsall was done, and whether it was typical or an exception.
• "The programme received positive reviews from critics because of Steel's observations of the locals" is cited to one local review, is there a more general response?
• The Reception section is very stilted, it just lists various responses. Could they be summarised instead of quoted, and ordered by tone or theme of the reception? I'd suggest that the quote from the Sony Award judges could be in a {{quotebox}}.
• Merchandise: is it only available there? Is this just an advertising link rather than providing any information? Was it released as a retail CD? I'd call this title "Distribution" and include information on the broadcast history here too.
• Would images of any of the places Steel discusses be a good addition? Just a suggestion.
• There are some images of Steel visiting places he visits on the BBC synopses of the shows, i.e. [1][2]. There might be a fair-use justification for some selected images to illustrate Steel's approach to his research and the subject matter of his show. I found an image of Steel performing the show in Dartford on Flickr.[3] You could ask "Bitospud"/Paul and Edith very nicely if they would release that image under a CC-BY-SA license.
• Here are all the sources I can find that you've not used. With the media coverage being as scanty as it is, plenty of them can and should be used to expand the content and show more reception of the show. The article feels a little bit patchy at the moment. Many will add "local colour" and give some background material on him making the show:[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]

p.s. I'm not saying you should use this for the article, but this was Mark's reaction to getting the silver award: "Mark Steel's in Town came 2nd at the Sony awards last night. But I'm in talks with the show that came 3rd, so I'll end up winner."[25] Fences&Windows 17:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Some more thoughts:

• Lead: Don't say "award winning", this reads like puffery. The style guide for WikiProject Film, for example, suggests not to use such phrasing.
• Lead: The clause "which are not known as well as the country's major cities" in the lead seems wholly redundant. Of course small towns are not as well known as major cities. Maybe Wikilink to Town#United_Kingdom?
• Lead: Give the first broadcast date of the second series in the lead, rather than just "broadcast in 2010".
• Lead: It's pedantry, but "'that' defines and 'which' describes", and "which" is almost always preceded by a comma.
• Lead: "In 2010 Mark Steel's in Town won a Sony Radio Academy Award, winning the Silver Award for "Best Comedy", losing gold to Adam and Joe." -> "In May 2010, Mark Steel's in Town won a Silver Award for "Best Comedy" at the Sony Radio Academy Awards." I don't think losing to Adam & Joe needs to go in the lead, it is sufficient to mention it in the body of the article (which should be done anyway).
• Format: "in the town in question" is redundant, a local audience is hardly going to travel to London for a show about their town.
• Format: "but in Mark Steel's in Town it is instead a lecture about a town". Well, you've already defined that so no need to repeat it. That clause can be removed.
• Format: This section needs padding out with material from the sources.
• Production: Do we know what the budget was? (we may not). Could add info about the other people involved in making the show at this point.
• Venues: Blackfriars Arts Centre is a bluelink, I didn't check the others but please do.
• Links: There's a clip of Mark sprout-picking for the show on the Beeb site:[26]

Fences&Windows 19:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

---

University of Texas at Dallas

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am not exactly sure what direction this page should go. The University is so young that I don't feel like spinning off some of the material is appropriate. However, thanks to some extensive editing by Stan9999, the page seems to have a new sense of professionalism.

Thanks for your help. Oldag07 (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved automatic peer review to UTD talk page. Oldag07 (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a few preliminary thoughts. The text could use some polishing. One example, "While the school initially awarded only graduate degrees, the school opened up to upper level undergraduates in 1974 and freshmen in 1990." The second "the school" could be replaced with "it." I'm not fond of "opened up" here either. Later in the lead, "powerhouse chess team" is a bit peacock. There are a couple of one-sentence paragraphs in the Rankings subsection. Also, the lists need to be converted into flowing prose.

There is a lot of content to the article and many good citations. I think with a few dedicated editors and a bit of effort, it can get where you want it to be. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I admittedly put a few of those peacock terms in myself. I will get on it sometime this weekend. Oldag07 (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope this gets more feedback. I think articles would have an easier time getting through the GA and FA process if editors would give more advise ahead of time. Let me know when you'd like me to take another look. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Another editor said she might give it a look sometime soon. Appreciate the review. Oldag07 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I saw that the PR bot closed this without much feedback, so here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC or GAN. While it is clear al ot of work has gone into this, I think that more work will be needed to pass GAN.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Education has several FAs on universities that seem like they would good models, including Texas Tech University and Texas A&M University
• The article needs to follow the WP:MOS more closely - just in the lead there is a registered trademark symbol and the use of titles (Dr.) both in ways that do not follow the MOS. I am not saying that it is not a trademark, or that the persons in question do not have their doctorates, but the MOS says not to use these. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Academic_titles.
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but the names of the National Academy members and Mobel laureate are only in the lead, for example.
• To make sure it is a full summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - please see WP:LEAD
• The article has four WP:FAIR USE images - the seal, athletic logo, and two general logos. I am not sure the two logos meet WP:NFCC - how does it increase the reader's understanding of the subject to see both (they seem pretty similar to me)?
• Could more free images of the university be taken and added to the article?
• Even though this is a fairly new institution, the History section seems very short. Comprehenisveness is a FA criterion
• There are a few places without refs that need them, for example UTD offers a distinguished season of musical, theatrical and visual arts events. The independent movie Primer was partially filmed at the University of Texas at Dallas in 2004 by Shane Carruth. The film went on to win the Grand Jury and the Alfred P. Sloan awards at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival.
• Most of the references are to things from the university itself - while some use of such primary sources is OK and unavoidable to some extent, I would add as many independent third-party sources as possible. See WP:V and WP:RS
• Some of the references are incomplete and need more information. For example, Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
• The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that b reak up the flow reading it. To make it less choppy, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

---

List of French football champions

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it can be a featured list candidate.

Thanks, Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

from FLC by Sandman888 (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a single reference. That does not meet the FL criteria :)

lead cd be longer. Try writing more about why it was started, how it became professional.

tables cd be sortable. If sortable, wikilink all clubs in table

images, on the right there could be some picture of perhaps players who have won it a lot, or for two different clubs or something else.

---

1989 Pacific hurricane season

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i do nto know how much info on each storm should be. I had one paragraph, but it was reverted. I trimmed the sections down, but there seemed to be no good reason to remvone info.

Thanks, Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

For now, I would expand the sections on TD 22-E and 23-E atleast past the one sentence it is now. --Yueof theNorth 20:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: It appears to me that you have collected all or at least most of the basic data and that the main remaining problems have to do with organization and layout. Here are some suggestions for further improvement, including ideas about the short subsections.

• It's often useful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar problems. Quite a few hurricane-season articles can be found at WP:FA#Geology, geophysics and meteorology. Just glancing at a couple of them, I see that the editors of 1994 Atlantic hurricane season have grouped the storms by multi-monthly categories. The article 1995 Pacific hurricane season, on the other hand, uses a subsection for each storm, and most subsections consist of two paragraphs. No single organizational formula fits every article, but you can probably find a suitable one among the FAs.

• I'd suggest grouping at least some of the shorter storms while maintaining chronological order. For example, Tropical Depression Four-E and Tropical Depression Five-E could be combined under a single subhead, "Tropical depressions Four-E and Five-E" or something like that. This would solve the short-section problem and would give you room to make the illustrations fit properly within a single section. Section overlap of images is layout no-no, best avoided if possible. Further down in the article, maybe Seven-E, Erick, and Flossie could be combined. And so on.

• The cyclone symbol, File:Temporary cyclone north.svg, doesn't look good to me. It's too big in relation to the other images, and it adds no information not already made clear by the text.

• To keep from overwhelming the page with images, you might consider removing some or all of the illustrations for the tropical depressions.

• Since you use miles for Tropical Storm Adolph, you should use miles throughout rather than nautical miles, as with Tropical Storm Juliette. I believe miles is the conventional measure for hurricane articles; most readers won't know how long a nautical mile might be. If you think it important to include nautical miles, you could use both as well as kilometers.

The citations should follow a consistent formatting. Some of the author names are italicized but shouldn't be. Citation 31 starts with "Gross" before the date and title, whereas citation 32 puts Gross in italics after the title. The article looks pretty clean, but I'd suggest a top-to-bottom proofreading to catch and fix all the little things like this.

Other

• The alt-text checker in the toolbox at the top of this page shows that all of the images need alt texr, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.
• The link-checker tool finds five dead links in the citation urls. These should all be repaired or replaced.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Jonita Lattimore

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs some cleanup. GA1 reviewer insists that there are a lot of issues. He may have some valid points. I am willing to address concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This article was quick-failed at GAN on 15 May. A main reason for its failure was the inadequacy of its prose. However, it was immediately renominated at GAN, without any effort to tackle the prose issues which, at a quick glance, seem considerable. Examples:-

• Poor grammar and sentence construction, such as:-
  • "Lattimore performed with the Chicago Children's Choir and trained both voice and instruments, with an emphasis on piano, as a youth on Chicago's South Side."
    • Now fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Her first decade as a touring professional saw her become one of, if not the, leading operatic soprano in Chicago"
    • Example fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Clumsy and repetitive wording: "Upon graduation in 1987, she attended The University of Rochester's Eastman School of Music on the William Warfield scholarship, a scholarship named after her mentor, William Warfield. It was a vocal scholarship."
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Non-sequitur: "She was raised in the Pill Hill neighborhood of Chicago's South Side.[2] She also played the trumpet."
  • Rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Other oddities: "Amadeus Mozart's The Magic Flute"; "Later that year in an opera on Carlota of Mexico, she sang an aria."; "Beethoven's, Symphony No. 9 in D Minor, op. 125, 'Choral'"; "Benjamin Briten" etc
  • Not sure I get this whole point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Masses of factual snippets packed one after the other, without any attempt to adopt the required summary style. There is a cleanup banner in the article. referring to this problem.
• The redlinks: at least 25 of them, many looking highly unlikely to result in articles.
  • I guess, I don't know enough about opera to say what articles to expect. I have delinked about half of the redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel that some attempt should be made to deal with some of these matters before the peer review, which, as the WP:PR page makes clear, "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work." Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Age of Discovery

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is now quite complete, and intend to proceed to featured content. There are several interesting articles related to the theme in different areas (such as economics, geography to medicine) and the "Age of Discovery" article helps understanding and context. I'm always missing something and discovering mispelings, so I thank your collaboration to help tune details. The topic is extensive, so I suggest to avoid excessive detail, and focus on exploration and travel, keeping the chronological order, to help understand the evolution of events often linked.

Thanks, Uxbona (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

An interesting and very comprehensive project. I especially like the ambition to explain the period in a greater context. I'll try to read the whole article through if I have the time and get back with detailed comments later. A first impression is that the article would benefit greatly from a complete conversion to shorthand notes with the full source under a separate heading. It has been done partially with DeLamar, Crosby, Gernet and several others, but not consistently. It's not entirely clear why works like DeVoto and Cipolla are included under "Bibliography". Perhaps a "Further reading"-section would be a good idea for works that aren't actually cited.

Personally, I tend to favor the use of refs with a minimum of template code, preferably none at all, though this is usually considered to be the prerogative of the primary contributor(s).

Peter ^Isotalo 20:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I just have added the entire section about the Russian conquest of Siberia into the article, so now it is really complete. Greyhood (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Gerald Ratner Athletics Center

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am not an expert on some of the technical issues, especially regarding the masts. This article needs to be reviewed by someone from either WP:ARCH or WP:CEng.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I am not a member of wither WikiProject and am not an expert on technical issues like the masts - sorry. As is often the case with your articles, the information seems to be all or mostly all there, but I have some issues with the organization. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The toolbox finds three dab links that will need to be fixed
  • Two of the three do not have appropriate articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Would Wiktionary links work? Wikt:mast? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Great.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• The Background section seems poorly named - most of it is not really background. I am not sure what else to name it and depending on the name, parts of it might be better elsewhere in the article. Perhaps History? It could start with a sentence on the layout of the building (to identify the parts donated) then go into the donors and the overall university campaign, and then the architects, then the cost and construction, then perhaps a description of the building?
  • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I still think "Background" would be more like a section on the history of athletics at the University. Not sure what else to call it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Renamed as history.
• The last three paragraphs of the Background section currently are confusing - they discuss both the pool / natatorium and the rest of the facilities. I think it would be clearer / better organized to have some sort of general sentence on the building(s) and then have one paragraph on the pool, one on the fitness center, and perhaps one on the rest of the stuff there (hall of fame, offices, locker rooms, etc.) - not sure if there is enough material for its own paragraph on this "other stuff".
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Ground breaking is in the Infobox, but not mentioned in the article that I could see. I would include this somewhere (probably in the Construction / History section)
  • reworked this content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Make sure to provide context to the reader - even though the year is given in the lead, the first sentence of Background needs to provide the year too - The Ratner Center opened to the public on September 29, [2003,] although it was not officially dedicated until homecoming weekend on October 11.[2]
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• Ph.B. is an unusual degree - perhaps wikilink it to Bachelor of Philosophy - I thought it might be a typo at first
  • Linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• The paragraph starting It's configuration is flexible with a moveable bulkhead which allows for simultaneous activities. is especially unclear as the antecedent of "Its" (not "It's") is unclear - I would not start a new paragraph with It or Its, say the pool or whatever explicitly.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• The third of these paragraphs has one sentence on the naatatorium (surely better as part of the pool paragraph) and then discusses a competition gym (capitalized inconsistently) and auxiliary gym - are these the DelGiorno Fitness Center? It was not clear to me.
  • As I understand it, the Natatorium is the masted building to the north, the multiple gymnasia, which have yet to be named as I understand it, are in the masted building to the south. The more traditional central building is the fitness center.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Final"?? The University of Chicago remains one of the final universities in the United states to have a swimming requirement for its undergraduate degree program. How about As of 2010, the University of Chicago is one of the few remaining universities in the United states to have a swimming requirement for its undergraduate degree program. instead?
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• I think I would also have some sort of introductory sentence that the center is used by the univeritity's students (and staff?) before the swimming requirement sentence. Are physical education classes taught there? WOuld "Use" be a better section title than "Events" here - not sure swim tests and student use are events?
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Since this is an article on the Ratner Center, the detail about the other athletic facilities seems a bit excessive to me - your call
  • I think it is important to show that things like indoor track and indoor racquet sports still occur at the old gym.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• I am not an expert on engineering, but looking at the images like File:20100507 Ratner Center gymnasium roof and masts.JPG, it appears that there are two large masts for the gym roof and six smaller mastson the other side of the building.
  • See explanation of next point below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• Similarly, the poll roof in File:20090311 Ratner Center.jpg seems to be supported by three masts on one side and nine smaller masts on the opposite side. There is a ratio of three small masts to one large mast in each part of the center. The article does not mention the smaller masts
  • The reason I was hoping for someone with technical expertise on this issue is that all publications seem to not count these smaller poles as masts at all. I had hoped for some guidance on what they are. Hopefully an architecture buff will pick this up at GAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I am not striking, but I am not able to answer the question either. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Sentences like This site marked the first time that these geotechnical technical techniques were employed.[21] make no sense to me - would a direct quote from the original source be better?
  • Changed "geotechnical technical techniques" to "geotechnical ground improvement techniques" to link it clearly to the prior sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I owuld ask an architect on this one too, assuming one reviews this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• First sentence of Reception seems a bit WP:PEACOCK-y to me: The facility's excellence in engineering and design has earned it awards from the...
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Since it is not used again, I do not think ASCE has to be given as an abbreviation
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have struck or replied above, thanks for the responses. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  

---

International co-productions of Sesame Street

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like additional input before it goes further. I'd like to get it ready for a successful GAC, and eventually, a FAC. I'd appreciate any and all assistance on this interesting and fun article.

Thanks, --Christine (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start on an article about a show I really like. To make GA, though, the article will need more specifics, more fun, and more active prose. I'd like to hear more about the individual co-productions, the Muppet variants, the story variants, and the specific cultural problems encountered; I think the last section could be expanded, and perhaps the earlier sections could be shorter or at least more pithy. I'd like more active verbs in places like the third paragraph of the "Production" section, which starts with this string of passives: "puppeteers were cast and trained; puppets were constructed; puppets were made; sets were developed; videos and animations were made; each was developed, produced, and aired; research was conducted". Here are some other suggestions:

Thanks, Finetooth. I haven't been ignoring you or this pr for the past few weeks; I've just been generally burnt out and took a little wiki-break, I suppose. It's hard to believe, I know, but the project went on its merry way without me and my watchlisted articles didn't wilt from the lack of attention. Anyway, just finished fixing the passives as requested. Christine (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• "Shortly after the debut of the children's television program... ". - Maybe add the word "educational" here too? Then maybe replace "educators" later in the sentence with "teachers" to avoid repetition?
• I'd consider expanding the lead to include more specific examples (like the mention of the HIV muppet). Otherwise the lead is too abstract. Most of the verbs in the lead are passive, and most of the others are weak "there is, there are" variants.

It was several days ago, but I think that I improved the lead as requested above. I paid special attention to the passives, and made it more "specific." Christine (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

History

• "Shortly after the 1969 debut of Sesame Street in the US, the Children's Television Workshop (CTW) was approached independently by producers from Brazil, Mexico, Canada, and Germany to produce versions of Sesame Street in those countries." - This so closely mirrors the opening sentence of the lead that I'd revise it to make it (or the version in the lead) significantly different.
• Dann's appointment resulted in television critic Marvin Kitman, referring to the May 1970 Mississippi state commission decision to ban the show, stating, "After he [Dann] sells [Sesame Street] in Russia and Czechoslovakia, he might try Mississippi, where it is considered too controversial for educational TV". - Slightly too complicated. Suggestion: Dann's appointment led television critic Marvin Kitman to say, "After he [Dann] sells [Sesame Street] in Russia and Czechoslovakia, he might try Mississippi, where it is considered too controversial for educational TV". (In May 1970, the Mississippi state commission had banned the show.)

Addressed first two comments above.Christine (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• What was the formal name of the Mississippi state commission?

It was the commission for educational television. Made the change.

• The caption, "Set of the South African co-production Takalani Sesame, with its unique set and some of the show's characters" doesn't need a terminal period since it's only a sentence fragment. Also, it repeats "set". Maybe "The South African co-production Takalani Sesame, with its unique set and some of its characters"?

Followed both recommendations. Christine (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Production

• "consisting of dubbed versions of the show with local language voice-overs and instructional cutaways" - Wikilink cutaways to Cutaway (filmmaking)?
• "Eventually a flexible model, which came to be called "the CTW model", was developed for independently produced preschool television shows, based upon Sesame Street, created in other countries." - Maybe "... based on Sesame Street and created in other countries" for slightly better prose flow?

Made above two changed as recommended. Christine (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• "The Workshop recognized that the production model developed in the US, which reflected its needs and culture at the time, served as a framework for other countries that wanted to repeat it. According to the 2006 documentary, "The World According to Sesame Street", the producers of the co-productions repeated the "experiment" accomplished by the original US show. As Sesame Workshop CEO Gary Knell stated in 2009, the US model of depending upon government and foundation funding would not necessarily be effective in countries with different economic and political structures." - I get lost here. Could this be simplified and made more clear? Maybe something like this: "Workshop executives realized that the model that had worked in the US might not work in every country. As Sesame Workshop CEO Gary Knell stated in 2009, the US model of depending upon government and foundation funding would not necessarily be effective in countries with different economic and political structures."

I think you got lost because it wasn't clear. What I meant to say was that the co-productions used the experiences of the original American producers as a framework, but changed it as the situation warranted. What worked in the US may not necessarily work in other countries, especially when it came to funding. Depending upon government and corporations worked in 69, but it may not necessarily work in other countries, with their differences in economics and culture. I think that the way these sentences now read make that more clear. Christine (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Like the producers of Sesame Street accomplished in the late 1960s, the need for preschool education in each country was accessed through research and interviews with television producers, researchers, and educational experts." - Maybe "Imitating what Sesame Street's producers did in the late 1960s, CTW sought to determine preschool educational needs through interviews with television producers, researchers, and education experts."
• "The puppeteers were cast and trained by Kevin Clash... " - Also, wikilink puppeteer?
• "The co-productions consisted of unique characters, sets, and curriculum designed to meet the needs of their own children." - "curriculums" or "curricula" instead of the singular, curriculum?
• "As of 2009, the Workshop opened their entire library of episodes... " - "its entire library" rather than "their entire library"?

Followed the above recommendations, thanks. Christine (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Co-productions

• The little flags are decorative but don't add information not otherwise available from the text alone. I'm not sure I'd keep them.

They were in the original article, before I got my grubby little hands on it. We'll lose 'em when I follow the recommendation below. Christine (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Starting in 1978, its producers became a 50–50 co-producer... " - Should 50-50 be explained? I'm not sure everyone will know what it means?

That's the wording in the Cole book, which doesn't explain what it means. My solution was to delete the phrase, since I think that what Cole was trying to say was that the German co-production gained more control over their own show. That's what I think; there's no way to know that for certain, thus the cut. I think keeping the part about filming their own puppets in their own studio keeps that implication and stays true to the original source. Christine (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• "its set is a branded block" - What is a "branded block"?
• "There have been three productions in Portgual, including one co-production with their own characters." - What does "their" refer to?

Cut the phrase as per comments above. I've just learned something; when the original source is unclear, it's best to not include the information. Christine (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Since the Manual of Style suggests replacing lists with prose where feasible, I'd suggest modifying this list so that it becomes a series of prose paragraphs. Some of the list items like Brazil are already long enough to stand alone. Others might be expanded or combined.

I agree, so I'll go to userspace to create a prose version. As implied above, this article used to basically be a list. I added the sections preceding it, bulked up the items in the list, and made sure they were accurate and had sources. I kept the list format because I wanted to be respectful of the original version, until consensus or a review told me otherwise. In other words, I suspect that I'd have to make the list into prose, so I'm more than happy to oblige. Christine (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Other

• Captions consisting solely of a sentence fragment don't take a terminal period.
• The images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.
• The link-checker tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one dead url in the citations.
• The dab-finder tool finds two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
• It might be a tough sell to convince reviewers that three fair-use images are needed.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Followed the above suggestions and made corrections where appropriate. Regarding the FU images: I know, I know. Ran into the same issue with the GAR of History of Sesame Street. My justification is that the article, like this one, is about a TV show, so it makes sense (I think) to use screen shots. We'll see how far we get as we get further along in both articles' development. In the coming days, I'll list-to-prose (just made up that phrase!) to last section of this article. Thanks for the feedback, FT, and sorry for our long it took me to address your points. Christine (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Shenandoah Valley Academy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Please review this article. I've done a lot of work on it and would like to see what other editors think as well as get some help with it. Special attention would be nice on the History and Curriculum section.

Thanks, WikiManOne (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• To the Reviewer: I have made some specific comments at User talk:WikiManOne#SVA Reassessment. Below are some specific comments about where I think that the History section is lacking (And that is, in my opinion what is holding this article back).
  • Who did Zirkle donate the land to? What did Zirkle and others use the land for before it became a school?
  • Where did the other 405 acres come from? That is a fairly large campus; what do they use the extra land for?
  • How was the church (or others) involved in financing the school?
  • The school has grown considerably, what buildings, fields, ect. have been built? Do any of them hold architectural, geographical, or historical significance?
  • You have a list of the early headmasters. What did they do?
  • The only person mentioned is Zirkle; what other people can be considered to have played a role in the founding?
  • Is the school strongly associated with a neighborhood church?
  • Elaborate on how it is both a boarding and a day school. Was it always that way?

Maybe take a look at some school articles that have reached GA and FA and see what the SVA history section lacks. There is no history between 1911 and the present. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

---

His Band and the Street Choir

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because apparently the prose isn't up to scratch for FA and is needing of a copyedit. However some of the editors I've consulted about a copyedit have said it doesn't need one, so I'm not sure what the FA reviewers are refering to. Could the reviewer of the article also suggest anything that at present would prevent it from passing FA, like prose flow etc. Thanks very much,  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 10:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try giving it a copyedit using a hardcopy and reading backwards. That usually cements the flow. I'll probably have it finished by tonight or tomorrow and will leave a message on completion; feel free to revert any of my changes. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 18:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Many thanks being willing to do a copyedit; it's just what the article needs. Cheers  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 21:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Finished. Only things I'd suggest now are reviewing Wikilinks and the people mentioned (like the biographers) to ensure no one accidentally gets introduced twice, or redundantly mentioned, or something like that. Again, feel free to revert any of the changes, since you know the source material better than I do. I tried to remove some usual offenders in WP:FAC, like "while", "with" (in some usages), etc. Good luck! If you ever get a chance, I'm about to submit The_Real_Adventures_of_Jonny_Quest to FAC. It's a mammoth, but fortunately it's been copyedited several times; a quick glance might pick up on something neglected. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 03:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Water Newton Treasure

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review after adding x-refs to the BM on-line collections record and further sourcing and correction. As the article is listed as high-importance for the BM, a list of suggested improvements could help drive improvements.

A draft check-list is available for BM related articles at Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/BM#Informal_review_checklist which may be useful.

Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: At present there are only 200 words of text and no structure to the article. It needs some comprehensive development before it qualifies for peer review. It looks promising, with nice images, but there's a lot of work to do yet. I suggest withdraw the PR request for the time being. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As noted above, this is a good start, but a lot more work is need before it can be considered for something like Good Article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The article needs a lead section and subsections - see WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• Article needs more references, for example the second and third paragraphs have no refs currently. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The article could be expanded - what sort of items were discovered (only a few of the 27 are shown or mentioned)? What is the culture that produced the objects? What do the objects tell us about the culture? Who found the hoard? How was it recovered, cleaned, restored? How did the British Museum acquire the hoard? That sort of thing.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there is a WP:FA on an archological find that may be a good model is Vasa (ship)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• There's really not much point in doing a peer review for a stub, especially when someone (me, at the BM day) has already committed to improving it. Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Namadhari naik

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as i want to improve the quality of the article and to quell unreasonable allegations regarding the content.

Thanks, Tej smiles (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

I'm going to make comments regarding the adherence of the article to the Manual of Style, and I'll make prose/grammar suggestions. I know nothing of the subject matter so I can't speak to the content per se.

Lead

• See WP:LEAD for thoughts on writing a good lead. The lead should be a summary of every point brought up in the article. The reader should have a skeletal idea of the article's content from reading the lead. The article then puts flesh to the bones and fills in the gaps. This lead is too small and should be expanded to cover all the points brought up in the article.
• I note in the lead and throughout the article that there is a space before each punctuation. Why is that? There should be no space, the punctuation should come immediately after. I fixed the lead but the rest of the article should be addressed.
• This sentence is confusing

"They are also known as Halepaika (ಹಳೇಪೈಕ) and are referred to as the same in most of the literature."

What literature are you referring to?

Etymology

• Watch the use of speculative words like "seems" in the following sentences:

"The word Namadhari seems to be of later origin attributed to their Vaishnavite allegiance . Initially they seem to have been following Shaiva or Jain belief which was widespread in Kannada region ."

There is no source for these two sentences and the reader is left wondering if this is your speculation or is this the opinions of experts in the field. Remember we are writing an encyclopedia based on verified information, not on speculation.

• There are some grammatical issues throughout the article that need to be addressed for example:

"In 14th century they were brought to Vaishnava...."

"The" should be added after "In".

"It can be noted here that among the Vokkaligas too there is a grouping called Namadhari Gowda which has similar origin."

"To" not "too".

"This has been referred to by greatest poet of modern Kannada, Kuvempu in his magnum opus Malegalalli Madumagalu."

"The" should be between "by" and "greatest".

This is just in the first paragraph. I made the fixes but there are several of these minor grammatical issues throughout the article.

• I'm having trouble with this sentence:

"And to refer them as "old soldiers" during that time should convey the fact that Halepaika formed one of the earliest martial settlers in this part of country ."

It seems as though you are leading the reader to a conclusion based on inference. The problem is the term "should convey". You infer that this is the case but there is no reference to support your supposition. Take a look at WP:OR. I'm not questioning that what you're saying here is correct, it just needs to be supported by more than simply your say so.

• In line citations go outside of the punctuation. See this quote as an example: "Govinda Vaidya describes a battle scene where in the Halepaik troops were in action against the invading Bijapur Sultanate army [3]."
• Watch putting external links into the article. See WP:LINK for thoughts on this. Most external links should be placed at the end of the article in an External Links section.
• What is Toddy Tapping? This is mentioned here and in the lead? Can you explain this a bit for the ignorant readers like myself?

Origins

• Watch using terms like "renowned" and "emminent". This is a peacock word and should be avoided.
• Most in-line citations should go at the end of sentences not dropped into the middle of a sentence.
• The last paragraph in this section is unreferenced, this should be remedied.
• I have a question about this portion of a sentence:

"...region long ago and these regions still have a population (1 lakh) by name 'Halaba' speaking 'Halabi' language...."

What is a lakh?

Culture

• This section is very poorly referenced. Three in-line citations for the entire section isn't enough.
• "The worship of Baleendra [King Mahabali worshipped in Kerala during Onam] during Deepavali has been continuing since ages and is common to almost all communities..." Instead of "...since ages..." choose wording like, "since antiquity".
• This section has several one, two or three sentence paragraphs. Consider combining or expanding these to help with the flow of the article.

Tradition

• I'm not sure that the name of the section fits the subject matter of the material. This seems to be a list of temples and a bit about religious rituals. Not sure how this ties into "Tradition".
• What is Sati? It seems to be both a noun (virtuous wife) and a verb (suicide?).

• Sati only needs to be linked once in the section.

• "...Baleendra [King Mahabali worshipped in Kerala during Onam]..." This parenthetical reference, "King Mahabali worshipped in Kerala during Onam" is mentioned in the previous section, is there a need to do it again here?
• Also only three in-line citations. More should be added.

In popular culture

• No references here or in Present conditions and social status section.
• More comments on this section are below.

Present conditions and social status

• "The literacy rate is high in both males and females and presently the emphasis has been rightly placed on education as may be evident from the fact that many youngsters are opting for higher studies abroad."

It's not our place to say that something has rightly been done or not. Opinions about the community's emphasis on education should not be expressed here. While you may be correct it isn't the editor's place to be passing judgement in a wikipedia article.

• More comments about this section are below.

References

• I can't really tell how you are formatting the references. Are these book titles? Are they articles in a magazine? What are the list of four references after Ref #21? This needs to be overhauled to conform with WP:CITE.
• Websites should use a {{cite web}} template and include title, publisher and accessdate at least.
• Books should use a {{cite book}} template and include title, author, date, publisher, location, isbn, and url and accessdate (if an on-line copy is available).
• Ref 11 is to another Wikipedia article, this is inappropriate as the encyclopedia cannot site itself as a reference. See WP:VERIFY for thoughts on using credible sources.

Overall

• The article is off to a good start, there is a lot of quality content that will add to the encyclopedia. The work now is to organize it and package it better. Here are some suggestions:
• Why all the Hindi (is it Hindi, if not please forgive my ignorance) script? This is an English Wikipedia. You must assume the readers do not read Hindi. There can be call for a specific word to have the Hindi translation for clarification, but to have so many words translated just isn't necessary, and then the quotes. The quotes in Hindi need to be translated into English. Leave out the Hindi altogether.
• I can't speak to the issues with factual accuracy but I can tell you that organizing your references so that they are consistent with understandable will help.
• You use several words like "lakh", "ghats", and "Onam". To the novice these words are confusing and with no explanation I'm left not understanding what is being said.
• You seem to be trying to push the idea that the Namadhari naik were a martial people. This concept is sprinkled throughout the article's sections. Is this in dispute? Once the point is made I don't think it needs to be brought up again.
• Remember to fix the space before punctuation issue, it is prevalent throughout the article.
• There are a lot of grammatical issues that need to be addressed. They are all small but when put together create a distraction for the readers.

This concludes my review. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your contributions to the project and keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

---

University of Arkansas

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there are a few dedicated members maintaining the page (for which I am very grateful), but it has failed to achieve "featured article" status in the past and currently has a B rating on most project's quality scale. I would like to know what changes, updates, or additional information need to be incorporated into the page to make it the highest quality possible.

Thanks, mmcnell

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but is a long way yet from reaching Good Article status. The main problems that leap out at me are lack of sourcing in many sections, incomplete or malformed citations, and a lead that is not a true summary of the whole article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• It's often useful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar topics. You'll find a few FAs about universities at WP:FA#Education.

• Much of the article is still without references to reliable sources and is thus in violation of WP:V. For promotion to GA or higher, it would need to meet WP:V throughout. A good rule of thumb for making the claims in the article verifiable is to provide at least one source for each paragraph and to provide a source for each direct quote, every set of statistics, and every claim that is apt to be questioned. The existing article lacks sources for whole sections such as Campuses and academic divisions, Campus, Football, Men's basketball, Calling the Hogs, Clubs and organizations on campus, and so on.

• The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main text sections in the lead and not to include anything important in the lead that is not mentioned in the main text. The existing lead discusses tuition, for example, which does not seem to be mentioned in the main text. The lead does not mention sports, traditions, and some other sections. If you can imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead, you will see how to write it. WP:LEAD has details.

• The Manual of Style suggests rendering lists as straight prose when possible. The existing article has too many lists. The whole Greek life section, for example, consists solely of a list of organizations that most readers would expect to find on any major U.S. college campus. I would consider replacing the list with a short prose summary of Greek life at Arkansas. The "Notable people" section does this well; probably that section began as a list of names. Likewise, I would suggest not simply listing the degree-granting academic divisions on the Fayetteville campus; render this as prose somehow, maybe by reducing the list to a single sentence saying something like "The Fayetteville campus has 14 degree-granting academic divisions such as the Fay Jones School of Architecture and the Eleanor Mann School of Nursing." WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has details.

• I would not include the entire alma mater and fight song in the article. This is too much detail for most readers.

• Although some articles benefit from image galleries, most are better off with a link, placed in the "External links" section, to a gallery on the Commons. If such a gallery exists, you can link to it with the {{Commons}} template. Readers who want to see more photos of the school can click on the link.

• Many, if not most, of the citations in the Notes section are incomplete or malformed. For Internet sources, the citation should include author, title, publisher, date, url, and accessdate, if all of these are known or can be found. Also, it's doubtful that all of the sources cited meet the guidelines of WP:RS. What makes adam-carr.net reliable, for example? You might find the "cite family" of templates helpful in formatting the citations. WP:CIT has details.

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page show that seven of the urls in the citations are dead and that three links go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

This is not a complete review, but it should give you plenty to think about. Good luck with this project. Finetooth (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Pithole, Pennsylvania

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get Pithole to FA. For some reason, I not satisfied the comprehensiveness, but don't think there is anything missing (it could just be me, though). Thanks, ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this looks pretty good. I will make some minor copyedits as I go through the article. I will especially try to make suggestions on things to add for comprehensiveness.

• The dab finder finds one dab link

Changed the link to a Wiktionary link, which seems more useful in this situation. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• The lead should be a summary so I would repeat or elaborate on the largest oil boomtown claim in the lead (which does not seem to be repeated in the article body)

I started doubting the "largest boomtown" claim and redid part of the intro. Does it need to be elaborated on or spelled out elsewhere in the article, now? I think the reader should be able to get the jist of it from reading the article. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Naming section - I think I would mention Pithole Creek here in terms of its name. I assume the creek was named for the borough, but I think it should be mentioned either way (presumably as something named for the ghost town, possibly as the source of the name)

Added. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• The Seneca are mentioned in the Naming section too - I think I would give the approximate year since it says These "pit-holes", which were found along Oil Creek and in Cornplanter Township, supposedly predate the Senecas who inhabited the area at the time.[6] I also think it would be good to at least mention the Seneca in the History section.

Added. Would it be better to specifically mention the "Seneca" or just go with the "Iroquois" (as it is my understanding that the Senecas were a part of the Iroquois)? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would keep it as the Seneca - I think it is better to be more specific. The Seneca came down into western Pennsylvania, but not all the Iroquois did. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Problem sentence: Pithole is located almost 4 miles (6.4 km) off Pennsylvania Route 36 and about 2 miles (3.2 km) from Pennsylvania Route 227. Needs a ref - could use the PennDOT map here. I would also mention State Route 1006 as it is shown on the PennDOT map and on your map. Finally, I would add directions to the major highways, so something like Pithole is located on Pennsylvania State Route 1006, almost 4 miles (6.4 km) southwest of Pennsylvania Route 36 and about 2 miles (3.2 km) east of Pennsylvania Route 227.

Changed wording, added refs. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Second paragraph of Geography and climate needs a ref - presumably the source(s) used for the map would work here too

Added a ref. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• At the start of History I would add a new paragraph with a sentence about the Native American inhabitants, a sentence on the land being purchased from the Iroquois in the Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784), and something with the dates of first settlement for the township, and incorporation of Venango County and Cornplanter Township. This PHMC source would be good for this last part

Added. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• I left a message on your talk page about "Ghost Towns of Pennsylvania", which has seven or so pages on Pithole, with more details on the people and animals - mostly talks about teamsters and prostitutes and what it was like to live there. It is on Google Books here. I would add some details from that - hotel for 60 built in a day, what it was like to live in such hastily built and shoddily constructed buildings, how horses and mules suffered and were at a premium, the brothels and near slavery of the prostitutes in them. Perhaps a sentence on the claims of ghosts, maybe not.

Added more about the teamsters and about the prosititutes. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• A stone altar was erected and consecrated by the Methodist Episcopal Church on August 27, 1959, the centennial of the Drake Well strike. needs a ref.

Added. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think I might add a sentence or two about the other nearby oil history sites in the Visitors center section (Oil Creek SP and Drake Well). Especially since the Drake Well Museum operates the Pithole Visitor Center - see this PHMC document here

Added it. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• The more I think about it, I think there could be a sentence something like The PHMC operates the Pithole Visitor Center as part of the Drake Well Museum. In 2007–2008, the Drake Well museums had 33,827 visitors, and in 2006–2007 the operating budget was $940,650. (same ref as above)

Would the visitation and budget numbers be accurate? I know Pithole is off the beaten path and, as such, usually recieves less visitors than Drake Well. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to make it clear that the budget and visitation numbers were for all the Drake Well museums (i.e. Drake Well, Pithole, and the other well listed), but agree it may be problematic - your call. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I also wonder about adding an image, even a fair use one, of Pithole itself in its prime (if such exist). I also wonder about cropping the stereoview to just one of the photos - it might be easier to see the detail in the article that way.

I know I've seen photos and I wonder if they would be considered free as they were first published in 1860s. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added a new photo of Pithole. How's it look? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Otherwise it looks pretty good to me. I made a few copyedits - please revert if I made or introduced errors.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can fix now, but the source for much of the history section is at the library, which is closed until after Memorial Day (interesting book on its own, by the way). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A few more comments

• Someone reviewing images may ask about the historic image of Pithole (newly added). Is there any indication that it was published before 1923? Even if there is not, I think it owuld be fine as a WP:FAIR USE image.

I've posted a note at WP:MCQ, no response so far. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 23:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it can be sorted out at FAC if need be - as I said, if worse comes to worse I think it is justified under fair use. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am also not sure about the license on the image of the model of the town. My guess is that the model may be seen s a work of art (copyrighted). I am not sure if this owuld be the case or not, but again I think one or two fair use images would be OK. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, however if it were British, there are exceptions for models of buildings in public places. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 23:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• I read the Pennsylvania Ghost Towns book - it mentioned how large buildings were constructed in a single day, but proved drafty and cold in the winter (surpringly). It also mentions the "Mayor of Pithole" I think I would include something on how fast the buildings were erected and how poorly constructed they were. Since the book and the news article you just found both mention the "mayor", I think that might be worth a sentence too.

Added the bit about the hotel and some about Boomtown Day and the mayoral race. Not sure how to mention the mayor specifically (as it is not "official" position). In the Geobox maybe? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 23:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think mentioning the mayoral race is enough. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Finally, is there any reason not to include the Pennsylvania Ghost Town book in the references somehow? It seems like a reliable source.

Added. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 23:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dincher comments

Lead

The word "located" has been a sticking point in some FACs that I have been involved in. I personally don't have a problem with it, but someone in the future might.

Reworded to the lead sentence to remove the "located". ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

How many bars? This would be an interesting contrast with the churches.

I'm unable to find an exact number, however I have a source that mentions that "every other building was a bar". Should that be included? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. The number isn't important. The reader gets a good idea about the number of bars with your suggestion. Dincher (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Added it. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Naming

Drop 'exact' and just go with, The origin

Dropped. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Geology

Drop 'that was' and go with, Most of the oil produced...

Dropped. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

'The oil usually became trapped' - reads awkwardly.

I reworded it. Any better? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It is better. Dincher (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Link or create article for Venango Third? just a sugggestion

Geography and Climate

two more 'locateds' could go

Not sure how does could be reworded to avoid using "located". ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Were Duncan, Mason, Prather, Brown and Holmden streets named for town fathers? It would be nice to know.

I've dropped some the names into the History section, so it should be able to be inferred. Should it be expilictly stated (I'm not sure there is a source for that, though)? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I picked up the inference. No need to be explicit about it. Dincher (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How about including a map of the streets?

There is a map that shows the city streets in the geobox. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

History

Suggest changing in only half a year to within half a year

Changed. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I see now that at least some of the streets were named for the big wigs.

Do we need at the thes in the first sentence of the last paragraph of the Boom subsection?

Dropped all but two. Does it read better? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. Keep up the good work. Dincher (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Visitors Center

suggest changing from cellars to foundations

Changed. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this article. The history is very interesting. Dincher (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Days of our Lives

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it better. I want to hear criticism from other users, I want to change things to make them better. If the article needs more work I would like to know. I would like to get it up to featured article status. All comments are welcome. I am willing to put as much time, and effort needed.

Thanks, Sami50421 (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I haven't got to the prose yet, but here are some issues relating to images and sources:-

• Images
  • The rationale for the use of Image:Hortongroup.jpg‎ is very weak and needs to be amplified, to explain why the image materially assists the readers' understanding of the article.
  • Image:Dayshourglass1966.jpg: There may be some difficulty in justifying the use of this under a non-free rationale.
• Sources
  • Formatting: As a minimum, online references need to show a title, a publisher and an access date. Some of yours lack one or more of these. For example, refs 1, 46 and 57 lack publisher information. 46 and 57 also lack retrieval date. Ref 10 is a bare url. Check carefully, to ensure that all references are properly formatted.
  • Consistency: you have "Time", "TIME" and "TIME magazine"
  • Italics: The titles of journals and newspapers should be italicised. The names of non-print sources shouls not be italicised.
  • Reliability: I have not checked many of these, but I am dubious the reliability of some. For example, ref 1 - why is this a reliable source?

Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please let me know when you have responded to above, and I'll continue the review. Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Health (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
From the moment I borrowed that new Robert Altman biography at the library, fate must have stepped in. And indeed, fate led me to work on an article about a largely unknown entity in the Altman catalogue.

Through an IMDb message board listing, I managed to catch it on the Fox Movie Channel--at the end of April and again in May. It was tough going with the plot, even during the second time, but I eventually managed.

HealtH, a political satire set in a Florida hotel, was shelved by its distributor in the early 1980s and has been largely forgotten since then--and it even showed at the WP article before I came in. The amount of coverage it received back then is surprising, even with its already obscure reputation.

Out of a 3 kB stub, I expanded the article almost ninefold before it made the Did you know section on Friday night's Main Page (in my time zone). The blurb also mentioned four minor cast members from New York, known as The Steinettes.

Has there been a title so fitting for a PR subject? Compared to this, only Gosford Park and (to an extent) M*A*S*H can rival its comprehensiveness here, as far as Altman's works are concerned.

Looking forward to GAC soon enough.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 10:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have to admit I did not recall ever hearing of this Altman film - sounds interesting. I think most of the information is there, but it needs some tweaking in terms of language and perhaps organization for GAN and especially if FAC is on the horizon. So here are some suggestions for improvement.

• If the title of the film is "HealtH" (which the article uses a bunch of times), shouldn't the article be moved to "HealtH (film)" too?
• The article seems a bit WP:OVERLINKed to me - does the reader really need links to Acronym, Parody, Independent (politician), and Idiosyncracy (to name a few)?
• I also felt that the lead was a bit sparse - per WP:LEAD the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• I did not understand why there was a separate Synopsis section - it seemed to me to either be items that should be in the lead or else in the Plot section that follows it.

• Synopsis eliminated. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Similarly I was not sure how the Themes section differed from the Reception section - most of Themes seems to be material from critical reviews of the film. Could this at least be a subsection of the Themes section?
• The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow - could they be combined with others or perhaps expanded?
• There are places where the article feels repetitive - for example, the Steinetts, Carol Burnett and Paul Dooley are listed in the cast section, so why then have the sentences "The Steinettes, an a cappella group from Greenwich Village, New York,[16]:1-D were on hand as the singers. Carol Burnett, who appeared in A Wedding,[5] starred as Gloria Burbank. Paul Dooley, who co-scripted with Altman and Barhydt, played Paul Dooley.[4]:82" in Production?
• Or Dick Cavett and Dinah Shore's roles are mentioned in the Synopsis, Plot and Cast sections
• There is no requirement to do this, but moist articles do not cite the lead - since it is a summary, the cited refs should all be in the body of the article too.

• Many of the lead cites have been erased and moved. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Similarly, references usually come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
• If a reference is to something in all capitals, the WP:MOS says to convert it to title case - so "ROBERT ALTMAN'S SATIRE 'HEALTH'" would just be "Robert Altman's Satire 'HealtH'"

• Converted. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• If the production began in February 1979 and was completed in three months, how can it be a satire of the Reagan Carter campaign? Reagan wasn't even nominated until July 1980.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

---

The Circus Starring Britney Spears

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I nominated it a few weeks ago for GA and it was failed throughout the process. Thanks, Xwomanizerx (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• Well, the biggest issue at GAN was prose, so really once other issues are gelled getting the WP:LOCE or somebody to run through it would be best (I'll try, but I don't have much wiki-time these days so I'm not sure if I'll get to it.)
• Anyhow, I'm concerned about using multiple references to prove an assertion. For example, "The performance received worldwide attention which exceeded expectations. Her singing, her dancing and even her wardrobe were all commented on extensively, and it was considered hurtful for her career." That first sentence is unsourced. The second sentence is sourced to three sources from the time, [27][28][29]. The sources are reliable, but I'm concerned that they are more the opinions of the authors than stated fact, and it would be erroneous to use them to assert a blanket statement; perhaps more recent sources looking back at the performance would be better. This is an issue I see a couple of other times on first glance ("After its premiere performance, the tour tour received generally positive reviews from several critics" is better, but it might be better to be a little less committed than this.)
• The article could do with a trim; not that it's too long an article, but because similar details crowd together and turn the article into a morass of repetitive phrasing in places. Take the background section, for example. I count ten instances of "In [MONTH/DATE], [YEAR]" phrasing. This feels like a current events story coming together, but we've got hindsight working for us now. Not all these details are necessary, and you can combine and synthesize some summaries to cut down on the looping feeling.
• There are lots of curly quotes in the article (“, ’, etc.) These should all be converted to straight quotes (", ') per WP:PUNCT.
• I'm concerned about undue weight given to altercations and controversies (around 10 paragraphs and four dedicated subsections.) Condense this stuff to bare details and merge it back into the rest of the article where relevant, or give it a paragraph at the end of the tour section describing difficulties on the road or whatnot.
• There's a lot of free images of the show—great. The problem is that sometimes there seem to be too many, in that barely-related images are put in a section because they won't fit elsewhere. You've got a commons link at the end of the article—I suggest judiciously pruning images.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

---

United States v. Lara

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has just completed a good article review and I would like to see what needs to be done to take it to the next level.

Thanks, GregJackP (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/United States v. Lara/archive1.

---

May Revolution

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because all the important work (checking books, adding footnotes, explaining things, detailing all the things that had happen, moving excesive information to secondary articles, etc.) is mostly done. If there's something missing, it may be small details, easy to fix.

However, I'm not a native english speaker, and I'm too familiar with this topic. I need a review of 2 things: first, languaje (if there are things wich are not written correctly, or may be improved), and second, whenever there are details that may seem confusing to people with no knowledge on the topic and that may require higher explanations (or, on the contrary, if somewhere I overexplain something that is already clear for the casual reader).

Thanks, MBelgrano (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

From what I can tell you wish to get some input on areas of improvement from someone who has no prior knowledge of the subject matter. Well I can help with this. I will do my best to make suggestions and where I can fix prose issues I will do so. It is a very long article so I may gloss over areas and make general statements. I'm not sure what your goals are for the article. I see that it did fail GA review once, I think this would be a good initial goal. This is a rather long article so the review may have to be done in chunks as I have time.

Lead

• This sentence is a run-on:

"The May Revolution (Spanish: Revolución de Mayo) was a week-long series of revolutionary events that took place from May 18 to May 25, 1810, in Buenos Aires, capital of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, a colony of the Spanish Empire which included the present-day nations of Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay."

Consider ending the first sentence at 1810. Then the next sentence starts with, "The revolution centered in..."

• Also in the above sentence I would change "week-long series of revolutionary events". This is an awkward way of phrasing what was in essence a revolution or coup. Instead say, "week-long coup d'état"
• Watch using words like, "The May Revolution is considered..." These can be seen as weasel words, which are phrases used to lend credibility to ideas that do not have sourced support. Examples of weasel words are, "experts believe...", "historians have concluded that...". Twice in the last paragraph in the lead the words, "is considered" are used. Be mindful of weasel words and try to avoid them wherever possible. Instead attribute the claim to a specific person and provide a source.

Causes

• I'm not going to change all instances of linking country names, I'll leave that to you. In general generic links to countries is not helpful. If you want to link to a country please try to be more specific than just linking to the country. In the context of this article, linking United States is not helpful because the article about the United States really has very little to do with this article. If you linked to United States, that would be more specific and more useful.
• American history buffs would question the accuracy of this statement,

"The United States had emancipated themselves from the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1776, which provided a tangible example that led Criollos to believe that revolution and independence from Spain could be realistic aims."

The US declared independence around 1776 but had not in any way emancipated themselves by this point. 1781 would be a more accurate date since it was then that the English surrendered.

• Your description of the Abdications of Bayonne is very well done in my opinion.
• This sentence is confusing to me:

"This whole situation created two antagonistic groups: leather products manufacturers who wanted free trade to be able to sell their production, and retailers who benefited from the prices of the smuggled imports, which they would have had to sell at lower prices if free trade was allowed."

No where prior to this do I see anything about leather product manufacturers. Weren't there a great many different types of products produced in Argentina? Why key in on leather? It just sort of comes out of the blue. I would be less specific about the first group, unless there was some very contentious issue with leather manufacturers or if I'm misreading this whole thing.

• There are quite a few small errors in spelling and grammar. While they are small, given the frequency of them it becomes distracting. I would recommend requesting help from WP:COPYEDITORS. You can do so here. More to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Prelude

• I'm looking for areas in which to trim down the information. I feel that this section is too long. It adds a lot of good information but how this information really pushes towards the revolution is unclear. I'm not saying the entire section should be removed but I think it could be significantly trimmed and combined into one section. The Cisneros government section, for example, is longer than all three of the articles listed as the Main article, and the see also articles combined. Usually this information is done in summary fashion and the Main article tag is meant to direct readers to a more indepth article on the subject. The opposite is the case here. I would move a majority of this information to the main article and trim it down significantly.

May week

• You only need to link a term once, open cabildo is linked at least twice. Plaza de Mayo twice and Junta several times.
• There are several grammatical errors in the long quote under the Sunday May 20 sub-section. Is this directly quoted from the book or are the errors on the part of the editors of this article? If the errors are in the book this is quoted from then please put a (sic) after errors to show the reader these errors are intentional. If they are on the part of the editors of this article then please fix them.
• This sentence is a fragment:

"At the time of the vote, Castelli's position coupled with that of Saavedra."

What is this trying to say? Did this position win out? I don't know.

• I don't see the need to outline every plan that was put forth and then count the votes for each plan. It seems a bit to detailed. Give the two competing ideas along with their plans for resolution. I think that would be sufficient.
• The last paragraph in the May 24 sub-section has a lot of important information but no reference. I added a template.
• The article bogs down in the May 25th sub-section. Listing all the names of the various parties involved in signing the form just seems a bit too much. More to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm going to have to end my review early. I have some real life concerns that will require much of my time and I won't be able to get to the rest of the article. I apologize but I hope that I have given you some thoughts to help with the article. Best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I will take those advises in consideration. I haven't replied here to allow for the review to end as a block of text rather than set of dispersed advises between comments, but I had already started working at some of the points. Good luck with your real-life tasks, and thanks for the help MBelgrano (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

---

2010 Auto Club 500

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to renominate it for good article status, but I do not want to see it fail. On June 1, 2010, the article was nominated at Wikipedia:Good article nominations and was failed after the time to improve it ended. Since then I have improved it and would like to see how it would do as a good article nomination.

Thanks, Nascar1996 22:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Royalbroil's peer review

• I removed some basic wordy explanations that take away from the article's flow. The reader is expected to have at least a basic level of understanding on the topic of racing if they read a racing article. I'm unsure if an explanation of a green flag pit shop should be necessary. Certainly a caution period need not be explained because it's common to all motorsport now that Formula One finally decided to adopt them and have a basic safety level. A good way to get around this terminology problem is to wikilink to terminology in the List of motorsport terminology article like caution period.
• Still didn't add date or time for qualifying, which were good suggestions by the GA reviewer. Only a minor deficiency.
  • Okay, I couldn't find it anyway. --Nascar1996 00:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Cite - invocation, national anthem singer, Andy Garcia...
  • I is already cited with the Race Summary. --Nascar1996 00:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Before the race, Denny Hamlin moved to the back because of an engine change on February 20, 2010 - date is awkward, how about change to "Before the race, Denny Hamlin moved to the back because his team changed engines since qualifying"
  • Done --Nascar1996 00:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Overall it's in great shape, ready for GA. I'd immediately close the peer review and nominate it again. What killed it was that you didn't keep working out the problems on the article. Royalbroil 23:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Nobel Prize

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed Nobel Prize for Peer Review because I need help with improving prose and consistency of word usage. I have tried to nominate it for FA twice and it has failed both. On those nominations many comments were about the prose which was not quite FA style according to some editors. So I would be very happy if I could get some help with improving this article so it can reach FA status!

I would be grateful for any help I can get, Esuzu (talk • contribs) 10:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Nobel Prize/archive2.

---

Kokia discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to know what it would take this page up to featured list status, other than creating articles for the notable singles/EPs that are still redlinked.

Thanks, Prosperosity (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The list seems informative, but there are numerous points of presentation to be addressed:-

• • What is an "EP"?

    Replaced all mentions with extended play, plus linking to the extended play article.--Prosperosity (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Parentheses closure after "Victor Entertainment" no opening.

    Fixed.--Prosperosity (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • "...notably "Inori/Justice" for Ayahi Takagaki comes across Feldt Grace, a character single for Mobile Suit Gundam 00." I can't work out what this means.

    Reworded to make clearer.--Prosperosity (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • "Kokia has found moderate success for her releases." This sounds like a judgement - whose?

    I'm not sure if this is an issue, as this is a lead in sentence about what level of commercial success her releases have (backed up by the RIAJ and Oricon).--Prosperosity (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't the tables be in presented in the same order as introduced in the first line: "11 studio albums, five EPs, three compilations albums and 25 singles"?

    Fixed.--Prosperosity (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Why is the DVD list fomatted differently?

    Fixed.--Prosperosity (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Music videos: the explanatory text before the table is not cited anywhere.

    Fixed.--Prosperosity (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • What are "B-sides"?

    Added an explanatory note.--Prosperosity (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I understand "Songwriting appearances". What is the "appearance" element here?

    Replaced with "credits".--Prosperosity (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Hyphens used in date ranges e.g. "2002-3". En-dash required, thus: "2002–3". There are multiple misuses of hyphens in the Song tie-ups section. For example, (first line) Brain Powerd (1998) - "Ai no Field" should read Brain Powerd (1998): "Ai no Field". Subsequent lines should be amended.

    Fixed.--Prosperosity (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • What is the rationale for the sequencing in the Song tie-up sections? Why are they not chronological?

    Changed to chronological.--Prosperosity (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As I am unable to watch peer reviews at present, please use my talkpage to contact me if you wish to raise points from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

---

List of X-planes

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

I'm looking to bring this list to FL status, and would like feedback on what needs improving to reach it. (For the record on one issue I'm aware of: there's no image of the X-16 because the two photographs on Commons of it are both listed for deletion). Anyway, any and all help and suggestions would be appreciated!

Thanks, The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 14:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett

• No reason that a lack of an image would prevent FL status.
• Technically I think page numbers would be useful for all the references
• It could use citation templates for the references GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I think I've got page numbers in. I'm not sure about the citation comment mention - everything in 'Bibliography' currently uses either cite-book or cite-web? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton

Brianboulton comments: A well-prepared and comprehensive-looking list. The lead could be developed more, to give a better sense of 60-plus years of history, and there are numerous prose issues requiring attention.

• Prose points in lead
  • "testing of new technologies" → "testing new technologies"
  • "Some X-planes have been highly publicised and record-breaking programs..." Doesn't really work. The two things - "highly publicised" and "record-breaking" - don't go naturally together, and planes are not in themselves "programs". The word "highly occurs again, later in the sentence. Suggest rephrase and simplify the sentence thus: "Some X-planes programs have been well publicised, while others, such as the X-16, have been developed secretly."
  • "well known" in this context does not have a hyphen. Suggest: "...became well known in 1947 as the first plane to break the sound barrier.
  • "yielded important research results" - is it possible to mention briefly the fields to which these results related?
  • "...only the North American X-15 rocket plane of the early 1960s achieved comparable fame." Comparable to what?
  • "Most X-planes are not expected to ever go into full-scale production, and usually only a few are produced." The word "ever" is superfluous. In fact, the second part of the sentence is basically repeating what's been said in the first part, and can be removed.
  • "One exception to the rule was the Lockheed Martin X-35, which competed against the Boeing X-32 for selection as Joint Strike Fighter and production as the F-35." Remove the cliché "to the rule", and clarify the ending, thus: "One exception was the Lockheed Martin X-35, which competed against the Boeing X-32 for selection as Joint Strike Fighter, and entered production as the F-35."
  • NACA and NASA should be fully spelt out on first mention, e.g. "National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)" Suggest you begin the sentence "Most X-planes..."
  • Reposition "however", thus: "However, not all US experimental aircraft have been designated in the X-plane series;..."
• List
  • General point: some of the notes are too cryptic and/or technical in nature to make much sense to the general reader.
  • Link Mach 3
  • Link testbed (first mention)
  • X14 - repetition of the words "Vectored thrust" in notes

Brianboulton (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Much thanks! I'll get to work fixing those things. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 14:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

What a good idea for a high-quality list! Looks thoroughly cited, and of course well illustrated. Comments:

• Second Brian's recommendation to expand the lead
• Aside from Brian's prose comments, another suggestion I have for improving The first of the X-planes, the Bell X-1, became well known as, in 1947, it was the first aircraft to break the sound barrier in level flight. (bit clunky all round) is The first of the X-planes, the Bell X-1, became well known as the first aircraft to break the sound barrier in level flight, on 14 October 1947.
• You don't need to repeat the links for manufacturers and so on after the first instance in the table.
• You don't need to repeat the links in the lead and table with ones in See Also, e.g. Skunk Works (there may be others).

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, the multiple links remain from the original table. I'll see about lead expansion and delinking soon. Thanks for the feedback! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Mono (Japanese band)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel the article, while fairly informative at present, could be expanded upon and improved, hopefully with the help of a peer review. I have contributed considerably to the article, and would greatly appreciate any comments/criticism with regards to advancing it to (at least) Good Article status.

Thank you, Thom (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Esuzu Hello, I am Esuzu and I will try to help you with this article. Other comments are very welcome. I will add comments now and then but I am quite bust atm so it might take time sometimes. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 10:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• References, Wikipedia:Citing sources is good to read.

• First of all, references needs to be according to Template:Cite web. Just bare references will not do. (I made some for you but for example ref 2 still needs to be done)
• Ref 6 is dead.
• ref 9-17 is only images. We can not use that as a good source. (Wikipedia:Secondary source#Primary.2C secondary and tertiary sources is good to read.) In wikipedia we can only say and summarise what other people already have said. Thus the whole "Instrumentation" section needs new references.
• Almost the whole History section is missing references. You need to have at least one closing reference in each paragraph. Take a look at, for example, Confessions on a Dance Floor for see how a GA article should be referenced.
  

---

Storm Prediction Center

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'm looking for further feedback on improving the article to where it will pass a Featured Article Candidacy. Please peer review the article as a Featured article would be reviewed.

Thanks, Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Some comments. I think it needs some work before FAC.
• "Day x" is capitalized in some instances but not in others.
• Date ranges need endashes.
• Overall, I feel more general information is needed on the history and use of the SPC, based on outside sources. It seems only one source cited in the article does not come from the SPC itself (or related agencies).
• I'm also not sure the example boxes are needed. They're hard to read, and they're more relevant to the particular advisory than the SPC.

Just a few things I noticed at first glance. Hope this helps a tad. Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I garee with all of Julian's comments above. Here are some more suggestions for improvement, with an eye to FAC.

• The disambig links tool finds two circular redirects (links in the article back to itself) that should at least be looked at.
  • Everyone keeps bringing this up. Those two redirects I have categorized as "Redirects with possibilities" because theoretically those two topics could have their own article, but right now the content on those two topics is located in the SPC article (mainly because no one has gotten around to writing separate articles for those topics yet). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• Although alt text for those who cannot see the images is no longer required for FAC, it is still a nice thing to add to images - see WP:ALT
• In the lead, I thought that the repetition of "Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, and Day 4–8" and the similar days for fire weather was a bit much. The lead is supposed to be a clear summary / overview, so I would explain the forecast days, but avoid the repetitive detail in the lead.
  • I attempted to make it seem less repetitive, but I don't know how I can achieve full non-repetitiveness while also explaining what day segments the fire weather outlooks are issued for. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• The article has a fair number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which disrupt the flow for the reader. I would either combine them with other paragraphs or perhaps expand them.
• The table in the "Issuance and usage" section have odd uses of bold and italic text - why for example is it sometimes "MDT" and other times "MDT"?
  • That is explained in the header for the tables. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• Make sure to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. For example in the Mesoscale discussions section, there is this large lump of text (the example discussion) but no real explanation of the specifics in it - I am not sure the average international reader would necessarily know what "WRN KS...PARTS OF WRN OK/ERN TX PNHDL" means, for example.
• Similarly the maps could identify the states depicted
  • Those maps are the original SPC products, but would not be so if I added state labels to them. Which is better, having the original example or having state labels? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• Would it be possible to also discuss the actual weather to compare it to the predictions for both examples?
• For refs 8 and 18, I would still give publisher, date accessed, etc. Agree that more independent, third-party sources are needed, especially for this to pass FAC.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

---

The Story of Marie and Julien

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of making a Good Article nomination and would like to get comments and improvements first. Though an established editor, this is the first article I've brought to the point I thought it might be of Good Article standard.

Points I think may be worth examining

The plot section is about 1000 words, over the film style guide's recommended 700-word limit. I've trimmed it back as much as I can without losing what seem to be important elements. The plot is split into an initial brief summary and then into the defined four parts of the film. Presenting it in this mainly chronological order seems the best approach as there's a very clear story arc. The section also contains some sourced story analysis, which does increase its length and I don't think the article would be improved by moving that analysis into a "Themes" section. I've included a lot of sources within the plot (which I know is unusual): it helps to verify that certain plot elements are important without needing to sit through 2 1/2 hours of the film, and it avoids suspicions of original research where there is any interpretation of events. I initially wrote the plot outline based on a watch through, but tweaked and added to it based on the sources. Should any images from the film be included? I've linked to some shots of the film on the talk page, but I am not sure on the fair-use justification. I've not included French or other non-English sources in the Reception section, which probably needs amending. Many of them are behind firewalls and while Google Translate and my school-boy French are fine for verifying facts they are of less help for faithfully translating opinion. Despite what I've said above, should there be a "Themes" section? Is the "Production and direction" section fine as one section (I think it hangs together OK), or should it be split?

Thanks, Fences&Windows 15:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems broad in coverage, stable, neutral, well-illustrated, and verifiable. My main concerns are with the prose, which needs polish to get to GA level. The plot is rather long, but that might be remedied by creating a Themes sections after all. The Cast section is just a list, and the padding of the list is repetitive. Here are more specific thoughts:

• The images look fine, and one fair-use image per article is probably all that can be justified.

• I found it jarring to encounter critical comments in the Plot section. If you added a Themes section, the length of the Plot section would be somewhat smaller, and the film seems to explore interesting themes. If you haven't already done so, you might look at the featured articles at WP:FA#Media to see how other editors have handled similar problems.

Lead

• "Critical responses were mixed, with some finding it overly long, slow and pretentious, while others believed that it was moving, intelligent, and among Rivette's best work." - "With plus -ing" constructions are usually weaker and more wordy than alternatives. Suggestion: "Some critics found the film overlong, slow, and pretentious, while others said it was moving, intelligent, and among Rivette's best work."

Plot

• "The centre of the film is the love story between Marie and Julien, with the tale of blackmail helping to tell this story." - Another "with plus -ing". "Tale" and "tell" is a bit repetitious. Suggestion: "The film, centered on the love story between Marie and Julien, includes a subplot involving blackmail."
• "The film is separated into four parts, named to reflect the narrative perspective.[10][2]" - Serial citations like this should be arranged in ascending order; i.e., [2][10]. Ditto for similar strings of citations elsewhere in the article.
• "finally revealed to be a ghost story— sees dream logic impinging on reality" - "involves" rather than "sees"?
• The bolded terms like Julien should be unbolded, though italics would be fine. WP:MOSBOLD has details.
• "but Marie stands him up" - Slang that some readers might take literally. Maybe "but Marie fails to appear"?
• "Julien tracks her down when an unknown woman calls to tell him the hotel she is staying at, and she agrees to move in with him... ". - I had to read this three times to make sense of it. At first I thought it meant that the unknown woman agrees to move in with Julien. I think, though, it means that Marie agrees to move in with him, though only one phone call seems to be involved. Can this sequence be made more clear?
• "He rings Marie's old boss who suggests talking to her friend Delphine" - The boss's friend or Marie's friend?
• "Marie warns him that if he fails her he will lose all memory of her... ". - Not sure what "fails her" means here.
• "Marie slowly covers her face with her hands —the forbidden gesture" - Has the forbidden gesture been mentioned or explained before this?

Production and direction

• "Glenn Kenny notes that the "calm precision" of the mise en scène in the opening dream sequence "put [him] under such a powerful spell" that lasted the whole film." - Missing word? Maybe "that it lasted" rather than "that lasted"?

Reception

• Film titles inside direct quotations as elsewhere should appear in italics.

Distribution

• "The film was passed up by both Cannes and Venice" - Maybe "ignored" rather than "passed up"?
• "The theatrical release in France and Belgium was on 12 November 2003, being seen by 239 people across 10 screens in Paris on the opening night." - Suggestion: "The film opened in France and Belgium on 12 November 2003; that night 239 people watched the film in Paris."
• "The Arte Video release additionally features commentary by Lubtchansky over a cut-down version of the film (41:45), and an analysis of the film by Hélène Frappat (21:28)." - Does the 41:45 refer to the cut-down version or does it refer to the Lubtchansky commentary? Or are they the same? I don't think the sentence makes this clear.

Cast

• The bolding should be removed per WP:MOSBOLD.
• The details for the cast members seems mainly to repeat information already presented in the Plot section.

References

• Even when a source uses all caps, Wikipedia uses its own house style. HISTOIRE DE MARIE ET JULIEN should be rendered as Histoire de Marie et Julien.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Timeline of Tanzanian history

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would really like to nominate it as a featured list at some point and would like any comments or constructive criticism regarding what else needs to be done to get it to this standard. I think it's pretty comprehensive although I know that some work needs to be done with the early history. Any comments or suggestions for the lead section would also be appreciated.

Thanks, BelovedFreak 14:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting list with interesting illustrations. The prose needs polishing to reach professional quality; in addition, the list might not be comprehensive. What is a "major" event? Did only five major events occur before 1822? Here are further comments and suggestions.

• To orient readers, I'd strongly suggest including another map, maybe File:Un-tanzania.png, to show where Tanzania is in Africa and where Zanzibar is in relation to the mainland. It might look good right under the infobox, not sure.
• Inevitably you will be asked whether anything important is missing from the list. I don't know the answer to that, but it's something to think about. An awful lot of things can happen in 20,000 years, and any list is bound to be super-selective. I noticed that no women but Mary Leakey made the list; health (epidemics, for example) and education (first university, for example) did not make the list. It's hard to say what a comprehensive list of Tanzanian history would consist of. For example, should the completion of the Usambara Railway appear in the list?

Lead

• "Human inhabitance of the region dates back at least 100,000 years." - Maybe "Human habitation in the region... ". I don't think "inhabitance" is a real word.
• "European contact with East Africa began in the 15th century with Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama landing in 1498." - "With" plus "-ing" constructions are generally weak. Suggestion: "European contact with East Africa began when Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama landed in 1498." It might be helpful to add here just where in East Africa he landed in relation to Tanzania.
• "The 19th century brought increased colonial involvement in the region with German East Africa forming on the mainland in 1885 and Zanzibar coming under British control in 1890." - Another "with plus -ing". Also, it might be helpful to add that Zanzibar is off the coast. Suggestion: "Colonial involvement in the region increased in the 19th century; German East Africa was formed on the mainland in 1885, and Zanzibar, an island archipelago east of the mainland, came under British control in 1890."
• "Six years later, the Anglo-Zanzibar War was fought on the island; it is the shortest war in history." - Even though this is sourced later in the main text, it's such an extraordinary claim that you might want to add a citation here as well.
• "Resistance against colonial rule in German East Africa was apparent with the opposition of Chief Mkwawa of the Hehe and the Maji Maji Rebellion." - This seems unnecessarily roundabout. Suggestion: "Chief Mkwawa of the Hehe and insurgents tied to the Maji Maji Rebellion resisted colonial rule in German East Africa"
• "The 20th century saw the end of German involvement in the area following World War I as the United Kingdom took over Tanganyika as a United Nations mandate." - Roundabout and not quite correct. Suggestion: "German involvement ended after World War I when the United Kingdom took over Tanganyika as a League of Nations mandate." The United Nations did not exist at the time.
• "1995 saw the country's first multi-party election, won by third president Benjamin Mkapa." - The Manual of Style advises against starting sentences with digits. Suggestion: Benjamin Mkapa, the country's third president, won Tanzania's first multi-party election in 1995.
• "Mkapa's presidency saw diplomatic ties forged in the region with the signing of the East African Community Treaty, criticisms for overspending by the government and the US embassy bombing in Dar es Salaam." - If I understand this correctly, here is a suggested alternative: "During Mkapa's presidency, Tanzania forged diplomatic ties in the region by signing the East African Community Treaty. However, the Mkapa government was criticized for overspending and for not preventing a bombing of the U.S. embassy in Dar es Salaam."
• The line of numbers in the box at the bottom of the lead is somewhat mysterious without the word "century" in at least one place.

18th century

• The 100,000 slaves claim needs a source. It might help to add where the slaves were from and where they were sent.

Images

• Interesting and informative images. Licenses look OK to me.
• All of your captions are sentence fragments, so the terminal periods should be deleted.

• The alt-text tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page shows that the images lack alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. I'm not sure whether you'll need alt text for FLC, but it would be a good idea to add it anyway. WP:ALT has details.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I will look through all your suggestions.--BelovedFreak 10:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

---

List of FC Barcelona presidents

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'll take it to the feature process as soon as the prose is decent. Sources should all be okay.

Thanks, Sandman888 (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

• Prose: if possible the entire text should be copyedited by an informed but uninvolved editor. Here are a few specific issues:-
  • It seems a bit obvious to state that "FC Barcelona is a football club based in Barcelona"
  • Linking "football club" is unnecessary
  • "The club played its first friendly match on December 8, 1899." I imagine the main point is that this was the club's firts match, not that it was its first friendly match. Therefore I suggest: "The club played its first match, a friendly, on December 8, 1899.
  • The word "initially" is inappropriate, because it refers to a situation that apparently lasted for 30 years. Perhaps: "For the first 30 years of its existence, Barcelona played against other local clubs..." etc
  • Suggest full stop after "Catalan tournaments", then: "In 1929 the club became on of the founding members..." etc. The sentence beginning "As of 2010..." is unrelated to this list and I suggest should be deleted.
  • Joan Gamper needs some brief introduction before the statement that he placed an advertisement. For example, you might mention that he was Swiss. He should also be linked at first, not second, mention.
  • It is wrong to say that eleven "players" attended the meeting as the club was at that stage unformed. I also question the need to record all these names in this particular list.
  • The wording "came under financial distress" is quaint. We would normally say something like "was losing money", or "was losing money heavily."
  • How was Gamper "25 years at the helm"? His terms as president were intermittent over a 25-year period. Was he "at the helm" even when he wasn't president?
  • The club's nickname "Barça" should be explained before introduction, and shouldn't be in italics
  • "...since then members of Barcelona has elected the club president." Not grammatical. Also, what does "members of Barcelona" mean? And how was the president appointed before 1978
  • "His presidency where to last..." → "His presidency was to last...."
  • "finishing at a shocking sixth place..." This is POV, unsuitable wording in a neutral encyclopedia article.

• The list itself looks generally OK. It should be made clear that this is the "official presidential history of FC Barcelona", not just "Barcelona". The Gamper image caption says he was the club's "first player", rather than one of the club's first players.

That's all I can offer for the moment. Try and get a full copyedit. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Addressed above. Thank you for the review! Where can I obtain a copyedit? Sandman888 (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave the lead a copy edit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks a bunch. Sandman888 (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    

---

Edward Elgar

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because having recently participated in a peer review of the first rate article on Gustav Mahler (now FA), I am spurred to get the article on Mahler's great contemporary Elgar up to something like the same level of excellence, and I have added a good deal of information and referencing to that end. In particular, I should like guidance on the structure of the article. I am reasonably happy with the biography section, but would especially welcome comment on the music section (right balance? enough technical detail?). Another point of concern is that other editors, notably User:P0mbal, have also worked independently on the article, and I am anxious not to intrude on their contributions – in particular the list of notable works towards the end. There are two large sections currently commented out (one because full of unreferenced original research and the other a full list of Elgar’s works, now superseded by a very good subsidiary article and a précis in this one) which I think should be removed, but will welcome guidance on the matter. Tim riley (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Some initial thoughts:-

I have read through the article. In general I found it highly informative, a very comprehensive composer biography which could easily become one of Wikipedia's best articles. I have not had the time yet to carry out a detailed review, but here are a few initial points for consideration:-

• There are a couple of dablinks. Check the toolbox on the top right of this page.
  • Done. The second one was very odd – took one round in circles to the top of the Elgar article.
• Ref 90 is a puzzle. It consists of two apparently unrelated links, without publisher or access date information. The first link goes to a selection of You-tube clips, nothing to do with Elgar. The second ("The Master of the King's Musick") is a dead link.
  • Fixed. I blush to say that this was there before I got involved and I neglected to check it. (I take it we are allowed to link to You Tube clips? I don't know anything to the contrary.)
• The Michael Kennedy Daily Telegraph piece in External links is also a dead link.
  • Ditto. Blitzed
• I note that you have not included alt text. Although at present alt text is not a FA requirement, I am sure that it will come back eventually, and I am making a point of including it in all my articles, if only to save a large backlog of work when the requirement is reinstated.
  • Very good point. Have fixed. (In passing, my work colleague who runs my employer's website, tells me that the expert guidance he gets from accessibility specialists is that alt-text should be as concise as possible: the WP standard, by contrast, seems quite discursive. I have attempted a via media.)
• As may be expected at this stage, the article's prose is a little unpolished in places, and could probably do with some light copyediting throughout. For example, early in the lead I noted "From a modest background, and, as a Roman Catholic in Protestant Britain, Elgar was seen, by himself and others, as an outsider." Apart from the rather tortured grammar and the over-punctuation (five commas!), I found myself thinking "Why would coming from a modest background make Elgar, and others, think he was an outsider?" Don't about 95% of people come from "modest backgrounds"? I would give some thought to how this sentence might be reworded.
  • Whatever infelicities I may have inherited here and there, I can't blame anyone else for this prose, which was entirely mine (you are familiar, I'm sure, with the lack of leads in many articles one takes a hand in). Have redrawn, and expanded. Truth to tell Elgar had a lifelong chip on his shoulder about the class thing (and to some extent about the academic thing too, which I have now added), but it is hard to phrase that in a decently encyclopaedic style. He was regarded in some circles (conspicuously his in-laws) as a counter-jumper, a parvenu, a social climber – a damning sin circa 1900, and he worried even in his glory years and his G.O.M. days that people still thought so. Even as an old man he would take it into his head to refuse invitations to dine in grand houses on the grounds that his hosts wouldn't want "a piano tuner's son" to disgrace their table.
• I think the Early life section is a little too long - well over 20% of the entire biographical part of the article. Adoption of a stricter summary style would enable this section to be reduced by perhaps a third without loss of significant detail.
  • Point taken and have trimmed, though Elgar didn't make it to the big time till he was 42, so the early life section is bound to be longer than that of most eminent people's. (I have fallen back on the ancient ploy, "Try to smuggle a few hundred over-the-limit words past your examiner by slipping them into footnotes.")
• I found a slight conflict between the statement that the success of the Enigma Variations established Elgar as the leading British composer of his generation, and the later assertion by Maine that only after Sullivan's death did Elgar reach this pinnacle.
  • I think the logic is that having been well-known since the 1870s Sullivan was (and is?) regarded as of a different generation from Elgar's, though he was in fact only 15 years the senior. The Enigma established Elgar as the leading British composer of his own generation, but after Sullivan's death he was seen as the leading (living) British composer full stop.
• I am not sure I fully understand what is meant here: "The enigma is that, although there are fourteen variations on the "original theme", the "enigma" theme, which Elgar said "runs through and over the whole set" is never heard." Young, in his Elgar biography, says that the "first noteworthy melodic shape in the Enigma theme is in the interval of the minor third", which suggests something that is definitely heard. Indeed, how can something that is never heard, run "through and over" the work?
  • Good point. Not my drafting, but I think I can in conscience redraw it a bit, and have done so. There is a distinction between the opening theme (labelled in Jaeger's handwriting "Enigma") and the wider enigma of the whole piece, the bigger theme, which Elgar never identified. (It is not even certain that Elgar meant 'theme' to mean a melody or some vaguer philosophical concept.) I have put this in a footnote, for fear of overweighting the body of the para.
• A small point but I think, in the caption and in the text, that Newman should be identified as "Cardinal".
  • I wondered about this, but as he wasn't a cardinal until fifteen years after he wrote the poem I thought it more accurate to omit the title. (If I wait a bit, it looks as though he'll be Saint J. H. Newman!) Happy to give him the title (the former, I mean) if you recommend it despite the time-lag.
• I have to raise the question of the list of notable works, "works of acknowledged popularity and significance as well as major works." I can see the value of this, bearing in mind the very large number of works making up Elgar's total output. The obvious question, however, is whether there are any objective criteria for these selections? Otherwise, the list could be criticised for POV interpretations of "acknowledged popularity and significance".
  • I share your view, but the editor who compiled the list, (and the excellent complete list that sits behind it in a subsidiary article) does not, I have found, respond to enquiries, suggestions etc. As that editor has contributed even more edits to the article than I have (albeit mostly in the listing part), I feel particularly inhibited about presuming to interfere. It may be that this peer review will open the general question to wider comment and a consensus on whether the list of notable works should stay or go, or possibly have its criteria explained and referenced. However, if this issue cannot be resolved and remains an obstacle to progressing the article to GA/FAC, I fear that that's the way the cookie crumbles, and conscience doth make cowards of us all – or me at any rate. Depending on what comments this PR throws up, I may attempt to reopen the matter.
    • As it stands, the article extends to 109 kb, well above the maximum size recommended for single WP articles. Without the (in my view) dubious selected list of works, this reduces to a more reasonable, though still hefty, 86 kb. If the desire is to draw attention to Elgar's better-known works, the way to do that is some sort of highlighting in the main list of works, not to create a selective list here. If you have made reasonable efforts to resolve this issue with the editor who compiled the list and he/she has not responded, I think you are entitled to use your own judgement. In any event it looks to me that your edit count will soon be the largest on the article, so I wouldn't let that aspect bother you too much. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I will add further, more detailed comments over the next few days, and maybe others will join in, too. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Lots of food for thought here - thank you very much. I'll go through carefully and return to the fray shortly. - Tim riley (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Now done. I look forward to any further comments you are minded to make, and to any thoughts on the foregoing. – Tim riley (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton again: Some detailed prose comments:-

• Lead
  • Could the first paragraph carry a liitle more zing? It seems very understated at present; a bald identifying statement followed by "He is known for..." I don't think this does Elgar justice. Could we add to the first sentence something like: "...many of whose works have achieved enduring popularity." And then "Among his best-known compositions are..." Just suggestions.
    • Good – done.
  • "He followed the variations..." Maybe this should be "the Variations..."
    • I dither over this. I incline to write "The First Symphony" but "the symphony", and the same applies to the Variations. I've changed to a capital V, but will review the whole article for consistency on this point when the review is concluded.
  • "repertory" and "repertoire" both appear in the lead. Best stick to one.
    • Done. Et passim.
  • "full-length" needs a hyphen
    • Done. (By some other kind contributor)
  • "Elgar was one of the first composers who recorded their works for the gramophone." Doesn't sound quite right. I would prefer "Elgar was one of the first composers to record their works for the gramophone."
    • I'm tempted to make this stronger. Robert Philip (a good critic, me judice) says in the article cited in the main text below, "Elgar was the first composer to take the gramophone seriously". What about recasting the para thus-ish:

Elgar has been described as "the first composer to take the gramophone seriously". In the early days of recording, he made a series of discs of his works between 1914 and 1925. After the microphone was invented, making realistic recording possible, he conducted recordings of most of his major orchestral works, and excerpts from The Dream of Gerontius. These recordings were reissued on LP record in the 1970s and on CD in the 1990s.

• Early years
  • "She also inspired him with a discerning taste for literature and a passionate love of the countryside." This sentence looks to need quotes, or at least a specific attribution.
    • The DNB cite was already there, but I have backed it up with one from Moore's Elgar: A Creative Life.
  • "Until he was fifteen, Elgar received a general education at Littleton House, near Worcester, but he had no formal musical training beyond piano and violin lessons from local teachers and, in 1877–78, more advanced violin studies with Adolf Pollitzer during brief visits to London." Another multi-fact sentence that is hard to absorb in a single bite. Suggestion: "Until he was fifteen, Elgar received a general education at Littleton House school, near Worcester. However, his only formal musical training beyond piano and violin lessons from local teachers was more advanced violin studies with Adolf Pollitzer, during brief visits to London in 1877-78."
    • Good. Done
  • "Around this time, he made his first public appearances as a violinist and organist." Needs a citation.
    • Done
  • In general, two "ands" in a sentence should be avoided. Thus the fourth paragraph could begin: "After a few months, Elgar left the solicitor to embark on a musical career, giving piano and violin lessons and working occasionally in his father's shop."
    • Better. Done
  • Fifth paragraph; this would read better if it opened with the last sentence: "Although somewhat solitary and introspective by nature, Elgar thrived in Worcester's musical circles.[2] He played in the violins at the Worcester and Birmingham Festivals..." etc
    • Done. What a difference another pair of eyes makes!

Will continue to offer suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to them! - Tim riley (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

More prose suggestions

• Marriage
  • "At twenty-nine, through his teaching, he met Caroline Alice Roberts,..." As this is the first sentence of the sec tion, "he" must be "Elgar". Rather than the vague "through his teaching" I would mention that Alice was one of his pupils.
    • Yes. Done.
  • "...a wide range of composers from Berlioz to Wagner." Er, I would not call that a wide range, except alphabetically...Perhaps the range could be better defined?
    • This was loose drafting on my part, conflating two different things: first that he did indeed hear a wide range of music for the first time; secondly that the masters of orchestration such as Berlioz and Wagner influenced him greatly. I have redrawn to make this clear.
  • "Some tantalising opportunities seemed to be within reach but vanished unexpectedly." For continuity, the next sentence should begin: "For example..."
    • Better. Done.
• Growing reputation
  • "...both inspired by Longfellow..." would be better as a parenthetical note
    • Agreed. Done.
  • Sentence needing attention: "Elgar himself was catching the eyes of the prominent critics, although their reviews were still lukewarm, and he was in demand as a festival composer, but he was just getting by financially and not feeling appreciated as he sought to be." Too many facts for a single sentence, some unnecessary verbiage, and awkwardness towards the end. How about: "Elgar was catching the attention of prominent critics, but their reviews were lukewarm. Although he was in demand as a festival composer, he was only just getting by financially, and felt unappreciated."
    • This is one of many sentences I have inherited from previous contributors and have let pass. Emboldened by your views I have amended it as suggested.
• National and international fame
  • How, briefly, was Elgar's Catholicism expressed in Gerontius?
    • My woolly drafting this time, now amended. There is nothing in the music itself at which even the most evangelical Dean could take offence: it was Newman's poem that had them shaking their cassocks at Gerontius. The soul of Gerontius ends the piece (in Elgar's much pruned selection from Newman's original) staggering away from the Judgment Seat to spend vast amounts of time in Purgatory. No wonder the Dean of Gloucester boggled.
  • Just a thought: "Expurgations" is a very odd word to choose, unless it is quoted from somewhere.
    • "Expurgations" is indeed a quote from the Gramophone article cited, and I think it is the mot juste – some phrases in the poem judged to be intolerably papistical were censored and replaced with more anodyne words.
  • "Elgar is probably best known for the first of the five Pomp and Circumstance Marches, composed between 1901 and 1930." There is ambiguity here; the last phrase could be read as applying to the first of the marches, or to all five. Difficult to get round, but possibly: "Elgar is probably best known for the first of the Pomp and Circumstance Marches, five of which he composed between 1901 and 1930."
    • Good point. I have had a shot at a shorter version than you suggest, which, I think, removes the ambiguity, inserting "which were" before "composed between…" I think the plural makes the point. Do you agree?
  • "Elgar was knighted at Buckingham Palace..."etc. This is another "two ands" sentence. The last part needs rephrasing: "...where they lived until 1911."
    • Done.
  • "Between 1902 and 1914 he was,..." - needs to be "Elgar was..."
    • Done.
  • I would query the need for such an extensive verbatim quote as that beginning "Vulgarity..."
    • I'll prune this if you insist after you have nobly ploughed through the rest of the article ("he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved" – Mark 13:13). I say this because the bit about vulgarity comes up again later, and I think the pre-echo here is helpful.

More to come Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am conscious of, not to say conscience-stricken by, the sheer amount of help you have already given me in this article, and am so grateful for the time you are devoting to it. - Tim riley (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A few more points

• Last major works
  • The mention of Elgar's OM is a bit casual. Bearing in mind the exclusivity of the Order, it might be worth a few words to explain the significance of this honour
    • Yes indeed. Percy Young's Elgar book is titled simply Elgar, O.M. – which says much. Have edited.
  • "...three choral settings of a character "far removed from the romantic patriotism of his earlier years". Who was this character? And can a "character" be set to music? A character can certainly be represented musically, but "choral settings of a character"?
    • Hmm. Have changed to "of a nature".
  • Cello concerto: do we know who the premiere soloist was?
    • We do. It was Felix Salmond. Elgar though highly of him, and didn't blame him for the debacle. (If memory serves he was a Columbia artist so could not record the concerto with Elgar, but would otherwise have been invited to do so.) Have added details.

• Last years
  • portamento should definitely be linked, but even then I'm not sure that the sentence will be clearly undertood. I wonder if this degree of technicality is really necessary, in a biographical article?
    • I wondered, too, as I was writing it. I was trying to make the passing point that there isn't any one "authentic" sound for Elgar, but perhaps it is too much here. Have blitzed.
  • Link "LP" and "compact disc"?
    • Yes. I thought I had. Anno Domini!
  • Is it worth mentioning that one of the children of the Duke of York was the present queen?
    • Done. It wouldn't fit easily into the text and I have added it as a footnote.
  • "Young" conductors: Boult ws well into his forties - does that qualify as "young"?
    • It does from my perspective, but point taken. Shall make it "younger musicians". Boult always treated Elgar as a revered senior figure: Elgar called him "Adrian"; he called Elgar, "Sir Edward".
  • Give date of Elgar's death, rather than "in 1934". (23 February - Handel's birthday, in fact)
    • Done.
• Influences, antecedents and early works
  • "He regarded Henry Purcell as "our greatest" composer, and learned much of his own technique from studying Hubert Parry's writings" What is the connection between these two statements, that justifies the "and"?
    • Just that they were both English and admired by Elgar. Have expanded.
  • "Grove's Dictionary finds many embryonic Elgarian touches..." etc. Shouldn't this be attributed to the writer, rather than the dictionary? There are other, later attributions to "Grove".
    • At the first mention in the text of McVeagh's Grove article I mentioned her name, but have now repeated it in later mentions as you suggest.
• Peak creative years
  • Enigma Variations previously italicised
    • Done.
  • "...his comprehensive mastery of orchestration was still in contrast to his tendency to write in short phrases with an over-reliance on rigid musical sequences." Not clear what is meant here; will the general reader understand?
    • I have had problems getting this and other technical matters across without resort to technical terms. Have redrawn. In fact EE never got out of the habit of writing in short phrases, but such was his skill that in his mature works a string of short phrases sewn together sounds to the listener's ear like one long-breathed melody – though see Daniel Gregory Mason's comments on the Violin Concerto when you come to them.
  • "Gustav Mahler's Seventh Symphony, composed at the same time, runs for about a hundred minutes." That would be unbelievably slow for the Seventh. The first performance, in 1907, was timed at 76 minutes, and its Prague premiere at 74 minutes. I have three recordings, at 77, 79 and 82 minutes respectively, the last (Tennstedt's) being noticeably leisurely. 100 minutes is simply not credible; I suggest you paraphrase, avoiding the specific "100 minutes", if possible.
    • Much obliged for this: it's my incompetent mental arithmetic rather than any eccentricity of tempo on Gielen's part. (I remember a Klemperer recording of the Seventh coming out when I was a lad - I wonder how long that took!) Now amended as suggested. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll do my best to finish commenting over the weekend. It is a pleasure to work on articles of real interest; I'm just sorry that my time is somewhat divided at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, warm thanks. There's no rush with this, so please don't let it distract you from other avocations. - Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Last words (not literally I hope)

• Peak creative years
  • Sentences such as "Elgar's Violin Concerto and Cello Concerto "rank not only among his finest works, but among the greatest of their kind" ought to be attributed, as well as cited.
    • Done
  • Personally, I wouldn't award Tovey his knighthood here - it's not particularly relevant.
    • Am not sure about this, but have de-knighted him.
  • We have two references to Elgar's "middle period", without any time boundaries to help define when this was. Does this cover the whole of the "peak creative years" suggested by the section title?
    • It does - clarified in text
• Final years
  • We need an attribution for "thrilling ... unforgettably gaunt"
    • Redrawn accordingly.
• Reputation
  • I wonder who the "unimpressed" English critic was. Newman? Scholes? It would be interesting to know.
    • It was the anonymous critic of The Observer - the only dissenting voice I have found in the 1908 press coverage of the premiere of the First Symphony.
  • I think this otherwise excellent section suffers from too many long/longish quotes which should be paraphrased. I would draw attention particularly to the the Howes quotation, at least 120 words, coming immediately after a long Record Guide blockquote. This is too much of a concentration of verbatim extracts.
    • First part of Howes quote paraphrased. Second part trimmed.
• Honours, awards etc
  • Not sure about the relevance of Adam Smith (banknotes)
  • Nor I: blitzed.
  • "named after him" repeated in close proximity
    • Rewritten
  • I have never seen the Ken Russell Elgar film. In the Mahler article I deliberately avoided mentioning Russell's Mahler film because of its OTT trivialising. Perhaps he did Elgar better service (he did a Delius film in the late 1960s which I have seen, and was excellent).
    • IMO the 1962 Elgar film and the Delius were equally fine, and made their subjects a good many friends, I believe. Worth mentioning this one in the present context. (Nothing like the self-indulgent Strauss or Mahler films.)

That is really all. A very thorough job which I look forward to seeing at FAC. FYO my next composer biography is likely to be Pietro Mascagni, but this won't be until the autumn as I have several projects to complete before then. Good luck with this one! Brianboulton (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am greatly in your debt for this comprehensive review, and will be at your service to reciprocate when Mascagni comes up to the starting gate. Somehow I suspect I shall have less to offer you on Mascagni than you have given me on Elgar: I am enormously grateful for the time you have spent on this, and for your sound advice. Zu FAC! - Tim riley (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnabypage comments: Some general points on content...

• The popular (mis-?)identification of Elgar as a "quintessentially English" composer probably deserves a mention in or close to the lead.
  • Yes – have added. It improves the structure, too.
• What is it that enables us to instantly identify a short passage of music as "Elgarian"? I don't have the technical language to describe it but surely this very distinctive idiom is something that sets Elgar apart from many other composers. It would be great if we could find an appropriate, and widely intelligible, description of this from a critic or biographer.
  • I wrestled mightily with this for weeks, on and off, and have put what I hope is of general use in the music section. The problem is that with Elgar, more than most composers, what makes him instantly recognisable is almost wholly his orchestration (rather than, e.g. his harmony, counterpoint, melody, rhythm etc – which, though all part of his greatness, are not what make him instantly recognisable) and describing this without getting technical is beyond me. String-based, judicious and varied doubling, not letting any one instrument dominate, bringing instruments in on the off-beat for colour – tons more one could add (in rather more precise language than that) and cite, but is this suitable for a WP article?
• On the Protestant/RC thing, it might be worth clarifying that this was not just about being a Catholic in a largely Protestant land - it was also the case that in Elgar's early years at least, so much of the English musical establishment was built around the Anglican cathedrals.
  • True, but I am stuck for a suitable place to add this. Any suggestion will be gratefully received.
• Several paragraphs are very long and could benefit from being split.
• There is a smattering of grammatical errors mostly caused by misused or absent commas (I'm happy to give the page a copy-edit when you've finished working on the content).
  • On both the above I should be most grateful if you would undertake a copy edit. One can never spot one's own blunders – we tend to see what we think we've written.

And some specific points on various bits of the article...

• In Early Years, clarify that Elgar is (presumably) referring specifically to Worcester Cathedral.
  • Done.
• "For fulfilment he turned not only to music but to literature" - literature in what sense? Reading? Writing?
  • Reading – have amended.
• First paragraph of the Marriage section - it's not clear whether the references to Alice acting as business manager and to Elgar's honours apply to the period immediately following their marriage or to a later time.
  • From then till her death. She was a remarkable woman. Have added
• When did they leave London?
  • 1891. Have added.
• "The Dean of Worcester insisted on expurgations in 1902" - presumably this means he allowed the work to be performed in Worcester Cathedral on condition of expurgations? As it stands it could imply to the reader that the Dean had some sort of general power over published music.
  • Indeed. Have redrawn.
• The architect is Richard Norman Shaw.
  • True, but always known as Norman Shaw (e.g. the old Scotland Yard building is known as the Norman Shaw Buildings.) The Times obit (19 Nov 1912 p. 11) is headed "Mr. Norman Shaw, R.A.")
    • Interesting, I always think of him as Richard! Barnabypage (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• He is "devastated by the loss of his wife" but a sentence or two later he is spending his time at football matches and horse races - I'm sure both statements are correct but they jar a bit; maybe the passage would benefit from some kind of formulation like "However, he soon threw himself into his hobbies".
  • There was a strong causal link – Elgar had always been prone to get diverted by inessentials, and without Alice to keep him on the straight and narrow this tendency became more marked. His sister wrote "W. H. E. [i.e Elgar's father] always found it impossible to settle down to work on hand but could cheerfully spend hours over some perfectly unnecessary and entirely unremunerative undertaking (a trait that was very noticeable in E[dward] especially in later life . . .)" Moore, Edward Elgar: A Creative Life, p. 17. I have tried to indicate this, but do please reword if you can improve it.
• The Abbey Road Studios pic also jars for me - it would be great if we could find a picture of the building when it opened rather than today.
  • I should dearly love to use the famous photo of Elgar and Menuhin on the steps of Abbey Road studios, but it is in copyright and there's no reasonable case for claiming fair use.
• What became of Carice?
  • She married a man called Samuel Blake in 1922, and as Carice Elgar-Blake was keeper of the flame between Elgar's death and her own in 1970. She set up the Elgar Birthplace Museum at Broadheath in 1936, and bequeathed all her Elgar papers and scores to the trustees of the museum. Worth a mention in the legacy section, do you think?
    • Definitely. Barnabypage (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Honours and awards are rather tedious IMHO - I would pretty much confine them to their own section and only give the briefest of mentions to knighthood in the narrative parts of the article.
  • I so agree! A previous editor was, it seems, positively devoted to such matters. I had trimmed these a bit in the text, and will, as you suggest, remove all but the knighthood (and, I think the OM) from the narrative. The bit about his shameless lobbying for a peerage is worth keeping, I think.
    • Certainly, because it says something about the man's character. Barnabypage (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Should probably mention the rather silly Ken Russell film. Barnabypage (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I have put this in the Legacy section. (I was just a lad when the film came out, but was much struck by it.) I think it made new friends for Elgar at a time when he needed all the friends he could get. It may have contributed a bit to the Elgar revival of the late 1960s onwards.

This is excellent stuff - thank you. Shall go through point by point and deal and respond shortly. - Tim riley (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Now done. Greatly obliged for your points, and for any further comments, copy-edits etc. Tim riley (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

List of National Lacrosse Hall of Fame members

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to Featured List and want to know what work it still needs.

Thanks, Yarnalgo _talk to me 19:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• The Members of the National Lacrosse Hall of Fame, - The comma is not needed.
• scale of 1-15 - I would prefer "1 to 15" for clarity.
• The 8-step process needs periods since you are using complete sentences. Actually, this would apply to all your bulleted lists.
• be the pool of individuals the Nomination Committees to chose from for induction - Grammar issue here.
• save for a special situation - What situation?
• chose five individuals - Choose? Same in step 8.
• Looks like the text under A truly great Contributor is getting an unneeded line break.
• What was the criteria used to decide whether an inductee received a wikilink or not? Same for the School/Affiliation.
• Lead is a little short. Maybe add why there were no inductions in 1995 (there was a reason, right?).
• I don't think the row Many with less than is needed; matter of fact, its a little confusing. Just specify somewhere that only schools with six or more are listed.
• The three "only"s after "A truly great Player/Coach/Official" are lowercase but the "An" after "A truly great Contributor" is capitalized. Needs to be standardized, and I suggest capitalized.

Hope this helps.»NMajdan·talk 21:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed most of your suggestions. For the wikilinking in the table, inductees are only linked if an article exists for them — I could link them but that would be a lot of red — and schools/affiliations are now all linked.--Yarnalgo _talk to me 02:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think the lead is a little short and too broken out. You have four very short paragraphs. Can you combine some of them? Also, can you explain why 1995 didn't have any inductees? You could also mention the four induction categories in the lead. Regarding the wikilinks, the consensus that has formed at WP:FL is if a person meets the notability criteria, then they should be linked, regardless of whether an article exists or not. If they person does not meet the requirements, then they should remain unlinked. One more item, you're using a different date format in your last reference. Change it to match the others.»NMajdan·talk 15:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well then per WP:ANYBIO they are all notable because they have "received a well-known and significant award or honor". I will work on linking them all shortly. I'll also work on expanding the lead but there really isn't that much more to say. I can't find anything at all about 1995 so I'm not sure what to do about that. --Yarnalgo _talk to me 03:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've tried to beef up the intro as much as possible and have completed linking all of the inductees. --Yarnalgo _talk to me 02:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

---

MacBook

Previous peer review

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

Thanks, Horserice (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing at a time? I'll review it in a few hours. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a solid article. My biggest question is, why are the sections of models backwards? I think chronological order overrides recentism. Many of the data points are stated both in prose (sometimes twice) and tables. Some of the subsection headers could be removed. Make sure to indicate that the battery life is as claimed by Apple, and if you can find other sources, indicate both Apple's move towards internal, non-removable batteries, and the criticism this has garnered, including third-party battery tests (try macworld.com). Other than that, finding reliable sources for tech specs is a challenge we're trying to work out, without much success, at the Macintosh FAR. To gain featured status would be extremely difficult given the topic; it would have to look something like PowerBook 100. Good status, though, is entirely doable. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I have no idea why the sections are backwards. I'll try to find some more references for the battery life. For the specs, aren't the links to Apple's site enough? And since you brought up the PowerBook 100 article, would it be better to group the criticism for all the models into one section that encompasses the entire article or just let it be? Horserice (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There was some discussion about using Apple as a reference here, which might explain what HtH is trying to say. I'll help where I can here, too. Airplaneman ✈ 22:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by —fetch·comms

• "Polycarbonate unibody model" is unsourced.
• "Aluminum unibody model" could use some more sources (under that subsection design and the very first paragraph of the first subsection)
• Third paragraph under "Quality problems" is unsourced. Also, find more prose for that--it's really sparse.
• "iBook G3 (Clamshell)." link under first design subsection could use a piped link
• lede could be expanded a bit

—fetch·comms 06:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Airplaneman ✈

I'll add to this over the coming days and weeks:

• Ideally, there should be a reception section for each model.
  • Also, once that's done, how about adding some mention of reception in the lead?
• Talk:MacBook Pro/GA3 raises many of the issues in need of attention here, including Apple Inc. vs third party references.
• I think a bit more prose/model detail overall would be nice - this could be accomplished through reception sections, etc.

Reply by Horserice

Sorry for the late reply, been busy for the last couple days. I've added a reception section for the unibody model and more battery references. I'll try and add more prose and references soon. Also, I think there definitely needs to be a picture of the unibody model in the article. All the current pictures are of outdated models. Horserice (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• Paragraphs by definition have at least three sentences; there are lots of one or two-sentence groupings throughout the article. These should be merged together, cut entirely, or expanded into true paragraphs.
• I'm concerned about the use of certain sources... I would think it would be best to use sources like MacWorld and PC/Mac magazines over things like MacRumors, Faqintosh, etc. Some sources are simply unreliable (www.macbookrandomshutdown.com) and should be cut. If you can't find mention from a reliable source, it shouldn't be in the article.
• Why is there no reception information for the original MacBook? Why is the best-selling sales information only in the lead and never discussed in the article? (Sales could be a section on its own.)
• In terms of layout, it would make more sense as a unified article to discuss each revision, then reception, and put technical specs at the end of the article (as the major points should be hit in the body anyhow.) Right now it feels more like a glorified list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  

---

RuneScape

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
About this time last year, the article was submitted for peer review and then nominated as a good article, which failed dismally. Since then, myself and User:Unionhawk have tried to improve the article for a future Good Article nomination. Since Unionhawk is now semi-retired and I have no major experience in article-building, I need another external review.

(A request to have the article copy-edited was submitted in September 2009. I'm not sure if that came to anything, though.)

Thanks, 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm just kinda busy, is all. I just got bored with Wikipedia for a while, so, I kinda took a break. I don't know... I'm pretty much back now. But I think a peer review would probably be helpful nonetheless.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 23:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." It is accessible at any time via the toolbox as "automated tips". Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see that. My bad.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Replies by 1ForTheMoney Despite my dislike for semi-automated review, I shall respond to some the unstruck points.

• Subpages have never taken off in the past because they never managed to demonstrate notability outside of RuneScape. However, as the number of secondary sources increases, as well as the article's already large size, we may have to review that option.
• I saw no problems with footnote numbers and punctuation. That point has been struck.
• Terms of size are often used because there's no way to know the exact number of something. I'm not saying they're a good thing, but they may have valid uses
• There is one {{fact}} in the article, but that's proving difficult to source, since Jagex would rather deny recognition, and reliable sources never seem to pick up on it). If we simply remove the unsourced point, it won't really be player reception any more. At worst, that section may have to be recombined with the "Reception" section.
• The point about copyediting is valid, but one I have already noted - see the opening statement. I hope to expose the more obvious flaws in this peer review. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, summary style is out, and the {{fact}} and copyediting issues have been established already. I'm going to go ahead and collapse that.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I see the bot archived this without much input, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I think this needs better references - there is one citation needed tag, and more importantly I think the article needs more independent third-party sources used as refs - as it currently stands, most of the refs come directly from Jagex or its publications.
• The article has five WP:FAIR USE images - does this meet WP:NFCC?
• I would print the article out and read through it out loud slowly - the article contradicts itself in places, for example History and development ends with RUnescape's launch in India, then the Servers section and map clearly indicate it is available in India, then in the Other languages section there is the quote And where's India in all this? I think RuneScape is a game that would be adopted in the English-speaking Indian world and the local-speaking Indian world. We're looking at all those markets individually".[40] SInce we have already been told in the preceding two sections that is already in India, this quote from 2008 at least needs to be put into context (2008 quote)
• The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow reading it. To make it less choppy, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• The MOS says that abbreviations should be spelled out on first use, so "Non-player character (NPC)" and other examples - this is also a bit of a WP:JARGON issue
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the Reception sections do not seem to be in the lead, for example
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - but at least FunOrb is only in the lead

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Replies to comments by 1ForTheMoney I'm aware this has been archived, but it seems prudent to respond to comments. Note that the Guild of Copy-Editors recently worked on this article, and I intend to link back to this at Talk:RuneScape for more visibility.

• The reference issue is valid. In some places, there are references pointing to different sections of the same page - apart from bloating the number of references, it makes the issue bigger than it should be. Would it be sensible to combined such references into one?
• Fair-use images are also an issue and one that must be addressed. I've gone through them all but can't find a really good argument to get rid of any of them. This merits further discussion.
• I included the date of Iddison's interview for added context.
• Choppy sentences were a stumbling block at the GA nomination last year. The article was recently copyedited, but I haven't looked that over yet.
• I shall have to look at abbreviations again. Some, such as MUD, may need expanding even though they are linked - a user shouldn't have to go clicking around.
• Reception probably merits inclusion in the lead, but as reviews lose their significance over time we should pick the more recent secondary sources (they need not come from the Reception section.)
• We should look into the idea of creating an "In other media" section. My only concern is that it might be a bit short. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Quick comment - I undid the archiving - the bot will archive it again after it gets to 30 days old and has had no edits in 2 days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I was ticked off by the lack of uninvolved comment. Noted as such on Talk:RuneScape. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I was a little disappointed when the bot archived it too... Sometimes, human judgment beats automation... But, on the bright side, we got an experienced copyeditor to do a full copyedit.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 12:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• The lead really should have some critical reception mentioned (which is the main thing lacking in the article.) Also, the gameplay seems a tad too detailed. I'll try and post expanded comments later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Wolf 359

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a relatively small article about a red dwarf that is one of the nearest stars to the Solar System. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to determine what needs to be done to bring it up to a Class A article.

Thank you, RJH (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-

• Comprehensiveness: Are you sure that the article is comprehensive, that is to say, fully covers the topic, with all significant information included? I don't have specific knowledge, but I note that the article runs to around 800 words, which seems somewhat brief.
  • A big part of the problem there is that the star is very faint so the amount of information available is somewhat limited. Even the composition of the star is not well known. But I can add in some more details about flare studies.
• Structure: The structure of the article is a lead followed by a single section headed "Properties". This does not make for the most attractive presentation, particularly since the section is packed with a forbidding amount of technical detail. It seems to me, even with my limited knowledge, that some subdivision could be made on the basis of different types of "properties".
• Style: In all honesty, off-putting. That's a shame, because general readers like articles about stars, but in this case would probably be deterred by the tone which is suggestive of a specialist publication rather than a general encyclopedia. Is it possible to cover the ground in a more "friendly" fashion, to cater for a wider readership?
• Prose: I have checked out the lead prose, and have the following suggestions.
  • Second paragraph: paragraphs should not begin with a pronoun. A possible rewording: "One of the faintest and lowest mass stars known, Wolf359 is a flare star..." Then begin the next sentence "Its surface magnetic tension..." and drop the last hree words.
  • "low enough that absorption lines of compounds such as water and titanium(II) oxide have been observed." Not grammatical. I suggest revise to "low enough for absorption lines of compounds such as water and titanium(II) oxide to have been observed."
  • Last two sentences: again, grammar problems, and "This" is a weak sentence beginning. I suggest redraft thus: "Wolf359 is a relatively young star, with an age of less then a billion years. No companions or debris have been detected in orbit around it."

The rest of the prose is beyond me, but as I said earlier, some rewriting is advised to make it more approachable. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to address your concerns. Hopefully it reads somewhat better now.—RJH (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments from mav

You should ask WikiProject Astronomy to do an A-class review, since they will be better able to judge comprehensiveness. I recall reading that young red dwarfs tend to be flare stars. Is there a RS theorizing on when or if Wolf 359 will settle down? Any info on the star's metallicity or number of Jupiter radii wide it is? Other than that, a nice little article. --mav (reviews needed) 23:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately WPAstronomy has been relatively inactive of late. The two metallicities I could locate are contradictory, but I'll see if I can dig up more. I didn't see an predictions specific to Wolf 359 with regards to its future activity trend; just the more general one for red dwarfs. I'll add something about the star size in Jupiter radii. Thanks again.—RJH (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Barbara Kingsolver

This peer review discussion has been closed.
 

I've listed this article for peer review because it's the first biography I've worked on. It was quick-failed for GA (Changes per recommendations made) and has been greatly improved from it's start-class beginnings a few weeks ago. A thorough peer review would be much appreciated, as I'd like to take another stab at GA soon. I've never written a biography article before, so any and all help would be appreciated.

Thank you! Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 22:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Barbara Kingsolver/archive1.

---

Ginger (mummy)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was updated as part of the uk:Chapter:Backstage Pass workshop with the British Museum. The article was reviewed at the time with Liam McNamara, a curator in the BM Egyptology dept and has been further sourced and formatted since that discussion.

A draft check-list is available for BM related articles at Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/BM#Informal_review_checklist that should be used to support peer review (as this review is a bit of a test for how other BM-related articles could be reviewed).

Thanks, Fæ (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I just peer reviewed Wikipedia:Peer review/Water Newton Treasure/archive1 and many of the same comments will apply here. As noted at the other PR, this is a good start, but a lot more work is need before it can be considered for something like Good Article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The article needs an improved lead section that is an actaul summary of the article - see WP:LEAD - and more article sections. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• As it currently reads, the lead is about the mummy itself, while the Exhibition history section is decent. I would make the current lead into a section on Discovery or something similar.
• Article has better references than the other article I reviewed, but I would still add a ref for The body, which was nicknamed "Ginger" because of its red hair, was excavated from a shallow sand grave in the Egyptian desert at the end of the nineteenth century, and found to be exceptionally well-preserved.
• Make sure refs are complete - for example the Hi Mummy I'm home article lists the author and so should the ref. {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The article could be expanded - who discovered the mummy (looks like Wallis Budge, but say so more clearly). When did Ginger get put back on display after bing removed in 1987? WHat kind of work was done in the 1987 restoration? What is known about the culture that produced Ginger? What objects and other mummies were found with him? Do we know what kjind of person he was in life? That sort of thing.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there is a WP:FA on an archological find that may be a good model is Vasa (ship)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• {{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• File:Ginger (mummy) 1920.png: You could really crop this down to the actual photographic plate. This means that more detail is viewable at a smaller resolution; plate info, numbers can be put in the description template.
• Ruhr is right on the money with most comments, but really the lead should be rewritten after any more content is added. Google Books suggests some places for starters (if you sort through the Jim Crow books), but I think going to a good library and using their resources will be the best bet to find good scholarly sources.
• Hyphens in the article should be replaced by em-dashes (see WP:DASH). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Elizabeth II

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we want to get it up to standard to get it featured.

Thanks, Hadseys 20:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• First paragraph is cluttered. Is the first thing a reader wants to know is the membership of the Commonwealth? Or this 'separately and equally' stuff?
• 'It was widely assumed that the Prince of Wales would marry and have children of his own' - why? was he very young?
• 'Heiress presumptive' omits her early education. (Did she go to grammar school? Was she tutored exclusively? Was she studying with Marten because she was enrolled in Eton?)
• In general, ages should be mentioned more often. Was her father being sensible in not taking a 3 year old to Canada, or being perhaps overprotective of a robust 13 year old (or whatever her actual age was)?
• Why did she marry Philip? It's presented as a fait accompli - one moment we're celebrating the end of WWII and the next discussing the paperwork Philip had to do. (Re-reading, I see that Philip was mentioned way back in 'Heiress presumptive'. Maybe some more on Philip could be weaved in appropriately so the reader doesn't wonder who the heck this Philip guy is.)
• Elizabeth's use of technology (email) is interesting. Is there any story behind that - a lifelong interest in science & tech, or something?
• More on the corgis might be interesting. At least, besides problems with Princess Diana, that's one of the few things I knew about her. --Gwern (contribs) 20:06 30 May 2010 (GMT)

Belovedfreak comments

Lead

• I know Gwern mentioned the 1st paragraph being cluttered. I would say that in particular, it's very cluttered with blue links. Are all of them necessary or is there some overlinking? Country names often don't need to be linked, but you could argue that some of those countries will be unfamiliar to readers, so that may require some thought.
• Per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to summarise the whole article, not just act as an introduction. At the moment, it's not doing that.

Early life

• "Elizabeth was the first child of Prince Albert, Duke of York (later King George VI), and his wife, Elizabeth." It would be nice to mention Elizabeth (her mother)'s maiden name here, since she was from a notable family.
• "She had a close relationship with her grandfather, George V, and was credited with aiding in his recovery from illness..." - a little bit more detail would be good here as I'm immediately left wondering how she helped him to recover.

Heiress presumptive

• "there was no reason to believe then that she would ever become queen" - perhaps could be there was no reason to believe then that she was likely to become queen or something, as it stands it seems like it was a near impossibility that she would be queen. Obviously it was a possibility that Edward could have died childless, even if he hadn't abdicated.
• "Elizabeth was homeschooled by her parents.." I see this has been inserted in response to the comment above, perhaps it could be dealt with in one section though? It's also mentioned in the section above. Also, "homeschooled" sounds very modern and, to be honest, American.
• "Elizabeth – though only 13 years old – fell in love with Philip," - per MOS:EMDASH, don't space em dashes
• The paragraphs are a bit short towards the end of this section. Try either expanding or combining them.

Second World War

• "The suggestion that the two princesses be evacuated ..." - it would be interested to know who suggested this
• It would be good to have a little background about the Welsh nationalism issue. Obviously, this article needs to be kept focused, so you don't want to go into too much detail, but statements like "the idea was rejected by Morrison, on the grounds that it might cause conflict between north and south Wales" are lost on the uninformed, and I (sadly) doubt many readers will be clicking through to that article.
• "The idea was rejected by the King, who refused to subject his young daughter to the pressures of official tours and because two leading members of Urdd Gobaith Cymru were conscientious objectors." - this doesn't seem quite right, grammatically
• Is there a relevant article for "Ovate"? Or could you explain it?

Marriage

• "Elizabeth's aunt, Princess Mary, Princess Royal, allegedly refused to attend ..." - allegedly? According to whom? It's better to say who said what rather than leave "allegedly" dangling there
• "her brother, the Duke of Windsor (who abdicated in 1936), was not invited due to his marital situation;" - this isn't mentioned earlier on, it just states that he abdicated, so could you specify here what his "marital situation" is?
• Could you specify where Windlesham Moor & [{Clarence House]] are?

Succession

• "asked her what she intended to be called as monarch" - I see the point of this but it's quite an awkward wikilink. I don't know if you can think of a better alternative
• "Despite the death of the Queen's grandmother Queen Mary on 24 March 1953, the Queen's coronation went ahead..." - awkward repetition of "queen" there. Perhaps Despite the death of the Elizabeth's grandmother Queen Mary on 24 March 1953, the coronation went ahead? (I presume you don't need to specify that it's her coronation)
• With the mention of the amount of people watching the coronation, I wonder if you could find anything in a reliable source about people buying televisions for the occasion? I know (anecdotally) that many households bought their first ever TVs to watch the coronation, and on some streets people all gathered in the one home that had a TV to watch the coronation. I don't know if there's anything about that, might be interesting.

Continuing evolution of the Commonwealth

• "Two years later, on behalf of Canada, she revisited North America." - it might just be me, but I don't really understand that sentence. Does it mean she visited Canada?
• "Elizabeth's pregnancies with Princes Andrew and Edward, in 1959 and 1963, marked the only times she did not perform the State Opening of the British Parliament during her reign" - this could do with a citation
• "Australian republicanism" can be linked to Republicanism in Australia. Perhaps there could be a little expansion here?

1980s

• Don't think "Bermese" needs quotation marks
• "During Margaret Thatcher's tenure ... it was rumoured that Elizabeth was worried ... and was reportedly alarmed...the Queen was even said ...It was claimed that ..." - bit vague here. Where was it rumoured? Who reported?

1990s

• "The year saw her daughter divorced, one son separated and another whose marriage was rocky" - this could perhaps go into a bit more detail, without getting gossipy, of course, but I notice that Sarah Ferguson isn't even mentioned here. It was quite a big deal at the time with them all getting divorced. It's kind of part of the difficult relationship between the royal family & the press
• "In their grief, Diana's two sons wanted to attend church, and so their grandparents took them that morning" - is this really necessary? Doesn't seem anything particularly unusual or notable
• "Pressured by her family, friends, the new British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and public reaction, the Queen agreed..." - I'm not familiar with Brandreth's biography, but has any of this come from her own admission? Or is it his perception of the situation. Do we know 100% that is was specifically because of pressure from these four areas that she eventually spoke?
• "The public mood was transformed by the broadcast from hostility to respect." - it might be worth looking for other sources to either back this up even more or give a different spin. I'm not sure it gives the whole story, as plenty of people were still hostile. that's purely from my own memory though, there may be nothing in WP:RS to say that.

Golden Jubilee and beyond

• "In May 2007, the Queen was reported to be "exasperated and frustrated"...Elizabeth was rumoured" - again, a little vague
• "their marriage is the longest of any British monarch." - could do with a citation

References

• Some sources (eg. newspapers) could do with publishers

Overall, it's looking pretty good. I'm not sure how comprehensive it is, but it looks good to me. The prose looks fine for GA, but would definitely recommend a thorough copyedit to polish it prior to an FAC. Are there any available sound recordings of her? That would be a nice addition to the article. Hope these suggestions help.--BelovedFreak 19:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Iron

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have improved it and I wonder if it can be moved to a Class-B article. If not, please say what additional improvements can be made.

Thanks, Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Iron/archive1.

---

The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Just finished a hardcopy revision and am itching to get this to FA at last. This article just needs some fresh eyes to copyedit it. It's rather long, but also rather polished after three years of nominations and revision, so it shouldn't be too bad. My only future plan is to add a public domain image of one of the writers pending his permission. I will copyedit any one article for each of the first FIVE volunteers to review this one. And I'll really give the old college try, too. I realize this is asking for a lot of work, but I've got a lot of free time and have to absolutely assure Real Adventures is FA-quality while I've got the time to go through the nomination process. So give it a look, and I'll give your article a serious look, too! ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 05:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• I think off the bat the article assumes a little too much familiarity with the series. Ex: "...revival of the 1960s Jonny Quest franchise, it featured Jonny and Hadji as teenage protagonists and a new character, Race Bannon's daughter, Jessie.[1] The creators staged the show around Dr. Quest's investigations of strange phenomena, legends, and mysteries in exotic locales." Who is Race Bannon? Who is Dr. Quest? I think a sentence starting off describing the basic premise of the show before the characters might help.
• "One team finished the previous team's work, and the other wrote new episodes with reworked character designs akin to classic Quest's. Each team produced half of fifty-two episodes.[6] The first team crafted stories of real-world mystery and exploration; later writers used science fiction and paranormal plots.[6]" Way too many instances of "team" here, and it's also a bit confusing because the first creative team is fired, new producers are brought in, and then we're suddenly back to discussing teams.
• While you might be able to write a more compelling rationale for the first cast image, I don't see much need for File:Trajq-withoutatrace.png.
• Some content in the lead is not found in the article (VHS and laserdisc releases, for example.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; good calls. I'll implement these tomorrow and try to improve clarity. Do you think I could get away with one picture merged from the original two for the character section? I've seen some other FICT articles do that, but I know nothing about whether it's accepted, etc. If there's any article I can help out with for you (even as a favor to someone else), I'd be more than willing. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 08:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got nothing right now that needs attention, but I'm sure I'll call in that marker at some point :P As to the image, if you merged them together, it's still two pieces of non-free content (now in one image), so it doesn't really help it pass WP:NFCC any more than what's currently there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Little Thetford

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am the significant editor of what was a stub two weeks ago. I am new to wikipedia editing. I have stumbled my way around the process. This article has recently been through Request For Feedback - see [RFF of Little Thetford]. I have referenced as best I can (as a new editor) wikipedia editing resources such as MOS, How to write about settlements; and also by reading more complete similar articles to this one such as Chatteris, Navenby,Wormshill but not Stretham, Wilburton, Haddenham as they are still stubs. I do not hope to get anywhere near the quality of places such as Chatteris on my own, hence this request. I realise everyone is busy so I hesitate to ask for a whole article review. However, in this case, as I said, the article was recently a stub. Therefore, a whole review is needed. Thank you in advance to anyone who stumbles by; even if you do not directly contribute.

Thanks, Senra (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you have done really well in expanding this article. It is still marked as a stub on the talk page & it certainly isn't that. I know little of Cambridgeshire but have been a significant contributor to articles about similar sized villages (see Chew Stoke).

• In the infobox you have a link to ECDS which isn't specifically about the village - is this appropriate?

The hidden-text <!-- Council website for place (specifically) --> in Template:Infobox_UK_place for the | website= parameter seems clear unless I have misinterpreted it. In the meantime, stet --Senra (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Changed link to http://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/node/80 from http://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/  Done --Senra (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the specifically means to this specific place - ie is there a web site for the parish council, rather than the much wider district council?— Rod ^talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure then. I do not want to use LittleThetford.org village information for example, as it is too ephemeral. The council site, http://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/, is at least a parent council and is likely to be a stable site. The village produces a newsletter every two months via LittleThetford.org village information. Currently linked to county council website page of Little Thetford councillors. I need more help here I think. stet for now --Senra (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Issue was council site hiding true url. Fixed by sending link to myself.  Done --Senra (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• In the lead you describe it as "picturesque" - it may well be but that sort of claim needs to be referenced to a source or could be considered POV.

Pugh, A.B. in VHE vol 4, 1953, p. 152 describes "It presents a picturesque appearance from the railway, ..." Not yet cited. Will cite. stet and cite. --Senra (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cited.  Done --Senra (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• England isn't generally wikilinked  Done --Senra (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• You might review the link to River Great Ouse - the capitalisation of river Great Ouse is a little strange. I would capitalise the R or just make the text show Great Ouse - is it the ford or the river which "leads" into the village ? flow. Also the link to the river shouldn't occur twice in quick succession.

Sentence now reads: "...there was once a ford, across the Great Ouse, leading into the village..."  Done --Senra (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it the river or the road which is leading? The same format "river Great Ouse" appears in history (& possibly other sections).— Rod ^talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reworded.  Done --Senra (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The varied capitalisation still occurs in the boundary section of Geography & transport & is different in Community facilities.— Rod ^talk 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Chosen to make it consitent as "river Great Ouse" throughout.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ely is also wikilinked twice in the lead

 Done --Senra (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the term As the crow flies is needed

I believe it is, erm, was in order to qualify the sentence. Removed "as the crow flies" plus preceeding prose.  Done --Senra (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• The lead could be expanded a bit to fully summarise the content of the article

Agreed. Will come back to this. --Senra (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

added bit about enclosure so done for now - feel free to suggest anything else you feel might fit into lead as I am too close to the article now. In the meantime,  Done --Senra (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

History

• You have 3 references at the end of the first paragraph - do they all relate to all the content within it? if not you could move them to the bits they support - particularly if any relate to the toponomy of the name (which really needs sourcing).

Interesting. When I first wrote the article I place all references tyhroughout at the end of the sentence they were qualifying. I have sinced move them too the end of the paragraphs as I felt they disturbed the flow. Perhaps because there are a lot of references. Anyway, I will adress this by putting all references throughout back to the end of the sentence they are qualifying. --Senra (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an ongoing debate, but I feel it needs to be clear which reference supports which fact.— Rod ^talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The re-work will now reveal that more (or less) references are needed. But for now anway,  Done --Senra (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Phrases such as "It seems reasonable to believe" are best avoided it smacks of personal opinion. If one of the sources has made this claim then add the reference.

Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Did anything happen between the Domesday Book and 1833? eg anything related to the English Civil War

Not in Little Thetford. I can guess Cromwell had a beer in one of the many ale-houses but I cannot find citeable evidence of this. I take your point. Will research further.--Senra (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can you find out which of the Inclosure Acts applied? Interesting story - but again needs sourcing -"Summarised from St. George's Church, Little Thetford, History" doesn't really enable anyone to check or find out more information.

I know. This one worries me too. Meeting local historian who wrote the piece next week. I hope to obtain references then. In the meantime stet?--Senra (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Incl. Acts cites as notes. Detail was from VCH.  Done --Senra (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Should "Stretham and Little Thetford was recorded" be Stretham and Little Thetford were recorded - but I'm not a grammar expert

Erm, niether I am to :)  Done --Senra (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• The direct quote from M Petty, 2010 needs to be referenced

The source of my summary of the event is referenced: Ely Standard (Ely Library). January 1941.

Might need the title of the story & page it appeared on in the paper

Not sure what you mean. Mike said it. It is not written down anywhere. stet (for now) --Senra (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is not written down anywhere no-one else can check/access it. Personal communication is just one persons opinion - not verifiable. If M Petty is an established expert it might be useful, otherwise I'd try to find an alternative source - something like the London Gazette often has details of where the king & queen were on particular days for official visits.— Rod ^talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sourced quote as from Petty, M.J. MBE, MA, ALA  Done --Senra (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

After speaking to local a dignitary today I have seen the source photocopies BUT there are no dates or even publication references on them. This means an incredibly boring visit to local library to examine rolls of microfiche. This will happen before end of next week but likely much earlier. Seeing Mike Petty on Tuesday for some local (hopefully copyright free) photos to so I will ask him. By the way it is M.J. MBE, MA, ALA so I do not know if this is notable enough? Anyway, for now stet --Senra (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Governance

• Personally I wouldn't say the "see also" link was particularly relevant to this village & anyone looking for information on Politics of the United Kingdom

Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Presumably the "the ward of Stretham" is part of ECDC but this isn't clear

It needs rewording then. That is also why I wikilinked. A ward is a civil administrative unit which usually consists of at least one but usually more parishes. It is part of the, erm, politic of the UK that I just removed. Anyway, stet for now whilst I think about this --Senra (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reworded but needs to be read by a politics expert  Done --Senra (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Also be careful about linking to parish it could be church or local government - I think civil parish is meant here.— Rod ^talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• South East Cambridgeshire (UK Parliament constituency) & East of England (European Parliament constituency) are in the infobox but not in the text within this section

Agreed. To be fixed by me or someone who knows about politics! --Senra (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Better but someone reading this article probably doesn't need to know how many constituencies there are - just which one is relevant here. A form of words I have used elsewhere is "The parish is represented in the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom as part of South East Cambridgeshire. It elects one Member of Parliament (MP) by the first past the post system of election. It is also part of the East of England constituency of the European Parliament which elects seven MEPs using the d'Hondt method of party-list proportional representation.— Rod ^talk 10:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

erm, used your words!  Done --Senra (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is "is responsible to" the right term in ECDC is responsible to Cambridgeshire County Council? also noticed ref 10 (ECDC) is a link to a wikipedia page - wp pages can't be used as a reference source for information included on other wp pages.

East Cambridgeshire District Council is one of 4 (or 5?) councils that Cambridgeshire County Council manage. So ...is responsible to... I think is correct. However, I accept that there may be better grammar to describe the relationship. So for now, stet --Senra (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a go at rewording this section  Done --Senra (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would speculate that the council is responsible to the electorate, but perhaps managed by the county?— Rod ^talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

reworded.  Done --Senra (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Strictly you are incorrect. The reference 10 (ECDC) is a reference to a pamphlet. The link in that reference is a Cite-->authorlink parameter which I believe is intended to reference wikipedia? In this case, there is no URL to the pamphlet. If I am wrong, I am sure you will correct me, but for now stet --Senra (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the authorlink is intended to be used where the author (person rather than organisation) has a wikipedia article

Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Geography

• similarly I wouldn't have see also links to Geology of Great Britain, Boundary Commissions (United Kingdom) or Climate of the United Kingdom - but I would to The Fens

Agreed but slightly unsure. So commented out for now.  Done

• Boundaries - the railway line passing through isn't really a boundary

Agreed. Railway removed.  Done --Senra (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• The English in "almost certainly Soham Lode for example" doesn't seem quite right - but I'm not sure why

Agreed. Reworded.  Done --Senra (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Drainage and the Fens - Who says they are "probably the most famous"?

Me? Erm, we all know about him in the Fens. Removed.  Done --Senra (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• The drainage seems to be pretty significant & could be expanded - possibly with mention in the history section

Not agreed. A couple of reasons.

1. Drainage is fully covered in {{main|The Fens}}
2. True it is history but it is also geography and the history section is big enough. Was trying to balance the article as a whole

stet --Senra (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't require the reader to click through for significant information - if it is relevant to several articles then it should be in several articles - perhaps reworded to give a more local relevance.— Rod ^talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Agreed. Added a little but more to add. --Senra (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Climate - "warm in summer and cold and frosty in winter" seems a bit non specific - is it warn to someone reading this in equatorial Africa or cold to an Eskimo - can you get average temperatures or something?

Cambridge uses {{climate chart}}. My figures would be the same as theirs as the MET OFFICE nearest (main) weather station is in Cambridge. I did not want to repeat the same figures hence the general summary. stet for now but will mull on your comments --Senra (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Could a reader want to know "Regional UK climate forecasts and historical summaries are available from the UK Met Office" - could you give a flavour in the article? Template:Cambridge weatherbox may be useful

Will consider this but again needs thought as covered in good detail in cambridge anyway --Senra (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Added (modified) {{Cambridge weatherbox}} so  Done? --Senra (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Demography

• similar comment re See also link

Similar response. Have commented it out but personally, I think it is useful. Still  Done --Senra (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any data on the make up of the population eg age/gender profile, racial, ethnic or religious

Yes. Will add more prose. --Senra (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Added some data.  Done --Senra (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Economy

• similar comment re See also link

Similar response. Have commented it out but personally, I think it is useful. Actually mulling it over as I type. perhaps more useful to reader as a regional rather than uk linl. Still for the moment,  Done --Senra (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Community facilties

• By this point Stretham and the Ouse have been linked many times

Yes but Wikipedia:MOS says do not wikilink more than once per section? I corrected the duplicate links you mentioned above when they were within a section. What happens if a reader uses contents to jump into a section? May I leave this for other reviewers and if there is a concensus I will address it? stet for now? (with your permission) --Senra (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I need help here. I accept that wikilinks to the same wiki-page should not occur more than once per section. If they do in this article, it is accidental. Should words such as river great ouse be wikilinked more than once per article? For now stet --Senra (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• A "well used" bench might by POV

Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable buildings

• The Church of St George is a grade II* listed building, according to the entry at Images of England] not Grade II as described in the article

Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Why do we need to know the Dovecote "was never a windmill"? - try to avoid "See for example" & work the link into the text

agreed. Removed.  Done --Senra (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• "According to local legend" really needs a reference

Agreed. stet for now but working on it --Senra (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Having picture galleries in mid article is not common practice - could you work the pictures into the rest of the article?

Not sure how to answer this. They were inline then moved to gallery. See Talk:Little_Thetford. Will re-consider back in-line now there is more prose. --Senra (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved back in-line  Done--Senra (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Transport

• Similar comment re See also link

commented out  Done --Senra (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Look out for this distinctive" sounds like a travel guide

Removed "Look out for this distinctive twin-engined bi-plane. " but I am crying inside. That is a beautiful machine. Pulls sad face. Anyway,  Done --Senra (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Several paragraphs in this section are unreferenced

Will work on this --Senra (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Added refs to bus section. The road section, specifically cul-de-sac, is through local knowledge. Is that allowed to be un-referenced? In the meantime,  Done --Senra (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

References and notes

• Several of the references could do with a tweak to their formatting eg
• 3 doesn't need the URL of the publisher

agreed will look at it --Senra (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(It is ref 5 now!) any,  Done --Senra (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• It appears that Ely public library is the place of publication for Oxford University Press which doesn't seem right - this may have been where you consulted it but I think it would have been published in Oxford

OK, will check them all. --Senra (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Global replace of all occurrences.  Done --Senra (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• 21 doesn't take me to anything about a tornado - just to general maps

copyright issues here. The image is there if you click on the map but anyway, still looking for a copyright free image of one of at least 2 tornados known to have been in the area. stet for now but working on it --Senra (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If I click the link it takes me to maps of my local area - as that's what I have in my google maps settings.— Rod ^talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Fixed but url is now http://www.panoramio.com/photo/14220121 which is copyright. Need advice here. For now though,  Done --Senra (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

panoramio link broken for me.— Rod ^talk 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• It might be worth separating the notes eg 23 & 24 from the refs

Had considered that - even looked up how to do it. Need help though. What I wanted is a notes section for light notes and a references section for citations. I considered using {{reflist1|}} and {{reflist2|}}. I will re-examine this. stet for now --Senra (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I can help with sorting notes & formatting references if you'd like me to?— Rod ^talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer. Let me give it a go myself for now as I am not sure how wikipedia handles simultaneous editors and I have a lot of work to do on this over the next couple of days. --Senra (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Note and references now separate. It has revealed gaps in references but that is fine. Thus more work to do but no under this psecific heading so  Done --Senra (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful & let me know if you want me to take another look.— Rod ^talk 22:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's looking better & IMHO not that far off GA standard - I would certainly assess it as a C or B now.— Rod ^talk 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Further comments

• From 1894 to 1974 it was part of Ely Rural District (see Vision of Britain detail).

OK, will look into this. --Senra (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 43 (charity commission) doesn't really say anything about the school, but the John Townsend charity might be worth more of a mention somewhere. You could use the Ofsted link on Little Thetford School as a reference (at least for the number of pupils). Where is the nearest secondary school?

Email went to the charity yesterday before your review. I hope to get historical information about who he was with permission to use it. Charity commission (reg. 202685) does not say much except to confirm the charity still exists, what its present day aims are, and who the trustees are. The only extra I know at this moment is that

The John Townsend Charity was set up in 1845 and originally known as the Townsends Feoffees. Its name changed to Townsend's Charity Trustees in 1880 and to its current name in 1936.

— Trustees, John Townsend Charity

work-in-progress --Senra (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is Barway within the parish?

Good question. I looked at the maps (online) and found it hard to tell. Will research this. --Senra (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears it might be part of Soham which includes some detail (end of 1st history paragraph "archeology") about the trackway & Barway - also needs to be wikilinked to Little Thetford.

Agreed. To be done. --Senra (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edited Soham wikilinking Barway and Little Thetford so  Done --Senra (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• On maps I note a camp site just north of the village - is tourism significant?— Rod ^talk 09:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. To be done. --Senra (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

tourism is not really significant but added note about the site. Very hard to write non travel guide prose for such an entry but had a go so  Done --Senra (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• If the causeway from Barway towards the village is Bronze Age it is significant enough to get at least a mention. The Bronze age fleshhooks, axes and sword support it & Saxon gold finds also point to a long history - which would be worth mentioning

I have a problem here. I do not have permission to quote more than I have. Wikipedia has a significantly more market reach than LittleThetford.org and the local dignitaries have asked me to hold publication for now. Rest assured I intend to put this in when I have permission. stet --Senra (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Spoke to them today. Put a few words in. Difficulty appears to be an archaeological paper being presented January 2011 and people here want to wait before putting new stuff to masses. So for the moment (as I have put a few words in) done.  Done --Senra (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to reading it.— Rod ^talk 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Feoffees Almshouse might be worth a mention.— Rod ^talk 09:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Work-in-progress --Senra (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Would a Template:Distinguish be useful as a hatnote to say "Not to be confused with Thetford." or possibly a direction to Thetford (disambiguation)?— Rod ^talk 10:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

He he he he. User:Jeni rolled-back my original Thetford (disambiguation) hat about 3/6/2010. I actually agree with you. I will take your advice. The following may help (spelled out in case other editors join the debate)

• Thetford, Cambridgeshire is a civil parish of Stretham
• Thetford, Cambridgeshire was (perhaps still is need to check) an ecclesiastical parish of Stretham
• Little Thetford is a beautiful village in Cambridgeshire
• Thetford is a town in Norfolk
• Thetford Forest is a large pine forest in Norfolk/Suffolk

Agreed. Please suggest which method is best in this instance. --Senra (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I would use {{About|the village in Cambridgeshire|for the town in Norfolk|Thetford|other uses]]}} which produces

This page is about the village in Cambridgeshire. For for the town in Norfolk, see Thetford. For other uses]], see Peer review/June 2010 (disambiguation).

— Rod ^talk 17:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That may not work a better one may be {{About|the village in Cambridgeshire, England|the town in Norfolk|Thetford|all other uses|Thetford (disambiguation)}} which gives

This page is about the village in Cambridgeshire, England. For the town in Norfolk, see Thetford. For all other uses, see Thetford (disambiguation).

.— Rod ^talk 18:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

More comments

• The use of Thetford-in-the-Isle needs a ref.

Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• The bit in climate directing people how to navigate another web site seems out of place.

Agreed. Removed.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• In economy "residents probably commute" seems like speculation?

Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• In transport "is shown running" - is shown where? perhaps just "runs"

Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• The plane is back (with much better detail) but still needs a ref or counts as original research

Agreed but do not call the beautiful 1945 de Havilland DH-89 Dragon Rapide simply a plane!  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Water & Sewage + Energy sections of Public services - similar comments to previous about the see also templates.

Agreed but commented out in-case I have to put them back.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Energy - "As far as is known" doesn't sound very encyclopedic

Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

natural gas in the last sentence should probably have a capital N.— Rod ^talk 10:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Done - web search reveals many forms of capitalisation of this term (erm, logically max 4 but anyway). Went with "Natural gas" so  Done --Senra (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Health - giving the full address, postcode and grid ref for the doctors surgery in another village seems excessive

Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is ref 7 the same as ref 38? they are cited very differently

Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Now ref 2 - you could still add the URL for the online version to help readers access it

agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 34 needs an accessdate

Agreed.  Done --Senra (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope I'm not being too picky with some of these comments which may not be a problem at GA - but definitely would be at FA & you have said this is your long term aim. You are doing great work on the article up to now & I'm impressed with the speed you are making edits - I thought I was fast at responding. tell me to stop if these comments are too much.— Rod ^talk 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged--Senra (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC) but need to rest. Will address certainly over next few days.

You are not being picky. FA is a long way away. You are indeed correct. I set FA as a long term aim. I am so very happy the article is no longer STUB status. Short-term aim complete. There is still work to do which is detailed above. Some of it needs thought (adding a climate box for example) and some of it needs research. In turn, I am impressed with the thoroughness of the review. It makes me reconsider my own personal view of Wikipedia following the Seigenthaler incident. Anyway, I am on this case. Would you check completeness of the following as I think they are done

• In the infobox you have a link to ECDS which isn't specifically about the village - is this appropriate?
• The direct quote from M Petty, 2010 needs to be referenced

Also, I need help with wording the parish, ward, district-council, and county-council stuff as I am somehow missing your point entirely here.

--Senra (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well done for the additional work. I've struck lots of comments, including the one about ECDC in infobox, but I still think the Petty quote needs a reference (despite the letters after his name). Would you like me to ask a friendly copy editor who is much better at grammar than I am to take a look? Either way I think you will soon be set to nominate this for GA.— Rod ^talk 10:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Input from a copy editor would be superb! I have tried to stick to the MoS and tried to use correct grammar but I suspect I have failed both miserably. So yes please. --Senra (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well done for the continued improvements.— Rod ^talk 18:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this review has run its course. There are still a small number of items left to fix. I have taken an off-line copy of all of the above so I do not lose them— I guess there is an established procedure for archive. Anyway, I will copy the un-resolved items to the article To-do-list or Work-in-progress list as appropriate. The next steps for this article are clearly listed in the articles discussion page. Having been reading GA (and FA) criteria, my own (and it appears Malleus) opinion is that this article is not yet ready. Perhaps 1 – 2 weeks work remain for GA. In the meantime, may I request that you, Rod ^talk, close the review now. I am not yet confident I will handle the peer-review procedures correctly. --Senra (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any way I can privately talk to other Wikipedians. May I therefore take this public opportunity to thank Rod ^talk, Malleus Fatuorum and all others who have quietly or otherwise supported me here. --Senra (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Chetco River

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it just passed its GAN, and I would like to see it become a featured article. Xtzou, the GA reviewer, gave me a few good tips already. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated.

Thanks, LittleMountain5 17:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks very nice to me, here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly nitpicks, though I think this needs more on Geology to pass FAC.

• In the lead, since Oregon is linked, shouldn't California be too?

  Yes, done.

• I noticed that the Chetco people link is to the Tolowa, but the Tolowa article does not mention the word Chetco, and this article does not mention Tolowa (that I could see). I do not thinks the Tolowa need to be mentioned in the lead, but they probably should be in the History section. I would also mention the name Chetco in the Tolowa article.

  Changed link to Chetco, maybe I'll expand it some day.

• Per WP:DECADE I think that ...after gold and other precious metals were discovered in the 1840s and 50s. should be ...after gold and other precious metals were discovered in the 1840s and 1850s.

  Fixed.

• Towns are usually founded or sometimes laid out, not created The town of Brookings was created in the early 1900s, and incorporated in 1951.

  Fixed.

• Be consistent on capitalizing redwood / Redwood. The lead makes it sound like it is the northernmost grove in the world, the Course section says in the US. I assume there are none in Canada or elsewhere?? Ecology later says world's northernmost...

  Capitalized all 'Redwood's, changed United States to world.

• Unclear which place the bomb was dropped on It flows between Bosley Butte to the north and Mount Emily to the south, the [latter is the] site of one of only four bombs dropped in the continental United States by an enemy aircraft.

  Fixed.

• Are river miles available for any of the tributaries? If so I would add them, but realize the data may not be avaialble

  I've only found river mile information from the mouth to the stream gage site, 10.7 miles upstream. Added one.

• Was the maximum flow a known storm? In Pennsylvania the max flows are often the dates of hurricanes (or their remnants) hitting the state

  There's not a specific page (except for maybe Pineapple Express), but it was the floods of 1964. (No specific name, either...)

• I might include that 97% of the land is forested in the lead

  Added.

• I think this needs a Geology section to pass FAC - comprehensiveness is a FA criterion - see the Rogue River (Oregon) for an example Geology section

  Will work on it.

  Added.

• I know it is linked, but I would add a phrase describing Kalmiopsis, "a flowering evergreen shrub and the namesake..."

  Added.

• I love redwoods and think they are really amazing, but I also think the "northernmost grove" part may be overdone in both course and ecology - could Course just say it flows past the redwoods (Lead has already told the reader these are the northenmost ones) and then Ecology could go into the details?

  Sounds good, fixed.

• The redwoods are also about 8 miles north of the Cailfornia according to Ecology, but the lead says the mouth is 6 miles north of California. Since these are coastal redwoods, I assume they are near the mouth? If they are inland, I would say that (and specify how far inland, if known) to avoid confusion

  They are a bit inland, added approximate river mile.

• Over 200 species of animals inhabit the river alone.[8] would this be clearer as "inhabit the river and its watershed" - as is it sounds like there are Bear, deer, and foxes living permanently in the river.

  Yep, fixed.

• Since most of the river is in a national forest, I would add the date of its establishment to the history, as well as any other details on it (expansion, etymologyt, hsitory, etc.)

  Added.

• Since the river is all in one county, I would also mention the year of its establishment in the History section

  Added.

• I think I would include the populations of the two towns at the mouth in the History section (2000 census? More recent US Census estimates?).

  Added.

• Can an image or two be added to History?

  Added one.

• The "Other" refs all look like Websites - what makes them different from the ones listed under "Websites"?

  They're mostly either maps or PDFs, but I could merge them into the books and websites sections, if you want.

• This looks quite good and seems like it would need little work to get ready for FAC. Nice job and I sure hope they block the mining plans.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for another detailed review, it helps immensely! :) Sincerely, LittleMountain5 16:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  

---

2009 UEFA Champions League Final

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
On this, the eve of the 2010 UEFA Champions League Final, I believe I have finally managed to improve the article about the 2009 UEFA Champions League Final to featured article standard. I do not believe that there is a single featured article criterion that this article fails, but I would like to subject it to a peer review prior to nominating it at WP:FAC. Possibly the only criterion it might conceivably fail is criterion 4, but I believe that I have given appropriate levels of coverage to all aspects of the subject without needing to resort to sub-articles.

Thanks, – PeeJay 23:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

* Comment Sandman888 (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not convinced that the image meets the requirements for fair use. "It was the first Champions League final where neither of the finalists exited the group stage as group winners." <- is not that an interesting fact. try adding some social or political perspectives. It's very stats-heavy as it is. I think Darren Cann and Mike Mullarkey should be linked broadcasting section is very short. There must be more to add here, about how many people saw it, how many countries broadcast it etc. you might consider putting a link to UEFA Champions League in lede. Erm, I think you're reviewing the wrong article, Sandman. You seem to have commented on the 2010 UEFA Champions League Final article, whereas this is the 2009 UEFA Champions League Final. – PeeJay 09:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC) That wasn't a very good final either way, so I'll be happy to do some more reviewing on the 2009. Sandman888 (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Comment Sandman888 (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC) refs: As I believe it, when using short reffing, you should put "Nick Simons, Steve Archibald (commentators). (27 July 2009). UEFA Champions League Final 2009: FC Barcelona v Manchester United. [DVD]. FC Barcelona. Event occurs at 0:03:50–0:04:00. ASIN B002FYAGEE." under general references. Done. inconsistent wikilinking of "Union of European Football Associations". Personally I find it a bit dull, but it should be all the time or one time, not 5 consecutive times and then no more. Done. You should do it the first time they appear in refs, and then no more. Same for all publishers. Sandman888 (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Oh right, I've done that now. – PeeJay 13:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Some quotes from Guardiola and SAF whould be nice, preferably in neat boxes. I can do this, but where would you suggest I put them. The article is already pretty saturated with images, so I'm not sure where quotes would fit. Perhaps in the road to rome part? Also Guardiolas motivational Gladiator video is not mentioned anywhere, perhaps it should be. Sandman888 (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Like I said, the whole article is pretty saturated with images, and all of the images are appropriate to their place in the article. I've tried adding a couple of quotes to the "Reaction" section, but I think I may have just made it look like crap. I could probably add something about the "Gladiator" video somewhere though. – PeeJay 13:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC) "Barcelona were seeded for the third qualifying round draw" might wikilink to the appropriate place in the 08-09 CL article. Done. maybe delink Polish Champions in the next bit. Done. delink Man united Done. "However, television replays after the incident appeared to show that Anelka tripped over his own feet." mind OR here. I thought the reference I provided already mentioned that Anelka tripped himself up, but if not I'll try to find one that does. I mean "appeared to show that Anelka tripped over his own feet" that sounds like its your observation. Same with the other OR. Sandman888 (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC) OK, I've changed the wording to say that "there was little contact between Abidal and Anelka", and I have added a reference to that effect. I don't think there is any OR in the statement about Fletcher's "foul" on Fabregas, as it is noted in the reference that Fletcher got the ball before bringing Fabregas down. – PeeJay 13:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC) "Despite this, they found themselves guilty of several fouls, while Chelsea made four unsuccessful penalty appeals during the match." might note the public controversy surrounding this incident. Iniesta has called the goal against Chelsea the most important in his life. I can't find a source ATM, but that wd be a interesting quote. This fact is also pretty fun, http://www.imscouting.com/global-news-article/Iniestas-goal-at-Chelsea-increased-the-birth-rate-in-Barcelona/5363/ , maybe you can find a better source. It'll, IMO, make it more interesting. To be honest, I feel that the three comments above would be better suited to the 2008–09 UEFA Champions League knockout stage article. I know this may sound a little hypocritical, considering the detail I have put into the two teams' paths to the final, but these are my feelings. Okay #2 is trivia. However #1 must have an article somewhere, this was very controversial, can you link to it then? (I still think #3 is a gem) Sandman888 (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC) " a foul for which Fletcher was sent off – despite replays showing that Fletcher had won the ball before making contact with Fàbregas." mind OR See my reply about the Anelka OR. Ticketing: can you state how many of the 67,000 are then commercial partners? I believe I've been a victim of my own serial comma here. The number of tickets reserved for the commercial partners is included in the 17,000 set aside for the "European football family". Kit: the stuff about when they wore what colour seems very irrelevant. I agree to a certain extent, but some football clubs can be very superstitious about the colour of the kit they wear in big matches. For example, Milan have chosen to wear white for their last two Champions League finals because it is their "maglia fortunata" (lucky kit). Therefore, it seemed appropriate to note the times when Barcelona and Manchester United have worn particular colours in European finals. I think that need to be explicit then, we can't seem like we're buying into the superstition. An editor must be scientific and atheist when editing. Sandman888 (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't say that we're buying into the superstition; I think I was simply adding information that readers may find interesting, given the tendency for clubs to prefer certain colours. – PeeJay 13:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Yes but you need to know that to decode the information properly. If you're a football novice the said part is just weird ("Why is so much attention given to shirts? This doesn't make sense."). So at least you should link to an article about said superstition, explain it or remove it. Sandman888 (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Hmmm, fair enough. Do you think it's at all appropriate to keep the information about how each team's colours were decided? I feel it would be interesting to note that Barcelona were given first choice as they are the "home team". But then that brings me back to the two teams' European final pedigrees in their different colours; if it's appropriate to note that Barca had first choice, then perhaps it's also appropriate to note their history in their chosen colours? – PeeJay 01:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Trophy presentation: "Gerard Piqué fraternised with his erstwhile team-mates." sounds a bit un-encyclopaedic. To be honest, I thought it was interesting to note that Pique commiserated with the Manchester United players before joining in with the Barcelona celebrations. Is there another wording that you would suggest? – PeeJay 20:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Perhaps, but maybe fraternised cd be replaced with talked. It doesn't imply anything. Sandman888 (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC) How about "sympathised"? – PeeJay 13:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)~ I'm sorry but we don't know that, unless its said in a source, where it shd be in qoutes. Talked is the most objective. Sandman888 (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC) officials: "Matthias Arnet and Francesco Buragina, with Claudio Circhetta" they shd all be redlinked (they're notable) as you did under match overview. Sandman888 (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC) I have linked Circhetta, but delinked Arnet and Buragina. I am not aware of any circumstance where an assistant referee has become notable without going on to be a senior match official, whereas Circhetta has refereed Champions League and Europa League matches in the past. – PeeJay 13:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC) as long as it's consistent I'm happy. Sandman888 (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your comments, Sandman. I hope I've answered them satisfactorily. – PeeJay 20:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• BTW, and this may be a point of some contention, but the image does not meet the criteria for fair use. It's solely for decoration. Sandman888 (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Which image? The one in the infobox? I think we may have to bring in the image experts on that one. – PeeJay 01:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The fair-use image yes. Bring on the experts! Sandman888 (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
      

---

Avatar (2009 film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think this is a very interesting article, deserving no less than to ne an FA. I have only made a couple edits to it, but it is a very interesting article (which I have already noted), and I will be willing to make as many contributions to the article as I can.

Thanks, Guy546^(Talk) 22:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Avatar (2009 film)/archive1.

---

List of current NCAA Division I FBS football coaches

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need it to meet the requirements for a Featured Topic. The lead is a little short, but I don't know what further details from the list to provide in the lead without including info in the lead that is not in the list. This list is naturally unstable due to the constant turnover in the college football profession.

Thanks.»NMajdan·talk 23:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments

• If it's a head coaches list, why is is organized by conference and secondarily by school. Shouldn't it be listed by coach since that's what the list is? If it were to stay in the current format, the list should be moved to List of current NCAA Division I FBS football coaches by conference (similar to List of Florida universities by admission rates). It should then be divided by adding sections by conference. If not, the list should be reorganized with the first column listing coaches, then conference, school, etc.
  • A couple reasons. First, the list began as a series of tables for each conference. I combined them into one and added sort functionality. So, the conference sorting is left over from that. Second, there is such a high turnover of coaches every year, constantly resorting it would be an unnecessary burden. I actually prefer it this way for those reasons.»NMajdan·talk
• Some of the teams with multiple coordinators have forward slashes. I remember in one of my FLCs that slashes shouldn't be used. Maybe "and" instead?
  • I will make this change.»NMajdan·talk
• Since there are only three independent schools, why not list them. Everything after "...however, the head coach will sometimes assume one of these roles as well." is redundant already so why not pad the lead with some more names and facts.
  • I do not want to treat the independent schools any differently than the other conferences. I don't see how listing the conferences in the lead is redundant.»NMajdan·talk
• Maybe add some color the conference entries?
  • I do not see why that is needed.»NMajdan·talk

Just some quick thoughts. NThomas (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The lead needs copyediting, and it would be a good idea to have someone proofread all the other parts. I've noted a few proofing errors below. The article title has one too many words.

• "List of current NCAA Division I FBS football coaches" could be shortened to "List of NCAA Division I FBS football coaches" without changing the meaning. "Current" has no stable meaning because it identifies no particular time. At the moment I am writing this, it means "May 2010" more-or-less, and in June it will mean "June 2010" more-or-less. In 2011 it will have other meanings, and so on.
  • I don't fully understand this. "Current" means as of right now. Removing it and using "List of NCAA Division I FBS football coaches" to me would mean a list of all coaches ever.»NMajdan·talk

Lead

• "The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (I FBS) is compromised of 120 teams." - Not "compromised". Maybe "consists of" or "includes"?
  • I think it was supposed to be "comprised of", not "compromised of", nevertheless that, too, is incorrect. Fixed.»NMajdan·talk
• "All schools except three are a member... " - "All schools ... are members... ".
  • Fixed.»NMajdan·talk
• "22 coaches will have their first season... " - The Manual of Style advises against starting a sentence with digits. "Twenty-two coaches... " would be correct.
  • Fixed.»NMajdan·talk
• "Joe Paterno, currently the longest tenured head coach at the NCAA Division I FBS level." - Three problems. I would replace "currently" here with "as of 2010". I'd add a hyphen to "longest-tenured"; otherwise the meaning might be that Paterno is the longest coach, parallel to "longest fish" or "longest car". The terminal period should be deleted since the caption is not a complete sentence.
  • Fixed.»NMajdan·talk

Other

• Would it make the list more useful to add won-lost records for the coaches?
  • That introduces a lot of complexity into the list for not much gain. That would require updating it for 120 coaches every year not to mention those that would try to edit it during the season. I can definitely foresee some being updated every week during the season, but not others, causing a definitely problem. The coaches records are simply one click away.»NMajdan·talk
• The image needs alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.
  • Not a requirement for FL/FA anymore, but doing one image isn't hard. Done.»NMajdan·talk
• The dab-finder tool at the top of this review page finds one link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.
  • Fixed.»NMajdan·talk

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks.»NMajdan·talk 15:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  

---

The Poconos

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know what should and can be done to expand and improve the coverage of this topic on Wikipedia. Thanks, ScouterSites (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The Pocono Mountains are beautiful and interesting, and they deserve a good article. That said, peer review is meant for articles without major cleanup tags, and this one isn't far enough along for a complete peer review. The first thing that leaps out are the cleanup tags noting that the article does not meet WP:V because it lacks citations to reliable sources to support its claims. That's the first thing that needs fixing. Here are some other suggestions for improvement.

• A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quote, and every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned. Claims for which no source can be found should be deleted. In addition, every paragraph except for the lead should be supported by at least one source.

• The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to at least mention in the lead each of the main text sections. If you can imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead, you will have a good idea of how to write it. WP:LEAD has details.

• It's often helpful to look at GA or FA articles to see how other editors have handled similar problems. Please see WP:FA#Geography and places. Mendip Hills might be a good working model.

• Geology and history are two significant areas that are missing from the existing article.

• Straight prose is usually preferable to lists. See WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists.

• Images should be made to fit inside one section and not overlap sections. They should not displace heads or edit buttons.

• A geobox like the one used for Calapooya Mountains would probably enhance this article.

• All of the entries in the Reference section are incomplete. For Internet sources, you should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access, if all of these are known or can be found. The "cite" family of templates can be helpful in arranging the citations. WP:CIT has details and samples.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the prose quality of my works is always awful and I need opinions of what is wrong. Thanks, Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to improve the article to GA status, and I don't know if it has grammatical errors, thank you. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 18:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the article.

Lead

• I usually discourage editors from having one sentence paragraphs, could the sentence about the awards be expanded or combined with the previous paragraph. You could add information on critical reception and chart performance to expand it into a full paragraph. This information is missing from the lead and it should be in there.

Merged. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• You should include the writing controversy and similarity with Kelly Clarkson's song in the lead, this is addressed in the article but not in the lead. See WP:LEAD for thoughts on what should be included in the lead.

Expanded. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson controversy

• This statement is a bit off grammatically, "Clarkson tried to avoid that her label, RCA, release the song...." I would recommend changing to, "Clarkson tried to discourage her label, RCA, from releasing the song...."

Changed. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• The box quote that starts in Writing and inspiration and spills into the Kelly Clarkson controversy section is quite long. Could this be a trimmed a bit? Not a big deal and more a personal opinion than anything else.

Shortened. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Promotion

• This quote is confusing, "...while making rounds promoting the movie Obsessed, where plays Sharon Charles." Do you mean, "where she play Sharon Charles"? I would say this tidbit or even that she was promoting a movie on the David Letterman show is ancillary and unnessary invition.

Removed. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• This sentence should be improved, " Also, it featured on the compilation album Now That's What I Call Music! Vol. 73." First off add an is between "it" and "featured". Also you should specify that the album is a UK Now That's what I call music. There is a US version of Now... and In the US I think they're up to volume 33 so it was surprised to see vol. 73.

Re-worded. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the information about the song's use as a tribute to Michael Jackson is best suited for the Promotion section of the article. It seems a bit crass to say that the song's use as a tribute to Michael Jackson was a promotional vehicle for the song. It might be best used in the critical reception section. Not sure if there is a better spot. I think the informaiton is important it just doesn't work very well in the Promotion section.

Moved to covers (for now). Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Music Video

• What happened to the Alternate video? Why was it shot, what was it used for? How did it go public? These questions should be addressed.

References

• Ref 12 should have a publisher and accessdate.

Done. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Otherwise the references look good.

Overall

• Overall the coverage of the topic is fairly comprehensive and the sources are credible and well-formatted. You have images and the article is stable. I think your self-assessment regarding the writing is true. You have some grammatical issues. I tried to fix some of the more glaring ones. A full copy-edit would be great and shouldn't take too long. I would say that you should nominate it at WP:GAC and see what the reviewer thinks. I feel like it's very close to GA quality. Well done.
• This concludes my review, if you questions comments or concerns please contact me on my talk page as I don't normally watch review pages. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review and the copy-edits, I'll start to work. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 18:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Acra (fortress)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… The editors would like a fresh pair of eyes to look over this article, taking into consideration that we want to move this along to nominate as a FA candidate. Thanks, • Astynax ^talk 10:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments from Esuzu Hello! I will try to help with this peer review but since I am very inexperienced more reviewers would be needed. But I will start with some things I have seen after a quick look.

• Make sure every number of measurement is according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). For example, there has to be a non breaking space ( ) between a number and the measurement.
• Headings normally don't include the article name. For example "Construction of the Acra" should only be "Construction".
• Personally I like not to see references in the lead.
• As I understand many of your references (e.g. [30]) is taken from the bible. For me, that is a primary source which should be avoided (Wikipedia:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources). The information must be based on reliable second hand sources.

I will return with more comments later. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have implemented some of your suggestions immediately. There seems to be a division between editors who want statements within the lead referenced, and those who do not. I've had experienced editors insist that they don't belong, and then have had equally or more experienced editors insist that they be put back after I have removed them. I think those can stay for now, though I have no problem removing them during the FAC process itself. Maccabees and Josephus are both historical works, even though ancient ones. For referencing what each source says, they should be OK. But I agree that it is usually best to avoid using them alone to support anything which would otherwise be deemed WP:OR. I'll be going over the article to see where backup citations can be provided if there are any such instances. Thank you for your comments! • Astynax ^talk 07:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

References in the lead are normally avoided. That is, if you have mentioned the thing in the body text already. (Which is what the lead are supposed to do.)

As you say, those sources can be used to support but they can not stand alone. For example, second paragraph under "Background" almost only contains Maccabees refs.

• Ref 29 is from Encyclopædia Britannica. It would be good to replace it.
• The books you are referencing to should be in a "Bibliography" section. Take a look at Gustav Mahler#Sources for an example of how to cite your sources.
• There are a lot of sources in Hebrew. Sources in other languages is usually not preferred. Is there no English sources you could replace them with?
• One dab link to Gymnasium.
• Make sure it has gone through a thorough copyediting. Sentences like "The Jewish population of Jerusalem had aided Antiochus during his siege of the Baris, home to the Egyptian garrison of Jerusalem, and was rewarded with a charter affirming Jewish religious autonomy, including the barring of foreigners and impure animals from the Temple in Jerusalem, and allocating official funds for religious practices in the Temple." are way too long, for example.
• "Antiochus III's victory over Ptolemaic Egypt in the Battle of Panium brought Judea under Seleucid control." Who is Antiochus III? Readers should not have to click on the wikilinks all the time to understand the text.(Look through the text and make sure of this)
• The beginning of "Background" section need a bit more context. Where are we? When are we?

Still does not say "when".

I've added backup sources for material taken from Maccabees where the article isn't just providing quotations. Poliocretes provided an alternative citation to the Encyclopædia Britannica article. There is now a bibliography section linked to the citation footnotes. Backup citations in English are provided for most of the non-English references. The non-English refs are left intact to make it easier for editors in non-EN Wikipedias to adapt the article and for those who prefer to look at the original researchers' work. I've inserted a bit of text at the start of the Background section to try to introduce the context that this was a region contested between the Seleucid Empire and Egypt. • Astynax ^talk 05:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way. I would appreciate if you could respond under each problem I find. That way it will be easier for me to see what you have done etc. :) And I can easily strike what has been done. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Stephens City, Virginia

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article in question has received Good Article status and I am intent on taking it to WP:FAC. I spoke with a FAC delegate and she said another Peer Review was necessary (it previously went through one a couple months prior to the GA review). The page received GA status today, May 31, 2010, so the page at present is GA quality and no changes have been made since GA status was given. I am open to any and all requests and hope to hear from a reviewer soon. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Review by MuZemike

Just some comments to start off:

Lead

• The paragraphing in the lead is a bit choppy. I'd recommend organizing the lead into two or three fuller paragraphs, though personally I think two should suffice.
• You might get opposed on FAC for that one inline citation in the lead. I would make sure whatever that citation covers is mentioned in the article, and then remove the citation in the lead.

Layout

• Some of the images do squeeze the text a little and make the article's layout messy. Personally, I think File:StephensCity WelcomeSign.JPG could go if absolutely necessary to improve layout because that's not really contributing anything significant to the article.  Done

Images

• Per WP:CAPTION ("Wording" subsection), if the caption is not a complete sentence, then no end-punctuation is used. There are a few that do not follow that. Please double-check and correct if necessary.  Done

Prose/MoS

• The two paragraphs in the "Education" section could probably be combined into one full paragraph.  Done
• Consider combining paragraphs in the "Transportation" and "Religion" sections also. At the very least, merge that one-sentence paragraph at the end of the "Transportation" section into another one, as you will likely get opposed at FAC for having one-sentence paragraphs, not to mention it's not very good prose style to do that (because of the Internet, many people fall into this pitfall).  Done
• One dablink listed on Dablinks  Done
• External links look good, no deadlinks or 301-returning links found.  Done

References

• Some of the sources given should be italicized, which includes newspapers (anything that is originally available in print) such as The Sherando Times, the Northern Virginia Daily, and Sports Illustrated to name a few.  Done
• For your book sources, try and find and locate appropriate ISBNs and OCLC numbers (if available). Since people can click on these links with how the {{citation}} templates are set up, it makes verifying these sources easier, not to mention make them easier to locate.
• Some of your book sources say "pages xx-yy", while others say "pp. xx-yy". For consistency, stick to one way (either written or abbreviated, though the latter is commonly used and preferred).  Done
• Quite a few of the sources from the city itself, apart from the statistics. You might draw opposes at FAC for the lack of secondary sources, to give you a warning. I say "might" because many of the sources meet the "well-researched (1c)" criterion of being an FA, as most government sources are considered high-quality.

Conclusions

That's what I have for right now. I'll take a closer look at the prose and sources when I get a chance. –MuZemike 22:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments/Questions

On "Images" above, I removed most of the punctuation on the images, except for the images of Samuel Hull's Store, the Historic Marker, and the Government office. Those seemed to be full sentences to me. Could you take a look?

On "Layout" above, I can remove the File:StephensCity WelcomeSign.JPG image, but in the "Culture" section, both of those images are talked about in that section, so I am unsure how to move those or if one should be removed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

On "Prose/MoS" above, I think combining the two "Religion" section paragraphs would make things confusing. The first paragraph talks exclusively about the Glenmary study, while the second talks about about churches location in or very near Stephens City. I think combining these would throw the reader off. I did, however, outright remove the line about the railroad in "Transportation" as another editor had previously told me that since the CSX line doesn't make any stops in Stephens City, it wasn't particularly notable. Still working. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

On "References" above, I was wondering where one would find the ISDN numbers on some of the books. Also, I can secondary link to the "Northern Virginia Daily" article where it states the new Mayor and Town Council along with the Town of Stephens City's link, if that would be an acceptable secondary reference. At present, the Town Council is one person shy, they should announce the new person before July 1. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the headers and saw the ISBN and OCLC question - one good place to find those is at WorldCat. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Question, when I get these ISBN/OCLC links, do I put them in the URL field or is there is field in the {{cite web}} template that allows you to put ISBN/OCLC links. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you want ISBN (for books, not "ISDN") and OCLC data. I would use {{cite book}} which has a field for ISBNs and I think for OCLC too. See the Works cited section of Ganoga Lake for examples of both used. Generally use ISBN if available, but some older books or those from smaller publishers may not have ISBNs but do have OCLCs. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I caught that after I went to search for it and changed it, probably making the edit conflict you experienced (sorry about that). Does the WorldCat website have ISBN and OCLC numbers or just OCLC? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Should have both ISBN and OCLC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I will work on that here in a couple minutes. Talking to a friend online at the moment. Thanks for your help. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

List of Presidents of Washington & Jefferson College

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback on a few questions before sending this to FLC…

1. Does the format make sense? I constructed the "Founding and early leadership" section in prose, because there isn't a lot of information about these men to fill in the list. Also, the job wasn't very strongly defined then, so there really aren't a lot of hard dates. I felt that the prose section could give a sense of the ad hoc nature of the early leadership.
2. What to do about the Birth/Death column? Should we keep it or not? I'm not convinced either way...
3. In addition to indicating which presidents were alumni of W&J, I'd like to show which ones were clergymen. Is that a good idea, and what other symbols could be used? Certainly the "†" would be appropriate for clergymen, but then how would alumni be designated?
4. What should be the lead image? Ideally, I would have wanted to use a picture of the President's House, but we don't have one. So, what is the next best choice?

• 
  The building that houses the Office of the President and is named after a founder?
• 
  A building named after a former president?

Thanks, GrapedApe (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Bencherlite

• Can you explain somewhere what the College President does or what his role is, and / or find an appropriate wikilink? Different educational systems and establishments have different terminologies; sometimes for example the "top dog" is a purely ceremonial role (e.g. in the UK, a University's Chancellor is senior to the Vice-Chancellor, but the Chancellor will generally be a figurehead while the VC is the most senior executive officer).
  • Good question. So far, I haven't been able to find an official W&J-specific description of the college president's duties or authorities, but I will keep looking. Possibly in the charter, or in the most recent job posting for the president in 2004. Can you think of any other places to find that info? Otherwise, I'll probably link the term to Chancellor (education), which gives a pretty good description.--GrapedApe
    • Arrgh! The presidential search prospectus from the last presidential search was not archived! That would've been great! I placed a request at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request--GrapedApe
• President pro tempore seems to have nothing to do with the subject: a "constitutionally recognized officer of a legislative body who presides over the chamber in the absence of the normal presiding officer" (!)
  • Yeah, that's a biggie. Piped the link in Pro tempore, which is a broader description of temporary positions.-GrapedApe
• Any particular reason, on this theme, why John McMillan doesn't qualify as a pro tem?
  • I wondered that myself, and I concluded that being named "president pro tempore" was an action by the board, while McMillan apparently just filled in on an ad hoc basis. The other ones were officially named "president pro tempore."-GrapedApe
• Alden and Riddle are both #8 --fixed
• Who was in charge of W&J, if anyone, from charter date in 1865 until Edwards started his term of office?
  • Probably no one, to be honest.-GrapedApe
• Matthew Brown's end date is after Breckinridge's start date. Ditto for Hinitt and Slemmens, and Slemmens and Black, and Case and Patterson, and Burnett and Mitchell, and Mitchell and Rembert. Did they actually overlap, with there being two Presidents / a President and a pro tem? That sounds odd to me, so if these dates are right some explanations if possible would be good.
  • Yeah, that's because the start date is the date of election to the presidency by the Board, while the end date is the date of resignation. All of the sources on the presidents have dates of election, while I was able to locate dates of inauguration for about half of the presidents. So, that's why I went with the date of election, rather than date of inauguration. I suspect that a number of these presidents (especially the early ones) didn't have formal inaugurations, and the transfer of authority occurred in a non-official way. Does that at least make sense? If so, I'll add some kind of explanation in there.--GrapedApe
• Rather a lot of links to U. Grant Miller Library Digital Archives in the refs; perhaps just the first one?
  • I know that's standard for text, but is that applied to references as well?--GrapedApe
• Surely this could be added to a couple of non-W&J categories e.g. Category:Lists of people by university in the United States, Category:Lists of educators
  • Yep, those are good.--GrapedApe

And to try and answer your questions:

• No real preference on the image
• I'm not a great fan of the birth/date info; I'm not sure it adds much in this context
• You could turn the birth/date column into a notes column, with a brief comment on each where possible; clergy could be noted here. If you want a symbol instead, there are plenty around e.g. ¶ ♦ § – as I don't know how many you'd be marking in this way, I'm not sure whether I'd prefer symbols or text
  • Thanks, I'll play around with that later.--GrapedApe

That's all for the moment. Bencherlite^Talk 23:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from ImGz

• The width the tables is bumping the pictures up and causing massive amounts of white space (using FF (not full screen) on a Mac with a rez of 1280x800 but I see it when setting it to 1024x768 as well). Try setting the width at 80%, though 83% displays just fine for me as well.
  • Set to 80%--GrapedApe (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• You have periods after some pages (eg. pp. 400–401.) but not others (Coleman 1956 p. 21) consistency?
  • That's because of the citation templates.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• I think the EL would be better labeled "Presidential History of Washington & Jefferson College".--agreed
• Rev. John -> Reverend or per WP:CREDENTIAL just disregard it completely (though that pertains to in-article work, not sure if it applies to references as well).--cleared
• Biographical dictionary of American educators -> Biographical Dictionary of American Educators.--cleared
• General book reference cites "pp. 230–231" other more specific references go beyond that.
  • The other books aren't used frequently enough to use as a general source, so they just tget individual references.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• Prefer File:McMillan Hall western front.jpg if only because it's less blurry.--me too

--ImGz (t/c) 04:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Second request for comments from GrapedApe

• I have switched the "Jefferson College" section to the new format, with the notes in place of the "Birth/Death." How does that look? Frankly, I'm not wild about the "Notes" section, either. What would people say about cutting it altogether?--GrapedApe (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Juwan Howard

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added a lot of new content that could use a second opinion as it winds its way up the quality queue towards GAC and FAC.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks comprehensive to me, well-illustrated, well-sourced, neutral, and stable. I have two kinds of qualms: (1) further proofing is needed to eliminate the last of the typos and small errors; (2) it would be good to explain or link technical jargon like "double double" to try to reach as wide an audience as possible.

Lead

• "while starting a combined 304 of a possible 350 man-games" - I'm not sure what "man-games" refers to.
• "Although most Michigan Wolverines men's basketball records from 1992–1998 have been forfeited due to NCAA sanctions, Howard's 1993–94 All-American season was not" - Recast since a season is not a record?
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• "he was traded at the NBA trade deadline twice to make salary cap room" - Wikilink salary cap?
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• "He last started over half of his games played and averaged over 30 minutes during the 2005-06 NBA season." - Suggestion: "He was a starter in more than half of the games in which he played in 2005–06 and averaged more than 30 minutes of playing time per game." This is more wordy but might be better understood by readers who don't know the game.
  • Addressed this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

High school

• "Entering his junior year, some sources listed Tom Kleinschmidt as the number one junior in the state." - Ambiguous. Suggestion: "When Tom Kleinschmidt entered his junior year, some sources listed him as the number one junior in the state."
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• "He had subpar performance against King High School in the Public League semifinals.[18] The Chicago Tribune named him as a second team All-State selection." - To avoid choppiness stemming from several short sentences in a row, perhaps you could combine these two, thus: "Although his performance was subpar against King High School in the Public League semifinals,[18] the Chicago Tribune named him as a second team All-State selection."
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• "After his junior year, he was one of ten Illinois player invited back to the Nike All-American Camp at Princeton." - Should be "players" rather than "player". At this point, I'll stop fixing or pointing out tiny nit-picky errors and simply suggest one more careful proofing to catch typos and their cousins.
  • I don't mind your nit picks. I am at peer review looking for any help you can offer. I am pretty sure this will pass GA, but with a good proof reader, it might have a shot at FA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to help in a limited way, but I don't have time to do a complete c/e or proofing. You might find a proofreader via WP:PRV or else trade proofing favors with another editor. I think you are right about GA, and I hope you can get this up to FA. Finetooth (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

College career

• "excellent low post moves in the low post" - Recast to avoid repeating "low post"? Wikilink low post?
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Howard acquired a million-dollar disability insurance polices" - Um.
• "The game would be remembered by Webber's technical foul... " - Re-cast since a foul can't remember anything?
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• "After Webber left for the NBA, 1993–94 Wolverines team entered season ranked fifth... " - Missing words?
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Michigan lost to a struggling Northwestern Wildcats team,[78] making it losses in three of its last four regular season games... " - Doesn't make sense as written.
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

References

• Citation 203 is incomplete.
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Other

• The images need alt text.
  • fixed. except for infobox, which is not compliant yet.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• The dab tool finds seven disambiguation links.
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• The link checker finds two dead urls in citations.
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

List of top 12 singles in 1952 (UK)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it could be ready for FL but want to get some feedback, mainly on the prose.

Thanks, 03md 23:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks pretty good to me. The prose isn't bad, but I have a few suggestions for making it better. Three of the links in the citations died recently and will need fixing or replacing. The tables look good, and so do the images.

Lead

• "The UK Singles Chart is a music chart compiled by the Official Charts Company that calculates the best-selling singles of the week in the United Kingdom." - To avoid repeating "chart" three times, I'd suggest a variant: "The UK Singles Chart, compiled by the Official Charts Company, calculates the best-selling record singles of the week in the United Kingdom."

• Done.

• "The record charts were officially recorded by the music publication New Music Express (NME) in the United Kingdom for the first time in 1952." - To avoid repeating "record" and "music" twice each, I'd suggest something like "New Music Express (NME) magazine published the United Kingdom record charts for the first time in 1952."

• Done.

• "The date is when the song entered the top 12 for the first time." - The phrase "the date" seems to refer to October 1954, but I don't think that's the intended meaning. I think you could simply delete this sentence since the table heading "Top 12 Entry Date" is quite clear.

• Done.

1953 peaks

• "Cowpuncher's Cantanta" - Spelling? Cantata?

• Yes, its a typo. Changed.

References

• Is the Dave McAleer site reliable per WP:RS?

• I don't think it is and probably isn't really needed. I have removed it. 03md 23:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Other

• For consistency, the column headings should use lower-case letters on all but the first word; e.g., "Top 10 Entry Date" should be "Top 10 entry date". You've done this with "Peak position" but not with all the columns in all three tables.

• Changed.

• The alt-text checker in the toolbox at the top of this page shows that the images lack alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.

• I will add alt text when I get a chance.

• The link checker finds three dead urls in the citations.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments Finetooth. I have addressed nearly all of them and will get to the others in due course. 03md 23:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Summer Wars

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A decent article on a feature anime from 2009, which looks close to GA level at this point.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Shimeru: I'll do a quick overview according to the GA criteria.

1. Well-written: Somewhat. The Production and Release sections are particularly well-written. They're easy to follow and well-referenced. The article as a whole could use a copyediting pass, though. In particular, the Plot section is difficult to follow. After the first paragraph, it becomes very disjointed. (Perhaps this wouldn't be the case had I seen the movie -- but the article shouldn't assume the reader has seen the movie.) It should likely be split into more paragraphs, too.

The lead is a bit short, considering the length of the article. It should probably be a little more comprehensive as a summary of the article.

Double-check that the article conforms to WP:MOS, if you haven't already. I didn't notice anything that stood out, but since you'll be copy editing anyway, it's a good time to make sure everything's in order.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Very much so. This article's referencing is impressive. I did come across two small dead-link problems: Reference #4 leads to a 403 Forbidden error, and reference #5 appears to no longer exist.

3. Broad in its coverage: Indeed. It does an excellent job of covering the real-world aspects of the production and release, including tie-ins.

4. Neutral: No problems.

5. Stable: No problems.

6. Images: It's unfortunate that there aren't free-use images to use in the article, but we can't do anything about that. The one image in the article, the theatrical poster, is appropriately tagged. It might be appropriate to use a photo of the director in the production section, but I see that his article doesn't contain any free images. The critical reception section talks a lot about the look of the OZ sequences; if an image could be found that illustrates those points particularly well, that might be worth including as a fair-use image. I don't think that's necessary for GA, though; more something to keep in mind for future article development.

In short: I think the article will be set for GA once a little copyediting is performed. Shimeru (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Isabelle Huppert filmography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it meets the criteria to become a featured list (compare with the Vittorio Storaro filmography, for example). It doesn't have awards, etc, as I plan to do that page for her as a sepearte article, as per Chistoper Walken (films, awards). Thanks, Lugnuts (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

• It is not clear to me what sources have been used to compile the list. There are no citations in the table. You mention one "general reference" – "Isabelle Huppert > Filmography". Allmovie. Retrieved 2009-05-15. – and although this lists Luppert's work, it does not have the same detail as you have incorporated into your list. For instance, you show role played and director's name; what are the sources for this information, and for the details in the "Notes" column?

• There are issues with the formatting of your "specific" references; for example, the first should show Sight and Sound as publisher of the article, the date (December 2006), and Ginette Vincendeau as the author. There are similar problems with other references, where you tend to show the web address as the publisher. All of these need attention, but the chief concern at the moment is establishing the sources used to compile the list.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brian. Thanks for your input. The list as a whole is a combination of data from IMDB, Allmovie and the NY Times. I've now added these under the general refs section at the foot of the page. I've reworked the formatting of the first reference for Sight and Sound. Is this the correct formatting for refs like this? If so, I'll work through the rest of them to tidy them up. Thanks again. Lugnuts (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Lipoic acid

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review before offering it as a featured article, because of its high level of scientific knowledge and importance for the wellbeing of the general public. The article contains ridiculously long strings of citations, maybe these could be shortened so that all the cited articles of the particular string would be listed under a single citation number?

Thanks, Probios (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this. While there is a lot of information here and it is clear a lot of effort has gone into this, I do not think the article would pass FAC in its current state. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Chemistry_and_mineralogy that may be good modelas, I think that Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide might be a pretty good model (though no model is perfect).
• The Toolbox in the upper right corner of this PR has some useful tools, for example there are two disambiguation links and two circular redirects - see "disambig links"
• The automated tips also are useful and include things like adding more wikilinks and images
• It also points out that the headers do not follow WP:HEAD - do not repeat the name of the article in headers (the reader already knows that the article is about lipoic acid)
• Per WP:CITE references generally come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
• The references are extensive but some of them need more information - for example refs 150 and 165 to 167 now are just a URL. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• I would also make sure that refs are formatted consistently - so all books should have linked ISBNs if known, or OCLC if not, journals that have Pub Med IDs should list those, dois should be used if known, etc.
• As for the long rows of citations, I would either combine refs in some cases (so if there are a series of studies cited and if each of the refs is used just once in the article, I would consider one ref with all the sources), or perhaps using just a few review articles that contain lists of refs that the interested reader could look at. See Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide and how it handles references - only 90 or so refs, all with ISBN or doi and PMID
• Despite the 311 refs, there are some places that need a ref - one citation needed tag and places like this Japanese and German manufactured R/S-LA became available as a nutritional supplement in the US in the late 80’s and sales and use grew slowly and steadily throughout the 1990s as interest in antioxidants and free radicals grew due to recognition of the roles of reactive oxygen and reactive nitrogen species in health, disease and the aging process. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
• My general impression is that the more technical the article is, the clearer and easier to follow the lead should be
• Wikipedia articles generally do not have an Introduction section - that is the purpose of the lead.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

RJHall comments: I started to review this page, but immediately found the lead and a good chunk of the text too technical for use in a non-specialized encyclopedia. The reader may be put off by the technical prose and so quickly loose interest. Please see Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable for ideas on how to make it more accessible. (Note that I don't mean that it should be dumbed down; just that the various concepts should be explained clearly for the lay reader.) Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

---

List of number-one indie hits of 2009 (UK)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I recently expanded this article and a couple more, and was hoping for some feedback on it, so that maybe one day it could reach FL status. I was hoping for comments on these sections:

• At the moment, the article cites about 51 editions of two different magazines. I used a different citation for each edition (as they obviously each have a different issue number and publication date), but that seems a little inelegant. Is there any simpler way to achieve this, that would take up less space? Possibly using Template:Sfn?
• For subsequent mentions of Dizzee Rascal, how should he be referred? "Rascal"? "Dizzee"? "Dizzee Rascal"? "Mills"? WP:LASTNAME suggests that it should "Dizzee", but I'm not sure.
• Are the images suitable? The one for Alva Academy looks a bit out of place, but it was the only one that I could find.
• Does the lead need to be expanded?
• I'd like to use this site to verify that songs like "Bonkers" and "Sweet Disposition" achieved silver certification, but there seems to be no way to link to a search result - only the search page itself. Is there anyway round that?

Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems to have all the needed information but needs some MOS and image fixes, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• There are two images were are not free, but are WP:FAIR USE (the logos for Alva Academy and Liverpool Football Club). I do not think that the use of these images in this artilce meets WP:NFCC - how does it increase the reader's understanding of the hits to see the logos?
• If the non-free images are used in the article, they each need a fair use justification on the image's page (see these for examples, but as I mentioned above, there does not seem any justification for using them here.
• I think that the refs coould be simplified - I owuld list the general periodical information at the bottom, below the other, individual references. So the first type of repeated ref could be something like "The Official UK Indie Charts". (385): 15. 4 January 2009." and the general ref could be "The Official UK Indie Charts". ChartsPlus (UKChartsPlus) 2009."
• Similarly the second type of repeated ref could be something like "Jones, Alan (10 January 2008). Williams, Paul. ed. "Charts sales". Music Week (10.01.09)" and the general ref could be "Jones, Alan. Williams, Paul. ed. "Charts sales". Music Week (London: CMP). ISSN 0265-1548. OCLC 60620772."
• The DIzzee Rascal article refers to him as "Dizzee after first mention - in the table, I would spell out "Dizzee Rascal" each time though
• The Lead seems OK to me - should not be more than four paragraphs anyway per WP:LEAD
• I think you can give the website and say what search term to use - for an example see Ref 1 in Clemuel Ricketts Mansion "NPS Focus: Search page" (Enter: Ricketts, Clemuel, Mansion). National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/. Retrieved April 11, 2010."
• Seems OK to me otherwise - assume you have compared it to other recent FLs that are about similar topics (number one hits lists for a recent year, preferably in the UK).

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

---

MacBook Air

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get a GAN later this year.

Thanks, moɳo 04:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/MacBook Air/archive1.

---

Laurie Nash

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is my intention to eventually take this to Featured Article Status. Nash was a cricketer and Australian rules footballer so I'd be particular interested to get feedback from anyone with no background in either sport to ensure it is understandable by the general public.

Thanks, Roisterer (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Laurie Nash/archive1.

---

Islam and secularism

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because due to merger between Secularism in the Middle East with Islam and secularism. The information in both articles overlap, and in any case this issue requires a thorough treatment.

Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This article does not look ready for peer review at present. For example:-

• It has a major cleanup banner relating to a lack of citations. The banner was placed on 19 April, since when more citations have been added. But the banner is still in place, as are numerous individual "citation needed" tags.
• The single-paragraph lead is an inadequate introduction to an article of this length.
• Several sections (Lebanon, Iraq, Bangladesh) seem to be unwritten at present.
• There are many formatting problems with the citations.
• The use of a verbatim quotation extending to three paragraphs and 350+ words is not appropraiate.

The article should be withdrawn from peer review until its development as an article is further advanced. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Nikita Filatov

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get some input before possibly taking it further up the assessment chain. I'd like comments on general content, and also would appreciate any help with finer points of style, or if there is anything that would raise any red flags @ FAC.

Thanks, Canada Hky (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

You have a solid article here. I'll make some suggestions to help improve it. There is a big jump between GA and FA, I'll see what I can suggest to help bridge that gap.

Lead

• The lead should summarize every point in the article. The lead does not discuss his personal life and this should be added.

Playing career

• The fact that he was drafted by both the Sudbury Wolves and the Blue Jackets is a little confusing. Who had first rights to him? Was he free to choose between the two?
• Make sure you spell out abbreviations like CHL first.
• Watch jargon terms like this, "Filatov was a healthy scratch for 6 of them...." A healthy scratch is a bit confusing, perhaps say he didn't play in 6 games even though he was healthy. For a sports fan they'll understand what healthy scratch is, but for the non-fan they won't get the lingo.
• "This arrangement was the result of direct dealings between the Blue Jackets and CSKA Moscow, where Filatov is paid by the Russian club, and the Blue Jackets retain his rights."

Tense agreement, is it past tense or present tense?

• The wording of this sentence is awkward:

"After this tournament, he was selected as one of Russia's three best players as chosen by the coaches."

I would reword thus: "After this tournament, the coaches named him one of the Russia's three best players." This sentence is has exactly the same issue: "Filatov scored two goals in the bronze medal game,[19] and was named Russia's best player of the game, as awarded by the IIHF."

• "Filatov made his debut with Russia's Under-20 junior squad at the 2008 World Junior Championships, which were held in the Czech Republic."

Is the Championships singular or plural? It's an event so I would think it is singular. If so then "were" should be "was".

• "The Russian team captured the bronze medal at this tournament, defeating the United States 4–2 in the final."

I'm a little confused, how could Russia win the bronze when they beat the US in the final? Wouldn't that mean they won gold? Perhaps I'm missing something.

• There doesn't seem to be much information about his playing time in the KHL. Given the amount of weight the article puts on his international career and his time in the NHL, I would think there would be more about his results in the KHL. There is a sentence about being named Rookie of the week, but other than that there's no results of the 2009-2010 season.
• What were the terms of his contract with the Blue Jackets? How much was he paid and for how long? Is this information available?

Personal life

• "Filatov spoke fluent English prior to being drafted, due in large part to his mother, a teacher who gave him lessons at home."

He still speaks fluent English right? I'd reword the sentence a bit, perhaps like this, "Filatov speaks fluent English due in large part to his mother, who is an English teacher and gave him lessons at home."

References

• The key is consistency here.
• No publisher for ref 15
• The Columbus Dispatch is not italicized in ref 7, 13 and 16.
• Is esportz a reputable source? Is there a more credible source that could be used?

Overall

• I think the article is in good shape, I raised some questions above that should help fill in some content gaps. There are also some minor writing issues that need to be addressed. The references will need a little bit of attention.
• Overall I think it's well on its way. This concludes my review if you found it helpful consider reviewing another article here or at WP:GAC to help reduce the backlog. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing! H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for the input, I will get started with some of your suggestions. I appreciate the help a fresh set of eyes can offer. Canada Hky (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Harvey Littleton

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to nominate it for Featured Article status, and I'd like to address any glaring problems or general improvements before doing so. It's already a GA, so this will probably be either overarching stuff or fine-toothed-comb stuff.

Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is an interesting article about an interesting man. It needs a little more polishing if it is to reach FA standard; here are some suggestions for consideration:-

• Lead
  • "on the grounds of the Toledo Museum"? "in the grounds" would be more idiomatic
  • Third paragraph: try to avoid repetition of "working" in second sentence
• Education
  • The section covers rather more than Littleton's education – war service, early teaching career, foundation of his first design studio, etc. Perhaps a wider-ranging section title could be found?
  • "In 1949 Littleton accepted a position teaching ceramics..." This surprised me; there is no indication that he had studied ceramics or pottery, unless this was at Cranbrook Academy or during his time at Brighton. Yet I see from the next section that he became a distinguished potter. A spot of clarification, perhaps?
• Research
  • The first sentence contradicts the statement about his 1949 teaching post at Toledo Museum of Art School.
  • What is "cullet"?
• 1962 glass workshop
  • As this is a new topic, it needs a better introduction than; "Assistance came..." etc.
  • The section is confusingly organised. Apart from the date, March 1962, being oddly placed, we have a quote followed immediately by a blockquote. If these are both cited to Byrd, they need to be connected in some way. I believe, however, that they represent too much direct quotation, and that much of this content could be paraphrased.
  • The final sentence (beginning "A second, better advertised Toledo workshop..." is uncited.
• Glass at the University of Wisconsin
  • "...the German Erwin Eisch, who is recognized today as a founder of European studio glass." Needs a citation
  • It is best to avoid defining dates by terms such as "That fall" and "Not long afterwards...", as it's not always obvious to the reader what year we're in.
  • "With the launching of the first college glass department..." When, and where?
  • Year ranges, e.g. 1964–1967 and 1969–1971, use endashes, not hyphens
• "Technique is cheap"
  • There is a lack of citations in this section which gives parts of it a POV-ish feel. Foe example: "The offhand phrase “Technique is cheap” soon took on a life of its own. For some it was a rallying cry to discover the inherent possibilities of a “new” medium for the artist; for others the statement expressed nothing more than arrogant disdain for the timeless value of craftsmanship." No source is indicated for these statements. Likewise, statements such as "Behind this point is another..." seem to reflect an editorial standpoint.
• Work in glass
  • What is a "punty"?
  • What is "slumping"?
  • Awkward phrasing: "Perhaps Littleton’s best known body of work, made between 1983 and 1989 are his “Topological Geometry” works." It's partly the close repetition of work/works, and also the problem that "body of work" is singular, followed by "are" which is plural. Some rephrasing is advised.
• General point: is there a reason for creating the lengthy footnotes 23 and 30, rather than including this material in the main text?

Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm unlikely to have time to work on the article properly before this weekend, but you've given me a nice list of things to look over. Shimeru (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Tim Minchin

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it has improved greatly over the last few months based on the good work of myself and a few others, yet it is still ranked at a fairly low level in most of the WikiProjects it fall under. I would like to see some comments from other users to see what we can do to make the article better.

Thanks, TomBeasley (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Belovedfreak

An interesting article on a funny guy. I'll just go through by section, mentioning what I notice.

Some general comments that apply to the whole article

• I would recommend a good copyedit before nominating for GA, and certainly before a FA nomination. I will point out a few things, but I'm not an expert in copyediting and it would be worth either putting in a request at the Guild of Copy Editors, or asking someone you know that has worked on this kind of article, but hasn't worked on this one. The prose needs a bit of polishing. To try and work on it a bit yourself, Tony1 has some good tips, but it always helps getting fresh eyes on it.
• Is there a reason for the dates being in Month Day, Year format? As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) Australia tends to use Day Month Year format, so this would be more appropriate for this article (WP:STRONGNAT). Either way, they need to be consistent which they're not at the moment.
• Check MOS:TITLE for the use of italics and quotation marks for titles. This is not consistent in the article; songs and poems must be in quotes, films and television shows must be in italics, and so on. I'm not sure what the convention is for a comedy show. If you don't know, that's worth finding out.
• Make sure that citations come after punctuation (not before) and without a space in between. Try to avoid them in the middle of sentences, where possible.
• Check WP:MOSHEAD; headings should be in sentence case. Also, spell out "and" rather than "&"

Lead

• According to WP:LEAD, the lead section is not merely an introduction, but should adequately summarise the whole article. At the moment, this is not the case. There's a fair amount about his life & career mentioned in the article that's not touched on in the lead. One way I've heard of achieving this is to make sure there's at least one sentence in the lead for each paragraph of the rest. Also, the lead should have no information that's not developed later on. At the moment, for example, the lead mentions Minchin's birth place, but this isn't mentioned elsewhere. The pilot also doesn't appear to mentioned anywhere else.
• I'm sure somewhere in the style guidelines (I'll try and look for it) it says that you shouldn't put the birthplace in those brackets with the date of birth. I will give you an example of how I would write the first part of the lead: Timothy David Minchin (born 7 October 1975) is an Australian comedian, actor, musician, and skeptic. He is best known for his musical comedy, which has featured in three CDs, three DVDs and a number of live comedy shows which he has performed internationally. He has also appeared on television and radio in both Australia and the United Kingdom. He was born in Northampton, England, and grew up in Perth, Western Australia... - note that I've removed the links from some of the more common words (see WP:OVERLINK). I would also consider removing the link from Australia, although since it's his nationality, I'm not sure. It's all about how useful the link is to the reader. The link to Perth may be sufficient since that article will link to Australia itself.
• You only need references in the lead for material that is likely to be challenged. Remember that all information in the lead will be mentioned later on, and referenced, so it's not necessary to have citations in the lead. I don't think you need one in the lead for his name. I can see that his birthplace may be unexpected and potentially challenged, but if you word it like I have above, you're explaining that he was born in the UK and moved to Perth, so it's probably not going to be challenged. The further citations in the lead at present aren't necessary.
• WAAPA should be spelled out here as it's the first occurrence and won't be familiar to most readers.
• "Australian TV"→ Australian television - TV is informal, so better to spell it out as television throughout

Personal life

• Try and forget that the lead has already come before & given away some of the details. Put his date and place of birth here.
• "Minchin was raised in Perth, Western Australia.[6] and educated..." - something's gone wrong with the sentence structure here.
• Is there a reference for his attendance at that school?
• Are there any more details about his early life, family for example? It would be nice to know some of that if it's available. You mention his brother a bit later, but is he older or younger? Are there any more siblings? Anything about his parents? Any reason he was born in the UK?
• Likewise, a bit more info on his wife & how they met etc. would be good. Obviously we're not looking for salacious gossip, but since you mention that he often references their relationship in his work, perhaps some more background would be nice (if available).
• When did he start writing with his brother?

Musical Comedy

• This section seems to come a bit suddenly. Perhaps it would be better later on, say after the section on Ready For This? (2008-2010)? Otherwise, the biography bit is broken up by this chunk on his performance style.
• "His reasoning for combining the disciplines of music and comedy was revealed..." - perhaps this could be slightly reworded to avoid using the word "revealed"? I always think that word sounds a bit tabloidy. Something like He explained his reasoning for combining the disciplines of music and comedy...
• "The eccentric appearance removes Minchin from reality somewhat, allowing him to make outrageous statements..." - it's not clear who says this. I think it's a bit too opinionated to come directly from Wikipedia. Eg. either he thinks it removes him from reality, or a critic thinks that.
• "a fan of Richard Dawkins" - say who Dawkins is, eg. a fan of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins
• "A prime example of this is the song..." - this is unsourced and seems like original research

Early Career (1998-2007)

• "Minchin struggled initially; he could not get an agent for a year and had been unable to find any acting work" - strange mix of tense in this sentence
• Melbourne International Comedy Festival can be linked
• "Karen Koren, the manager of the well-known Gilded Balloon" - "well-known" is not necessary here
• Edinburgh Festival Fringe can be linked
• "His 2006 show, "So Rock", was nominated" - So Rock should be linked here rather than in the following paragraph
• ""Darkside" and "So Rock", have been released as CDs." - they are not actually CDs themselves, so perhaps "Darkside" and "So Rock", have been released on CD.

Ready For This? (2008-2010)

• There are several short, choppy paragraphs here. Try expanding them, or combining them into larger paragraphs.
• "purchasing it from various online download retailers" - "various" is redundant here. Try to watch out for redundancies in the prose, words that don't really add anything.
• This issue of the Christmas hit, is this just in the UK, or internationally?
• "He did however perform a set at The Big Libel Gig..." - is this completely separate from the Ready For This? show? If so, you don't really need "however", unless the implication is that that was going to be his last live performance ever.

TV & Radio

• I'm not sure you need to state how many times he's appeared on certain shows. Apart from anything else, that kind of detail will be out of date as soon as he appears there again.
• "a parody of the house band for the show who are known as 4 Poofs and a Piano." - this is another example redundancy, or wordiness. I would suggest eg. a parody of the show's house band, 4 Poofs and a Piano.
• Not sure that you need to mention Google Street View since out of context, it doesn't mean much
• E4 can be linked
• "It was broadcast for the third time on January 9, 2010.[48], and again on March 27, 2010.[49]" - something's gone wrong here with punctuation
• "He is currently writing a musical sitcom for BBC Radio 2..." - could we have some timescale, that kind of statement is quickly out of date. Which brings us to...
• "...scheduled to be aired on Saturday 8 May 2010" - out of date
• "Tim plays the part..." - first name?

Acting & Theatre Work

• "he has appeared in various stage productions" - try to avoid vague statements like this
• What are TVC's? Is there a relevant link, should it be spelled out? Should it have an apostrophe?
• understudy probably doesn't need a link
• Was he literally understudying Judas? Or the part of Judas?
• "He is currently co-writing a musical version of Roald Dahl's novel Matilda..." - again, with no date, it can quickly go out of date

References

• I haven't looked in detail at these but would be happy to once some work on the rest of it has been done. At a glance, I notice that some links are dead. Also, there seems to be an over reliance on primary sources, his own website, twitter, facebook, forum posts etc. Try and rely more on reliable, secondary sources. Some work needs to be done on citation formats too, dates shouldn't be in italics, websites generally shouldn't; only titles of eg. newspapers, books, magazines...
• At the Movies links to a disambiguation page

External links

• There seem to be a lot of links here. Are they all necessary? Do we need an official website, youtube, twitter, myspace, fan site etc? Too many, in my opinion. Presumably most of these are accessible from his website anyway? And remember, most readers will be here to read about him, not to find his links. They have google for that.
• Consider adding a persondata template.
• Is he actually British by nationality? If not, I'd remove the category for British comedians.

There's quite a lot there, I know, but many of these issues are fairly minor. I can see this article being GA standard in the not-too-distant future. Let me know if you want me to have another look over it later. Hope this helps! --BelovedFreak 18:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If This Is Love

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on nominating it for good article status but want to make sure it is completely up to standard before doing so. Thanks, Jazminerocks 07:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• {{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• "The track samples Yazoo's 1982 single "Situation" (written by Vince Clarke and Alison Moyet) as its heavily-synthesised backing rhythm, the difference between the rhythm of "If This Is Love" is that it is in A♭-tune, in comparison to the original's C♭-tune." - comma splice
• "A♯m–E♯m-F" mixing some (en/em)dashes here and elsewhere. WP:DASH is your friend.
• "Una Healy elaborates:" Una Healy is only guessing as to what the song means, so it should be phrased as such.
• "It garnered comparisons with the music produced by the likes of Girls Aloud, Depeche Mode, Sugababes, Robyn and Rachel Stevens, and was praised for its Yazoo sample and catchy chorus." Source?
• I think the reception section could use some more summarization, instead of just rattling off sound bites from critics. Why is a whole paragraph from the BBC review quoted wholesale?
• The "concept" section really could be slimmed down (and sourced if possible).
• Paragraphs need at least three sentences. Any groupings with less need to be cut, merged, or expanded.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Jesus Walks

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After listening to the song for the first time, I decided to see its article. I found it like this. It looked liked a Good Article in my eyes. However, I thought it may need more work. So I requested a copyedit. But afterwards, I was still not sure if it was ready. Hopefully, this Peer Review will step me in the right direction. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Have you discussed your plans with the article's principal editors? Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

what do you mean? GamerPro64 (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be considering a GA nomination for this article on which you have 9 edits. Other editors have, respectively, 31 and 15. Have you contacted either of these editors, to let them know your plans? You are not obliged to do so, but it would be a courtesy. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, I saw the edit count and it turns out that the editor with the 31 edits was a copy-editor I requested and the one with 15 is a "here-and-there" editor. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, that is fair enough. The article will be reviewed soon. In the meantime, perhaps you would investigate the article's online links. I found the following gave me a "broken" message: 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 43, 57, 59, 68, 76, 87 and 88. I also found that 69, 70 and 85 did not link to the articles named. It is possible that these are temporary faults, but please check and see if they are working. Brianboulton (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Stumbled in here sort of accidentally; I hope I can be helpful. First, I might suggest that this article is a little long. The section on "Music and Composition," in particular, seems superfluous; there's simply more detail here than is necessary for a cogent description of the single. The "Live Performances" section could also be cut down, perhaps to highlight particularly significant performances. The "Critical Reception" and "Acclaim" sections might be merged and cut, especially the use of quotations. Finally, I'd suggest that the article could use some more images; perhaps there are other album covers (non-free, so not sure if that'd fly), or some free-use concert photos you could use? A picture of Kanye would probably work well. In any case, I'll keep this watchlisted, so let me know if you need any help. Cheers, Archaeo (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I removed the third paragraph in "Live Performances". I didn't think the stuff in it was nessessary. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• {{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• I'm concerned about sourcing. For example, "The song is essentially a spiritual exultation, wherein West discusses how Jesus "walks" with all manner of people, from the sinner to the saint. Towards this end, the first conceptual verse of the song is told through the eyes of a drug dealer contemplating his relationship with God. It reportedly took over six months for West to draw inspiration for the second verse." is sourced to [31][32], but the first part of that (spiritual exultation, et al.) doesn't appear in those sources. Same with "West also uses the song to express his critical views on how the media seem to shy away from songs that address matters of faith, while embracing songs discussing violence, sex, and illegal drugs." And again, with "The militant soundscape of "Jesus Walks" is complemented by its lyrical nuances. In the intro, the voice of a drill sergeant initiates the song with a "Order Arms" and is answered by a squad of soldiers who shout "1-2-3-4!" This exchange is followed by West's opening lines, where he declares, "we are at war with ourselves."
• I think part of the issue with the above is POV and puffy phrasing; it all needs sources.
• The critical reception really could use some more summary, instead of just a laundry list of quotes one after another.
• I think merging "Acclaim" with "Critical reception" would make more sense (instead of having performances and chart performance sandwiched in between them).

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

---

List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this list has improved greatly over the last few months. An example of this work is that all listed churches now have verifiable citations, in order to allow for quick and easy removal of the “Fake” churches that get listed from time to time (see [33] as example). After the work of a number of editors, I believe this list deserves to be elevated to a Featured list. I would like input on any necessary improvements. Thanks, --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 17:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting list with lots of detail. It's certainly broad in coverage, and it might be comprehensive. However, the existing list does not conform to Manual of Style guidelines in several ways. Here are suggestions for improvement:

• To avoid starting every list with "this is a list", editors have been moving recently toward a more natural and specific opening for lists. See for example List of Archbishops of Canterbury or List of Church of England dioceses.

• Double-bolding is a no-no, per WP:MOSBOLD. Using bolding in the first line and then linking Latter Day Saint movement causes double bolding. If you rewrite the opening sentence, the problem there may go away. On the other hand, the double bolding, such as Church of Christ in the body of the tables should be eliminated. A straight link, Church of Christ, will produce ordinary bolding.

• Bolding for emphasis is generally deprecated except in certain instances explained by WP:MOSBOLD. Phrases like "Before the schism" in the "Categorizing the churches" section should not be bolded. For emphasis, you can sometimes use italics.

• The Manual of Style deprecates lists that can readily be rendered as prose. I believe the four bolded items in "Categorizing the churches" would work better as four paragraphs of prose. WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has details.

• Much of the single bolding of text in the body of the tables violates the MOSBOLD guideline as well. In the "Notes" column of the Church of Christ table, for example, "Church of the Latter Day Saints" should not be bolded. The underlying reason for limiting bolding is that too much of it defeats its purpose, which is to attract attention.

• Wikipedia heads and subheads use a telegraphic style as much as possible. Usually "a", "an", and "the" are not used as the first word of a head or subhead. Thus "The Church of Christ" would be better as "Church of Christ". Instead of using "churches" repeatedly, many of the heads and subheads could be truncated. For example, since a head says "Prairie Saint churches", there's no reason to repeat "churches" in the subheads; i.e., "Josephite churches" could be shortened to "Josephite" with no loss of meaning.

Lead

• "Each of these still retains a following today—however small it may currently be in some cases—and all of their organizations have experienced further schisms of their own." - Generally, it's a good idea to replace words like "today" and "currently" with something more specific. It might be "as of 2010" or, if you don't want to have to change the number as each year goes by, you might say "in the 21st century".

Categorizing the churches

• "Terms such as "Josephite" or "Brighamite", used by some Latter Day Saints as a moniker for the Community of Christ and Utah LDS churches respectively, are sometimes also used to distinguish groups of sects sharing a common ancestry and basic beliefs from others sharing a different provenance, with no offense intended by their use (as has been the case sometimes in the past, when these terms were often used in a pejorative sense)." - Too complex. This would be better if re-written as two separate sentences.

Rocky Mountain Saint churches

• "Web site: lds.org." - Linking directly from the main text to external sources is a no-no. It's better to use an in-line citation to the source. Ditto for houseofaaron.org. later in the article. Ditto Web site: cofchrist.org. and any others in the main text. If you don't want to use in-line citations for these, they could appear in an "External links" section.

Mormon fundamentalist churches

• "The community of Bountiful was split nearly in half, with about 700 people continue following Blackmore." - Doesn't quite make sense as written.

Josephite churches

• Numbers with four or more digits need comma separators. I fixed a fair number of these in the upper sections, but I'm leaving the rest to you.

References

• The three items at the top should be cited in the main text in order to be included in this section. If they are not directly cited, they should appear in a separate section(s), perhaps External links or Bibliography or Further reading.
• Many of the citations are incomplete or malformed. Citations to Internet sources need author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access, if these are known or can be found. Book citations have other requirements. WP:CIT might be helpful in sorting this out; I find the "cite" family of templates to be useful for some articles.
• What makes sources like adherents.com or religiousfacts.com reliable per WP:RS?
• The date formatting in the citations should be consistent. Since the article is U.S.-centric, m-d-y would be fine.

Images

• Lists often include images. It shouldn't be hard to find some that would fit this list.

Other

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find one dead url in the citations and one disambiguation problem.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have begun to implement your review (I was offline all last week). However, I need some clarification. What do you mean by "The Manual of Style deprecates lists that can readily be rendered as prose". I simply do not understand what you mean. I have read [WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists] and still don't get what you mean. It's not that I disagree, I just don't understand.

If it looks possible to me to use straight prose rather than a bulleted or numbered list, I try it to see if I can do it. It could be done in this case by writing

The Latter Day Saint churches can be grouped into several divisions and subdivisions. In the tables below, "Before the schism" refers to Joseph Smith's original church and those bodies that broke with him during his lifetime. "Rocky Mountain Saint" churches, sometimes called "Brighamite" or "Mormon," trace their leadership to Brigham Young. "Prairie Saint" churches reject Young's leadership in favor of some other claimant. "Independent" churches do not trace their doctrinal or priesthood lineage to any 19th-century Latter Day Saint faction but still hold Latter Day Saint beliefs. "Self-originated" branches started independent of any Rocky Mountain or Prairie Saint organization.

All of the other information in this list can be deleted because it's repeated in the tables. Finetooth (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I see what you’re saying. That it's better to write this out like you would say them rather then have lists. However, I don't think I agree that this applies here. I think the way it is now has much more information as to how these groups are divided up. It took a great deal of back and forth to get a consensus on how to divide up the groups and the list helps people know where to put new groups as they are found. I will however, put this section onto the talk page in order to get comments as I do value your input and the input of other. I am the first to admit I may be wrong..--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 19:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As to "What makes sources like adherents.com or religiousfacts.com reliable per WP:RS"? I'm not sure how to answer this other than saying that when doing my own resurach into thes groups both adherents.com or religiousfacts.com apear as sources in independent books all the time. For example Adherents.com is used as a source by books published by university presses. Examples: Oxford University Press: [34], [35]. Cambridge University Press: [36]. University of California Press: [37], [38]. Harvard University Press: [39]. University of Chicago Press: [40]. However, I don't know if that counts per WP:RS. Any input on this matter would also be appreciated--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 16:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It may well be that the two sources I questioned are reliable. To some extent, it depends on what they are being used to support, and it depends on whether their content is generally considered neutral and reliable by editors outside of Wikipedia. From what you say above, these two would appear to be OK. I raised the question not because I especially doubted these particular two or, in fact, knew anything about them, but because some dot-coms are reliable, and others are not. Dot-coms published by advocacy groups or advertisers, for example, would not likely be reliable per WP:RS. On the other hand, http://www.weather.com/, the Weather Channel, does meet WP:RS guidelines. Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes this helps alot, and thank you for your input. I am still working on implementing what you have suggested. There is alot to do.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 19:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

---

One other editor and I have implemented all but item #4 (The Manual of Style deprecates lists ....) and three questionable citations. I feel that all my concerns have been addressed other then #4 and those specific citations. However, these items are being discussed on Talk:List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. Therefore per Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy, I'm going to close this Peer review since “nominators of peer reviews can close discussions which they initiated if they feel their concerns have been addressed”

I thank you (Finetooth) for your help. This list has improved even more with your help.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because all points from previous peer review have been addressed, and I want this to become featured.

Thanks, Tomlock01 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Oldelpaso

First, the usual disclaimer that I am far from neutral when it comes to matters concerning Manchester United.

• There are a few references to fansites etc. Given that there is probably more literature out there about United than any other club, there ought to be more reliable sources. This is something you can guarantee would come up if the article was taken to FAC.
• This is very minor, but for convenience could all the books referenced be included in the bibliography?

DONE

• Not sure Neville being the captain merits a place in the lead.

Agreed, especially as it is mentioned in the box. so DONE.

• Worth mentioning that it was the First Division of the Football League that Newton Heath joined.

DONE

• Some sort of wikilink might be useful for "winding-up order".

DONE

• Ernest Mangnall is worth mentioning by name as United's first successful manager.

DONE

• The club would have to wait another two years before winning any more trophies – winning the First Division for the second time in the 1910–11 season – which would prove to be the last time the club won the First Division for 41 years (the longest they have gone without winning the league in their history). This passage is very passive, "would have to", "would prove to be". In any case, two years isn't exactly a long wait. Mention of the 41 year gap would be better placed in the next section (i.e. the end of the gap), to keep the chronology clean.

DONE

• While the successes of the modern era mean focus on that is inevitable, the early years section seems skinny. Maybe its my bias showing, but I'd mention that United came very close to going out of business in the 1930s.
• It is not obvious why Busby's appointment of Jimmy Murphy is of sufficient importance to be included.

I've added in a sentence to explain why it was significant. so DONE.

• Not too keen on the easter egg links to cup finals where only the year is linked.
• Ruud van Nistelrooy's departure doesn't strike me as significant enough to merit mention.

DONE

• The 1960s crest image would be better in the Colours and crest section. It illustrates the influence of the coat of arms of the City of Manchester more clearly than the subsequent crest.

DONE

• To be pedantic, the green/yellow shirt was a third kit in the 1990s.

DONE

• This was the last kit supplied by Manchester sportswear firm, Umbro. - A bit trivia-esque, and the reference is a weak one.

removed. DONE

• Stadium section is generally strong, but I'd drop the last paragraph. It is crystal-balling, and is referenced to a fansite.

Agreed, so removed. DONE.

• The main thing that is missing from the article is a sense of the global behemoth that the club now is. The popularity of the club in Asia ought to be mentioned, and perhaps its regular position at the top of football club rich lists. If I'm not mistaken (I don't have a reference for it to hand) I think the club have broken the British transfer record more times than any other too.

Yea, you're not the first person to say this and it is something I've been meaning to add. I just need to find a few hours to download some papers on it and get my old books out of the loft.

• I don't like sponsorship sections, though that is mostly personal preference.

What is it you don't like about it?

• The list of club officials looks to breach WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Do we really need to know who the club doctor or assistant club secretary is? I don't even know what a "head of human performance" is.

I disagree, but I'll add this on the discussion page and see what the consensus is.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

This is a very thorough article, packed with good information and enjoyable to read. Well done! I have some questions and suggestions; the questions are mostly rhetorical, so they're more designed for you to consider, not actually answer.

I may or may not be able to watch this page closely, so please drop me a line if you have questions or concerns you want feedback on. Congrats on your fine research, and I look forward to someday seeing the FA star up top.

Images

• The article feels weighed down with too many images. I recommend removing the chart (impressive though it is), and the Treble trophies too. (Again, they're nice, but not as useful to the reader as images of people and places.) I'd also suggest removing the 1960s badge — perhaps that would be useful if/when a separate article appears about the crest itself?

I've removed the trophies and the badge to the appropriate sub-pages, but I've kept the chart, because I think its important, and it's in many football club featured articles and it is bound to come up at FAC if I remove it.

• The pic of Ferguson faces away from the text, but images should generally face it. Maybe replace it with the lead image on Alex Ferguson?

I've moved the old fella to the left so that he faces the text. It works well because there was a picture below it anyway.

Lead

• Having won a joint-record 18 league titles... I think the link should go in "joint-record", or maybe include the numeral 18 in the link. As it is, the reader assumes we're going to a page explaining league titles.

Agreed, especially since the FA Cup and League Cup wikilinks lead to the appropriate page on the title itself. I've moved the wikilink to 'joint-record' and kept the 'league titles' linking to the Premier League page.

• Generally speaking, you should only wikilink items in the lead that are controversial, or are likely to be challenged. (I don't think those apply to the date of Ferguson's hiring, heh.)

Done. :)

History

• If you use nicknames for some of the year spans ("Early years", "Busby years"), you should use them for all of the year spans.

I've changed 'Alex Ferguson era' to 'Ferguson years', but I really can't think of a good name for the preceding period. Any suggestions? Wilderness years, perhaps?

• Jimmy Murphy took over as manager while Busby recovered from his injuries... I assume Busby was on the plane that crashed? If so, we should specify in the previous paragraph that other folks on board were hurt.

He was indeed. I've changed the above paragraph to reflect this.

• In the US, the full name of a sport team is usually preceded by "the" — "the Dallas Cowboys", etc. I assume this is not true about UK teams? (It's odd for me to read "... which they lost to Bolton Wanderers", but I assume it's a regional difference.)

You are correct. "The" Bolton Wanderers would sound odd to anyone from the UK.

• Wilf McGuinness is a cool name.

And a very common one in Ireland!

• A 1990 victory over Crystal Palace in the FA Cup Final replay (after a 3–3 draw) saved Ferguson's career. Explain why his career was in jeopardy?

I believe this was explained in previous versions of the article, but I think I removed it in an attempt to cut down the article in size. I suppose if someone was curious they could check out the sub-article (which is linked) or the reference.

• ... what is considered one of the greatest comebacks of all time. This should have a citation after it.

Agreed. I'll look for one. Now done.

• Ferguson was subsequently knighted for his services to football. Could we get a year for this? "subsequently" feels clunky here.

"Subsequently" doesn't feel clunky to me, because people are generally knighted at the same times of the year, every year (the Queens birthday honours (in June) being the case here, I believe).

• I suppose it's natural, but the chronology seems to get very very detailed in the 2000s. Given the rapid pace of earlier sections, it seems like this should be addressed.

Yes this is something I had noticed too, this is, of course, because it is the most recent but then again it is also because this period has seen rapid and sustained successes, whereas in previous periods they were most spread out.

• Manchester United regained the Premier League in the 2006–07 season. Is the word "championship" missing here? Or should it say "rejoined"? Or am I just dense?

No, you're not dense, but that just makes sense as it is. To say the 'Premier League championship' here would not sound right.

• Manchester United then secured their third consecutive Premier League title, the second time they have achieved this feat. This doesn't make sense.

It was the second time they had won three consecutive Premier League titles.

Crest and colours

• I wonder if we should link to Manchester_City_Council#Coat_of_arms?

Does no harm, so done.

• I'm totally unfamiliar with the term "away strips". Is this a typo, or is it a regional difference?

Regional difference I think, this seems normal to me. Would 'kit' sound more familiar?

• In some spots I wonder if there is a singular/plural problem, or if it's a US/UK difference. For example: "Manchester United's current home kit features red shirts with a shallow black chevron..." It makes more sense to say "... features a red shirt ...". But maybe it's just me.

I suppose they both make sense, but I prefer your version, so I've changed it.

Support

• After Malcolm Glazer's takeover in 2005... It's odd for this to be the first mention of ownership. Why not put that section just after "History"?

Do you mean put the 'Support' or the 'Ownership' section just after History?

• The West Stand of Old Trafford – the "Stretford End" – is the home end and traditional source of the club's most vocal support. This feels stuck in.. Maybe it belongs in the previous section?

I think this has already been moved.

• I wonder if this section should be renamed, since it includes the subsection "Rivalries". I can't think of a replacement, but it's weird to have "Rivalries" as a subsection of "Support".

Hmmm, I personally think "Rivalries" and "Support" go hand in hand, because it is generally speaking the fans that decide the rivalries, not the clubs.

Global brand

• The attacking style of play adopted by this team (in contrast to the defensive-minded "catenaccio" approach favoured by the leading Italian teams of the era) "captured the imagination of the English footballing public". We should have a citation directly following this quote, and it would be good to mention in the text who said it.

I've added a citation (it was the same one as at the end of the paragraph), and it was the author of the referenced book who said it, I think.

• I wonder if the bit about George Best is best suited (ha!) in the next paragraph, which discusses off-field personalities in general.

I wondered this as I wrote it, but George Best is more relevant to the association with the liberalisation of Western society, in my opinion. Besides, sponsorship, merchandise and TV rights (obviously), which are all relevant to David Beckham, were not as relevant to Best.

• Since the inception of the Premier League, Manchester United has been the highest-grossing club in the league from the BSkyB broadcasting deal. The wording in the last part of this sentence is awkward. Maybe "participating in"? Maybe I just don't know enough about the deal.

Agreed, so changed.

• The club's development of its membership scheme – One United – through which anyone with an affinity to the club could purchase club branded goods and services, or those from partner companies of United, notably financial services products (through Manchester United Finance supporters can purchase products such as credit cards) and Manchester United-branded media services such as the club's dedicated television channel – MUTV, and text messaging services, has allowed the club to expand its fan base to those beyond the reach of the club's Old Trafford stadium. This is IMPOSSIBLE for me to understand. I think I have an idea of what's being said, but the syntax is hard to follow. Please rewrite it, preferably as two or more sentences.

Done!

• Could we have an example of the lower-tier "platinum" sponsors?

Done.

• Nike manages United's merchandising operation... This is the first time I remember seeing the club referred to as simply "United". If it's a common convention, that's fine. But I was under the impression that you were trying to be consistent with either "Manchester United" or "the club".

Well spotted, I thought I'd caught all of these.

• In September 2006, a £56.5 million deal with... We've had the pound symbol in other places before this sentence. Any reason why this is the first wikilink?

I don't think so. Done.

• Do we really need to know the dates when sponsorship deals took effect? Feels like extraneous information to me.

Hmmm. I guess not. But I'll leave it in for now, because its easily removed, if thats ok.

Ownership and finances and other sections

• I didn't know fans teamed up to stop Murdoch from buying the team. That's so cool!

:-)

• I don't understand why we're getting a relative value conversion for the Glazer deal. Seems like it should just be what the value was at the time.

I'm not sure what you mean. I only see the conversion to dollars, which is what it was at the time.

• The bit about debt refinancing comes out of the blue. Start that paragraph with an explanation of where the debt came from, if you can. (Otherwise, just start with: "By 2006, the club owned xxxx worth of debt.")

I've had a re-giggle, and mentioned the leveraging in the previous paragraph. hope this makes it clearer.

• I assume nothing more is available about the "Red Knights" meetings?

More is available about the Red Knight's intentions, but there was a question as to whether this would violate WP:Recentism

• I don't know how valuable the "Club officials" list is. Feels like WP:Listcruft to me.

Not the fist person to mention this, I've already raised it on the discussion page.

• I haven't scrutinized the honours section or the references very closely — hopefully before FAC you'll have someone with more expertise than me review those areas.

Oki doki, looks fine to me but I've read this article so many times sometimes obvious things pass me by.

Good luck with the article! Kudos again for your hard work. Scartol • Tok 21:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Most of the credit should go to PeeJay for this article, who has been tirelessly working on it for years. I've only been working on it for a few months.

You give me too much credit, Tom. I have merely kept the article in order for years. It is other editors, not I, who have done most of the cleanups and addition of content. – PeeJay 00:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well whoever the credit goes to, lets hope this article gets to FA, because as the worlds greatest football club, it really should be featured! Tomlock01 (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Royal Gold Cup

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it into FAC. A major masterpiece of medieval metalwork from the British Museum. Any comments welcome!

Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• After a week with no comments, I think I'll just go to FAC. Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Ipsita Roy Chakraverti

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this is an extremely interesting article on a woman, who fought against all odds and became what she wanted to be. She declared herself as a witch in a country, where the very word itself is a taboo. I have developed the article in accordance to the GA standards, just want my fellow reviewers to correct any prose or structure related problems in the articl, especially prose. My English not that good. :(

Thanks, --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start on an article about an interesting woman. However, in my view it has a POV problem in that it presents the hidden powers of witches, crystals, amber balls, wands, and other beings or objects as though their supposed powers can be verified by reliable sources. Some of the journalists in the "1996–2004: Election candidacy, Beloved Witch and Sacred Evil" section express doubts about the mysticism or at least Chakraverti's version of it, but in places the article presents Chakraverti assertions about special healing powers as facts rather than assertions. I think it's possible to find reliable sources for biographical claims and claims about publications, therapy sessions, public meetings, and other physical phenomena, but I don't see how it's possible to find reliable sources to support claims about the supernatural. It's not hard to believe that Chakraverti, who seems pretty dynamic and persuasive, can convince other people that crystals or something else will heal them. It's not hard to believe that she can help other people with problems related to self-esteem or depression. What is difficult to believe is that crystals or amber balls or wands do the healing. I think you could improve the article by being careful not to claim that what she is saying is true or false but simply to report that she said it. It would also be good if you could include more analysis by critics, not just of her books, but of her methods and her claims. She says she is a witch; anti-witch people say that witches are evil, but where are the critics who say the argument is a lot of nonsense, that nobody is a witch? (I am reminded of a scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail that satirizes a test to determine whether a woman is a witch or a duck.) Here are a few other comments:

• I don't have time to copyedit the article from top to bottom, but I agree with you that it needs a copyedit. For example, a sentence in the lead says, "Amidst the backlash that followed her declaration, Chakraverti explained to the media regarding the Neo Pagan ways of Wicca and its healing power." I'd suggest something like "During the backlash that followed her declaration, Chakraverti explained the Neopagan ways of Wicca and its claims of healing power to the media." Further down in the lead, a sentence says, "Chakraverti started the Wiccan Brigade, a platform for those who wants to study Wicca... ". "Wants" should be "want". A bit further down, a sentence says, "has been credited for bringing a new light on the taboo subject of witchcraft in India". Something like "has been credited with shining new light on the taboo subject of witchcraft in India" would be better, although the "shining light" metaphor is over-used. I'd prefer something like "frankly examining the taboo subject". You might find a copyeditor via WP:PRV.

• The dab checker in the toolbox on this review page finds one disambiguation link.

• What makes Life.Positive.com a reliable source?

• I'd move the crystal skull image to the right or down further on the left to avoid bumping a subhead.

Early life and introduction to Wicca

• "The group studied ancient texts, long-forgotten customs and the mystical ways of life." - I find this section a bit too vague, and this sentence illustrates what bothers me. What ancient texts? What specific long-forgotten customs? What is meant by "mystical ways of life"?

Finishing Wicca study

• "Chakraverti translated the scrolls and realized that she was the reincarnation of Luciana." - This is presented as though it were a fact. I don't know how you could support the claim that she was in fact the reincarnation of Luciana (or anyone), but you could rewrite the sentence perhaps like this: "Chakraverti translated the scrolls and came to believe that she was the reincarnation of Luciana." The claim that she claims to be the reincarnation is not the same as the claim that she actually is the reincarnation. This is an important distinction.
• "However, she did not receive a certain glowing amber ball of Hecate, which confers vision and is used for toning up the electro-magnetic system of the body." - I see the same problem here. What supports the claim that an "amber ball of Hecate" exists or that it "confers vision and is used for toning up the electro-magnetic system of the body"? I don't think it's possible to find a reliable source for these claims. It may be possible to find reliable sources that support the claim that somebody made these claims but not that the claims are true or false.

Coming out as a witch

• "Chakraverti brought forth the curative powers of crystals and would admonish it for curing people from backache, pains and spinal injuries." - Here is another claim for which no RS can be found. You might be able to find an RS for something like "Chakraverti expressed faith in the curative powers of crystals and recommended them for curing people from backache, pains and spinal injuries."

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we would like to know what our policy should be on articles that contain lists related to television?

Thanks, Taric25 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Closed. WP:PR is not a suitable place for reviewing project pages- this process is only for articles. Courcelles (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  

---

List of top 10 singles in 1992 (UK)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, as with the 1952 list, I want to check up the quality of prose and also to get some assistance with finding references.

Thanks, 03md 00:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TbhotchTalk C. 16:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Remember that per lead, this paragraph, of a list, summarize the entire article. Some comments I can give are: The UK Singles Chart, compiled by the Official Charts Company,... -> Did you mean "The UK Singles Chart, compiled by the Official Charts Company,? Songs that entered the top 10 in 1992 but did not peak until 1993 are listed in a separate table and -> commas and WP:NUMBERS = Songs that entered the top ten in 1992, but did not peak until 1993, are listed in a separate table, and... ...table and in List of top 10 singles in 1993 (UK) and similarly... -> table and in the next year chart, and similarly songs that peaked in 1991 but remained in the chart are listed in List of top 10 singles in 1991 (UK). -> songs that peaked in 1991, but remained in the chart are listed in the previous year chart. I have changed your wording slightly and changed them in the article. different singles reached their peak -> maybe "topped the chart". "Reaching their peak" doesn't necessarily mean getting to the top of the charts. four singles recorded in 1991 and one that did not peak until 1993 also charted in the top 10 during the year. -> commas = four singles recorded in 1991, and one that did not peak until 1993, also charted in the top 10 during the year. Done for 8 -> for eight Done. ...1992 with four. -> ...1992, with four. Done. Done. "Heal the World, which -> Miss something. also three dead links Those are some comments. Also I recommend a copy-edit. TbhotchTalk C. 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thankyou for your input. I have enacted the changes. 03md 11:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Welcome. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Sarah Palin interviews with Katie Couric

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it appears close to getting a Good Article status, but I'd like a second opinion. Thanks, The lorax (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Esuzu - Hello! I am Esuzu and will try to help you to reach GA with this article. Please respond directly below my comments so we can easily see what have been done and what have not. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

General

• There is only one image in the article. More should be added. (A image of Palin shouldn't be too hard to find)
• The lead is not big enough. It should summarise the whole article. And should not mention anything you do not mention in the text. Thus references is not needed in the lead.
• Using external links in the text is normally frowned upon (e.g. Walter Cronkite Award for Journalism Excellence)
• Can we use the that many quotes without getting any copyright problems?
• Generally I feel the article has a bit too many quotes. Try turning some of them into prose and describe instead.
• In Origins there should be a bit more lengthy introduction to who Palin and Couric are.
• Try to avoid vague terms of size such as "all", "several" and "many". Specify instead.
• Ref 8 is dead.
  

---

Sigma Tau Gamma

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to hopefully get it upgraded to feature article soon. Also, there are only a small number of people editing it and I want to make sure that no one person (including myself) impacts the style to greatly. Also I have written a lot of the content as staff member for the organization, so this will help to ensure a fair POV and neutrality.

Thanks, addisonschopp 21:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton preliminary comments:-

• The article has a major cleanup banner, placed by addisonschopp on 3 June. Articles for peer review must be clear of such banners; is this one still in effect?
• There are several disambiguation links to fix. The toolbox in the right hand corner identifies them.
• A number of section headings breach the MOS requirements on capitalisation, e.g. "Collegiate Menber Awards", "Important Dates" and others
• The two books entered under "Further reading" are both used as sources in the article. "Further reading" is intended for books on the topic that are not cited. I suggest you change the heading to Bibliography.
• The online citations are presented as bare urls, and need to be formatted properly. See WP:CITE for information on doing this

Brianboulton (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Hoover Dam

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because… User: NortyNort and myself intend to take it to FAC and we'd like feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Hello. I believe the technical facts and figures are well into place to qualify into FA status. On the other hand, I did notice some areas are written like a story (example: On the morning of the 9th, Crowe met with the committee and informed them that not only were their demands refused, but that all work was being stopped and the entire work force laid off except for a few office workers and carpenters. The workers were given until 5 p.m. to vacate the premises. Concerned that a violent confrontation was in the works, most workers took their paychecks and left for Las Vegas to await developments.); perhaps a quick rephrasing could fix this. Other than this, the page seems perfectly fine to me. Good luck. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a point. That part of the article is written at a much slower pace than the rest of the article, and it is narrative-based. I'll play around with the language a bit, but I'm not sure if a fundamental change is possible without deleting it, which I am loath to do. I hope other reviewers will look at this point and comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Total Drama (franchise)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it could be able to get more closer to the standards of Wikipedia but I just don't know how to make it happen.

Thanks, Rohedin ^TALK 15:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is a show I have seen most of the episodes of. While this is a decent start, here are some suggestions for expansion and improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - The Simpsons is a WP:FA about an animated television series and so seems like it would be an excellent model for this article. The Apprentice (UK) is another possible model.
• I wonder if the title of the article is the best one - the article itself never refers to the "franchise" outside of info and nav boxes. Neither the 1st or 2nd season articles use franchise to refer to the series either. Why not call it Total Drama (series) or Total Drama (TV series)?
• While the article needs to be expanded, what is there needs more references, for example the comparisons to other shows (otherwise they sound like Original research
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
• The lead is not an adequate summary of the article (and will have to be added to as the article is expanded). I would mention the names (and link to) the series in the lead.
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
• I would try to add some History of the series to the article. Answer questions people might have about it - who are the creators, where did the show originate, who are the actors and other creative talent involved, what has each season been like, etc. See the model articles for ideas on what to include.
• The good news is that both the Total Drama Island and Total Drama Action articles have a fair amount of this hisotry and background material
• The article is so short now that there is not a lot else to say. Good luck and thanks for working on expanding and improving this.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Goodison Park

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see neutral feedback.

Thanks, TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

My first impressions are positive. The article seems comprehensive, and sourcing wise it passes the Inglis test. Brief comments from a quick run through:

• There are a few run-on sentences that need splitting or rewording (try saying "It has hosted more top-flight games than any other stadium in England and has hosted the maximum possible number of Premier League games as Everton have never been relegated from that division." aloud)
• Later in the history there are a number of one or two sentence paragraphs, which disrupts the flow. Achieving a narrative feel can be damn hard, but fortunately there is some good advice at User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Achieving_flow.
• I'm not convinced of the need for the fair-use images given that there are several free use images in the article.
• External links should not appear in the prose.
• A graph of average attendances could perhaps be included, like the one in Portman Road.
• Before the all-seating regulations were introduced some fans would climb up and watch a football game from the church rooftop. - misleading, makes it sound like it was specifically prohibited by the Taylor Report or something.
• As Goodison is a ground featuring Leitch architecture, it might be worth seeing if your local library has a copy of Engineering Archie, a book about the structures he created, for source material.

Hope this helps. If you would like further comments drop a note on my talk page. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• Though I am not a soccer fan I enjoyed reading this article. Two tiny pedantic questions about consistency within the article:
  • Orrell or Orrel? Both are used. (Having grown up in Orrell Park I have a prejudice in favour of the former.)
  • St Lukes or St Luke's? Better with the apostrophe, I'd say.

I've corrected two typos ("Eveton" and "leveled"). Sorry not to be able to add anything more substantial. - Tim riley (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

---

New Mexico

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to GA status.

Thanks, ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 15:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start on a difficult topic but is not yet ready for GAN partly because it has sourcing problems and does not follow Manual of Style guidelines in several important ways. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

• The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections. If you imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead, you'll have a better idea of how to write it. WP:LEAD has details.

• Significant parts of the article lack sources and therefore cannot be verified by readers. For example, the second paragraph of the "Geography" section is unsourced; the second paragraph of the "Transportation" section is unsourced; the "Politics" section is unsourced; "Culture" lacks sources; "Architecture" lacks sources. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source per paragraph as well as any statistics, direct quotations, and claims that have been questioned or are apt to be questioned. A example of a claim that is sure to be questioned is "New Mexico is commonly thought to have Spanish as an official language alongside English...". What reliable source says so?

• The article is more list-y than necessary. The Manual of Style suggests rendering lists as straight prose when feasible. (See WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists). The lists of national forests, national parks, national monuments, and so on, would be easy to render as straight prose of three or four paragraphs, for example. I'd also suggest rendering the two tables in "Important cities and counties" as straight prose to achieve a better layout.

• The Manual of Style advises against creating text sandwiches between images or graphics, and it advises against illustrations that extend across section boundaries. For example, the chart of historic populations should be placed entirely within the Demographics section, and it should not make a text sandwich with the population graphic on the left. For another example, the image of the Santa Cruz church should be made to fit within one section instead of overlapping a section boundary.

• Images should not displace heads, subheads, edit buttons, or text such as "Main article: History of New Mexico" in the "History" section.

• The Manual of Style advises against extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sections. "Freight", for example, is much too short as are "Primary and secondary education" and "Colleges and universities", "Urban mass transit", "Oil and gas production", "Economic indicators", "Aerospace", and "Catholic church hierarchy". One-sentence orphan paragraphs like "As of January 2010, the states unemployment rate is 8.5%" are also a no-no. Both kinds of too-short problems can be fixed either by expanding or merging, whichever seems more appropriate.

• The organization of material within sections is puzzling in places. For example, "Law and government" begins with a sentence about the constitution of 1912 then leaps to a death-penalty law in 2009. It would seem more logical to me to put the death-penalty sentence last in the section, after the general things that follow from the constitution. Adding the death-penalty law also raises the question of why it is the only one mentioned here; surely other important laws were passed between 1912 and 2009.

• You might review articles on other states to see how other editors have handled similar projects. For example, South Dakota is a GA article about a U.S. state.

• The article lacks information about the geology of the state. I would suggest adding the basics either to the "Geography" section or to a separate "Geology" section. "Oil and gas production" might be moved into the new Geology section and merged with other material.

• The link-checker in the toolbox at the top of this page finds several dead urls in the citations. These will need to be fixed or replaced.

This is not a complete line-by-line review but should give you plenty to work on. Good luck with the article. Finetooth (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

---

List of former territorial authorities in New Zealand

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to put it forward as a featured list candidate in the future. I am currently trying to obtain a copy of a book which should fill a number of gaps with respect to dates.

Thanks, dramatic (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start on a complicated list, but it isn't ready for FLC. I have several suggestions for further improvement.

• I wonder if the article title is appropriate. Two words, "former" and "authorities", are questionable. The trouble with "former" is that it is not specific. It doesn't tell the reader that it means "before 1989". The trouble with "authorities" is that it might be taken to mean the people (Smith or Jones or John Doe) in charge rather than the governments or political districts. Would "political subdivisions" or "administrative districts" be better? Would it be possible to expand the list to include local governments through 2010 and simply eliminate the word "former"? That way, the list would be set up to accommodate any future changes to the New Zealand system.

Firstly, I agree that the scope should include authorities which have ceased to exist since 1989. So far these number one: Banks Peninsula District Council was subsumed by Christchurch City a few years ago. And later this year, four cities and two districts will vanish and be replaced by a much larger Auckland City Council. This will be addressed by rewriting the lead.dramatic (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, "Territorial Authority" is the correct technical term in New Zealand - it is used in legislation, and by Government websites, e.g.[41], and to a reasonable extent by the populace, although the informal terms "local authority" is also used, and the phrase "local body politics" is common. "Political subdivisions" sounds more like parliamentary electorates to me. However, I see that 17 of the top 20 hits for "Territorial Authority" on Google are for New Zealand usages (subject to Google localising results of course), so it appears that the term may be unique to this country. In which case I don't believe we should change the title, but explain the term in the lead, and possibly use redirects.

• The "orphan" tag at the top of the article needs to be addressed.

• The existing lead is far too skimpy. It mentions only a 1989 change. I would suggest doing the research necessary to write a fairly detailed history of territorial authorities in New Zealand, beginning with the earliest rather than the most recent. A chronological explanation might help readers understand the complicated relationships among the various kinds of governments. I imagine the process started with the naming of New Zealand by, I suppose, the British, and the setting up of the first colonial subdivisions. All changes since then presumably followed a kind of logic that an outsider could understand.

• Maybe the lists should be ordered chronologically, starting with the provinces. The logic of this arrangement would parallel the logic of the re-written lead I am suggesting.

Broadly speaking, there are three eras of territorial administration in New Zealand: the Provincial Era, in which the country was divided into about ten large provinces; the counties era from 1876 - 1989 (which is the era covered here) and the current era following the 1989 reorganisation. I agree that these should be explained better, perhaps by summarising the articles on the Provinces and the post-1989 era. However I am not sure how to go about doing this (I am only an occasional contributor and am a bit confused by some of the ways of doing things). Perhaps by dividing the article into the three separate eras, and then covering each era? I also think that all the cities in existence in 1989 - not only those that were amalgamated into other areas that year - would be worth adding to the list. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's often helpful to look at featured articles or lists to see how other editors have handled similar content. WP:FL#Geography_and_places includes several that you might find interesting.

• Would it be possible to include maps showing where in New Zealand these places are?

It would be fairly difficult given the number of subdivisions and mergers which have occurred over the years. I'm sure we already have a post-1989 map, and I have seen a map made soon after the original 1876 subdivision into counties. But many of our references to existence are merely gazetteer entries.dramatic (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• The citations are all incomplete. Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and most recent date of access if all of these are known or can be found. The "cite" family of templates can be helpful in doing the citations. WP:CIT has details.

• The areas in the tables should all be given in imperial units as well as metric. The {{convert}} template is a handy tool for embedding conversions in the text or, if you prefer entering them by hand, for doing the conversions in your sandbox.

• "fl. 1972" - "fl." should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use.

• "When the provinces were abolished in 1876... " - What provinces? Should the list include a sublist of the provinces?

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this article find 19 disambiguation links that need to be fixed and one dead url in a citation.

I hope these suggestions and questions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Shimer College

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I aspire to take this to FAC soon and am hoping for a good wringing out from the fine editors at WP:PR. A nitpicky going over with the FAC process in mind would be very much appreciated.

Thanks, Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I think this professionally written and apparently comprehensive article is ready for FAC. It's clear, well-organized, interesting, and enjoyable. I can imagine some "own photos" that would be better than some of the existing ones, but that would not prevent me from supporting this article at FAC. I have a few comments and quibbles, none of which should cause much trouble. Nice job.

• The flaming smelt is the most unusual mascot I have ever encountered. Wonderful.

History

• "In the late 1960s, Shimer experienced a period of internal unrest known as "the 'Grotesque Internecine Struggle' which resulted in half of the faculty and a large percentage of the students resigning from the College." - Perhaps just a sentence explaining the essence of the struggle would be good. I couldn't help but be curious about something with such a wonderful name.

Note b

• You might mention the St. Johns campus in Santa Fe, N.M., as well.

Note c:

• The return click does not seem to work on this note. Ditto for Note e. That is, clicking the little arrow to the left of the note letter in the footnote does nothing, whereas with the other three notes the arrow hops the reader back to the note-insertion point in the main text.

Curriculum

• "Shimer awards Bachelor's degrees with concentrations in Humanities, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences. Two-thirds of the courses needed to graduate are required Core Courses." - Instead of initial caps perhaps "bachelor's", "humanities", "social sciences", "natural sciences" and "core courses"? Ditto for "core", "core curriculum"? On the other hand, the caps seem useful on "Basic Studies", "Advanced Studies" and "Advanced Integrative Studies", which appear to be proper nouns.

Special programs

• "A joint program has been operated since 2009 with Harold Washington College (HWC), one of the very few Community Colleges to offer a Great Books program... ". - Lower-case "community colleges". Ditto for "bachelor's" in the next sentence.

Recognition and accomplishments

• "can’t be captured in the U.S. News measurements" - Should U.S. News should be in italics?

Governance

• My inclination would be to go easier on the initial capital letters here too. Here's an example: "and the assets of the College. The Board delegates authority to the President of the College, who acts as the chief executive administrator, and to the Dean of the College." My sense of these words is that "college", "board", "president of the college", and "dean of the college" are all generic terms not needing caps. Ditto "board of trustees". On the other hand, "Shimer College" is fine because that's its full, formal, and unique name. Later in this section the word "Assembly" is capitalized many times, which I find jarring. My solution would be to alter "Since 1977, Shimer has been governed internally by faculty, staff, and students working through a structure of committees and a deliberative body called the Assembly... " to "Since 1977, Shimer has been governed internally by faculty, staff, and students working through a structure of committees and a deliberative body called the assembly... " and then to refer to it simply as "the assembly" or "assembly" thereafter. I'd also lowercase "constitution" later in this section.

Student life

• ""Students do not necessarily graduate with the skills for specific career." - Should that be plural, "careers"?

Other

• The dab tool in the toolbox above finds two disambiguation links.

I hope these few comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. (Forgive the boilerplate here. I know you do reviews, which are much appreciated.) Finetooth (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

---

List of museums in Somerset

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded it significantly, adding pictures, coords and summaries, supported by multiple references. I would like to get this to Featured list status and would any comments which would help - particularly in relation to size & layout + the text in the lead and summary sections. There are loads of other articles for counties in England (see Category:Lists of museums in England by county - which were created in a standard format, however this is the first to try to expand on the basic list and others are starting to follow the lead. Therefore comments on this article are likely to have wide application. Thanks, — Rod ^talk 19:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

At first glance the list is beautiful, lots of great pictures and well-organized. I'll add some thoughts below.

Lead

• I think a word is missing from this sentence:

"In the United Kingdom is a building which has been placed on the Statutory List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest."

Perhaps "this" after "Kingdom" and before "is"? Not sure though.

• Revised.

• This sentence is a bit wordy:

"In England and Wales the authority for listing is granted by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and is presently administered by English Heritage, an agency of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and Cadw in Wales (where it is a devolved issue)."

I would recommend ending the sentence after "1990". I would also recommend adding an "of" between "Act" and "1990". I would then remove "presently", which is unnecessary since the context makes it clear you are talking about the present. I'm not sure it is necessary to say it is a devolved issue, it just seems a bit to detailed for me. But I'll leave that to you.

• I've shortened the sentence (& removed the reference to Wales which is not relevant), however the format of the wording of the Act is set in UK law.

• You have Grade II* and Grade II. Is this intentional? If so what is the "*" for?

• Yes - they are different classifications II* is higher than II

• I don't think you need to capitalize Local museums. Local is not a proper noun.

• Done

• I would move these instructions under the Museums heading rather than have it in the lead:

"To use the sortable table, click on the icons at the top of each column to sort that column in alphabetical order; click again for reverse alphabetical order."

• Done

Museums

• Some of the summaries have the grade listing and others don't. Is this because the grade listing is not always available? If it is available each summary should be consistent with the grade listing.

• Not all of the buildings which house the museums are listed buildings

• Watch out for linking common English terms like garden, and ink. The list is a bit over-linked.

• Thanks I will go through & look at these

• Done

• Listed building is linked several times. Per WP:LINK it is only necessary to link it once in the lead and once or perhaps twice in the body of the article.

• I have this debate about sortable lists before - if the 1st occurrence is linked & then someone changes the list order it is no longer the first occurrence - but it is linked in the lead so I may remove them all.

• Done

• "Artefacts", is this the British spelling of the word? I think it's "Artifacts" in the US. Please check.

• Yes a UK variant - see 1st line of Artifact (archaeology)

• In the Bath Postal Museum it says, "There was also a replica Victorian post office." The rest of the summary is present tense, should "was" be "is"?

• I will check - but this one moved a few years ago & what is in the new premises is different to the previous one.

• Is there a plan to add the images that are missing? That would really complete the list.

• I can't find public domain or suitably licenced images for the others - I will keep trying

More to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks - really helpful so far.— Rod ^talk 18:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• The summary of the Bruton Museum says it is in the Town's High Street. What town? The town of Bruton? As I am not familiar with Somerset county I don't know if there is a town called Bruton. Perhaps this could be spelled out better?

• Done

• Linking Local museum in the Type column only needs to be done once, same for any other type of museum.

• Done

• National trust is linked a lot, link once in the lead and once in the body of the article. That's all that is necessary.

• Done

• "...and a room is dedicated to the live and work of Parson James Woodforde." Do you mean "life" rather than "live"?

• Done

• In the Chard Museum summary you have "VC", which should be spelled out as Victoria Cross. Abbreviations should only be used after they have been spelled out so that readers who are unfamiliar with them will understand. Linking it is fine but it should still be spelled out for the first usage of the term.

• Done

• This sentence needs some connecting words:

"Operated by the National Trust, 14th century manor house, collections of Nailsea glass and Eltonware pottery."

Perhaps rewrite thus: "Operated by the National Trust, this 14th century manor house contains collections of Nailsea glass and Eltonware pottery."

• Done

• Similar issues with this sentence:

"Operated by the National Trust, home of poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge.[61] It was constructed in the 17th century."

I would rewrite it like this: "Operated by the National Trust, this home of poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge was constructed in the 17th century."

• Done

Also you only need one in-line cite for ref 61, you don't need two.

• Done

• Watch out for terms like this, "...it is considered by many...." This phrase is considered weasel words. It is located in the summary of the Cothay Manor. Think about rewording if possible.
• In the Crewkerne and District Museum summary, "...a old house...." "A" should be "an". Also these words should not be capitalized: Coins and Medals, Costume and Textiles, Fine Art, Music, Personalities, Science and Technology, Social History, Weapons and War. They aren't proper nouns.

• Done

• In the Fyne Court summary is "AONB". What does this stand for? Again watch the use of abbreviations without first spelling it out.

• Done

• There are a couple of issues with the Holburne Museum of Art summary. First you duplicate wording, "silver, Old Master paintings, Italian bronzes,...maiolica (which is spelled differently in the two times it is mentioned in the summary), porcelain, glass, furniture and portrait miniatures. Second, the terms are linked in the second mention rather than the first, this should be reversed, well actually one of these lists should be removed entirely. Third, silver is linked to the medal, is there a display of silver nuggets, silve coins, silverware, it seems a bit general to simply say "silver". If that is as specific as the source goes then leave it as is.

• Done

• In the Market House Museum summary this list should not be capitalized, "Archaeology, Coins and Medals, Land Transport, Maritime, Natural Sciences, Science and Technology and Social History."

• Done

• In the Museum of Bath and Work summary is this sentence,

"This museum was established in 1978 to present the commercial development of Bath over the last 2000 years and includes displays on four floors."

Do you really mean the last 2000 years? If so that's fine, it just seems like maybe it should be 200 years? Just wondering.

• Yep since Roman times

• In the Museum of Somerset the term "fine silver" is used with silver linked to the article on the mineral. I think it would be better to link it to silverware or something more specific. I assume that is what is intended when the adjective "fine" precedes "silver".

• Done

More to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry I have to edit in chunks. In the Porlock Museum summary the Herb Garden should not be capitalized.

• Done

• There are several instances of sentence fragments like this one, "Operated by the National Trust, 14th century house." This is found in Priest's House. It would be good to check the first sentence of each summary and make sure you have complete sentences rather than fragments.
• In the Somerset Military Museum you have "artifacts" spelled with an "i".

• Done

• In Tropiquaria, "The building was an an art deco BBC" only one "an" is necessary.

• Done

• I have an issue with this phrase in the Tyntesfield summary, "...and is highly picturesque, bristling with turrets and possessing an elaborate roof." It starts to sound like a travel book here. Words like "picturesque" and "elaborate" are very descriptive and probably correct, but also are opinions that we should avoid in an encyclopedia (in my humble opinion of course).

• Done

• Is there a missing word in this sentence from the Watchet Boat Museum summary?

• Done

"There is also an example of a mudhorse which is a wooden sledge is propelled across the mudflats to collect fish from nets."

I'm looking at between "sledge" and "is". Perhaps "that"?

• Done

Also in the same summary, "The museum specialises in the shallow draft Flatner, a form of vessel..." I would remove "form of". This seems like unnecessary wording. I would then add a "that was" after vessel.

• Done

• This is just a little pet peeve of mine found in the West Somerset Rural Life Museum and Victorian School:

"The building was built in 1821 as the village school and was closed in 1981."

"Building was built" uses duplicate root words. Try changing "built" to "constructed" or some other word that doesn't have the same root as "building".

• Done

• In the summary of West Somerset Railway, what is GWR? In the Yeovil Railway Centre summary G.W.R. is listed with periods and is linked.

• Done

References

• Travel publications are not the worst sources possible but they aren't seen a very credible. That said sometimes it's all we have. Wherever possible though it's good to find other sources.
• You use Images of England several times. Is this a book? If so please include page numbers. It's linked to an article about a database of photos. Is that the source you are referring to? Sorry last stop, I'll finish the review very soon. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• Ok, I'm back. Ref #24 has "Things to see and do". Is this the name of a magazine? A book? A website? Sorry it's a bit confusing.

• Changed

• Ref 86 appears to be a book but I don't see a page number.

• Done

• Ref 107 has a "pp." which is used for multiple pages but only one page is listed (73). I suggest removing one of the "p's".

• Done

• Ref 133 also has no page number though it appears to be a book. Same for refs 142, 161, and 164.

• Done for 133 & 142 - 161 & 164 to do.— Rod ^talk 15:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• What makes the Website of Bob Speel credible? See ref 182.
• There are no publishers and accessdates for refs 193 and 194.

• Done

• Ref 201 is a url only, no title, publisher or accessdate.

• Done.— Rod ^talk 21:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Overall

• The article is very well done. Much of the suggestions above are nitpicky and specific in order to tighten up the writing and make sure everything is consistent. I'd say you're very close to being able to list it at WP:FLC. This concludes my review. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page as I do not routinely watch review pages. Please consider reviewing an article here or at WP:GAC to help reduce the backlog. Thanks and good luck. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for a very thorough review. I've dealt with some of the issues and hope to get to the otnhers over the next few days.— Rod ^talk 20:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Achilles tendon rupture

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make a wikipedia article about achilles tendon rupture that is educational and accurate for all to view. this is also a school project

Thanks, Bradley JonesBjones12 (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I just removed a {{FAC}} template from the top of this peer review. If you want to take the article to WP:FAC, the FAC template needs to be added to the article's talk page, i.e. Talk:Achilles tendon rupture. After a very brief look at the article, I think this would be a quick fail at FAC - the article is seriously lacking references. The lead also needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. This is not a fell peer review, but one should be coming in the next several days. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for working on this important article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• As noted above, the major problem I see with the article is a lack of references. There currently is only one reference in the first four sections after the lead.
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Specific claims like Fluoroquinolone antibiotics, such as ciprofloxacin, and glucocorticoids have been linked with an increased risk of Achilles tendon rupture. need a ref, as do other claims like Direct steroid injections into the tendon have also been linked to rupture.
• References need to be complete enough that the interested reader can follow them for more information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Watch out for contradictions within the article - the lead says The male to female ratio varies between 7 to 1 and 4 to 1 depending on differing studies. but the body of the article says The average age of patients is 30–40 years with a male-to-female ratio of nearly 20:1. Which ratio is it? Again refs would help here as the ratio could be checked against the original literature.
• The article also needs to be consistent on little details - for example how ratios are presented (is it "7 to 1" or "20:1"? Either is OK, but pick one and stick with it.
• The lead is far too short and needs to be expanded. It should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, please see WP:LEAD
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• The Manual of Style says not to link the bold terms in the first sentence of the lead - so "Achilles tendon rupture is a rupture of the Achilles tendon , and is the most common injury involving a break in a tendon."
• The article as written has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede its flow - to make it less choppy these should be combined with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded.
• Avoid words like "recently" - use actual dates instead (these things become out of date) - so fix things like Most recently, David Beckham, an internationally known footballer and icon ruptured his achilles tendon, also ending his ability to play in the 2010 FIFA World Cup for England.
• Also avoid abbreviations the average world reader might not know (TE, WR, etc)
• More images would help
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several WP:FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Health_and_medicine that may be good model articles.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please--Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC) contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Apostles of Linnaeus

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have the intention of making this my first Featured List. I normally do not work with lists and am thus not very experienced. I need help with developing the article to FL standard since I am not sure if it is OK as it is or if it needs more info etc.

Thanks, Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Question: Are you sure that the list format is the best way of treating this article. Given the very substantial amounts of text within the list as drafted, this looks to me as though it could or should be organised as a straight article. Comments? Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking on that for some time but have not dared to make any change. I would gladly re-organise it. The reason I kept the list was because about some apostles very little information can be found but I guess that might be no problem. Thank you for your comment. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's of any help to you, a couple of years ago I was preparing Farthest South, a list of convergences on the South Pole from Magellan to Scott & Amundsen, involving some fifteen expeditions. I soon realised that the list format was not appropriate, and made it into an article. Something similar may work here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That is very helpful! Thank you. I will make it into an article as soon as time allows me. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to give me a ping when this is ready, and I'll be happy to review it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be perfect. Once I am ready with the re-construction I will ping you. Cheers, Esuzu (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Maggie Horton

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this character has been on the series, Days of our Lives. The character is an extremely important character in the show. I want it up to Featured Article status, and I know it needs a lot of work, but I know I can accomplish it. I am willing to put in all the hard work necessary.

Thanks, Sami50421 (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I'm not sure I can add much to the suggestions already made during the GA reassessment. My advice would be to work slowly through all of the suggestions made by the GAR reviewer to improve the article as much as possible. Here are a few other suggestions:

• The main problem is that the article is essentially a long plot summary plus a tiny bit of other material. It therefore seems doubtful that the existing article can be said to be broad in coverage. If it's not broad in coverage, it doesn't meet all the criteria for GA. The difficulty you face is that this soap-opera character may not have had enough written about her by sources that meet the WP:RS guidelines to actually write an article that is broad in coverage. I know next to nothing about Days of Our Lives and nothing at all about Maggie Horton, so I don't know if reliable sources can be found or not.

• It's often useful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar writing and research problems. For example, Bernard Quatermass is a featured article about a television character, and you might find it interesting as a model.

• I agree with the GAR reviewer that many of the existing sources are problematic. What makes each of these sources reliable? Fan sites, personal blogs, and many dot-coms do not meet WP:RS. Articles from edited journals and newspapers, books published by reputable firms, and government sources are generally reliable, but the existing article draws mostly on sources like raising-redheads.com. In fact, I'm having trouble finding any reliable sources among the existing 52 citations.

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page are handy for catching certain types of errors in any article. They find two dead urls in the citations and seven links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Manila

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article had met FA criteria.

Thanks, Harel (Not what you think?) 12:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I am not sure what you mean by "the article had met FA criteria" - this has never been a FA and did not pass its one FAC. I think this needs a lot of work to get to a point where it would pass at FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Biggest problem I see is that the article is seriously lacking references in places - there are whole sections without refs (Government and Education, for example), while other sections have whole paragraphs without refs (Economy and Culture and contemporary life ). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Some refs are incomplete in the amount of information they have - for example current ref 13 is only a link and title and date "^ "Mahal Ko Si Lolo, Mahal Ko Si Lola". http://litoatienza.org/about/projects/mahal-ko-si-lolo-mahal-ko-si-lola/. Retrieved 25-04-10." This needs a publisher Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Refs also need to be formatted properly - so for example years should be four numbers (2010, not 10; 1945, not 45) and ALL CAPITAL LETTERS should be written in Title Case (All Capital Letters)
• I would also make sure that only REliable sources (RS) are used in the article. For example, as a world city, I would expect many more than three books would be used as sources. Encyclopedia Brittanica is not the best source to use here, and I wonder why things like http://getrealphilippines.com/legacy/3-00_Makati/pollution.html are relaible sources - where is the fact checking and editorial control here?
• The article has to tell a coherent story for the interetsed but ignorant reader. For example the infobox says Manila was "Settled June 10, 1574" but this is not in the body of the article. The History section seems to start in the 13th century, with the city apparently already in existence, but a sentury is not given until 5 sentences in. Someone who knows little about the history of the Phillipines will not know what is going on
• Make sure to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR - for example, the first sentence of the History section is "First known as Gintu (land of gold) or Suvarnadvipa by its neighboring provinces." (with no wikilinks). There is no context given here - no year, and no indication as to what was known as Gintu (assume it is Manila, but not sure). This is also a sentence fragment - it has no verb.
• There are places where the logical flow needs to be improved - for example, in History this is what is given on the Second World War: "In 1899, the United States purchased the Philippines from Spain and colonized the whole Philippine archipelago until 1946.[10] The Philippine-American War followed that. The war destroyed Manila but the Americans made modern contributions to the urbanization and planning of the city, but even this was wiped out during World War II. Manila was the site of the most fierce battle in the Pacific theater during the war." First off there is a difference between colonizing a place and ruling it as a colony. Second WWII was over in 1945, and then the Philippine–American War supposedly followed this, but the article on the Philippine–American War says it was over by 1902. Then the next sentence starts with "The war destroyed Manila ..." but it is unclear which war is meant (WWI or Phillipine-American War?)
• Only four sentences on World War II with 100,000 dead in Manila, only one sentence on the Marcoses, but a very large paragraph on events since 1995 and Lim and Atienza (in which we are twice told Lim was mayor). See WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT
• One of the FAC criteria is a professional level of English - the writing here is in serious need of a copyedit.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs on cities at Category:FA-Class WikiProject Cities articles that would be good models

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Rob Hamill

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I think that I have been through all online sources, adding relevant information. What needs to be done to get this up to GA?

Thanks, Adabow (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Esuzu - Hello! I am Esuzu and will try to help you make this article achieve GA status. Please respond directly under each comment I make so I can easily check what you have done. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

General

• The article is very short. To reach GA it needs to be "broad in its coverage." Try expanding it, the Biography could start with "Early years" including education so the reader get a good insight in his life.
• Not many other articles link to him. Try to find other articles which mentions Hamill and link to this article.

• I used the search tool, and found about six more pages to link from. Adabow (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• On a quick look the sources looks OK. With that many sources it shouldn't be hard to add more relevant information.
• The lead, most readers will only read this, needs to be expanded. The lead should summarise the whole article. Currently it does far from that. Look at Madonna (entertainer) for an example of how a lead can look for a living person.

• How is it now? Adabow (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)'

Expand the article first. Then you can expand the lead as well. It has a long way to go I and I am not sure this is ready for Peer review yet. You need to add much more information into the article. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 06:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• There are some in the text. Resolving them would be a good start.
  

---

The Temple at Thatch

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This rather slender specimen is in a new field for me, and I am anxious for any general feedback I can get. Some may think the subject-matter too slender, but I believe that Evelyn Waugh's first mature attempt at a novel, and the fate of this attempt, are matters of interest. I have included all the details that my research (mostly here, if you're interested) has revealed, and I don't think there's much more to be said that's relevant. However, I'd like other views on that, so please be unsparing. Thank you. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Firstly, I don't believe EW ever met Eric Blair until long after this, or that they knew each other at all well at any point - see the Letters, where it is still "Dear Mr Orwell" until he is on his deathbed. Robert Byron would be a better substitution. Some of the notes repeat the full details in the references. Otherwise I expect you have squeezed all you can out of this. Next stop Philip Larkin's early schoolgirl epic? Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Blair (Orwell) was a mistake; he was an Eton contemporary of Acton, Connelly & Co, but he wasn't at Oxford and as far as I know never met Waugh, though they corresponded. I've dropped him. No, I won't be doing the Brunette Coleman stuff, though it's fun and I wish someone would. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You'd think they must have met at literary parties at some point, but it is hard to document. Sykes calls him a "friend" of EW, which seems excessive. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments It's nice to do an article where you're sure you are covering all of the material, isn't it? I looked around at the published material on this story and I only found what you found. If there is anything else, it is obscure. :) Here are the few thoughts I had.

• After his friend Harold Acton commented unfavourably on the novel in June 1925, Waugh burned the manuscript. By his own account he then made a half-hearted suicide bid before returning to his senses. - What is the connection between these two events? The sentences don't explicitly lay it out.
  • I have linked the two events (depression caused by this rejection and other plans going wrong)

• he produced a parody of Katherine Mansfield - "a parody of Katherine Mansfield's style of writing"?
  • "style", yes; "of writing" seems a bit heavy.

• At Oxford, while leading a largely dissolute life, Waugh contributed regular articles, reviews and short stories to both the main university magazines, The Isis and The Cherwell - What made Waugh's life any more dissolute than any one else's at this time? Perhaps explaining what he did rather than labeling it "dissolute" would be better?
  • Reworded, "dissolute" removed.

• The letter from Acton has not survived. The wording is as recalled by Waugh in A Little Learning - I would include these facts in the main body of the text - this seems quite significant to me as people often misremember criticism.
  • Good idea, done.

• Is there any more information about the plot that you can give, perhaps in a tiny "Plot summary" (or "Plot reconstruction") section?
  • Not really. The longest "plot summary" we have is Waugh's one line in A Little Learning, which isn't really a plot summary at all. We have no idea of the plot that he was constructing around the basic premise, as given.

• Which of Waugh's other works should be redlinked in the article?
  • I doubt whether any of Waugh's juvenila or undergraduate stories will ever acquire articles of their own, although Early works of Evelyn Waugh would make a great article, and I'd even consider doing this myself. An article on "The Balance" would I think be merged with this one. I have added a (blue) link on Vile Bodies; that's about all. No redlinks justified, I'd say.

I did a teensy bit of copyediting while reading. Please revert anything you don't like. Awadewit (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for giving your time to this review, which has helped significantly to improve the article. Your copyedits are fine, too. Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking this over.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments. Not many. This is very plainly an article in which the author has very limited information to work with. That's not a detriment, it is simply invevitable under the circumstances.

I notice that a number of Waugh's contemporaries, as he had forseeen, went on to careers which were at least prominent enough to make them notable on Wikipedia. I would give some thought to the occasional "future so and so", just so the reader knows who some of these people are without clicking, especially if they had an effect on Waugh's actions. Acton, for example, though that might be tough given that he is best known for what he was not.

• Acton et al are already described as "future writers and critics of eminence" which is I believe enough to identify them in readers' minds. As to Acton, what can you say about a man who writes a book called The Indian Ass?
• "The first indication that Waugh was contemplating a novel appears in a letter dated May 1924," Indication? I'm not sure if that is the best word but I'm not coming up with a clearly better alternative. This is merely the earliest known references. Perhaps consider striking the first indication language and beginning with the fact about the letter.

• Reworded

• If Waugh was in the final weeks of his Oxford career as he contemplated the novel, some more exposition on what was going on "in real life" for Waugh as he wrote the fragment might be helpful to the reader.

• I dare say that what was going on was what went on for much of Waugh's Oxford life: parties, drink, sodomy – but I don't think the detail is particularly required here. He started the book because, in his perception, his friends were making names for themselves and he wasn't.

• " he confides to his diary that it is "in serious danger of becoming dull", and expresses doubts that it will ever be finished." I would put these clauses in the past tense. I would doublecheck to ensure that similar clauses and sentences are also in the past tense. I've done the same thing and then had people complain at FAC.

• This is always a tricky one. The "literary present" can be difficult to justify sometimes. I'll do a check.

• "It was a misfired jeu d'esprit." Should not the French words be in italics? And is translation in order? I understand enough French to understand the words, but I'm guessing this is an idiom.

• I've italicised, and added a definition in the footnote.

• You might want to say if he successfully withdrew his resignation at Arnold House, although that is small beer to the rest of his career.

• He left the school, and returned to London. Material added to that effect.

• I would consider merging "The Balance" into either the preceding or following sections.

• It was initially part of "Aftereffects", but that made that section rather long. I think the story is worth its own section, and will leave it thus unless there are monumental objections.

A good effort. Comprehensive and shows little sign of the thinness of the sources it is based on. It is hard to write cohesively on a subject where sources are meager and not really concentrating on this, I think you've done it well.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time for these comments. I'll leave the article for a few days before deciding whether it's worthy of FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it will pass. Somewhat shocked to hear that you were having trouble getting reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I was particularly looking for reviews from Eng Lit bods, but they are in short supply at present, mostly either retired, semi-retired, blocked, depressed or bored. The WikiProject Novels people, who I thought might be interested, simply awarded it a C-class without comment or explanation. But Awadewit stepped up, and with hers and your own wise comments I reckon the article has been well served. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have an Eng lit degree if that makes you feel any better, and you have got a lot more reviewers than most articles here. Johnbod (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies: you were the first to respond and your remarks were very helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I did minor in English at a well-regarded university. Probably more relevant than my degree in math, much of which I've totally forgotten, not having used it getting on for a quarter century! I think it is worth running up the flagpole at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

---

List of Best in Show winners of Crufts

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've previously worked on the Featured List List of Best in Show winners of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and I'd like to get this one up to the same standard. However this one has proved to be a little different following further research I conducted at the British Library earlier in the month and the discovered of a title that pre-existed Best in Show.

The main issues I can foresee, will the incompleteness of Best Champion cause it to fail the FL criteria? Should I add an image column to Best in Show although currently there don't seem to be a single free use image for any of the dogs listed there.

Issue I'm aware of - there's no groups column for best champion - as far as I can tell there were no set groups prior to 1928, and they only came in at the same time as Best in Show, but I'm trying to find a citation for this. (Edit: Now found that they did predate Best in Show prior to 1928, however since Best Champion was not automatically the group winner, its probably best to leave the column out anyway. Miyagawa (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC))

Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I love dogs, so I was glad to see this article coming up. There are a few issues for attention:-

• Prose
  • General standard a bit iffy. I have done some copyediting in the first paragraph, but the rest could do with attention, preferably from a new pair of eyes.
  • I am puzzled by the expression "although the records of the winners is incomplete." Does this mean that the records have been permanently lost, and that it is impossible to reconstruct the missing parts? If this is so, you need to be a bit more definite and say why the records are incomplete.
  • I don't think you need two separate citations to two consecutive pages of the same work. It would be better to cite "Jackson (1990): pp. 194–95"
  • "The current holder of the title..." This sentence will be out of date by the next Crufts. Is it necessary to say this in the text, since the information is included in the table?
  • Most of the information in the second paragraph, and certainly the level of detail given, is not relevant to this article. It should be severely curtailed.
  • There are numerous prose glitches in the remainder of the lead, which I trust will be picked up in the copyediting. A few examples: two "ands" in a sentence, "mid-1960s" lacking hyphen, use of "Mr" etc.

• Tables
  • Best Champion table. This looks a bit scrappy at present, the chief issues being:-
    • The broken columns, arising from the large number of "unknown" years, give the table an unfinished look
    • The small number of photographs draws attention to the general lack of images, in this and the subsequent tables. Why not remove the iages from the table and place them in an independent gallery? This would enable more photographs to be added if they became available, without having to disturb the tables.
    • Inconsistencies in the "Owner" column: "Mr" and "Mrs" entries followed by unadorned surnames, use of an ampersand to separate two names, the Duchess given in full glory.
    • Overall, the table looks a bit cramped. You could make columns wider, particularly the "Year" column; numerals always look better with some space around them. Likewise, the refs column looks squeezed.
  • 1928 to present table
    • The last point, above, applies to this table as far as the "Year" and "Refs" columns are concerned, and also the "Group" column.
    • More inconsistencies in owners' titles.
  • Most successful breeds and Most successful groups tables
    • You should align the numbers to the centres of their columns - it looks much neater

• References: I haven't carried out a sources check, but it is not necessary to give retrieval dates for books when you use the Google book link.

That's all I have. If you need to raise issues with this review, please ping my talkpage as I am not able to watch peer reviews at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Paolo Nutini discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done alot of work on improving it recently and would like suggestions for any further improvements, and if it can be taken towards FL.

Thanks, Mister sparky (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A pretty sound job here, with a few suggestions for further improvement:-

• Lead
  • Can you explain "4×"? What does the tiny symbol signify?

changed to four-times. Mister sparky (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• • ""Last Request" being the most successful, reaching number five on the UK Singles Chart and number eight on the Irish Singles Chart." Not grammatical; suggest replace "being" with "was"

changed. Mister sparky (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• • WP:MOS requires that "8th" be written "eighth"

changed. Mister sparky (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Tables: these are generally pretty good. A few small points:-
  • Studio Albums: Why is "SWI" used to represent International Federation of the Photographic Industry?

the IFPI is the certificating body, that particular certification is for switzerland. Mister sparky (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • The wikilink on SWI goes to the IFPI article - n0 apparent connection to Switzerland. Brianboulton (talk)

as i said, the IFPI is the certificating body that covers europe, the ref shows its for switzerland. Mister sparky (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Use of bolding and italics in all or most tables might be contrary to MOS. Suggest check WP:MOSTEXT, Boldface and Italics sections.

the album titles being in bold in the details, and being it italics in the singles table is exactly the same as every other FL discography. Mister sparky (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• • The heading "Other appearances" is slightly confusing - the article is not basically about "appearances". Perhaps it should be "Other songs"? The explanatory note should make it clear that these are songs by Paolo Nutini that have not (yet) appeared in his albums.

they are songs that don't appear on any of his albums or singles, and the note does say that. all FL discographies call this section "other appearances". Mister sparky (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • "Other appearances" is surely an inappropriate heading for a list of songs that don't appear on any of his albums or singles. I got confused by the title and the note, and I believe others will, too. But it's up to you. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

as i said, every single discography has this heading for this section. the heading fits perfectly, as they dont appear on the albums, they are "other" songs, just like the heading and the note say. Mister sparky (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• • This final table, unlike the others, is lacking citations

yea i know i need to find those. Mister sparky (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• References
  • Nos 12, 28 and 29 are all citations to the same source, but 12 is formatted differently from the other two.

they are for 3 different citations to 3 different pages, to verify 3 different charts. but have fixed the formatting of no.12 Mister sparky (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Nos 15 and 38: the newspaper sources should be italicised.

fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with this. If you have any issues with this review, please ping my talkpage as I am unable to watchlist peer reviews at present. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

---

The Beau Brummels discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this discography for peer review because I am interested in opinions on how it fares against the featured list criteria. I would appreciate comments on the prose, structure (e.g., should the box sets be listed separately from the other compilation albums?), style, or any other issues that stand out.

Thanks,  Gongshow ^Talk 22:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This appears to me to meet the criteria except that I don't know whether it's comprehensive or not.

• I've looked at a few similar FLs at WP:FL#Music to see how they compare to this one. Alice in Chains discography, for example, includes extended plays, music videos, and video albums. I have to assume that none of these apply to the Beau Brummels, but I don't know for sure. Nine Inch Nails discography includes soundtracks and remix albums. Both Alice and Nine Inch include chart positions in several countries. Probably the Beau Brummels did not chart in any countries that you have not mentioned. I only raise these questions by way of suggesting that you leave no stone unturned before approaching FLC. Since the list is short, I'd try to include anything that might be relevant.

• I fixed a few minor things such as en dashes instead of hyphens in page ranges and date ranges.

Lead

• "They signed the Beau Brummels to their fledgling Autumn Records label, where the band's early sessions were recorded with Autumn house producer Sylvester Stewart, later known as Sly Stone." - I'm not sure a label can be a "where". Also, "were recorded with" sounds a bit odd. Suggestion: "They signed the Beau Brummels to their fledgling Autumn Records label, and their house producer, Sylvester Stewart, later known as Sly Stone, recorded the band's early sessions."

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. They don't amount to much, but I can think of nothing else. If you find the comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Finetooth, thanks a lot for the feedback. I share your concern regarding the comprehensiveness issue; as a relatively obscure band who has not recorded new material in 35 years, some potential discography elements simply do not exist (e.g., music videos, remix albums, album/single certifications, and while it seems likely that their debut album would have charted in Canada, no album charts were compiled there until 1968). With that in mind, I totally agree with your suggestion to make sure no stone is left unturned. For example, just prior to this PR, I added an Australian chart placement for "Just a Little", so I'm hopeful that I can dig up additional relevant material to help overcome the comprehensiveness issue. Thanks again for your help!  Gongshow ^Talk 22:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  

---

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to take the article to FA soon, and after many previous nominations and peer reviews, I believe sufficient work has been done on the article for it to make FA class.

Thanks, The Taerkasten (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks comprehensive and generally reads well. The sections seem to me to be about the right length, and the Legacy and Interpretations sections are especially interesting. I found and fixed a few errors such as the use of hyphens instead of en dashes in date ranges and page ranges, and most of my comments have to do with other prose and style issues. I think if you can polish the prose a bit here and there, the article will be ready for FAC.

• No dabs or dead urls. This is good. The alt text is missing for the second image, and I'd think about changing the alt text for the first image to include only what can be seen and what would make sense to a blind person. Suggestion: "Film poster of a large chainsaw-holding man and a screaming woman fastened to a wall behind him. Writing on the poster says, "Who will survive and what will be left of them?"; "America's most bizarre and brutal crimes!"; "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"; "What happened is true. Now the motion picture that's just as real."

• Overlinking. I would not link common English words like "store", "corporation", or "contract". What to link and what not to link requires judgment in each case, but generally I would not link words that I thought most readers of English would already know.

Lead

• "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre started the six films of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre film... " - Maybe "was the first of the six" rather than "started the six"?

Plot

• "The pair bring Sally inside, with the hitchhiker taunting her when he realizes who she is." - Slightly better might be "When the pair bring Sally inside, the hitchhiker taunts her when he realizes who she is."

Development

• "He had previously developed the idea of a film centering on isolation, the woods and darkness; and continued to explore these ideas as he thought up the concept of the film." - This could be tightened. Suggestion: "He had already developed the idea of a film centering on isolation, the woods and darkness, and he pursued these themes as he worked on the project."

• "He also credited the local San Antonio news as part of the inspiration for the film, due to the graphic nature of the story being featured." - This does not quite make sense. Does "story" in this sentence refer to a specific news story, or does it refer to the film plot? If the former, what was the story? Did he read about Ed Gein in a San Antonio newspaper or watch a story about Ed Gein on San Antonio TV? I think this becomes more clear later in this section that Hooper was referring to general news coverage of violent events, but perhaps you should say this explicitly here, perhaps like this: "He also credited graphic coverage of violence by San Antonio news outlets as part of the inspiration for the film."

• "In return, MAB owned 50% of the film and its profits." - Generally "percent" or "per cent" is preferred to % except in scientific articles or complex listings that repeat % many times in a table or other special situation.

• "Vortex made the idea more attractive by awarding nearly everyone with a share of Vortex's potential profits, ranging from .25 to 6% (similar to mortgage points)." - By "nearly everyone", do you mean the cast and crew? Also, I'd add a leading zero to the first number here to make it more clear; i.e., 0.25 percent to 6 percent.

Casting

• "The cast consisted of actors around Texas who had previous roles in commercials or television and stage shows, as well as acting acquaintances of Hooper." - Maybe "The cast consisted of Texans who had previous roles in commercials or television and stage shows as well as actors that Hooper knew."

Filming

• "The film was shot mainly using an Eclair NPR 16 mm camera, blown up to 32 mm;" - Rewrite to avoid suggesting that the camera was blown up.

• "The local sheriff was called to investigate, but did not arrive and the filmmakers were never reported." - Do you mean the plants were never reported?

Release

• "After the initial release, including a one-year theatrical run in London,[42] the film was banned in Britain largely on the authority of British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) Secretary James Ferman,[43][44] but saw a limited cinema release because of various city councils, including Camden Council, which granted a license to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which was later classified 18 by the BBFC." - Too many clauses. Rewrite as two sentences?

• "Greater Union Organisation (GUO) Film Distributors were refused registration for a 2283.4 (83m 27s) print in July 1981." - Something missing? The number 2283.4 doesn't seem to be attached to anything. What are the units?

Adaptations

• "They were licensed The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise to Avatar Press for use in new comic book stories, the first of which was published in 2005." - Missing word? Maybe "licensed as"? Can something be licensed as a franchise?

• "Topps Comics Jason vs. Leatherface series being an exemption... " - Exception rather than exemption?

References

• Single pages are abbreviated with "p" and multiple pages with "pp". Thus citation 1, for example, should say "p. 316". I'd suggest checking all of the citations for this small error.
• All of the dates in the Reference section should appear in the same format and should not be mixed as they are in citation 81, for example. Since you have used yyyy-mm-dd for most of the dates in the citations, I'd recommend changing the exceptions to yyyy-mm-dd.

Bibliography

• "Grant, Barry Keith; Sharrett, Christopher (2004)" should be repositioned to maintain alphabetical order.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Done sorting most issues, will resolve others in due course.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

---