Wikipedia:Peer review/June 2013

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

---

You Lost Me

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I listed it for GA and it failed... So I'm planning to do it again, but I want someone to say something about it first. Thanks. Jorn ^talk 21:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I'll give my idea first:

Infobox

• The file for "iTunes EP cover" isn't necessary

Lead

• Lyrically, the song talks about a cheating man, who has left the protagonist's world view "infected" ---> I think this sentence has a problem
• first in a room full of damaged furniture, second in an area filled with charcoal, and thirdly in a blue and white room. ---> first... second... third, not fist... second... thirdly

Composition

• Set at 50 beats per minute, it is set in the key of A-minor, and Aguilera's vocal range spans from the low-note of Eb3 to the high-note of E5. ---> has a problem again. Fix it

Still reviewing, those are my first issues. — HĐ (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Crusades

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This vital article is being improved as an entrant in the Core Contest: Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. This peer review is part of the process, which runs from 0.00 hrs UTC 15 April to 0.00 hrs 12 May 2013. All editors are invited to offer suggestions for article improvement.

On behalf of the Core Contest judges, Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The dead link [1] for "The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World" from doaks.org should be replaced with: http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/byzantine-studies/crusades/cr01.pdf Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• there is a significant amount of overlinking throughout
• there are a number of external links that need checking [2]. Suggest you use Google Books links rather than Amazon as they tend to be more stable.
• none of the images have alt text (this is important for vision-impaired WP users)
• there is one bare url reference [3]
• suggest the first sentence of the lead needs a re-work. For example, they were a series of wars "taking that took place". The immediate reference to "propaganda of religious expeditionary wars" jars quite significantly. I believe the stated aim was to recapture the Holy Land, so that should probably be what goes in the first sentence. The way in which they were encouraged may well have been through the use of such propaganda, but it is inappropriate to have the ways and means put ahead of the aim.
• terminology and spelling needs to be consistent throughout. Seljuq/Seljuk/Turkish Muslims is an example.
• an infobox with a map of the areas fought over would be a useful addition. The current miniature painting is not an appropriate lead image.
• when using terms which are linked, but which are not self-explanatory, some context or explanation is needed. An example is the Investiture Controversy. Some words need to be added to explain that this was a conflict between the Church and monarchs about who could appoint church officials.
• the use of Just War doctrine in the Crusades is highly questionable given it wasn't properly defined by Thomas Aquinas until after the Crusades. This point needs to be carefully cited from scholarly sources. The current section is unreferenced.
• the statement about the numbering scheme must be carefully cited
• there is a definitional problem in general with the article. In the lead it defines what the Crusades were, then in the Middle Eastern crusades section it talks about other "crusades". The scholarly sources need to be mined carefully to define what the subject of the article is, then stick to it throughout. No problem with mentioning that some authors may go wider, but the lack of definition and "mission creep" is rather clear in the current article.
• the First Crusade needs more explanation of the pledge made by Bohemund.
• is Bohemund I of Antioch the same as Taranto? Needs explanation.
• "taking the cross" is unexplained until the etymology section, which should probably go up near the top of the article.
• the See also section has a number of links already in the body of the article. It could be significantly reduced in size.
• there are whole sections with no citations at all.
• there are many section that are too small to justify remaining separate.
• there are some highly controversial statements throughout that have been tagged, and need careful citing to scholarly sources.
• it needs a thorough copy edit.

Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Belated comments from Casliber

make sure you link terms such as Levant at first instance.

The crusaders comprised military units of Christians from all over Western Europe, and were not under unified command. - if you flip this to: "Comprised of military units of Christians from all over Western Europe, the crusaders were not under unified command." - trying to avoid "crusade(r)" being one of the first two words of every para in the lead.

Pilgrimages had been allowed by Christians to the holy sites in Palestine from soon after their conquest by the Muslims - sounds like the Christians are the ones doing the allowing....

Needs a line mentioning the lack of evidence for the childrens' crusade (now that does sound like an intriguing story...)

I am wondering whether the defintiion and use of the word should come at the top rather than the bottom.

I suspect the criticism and legacy sections could be bigger....

---

Carolina Panthers

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this to FA status. I've noticed there are a great deal of soccer clubs that have attained that milestone, but no American football clubs have ever done so. Toa Nidhiki05 23:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Source review

Since I have nothing better to do right now, I'll review the article's references.

1. The reference gives the publishing date as January 5, 2012, while the source states that it was published January 5, 2011. Also, this reference uses day-month-year format, while all others use month-day-year format. You need to change this one to match. Also, The News & Observer has the OCLC 27990457. I would consider adding this, using |oclc=.
2. I would consider adding the effective date of the document, which is July 16, 2002.
3. Same as 2, except the date for this one is January 1, 2000.
4. I would consider adding |work=Team–History to the ref.
5. This one needs to be changed to cite journal, not cite web. Use this: {{cite journal |last=Hoffer |first=Richard |date=October 28, 1991 |url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1140299/index.htm |title=The Franchise |journal=[[Sports Illustrated]] |location=New York |publisher=[[Time Inc.]] |pages=64-66, 70, 72-73 |volume=75 |issue=19 |issn=0038-822X |accessdate=April 28, 2013}}
6. This needs to be changed to cite news instead of cite web. Use this: {{cite news |last=Swan |first=Gary |date=September 19, 1996 |url=http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Carolina-s-Davis-Has-His-Hands-Full-Again-2965647.php |title=Carolina's Davis Has His Hands Full Again / Former 49ers corner renews duel with Rice |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |oclc=137344428 |accessdate=January 19, 2013}}
7. Again, needs to be converted to cite news. The author is the Associated Press, and you've already linked to Sports Illustrated above, so remove the link.
8. Needs to be cite news again. And the Chicago Tribune has ISSN 1085-6706.
9. The link leads to the upcoming 2013 season's schedule, and I can't find the 1996 schedule, so I can't provide comments on this one, except to fix the link.

I'll try to continue this later, but I'm losing internet connection right now, so try to fix these six right now. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 02:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this took me so long. With my own review and a poorly planned out series of tests in school, I haven't had much time to work on this. Comments on next three sources above. More to come. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 03:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed those notes; I sympathize with your test plight. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... I'll be adding some comments, mostly about style and phrasing, etc. in a bit. Runfellow (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Runfellow, Part 1

Lead and general

• I don't know if "representing" is technically correct here. Although they are in the area, they don't represent the area in the same way as a college team would represent a university or a national team would represent a country.
• Wikilink for the NFC South should probably include "division" as well, to make it more intuitive as to where it goes. Also, since "southern" isn't the proper name of the division, I don't think it should be capitalized.
• Why are the LLCs in bold?
• I don't think MOS:CURRENCY has anything specific on it, but it seems like there should be a "$" somewhere in "USD 1 billion".
• Although WP:LEADCITE doesn't say so explicitly, I think it would be a good idea to include an inline citation for the value statement, since it is specific and it cites Forbes.
• "The Panthers uniforms" – Include possessive apostrophe after "Panthers"?
• "heated rivalries" seems redundant to me, since it seems there are very few "cooled rivalries".
• The first sentence of the second paragraph says they had success in their first "several years", but I think most would agree that two is not "several".
• "Despite their early success," – This is hard to explain, but "despite" is really more of a concurrent thing than a chronological thing. For example, "Despite having more touchdowns than interceptions, Player X's passer rating was still the worst in the nation." But "Despite winning four games in a row, the team lost it's fifth game" doesn't really work, because it's implying more of a connection than there really is.
• "would not have another winning season" – "did not have another winning season"
• "won the NFC" – To be clear, they won the NFC Championship Game. This would remove the wikilink in the next sentence to that article.
• Delete "In their short history"
• You'll want to have at least some summary of the "Culture" and "Ownership and administration" section somewhere in the lead. Generally speaking, anything meriting its own section in the article deserves some mention in the lead.
• In many win–loss records and scores in the article, there are hyphens where there should be en dashes. I can fix this easily if you want.

I'll be back later to go over the history section. Runfellow (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've done all of these now except the last; I'd be glad for you to fix those hyphens for me. Toa Nidhiki05 19:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

---

2012 Atlantic hurricane season

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after a long GAN, I would like to know how it can be further improved. After this peer review closes and the issues are addressed, I may very well nominate this for Featured Article. In other words, I would like to potentially avoid a bad FAC episode in the future.

Thanks, 12george1 (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

---

List of mottos

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am not sure what it is for and whether the topic of the article is not so broad that it will run away with itself. It seems to contain a lot of disparate topics; lots of examples from very specific areas and none from others. Might it be better turned into a list of lists, split off? Or is it better left as it is? Thanks, Quentin Smith 17:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Cirt

1. I agree that the quality of the page is quite poor.
2. There are only five (5) sources listed for the entire page, and some of those appear to be linkspam!
3. The lede intro sect blatantly fails WP:LEAD.
4. The article scope is unclear.
5. The page appears to be unencyclopedic. Maybe if it were sourced to WP:RS and WP:V secondary sources, there would be something to work with here.
6. It would take a significant amount of time and energy to improve the page to a point where it would have any value whatsoever.

— Cirt (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Metamorphoses

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This vital article is being improved as an entrant in the Core Contest: Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. This peer review is part of the process, which runs from 0.00 hrs UTC 15 April to 0.00 hrs 12 May 2013. All editors are invited to offer suggestions for article improvement.

On behalf of the Core Contest judges, Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Extending review. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Preliminaries

It's late in the game, but MasterOfHisOwnDomain posted a request on my talk page asking that I might take a look at what he's done on this article, so here we go. In the Core Contest entry for this article MOHOD describes his goals for the Metamorphoses as "to create more content and re-work existing content (including providing more sources) with the intention of nominating for GA." Thus I will soon make suggestions below for what I feel is needed before the article should be nominated (or passed) as a Good Article (with a few clues toward FA), but first I'd like to point out exactly what MOHOD has accomplished to date.

This is how MOHOD found the article, and this is its condition as I write.

The article formerly engaged with no prominent (or even significant) Ovidian scholarship. It now includes works which must be read by students of the poem (Galinsky, Otis and Solodow), contributions by important, contemporary Anglophone Latinists (Hardie, Lyne, Harrison), and the intermediate commentary of Anderson, which is middling and has specific flaws, but which is consulted by scholars and is about the level of discourse appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

All of three paragraphs were devoted to the poem before. These have been embellished and restructured with the guidance of solid, recent scholarship. None of the appropriate, but uncited content has been deleted, and where possible MOHOD has cited what was already there. There is now greater coverage of the important topic of Ovid's engagement with Greek "models" and what once was a bulleted list of cultural touchstones has become a bonafide start on the huge topic of the Met.'s reception.

Specific comments and questions

• In the lead: "Considered one of the most influential works in Western culture, particularly European ..." While I understand its motivation, the qualification seems a bit off in perspective. The Nachleben of a classical text in the West will have more fat on it in Europe because for the lion's share of the poem's existence that's all there was of "Western culture".  davidiad { t } 17:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Entirely fair; removed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• In "Source and models". The first three sentences seem to misconstrue Galinsky's scenario. He's setting up a distinction between Hellenistic poets' treatment of myth and the more austere approach found in earlier Greek poetry (his examples being Pindar and Aeschylus). So there's nothing "contrary" about Ovid's relation to Hellenistic poetry.  davidiad { t } 17:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Found it rather hard to understand Galinsky's meaning. Will re-think how to word that particular point. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also in "Source and models". "In the case of an oft-used myth such as that of Io in Book I—the subject of literary adaptation as early as the fifth century BC, and as recently as a generation prior—Ovid ..." I'm not sure where that "5th century BC" comes from, but it's incorrect. We know of texts treating the myth from at least the 7th or 6th centuries, and when we start looking back in Greek literature into the archaic period, it gets really murky as to exactly when something became a "literary" subject. Maybe make this two sentences, rephrasing the bit about early treatments and explicitly referencing Calvus, whose article needs some lovin'. On Calvus and Ovid, see Hollis, A. S. (2007), Fragments of Roman Poetry c. 60 BC–AD 20, Oxford, ISBN 9780198146988{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). I'll mention more opportunities for improving this section later.  davidiad { t } 18:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• The 5th century statement comes from Anderson, I believe. Glad for another source and the pointer on how to better phrase it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Probably the nearest to a secondary source citation for the early side of the tradition is that book I mentioned a couple days ago: Ziogas, I. (2013), Ovid and Hesiod: The Metamorphosis of the Catalogue of Women, Cambridge, ISBN 9781107007413{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link), on page 69, which discusses Catalogue of Women fr. 124. That poem might be the earliest known treatment of Io and is dated anywhere from mid-seventh to late sixth century. Citations for the varying dates, if needed, can be found in Catalogue of Women#Date, composition and authorship.  davidiad { t } 20:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• In "Manuscript tradition". "... no manuscript survives from this period." I would change "period" to "antiquity", since we wouldn't expect a copy from near to it's publication to have survived.  davidiad { t } 19:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Okay. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also in "Manuscript tradition". "it is only from the eleventh century onwards that manuscripts have been passed down—taken together with those from the twelfth and early thirteenth there are over a dozen texts, of varying value, of the Metamorphoses." This relies on Anderson, who says not "texts" but "witnesses". By this I presume he was was referring to independent manuscript families (that is, groups manuscripts that show affinities pointing to a common hyparchetype), but who knows? I'd just delete the mention of Anderson's "over a dozen" since it is unclear just what he meant, and Anderson, despite his having revised the Teubner, isn't someone we should be looking to too often for the state of the text. What's of value from him in that paragraph is the scarcity of earlier manuscripts and the fact that the 11th through the 13th centuries is the period on which we rely for our text.  davidiad { t } 19:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Right. His statement seemed to contradict another source about the number of manuscripts running into the hundreds (will find out which source). Without understanding the critical scene—as you obviously do—it was difficult for me to decide between them. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• The manuscript tradition is always the most Byzantine, most boring part of these things.  davidiad { t } 20:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It might also be valuable to readers to incorporate Anderson's opposition between the presence of earlier manuscripts for authors like Vergil and Horace (though his "even Juvenal" is glib and acritical) and the relatively late manuscripts that survive for Ovid.  davidiad { t } 00:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• It might also be good to mention somewhere, I guess in the manuscript section, that the first full printed edition was edited by Franciscus Puteolanus and published in Bologna in 1471. Tarrant's Oxford Classical Texts edition, p. xxxix can be cited for this, or the first volume of Frank Justus MIller's Loeb Classical Library text, p. xv.  davidiad { t } 20:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Going forward

Although a great start has been made on the way to Good Article status, there are a few gaps in coverage that will need to be addressed first, and these will probably take some time. The circumstances of the poem's composition should be treated, situating it within Ovid's oeuvre, life and the literary–cultural milieu of the later Augustan period. (Cynwolfe would provide better guidance than me, especially on the topic of Augustan literature, but I balk at drafting her into any effort since she's busy with her own things.) The process of situating the Met. within Ovid's body of work will also bring in sources and research that will help address the nature of the poem: just what's unique about its style, tone and approaches to its subject matter, and the like. I have to digest the "Content" and preliminary "Themes" sections a bit more before I can offer any substantial opinions: those would be the hardest parts to write and "finalize". Three fellas should definitely have a voice in the article: Denis Feeney (esp. Gods in Epic, ch. 5 deals specifically with Ovid), Alessandro Barchiesi (redlink!?) and Stephen Hinds (his Allusion and Intertext is an important little read and deals with the Met.'s relation with the Aeneid). Philip Hardie's Ovid's Poetics of Illusion is also often fun.  davidiad { t } 21:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

As I say in the summation on the Core Entries page, the breadth of the topic and the dire state of the article previously means that even with the best of efforts it has been difficult to raise the article in its entirety; the content is inconsistent—several sections require minimal effort and wouldn't look out of place in a GA (e.g. In English translation), but others still substantially more. These suggestions will be something I try to include as I continue with the article; with responses to each as I come to them. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Beautiful Store

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to write the article about social enterprise.

This article`subject is 'Beautiful Store' which is non-profit company. To help your understand. This comapany is similar with Oxfamcopmany --HaeYoon (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, HaeYoon (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Have looked at article and found it very interesting with much more being able to be said about various aspects, but it seems it is undergoing major construction. There are many items mentioned in last paragraph first section, for example beautiful sharing schools which would be of real interest and need expanding. There is a lot of work to be done in getting translation across. Would recommend putting it forward for copyediting once the restructuring is done. Iztwoz (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: The subject of this article looks both interesting and worthwhile. However, the article itself looks undeveloped and in need of quite a lot of basic work. Furthermore it has two major cleanup banners in place, which disqualify it from the peer review process. Peer review is intended for articles which have already been brought up to a good standard; it is not a "how-to-write-an-article" service. Most commonly articles are brought here for polishing in preparation for a Good Article or Featured Article nomination. This review should be closed, and the article brought back here when much more of the developmental process has been completed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Thuppakki

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to become as excellent as it can (making it the first Ilayathalapathy Vijay film to become a GA if possible).

Thanks, Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Puella Magi Madoka Magica

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I believe that the article has great potential to become a Good article. Right now, it's only not a B-class article because coverage is lacking in certain areas. As such, good suggestions for content are appreciated, as well as possible Japanese sources that can be used. Also, are there any sections which still need improvement with regards to style, formatting, content, etc.?

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Its not unusual to have no references to plot, but for the sake of it, the first 3 episodes cover the anime and should be cited to the primary sources. Daisuki.net is official and has licensed the work, debuting on May 16 2013 with the first five episodes. There are two known doujin games which are not mentioned, these include Grief Syndrome [4] which has an entry on the other wiki. [5] A second one is Homura Combat, another doujin game which got some coverage on Animemaga.ru [6] Alone they do not meet N, but a passing mention might be okay. We also totally miss the analysis and themes of the work, which since such RSes exist should be included. The entire development is poorly documented. Which would more then enough warrant a second article for the Anime alone at this point. Awards like the Nebula Award and Nikkan Sports are missing. Basically read the Japanese wiki version for where you want to go with this. [7] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the doujin idea and are not worth a mention unless they have very strong coverage. There use to be a whole war on including Raruto in Naruto which was eventually decided against. Themes and Analysis is original research unless the author themself stated the intentional theme they wanted to portray; which is then just added into development. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Valid critiques from critics and analysis is common themes from other works and do not have to be discussed by the creator for interpretation or inclusion. Might as well put down discussion of Tolstoy because of it. And it seems like you didn't read the Japanese article because much of the development and such is covered by links to sources. Information not found in our article; something I'd expect at a GA nom and definitely required for FA. I don't care about doujin works so much, but they do exist and have been covered by RSes in some form. Raruto's, like the Harry Potter parodies before it, seem to have been pushed out, but the option is there if a single line is chosen to be included for completeness. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

---

South Pacific (musical)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

We've listed this article for peer review because… we intend to nominate it at FAC and would like feedback before we do.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Thanks, Ssilvers (talk · contribs) and Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Mad Scientist

• Info box image. I have uploaded the 1949 promotional poster from the Majestic Theatre under "Fair Use" with a full rationale. I have deleted the "Playbill" but, perhaps we can use it elsewhere in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks great! I re-added the playbill cover lower down. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Header titles. The first two titles are not encyclopedic and seem a little confusing and redundant. "Background: Tales of the South Pacific " should be Overview and "Pre-opening night history " should be Pre-production history.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "pre-production" carries meaning to the people unfamiliar with the theatre. The terms are meant to be more or less consistent with the other R&H that have been improved as part of this ongoing effort (all but Oklahoma! and The Sound of Music) And it's not intended as an overview, it's a discussion of Tales, how it came to be (remember, it is very contemporaneous with the musical) with some connections to the musical.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am quite sure that "Overview" is not correct. I have changed it to Background, because the section is purely background information about the source of the play. I have not changed the other one back, but "pre-production" sounds like film speak. I think it was better before. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I prefer "Pre-production" over Pre-opening night histor only because the tone of the latter seems a little awkward. I tend to believe that the reader understands that a "production" is the play itself and all of the required work involved to create the performance and is individual and unique to each "production", but it may well be confusing to say production at this early point in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to hear from other readers here. I wonder if you are used to reading about films rather than plays, where the press and audiences are used to "opening nights". -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course I would also like to hear from others and will certainly go with the consensus, but no....I am not "used to reading about films rather than plays". I understand what an opening night is but the "production" is the work that goes on to make that first opening performance and we seem to be discussing situations prior to the production actually beginning.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Encyclopedic tone. There are some issues I am seeing as I read through the article. I changed "Sensation" to "success" and note that even the first line of the background section reads like a novel and less like an encyclopedic article. Some general editing for tone is needed throughout the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. You are an excellent reader, but I must disagree with most of what you say here. First, it was indeed a "sensation"; I don't think success adequately describes the craze, which we describe more specifically below, including the frenzy of ticket-buying and the fact that the show earned rave reviews and became the 2nd longest-running Broadway musical in history. Also, I must disagree with (and have reverted) some of your other changes: A musical is not a "Broadway musical" or a "West End musical" -- it is a musical that may be played in many markets. It happens that the first major market that this one played in was Broadway. Also, throughout the WP:MUSICALS project, we always refer to Broadway as Broadway theatre, which describes all the Broadway theatres and the concept of theatre works on Broadway. I would rather that you commented here than made these changes directly, because in each case, they have been discussed at length before. Please see the Article Structure page at WP:MUSICALS (and the associated talk pages) for lengthy archives. As for tone beyond the word "sensation", can you be more specific? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If there is indeed a reference that refers to it as a "sensation" then that would be good as a quote perhaps but as the sentence stands it seems to be puffery. How was it a "sensation"? Some qualification in the lead where this is mentioned is needed. Yes, there are indeed "Broadway musicals" and this is one. When a show premiers on Broadway, it is the street that should be linked. When referring to the show itself is indeed referred to as a "Broadway musical" and a link to [[Braodway theatre" would be appropriate here.

Just reverting the changes you don't like is not working together. If you disagree with a change someone makes I would prefer it be discussed. I was invited here, I didn't intrude and I am trying to improve the article not make it worse. I will continue to find a way to find common ground.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the original language is an appropriate tone. There is no reasonable doubt that South Pacific was a huge success. It ran for years and still is popular. It made and still makes money. I think that we've been successful at FAC with articles in similar tone, and that that's the best way forward. Perhaps some of the other peer reviewers will also give their opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

See Tryout (theatre). See also the style we use at FA articles on musicals: Carousel (musical), The King and I, Flower Drum Song, etc. Did you mean to delete a lot of content with your recent edit? I invited you here, and your comments are very welcome, but we are in the middle of consolidating comments from several readers, and so I would ask you to make your comments here rather than editing the article directly. This is normal procedure at Peer Reviews, in my experience. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No I did not mean to remove a lot of information in the last edit. There was an interruption and reverts and I will have to look to see what content was lost and correct that. I took a small break away from the computer to not get frustrated. Thanks for the article suggestions to compare for language etc., however I would tend to feel the article that refers to "try outs" that you linked is not really a strong argument for referring to "previews". It just seems less than encyclopedic. Did you just ask me to not edit the article directly? I may not be very versed on Peer review" but I don't think asking editors not to edit the article is part of that. I accept being reverted when I make a bold edit unless the edit summary is that I am just being disrespectful. Even if the summary is just the opinion of the editor's view on how the article should be created I tend to try a different edit, but I am not sure if asking me not to edit the article directly is the best route. I will review the articles you linked and look at Wikipedia:Peer review.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It is more usual at peer review for reviewers to take an outside view, rather than to get involved in making major edits to the article. In Broadway, after all, the theatre reviewer doesn't get that song cut from Act II (or at least, not directly). I did not mean to offend.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

While I am a listed Peer Reviewer...I am not reviewing the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see the section called "How to respond to a request" at WP:PR. The first bullet point there notes: "Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment in the article's section on this page (that is, the article's PR page, the way Tim riley has done below). -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh....I see...this is where the confusion is from! You copy pasted my comments from the talk page here. I didn't place them here but felt you wished my comments to continue on this page. I am not, I repeat, not reviewing this article for peer review. I did not respond to a request from Peer Review. I responded to a request to comment and began editing the article. I have no problem letting the editors continue to carbon copy their headers. I don't agree with them, as I said. "Try-out" does not seem the right wording for "Preview" in the heading. But that is a consensus I can seek on the talk page not on the PR page.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not at all clear on what you are trying to say hear, but just reverting the work of another editor with the reasoning that moving large chunks of information is disrespectful was actually disrespectful and is an ownership issue, especially when you seem to think that I should defer to all your reverts which seem based only on your anger at some perception of disrespect by a bold edit. I believe the original production information should not be with the revival and summer stock information. Is there an FA article of a similar production you could demonstrate is done in this manner?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The King and I, for one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please see our previous FA articles on Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals: Carousel (musical), The King and I, Flower Drum Song, etc. As we've been saying above, we've had numerous discussions on these very subjects that you are raising, and we are just trying to follow the same style used there and at WP:MUSICALS, where there is a whole Article Structure page devoted to these topics. We're not angry at all, but in a Peer Review, usually editors comment rather than making major edits directly on the article, and then the people who are bringing the article to FA consolidate everyone's comments based on consensus. Sorry I upset you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, same here. Just understand that we have been through the process a few times and we are doing an article in a particular way if only to be consistent with others of its type.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the articles I see that there are headers that are also listed as "Casting and tryouts". The average reader will associate "try out" with "casting" as an audition when the actual term is "Preview". This is not a matter of the project article structure outline. I strongly disagree with the use of the term "Try outs" and prefer "preview".

I looked for an Project Style guide and didn't see one. Is there a link that the project editors have formed a consensus that when referring to Broadway musicals to link in the specific manner you suggested? I understand this difference may seem like semantics but my use was not inappropriate at all and the links were relevant. This does not appear to be a project related consensus that I am aware of. As for the structure I will certainly disagree with the manner in which it places sections. It creates a redundant rehash of information. The original production information should be at the top with the pertinent information about that production. The article is about South Pacific the musical production. Which production? Each theatrical article on Wikipedia is basically about the original production of the play, followed by the revivals. But, if you feel the project structure guidelines should automatically outweigh all other concerns, I can concede to it if it is the consensus of editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Wikipedia:Peer review does state that we may edit the article. By the way, I am not responding as a volunteer reviewer. That is what I meant by I was invited here. I received a message to comment and became involved in editing the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, here is the Article Structure page that I mentioned: Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Assessment. I'm not saying that it rules anything, but it is a place where people have previously considered many of these issues and come to a consensus based on discussion; it's just guidance so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel each time. As to the productions, the original production just happens to be the first. In some cases, a show might begin on Broadway, or Off-Broadway, etc., but become more famous or successful somewhere else. So, for that reason, and others, we had previously agreed with other editors that all the productions should be together under the Productions sectionj, and that is the way we have done it in our previous FA-articles on the Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals. You could reasonably do it the way you have done it, but you are re-inventing the wheel without a very persuasive reason (in my opinion). If you brought up the suggestion here, other editors could comment on it and see if they agree with you, or with Wehwalt, myself, and the previous consensus. Of course, if there is a new consensus, we would follow the new consensus. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If I may comment here, I appreciate the efforts Amadscientist has made here and on the main article page, but I really think it is better, as I have done below, to make suggestions to the main editors rather than to dive into the article and edit it. My advice would be: comment on this PR page, and in the – I think unlikely – event that one is dissatisfied with the principal editors' response, then to ask other Wikicolleagues for comment. I am bound to say that the changes Amadscientist made off his/her own bat don't seem to me to be an improvement. No suggestion of WP:OWN but the two main editors here really do know a thing or two about Rodgers and Hammerstein and getting articles on them up to FA. Happy to discuss further if wanted. Tim riley (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Supporting the two editors is fine, but asking me to not edit the article goes against the spirit of the project. If my contributions were not improvements I will request the poster be deleted as uploader.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus that the poster is an improvement, and I thank you for it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As I noted above, in the section called "How to respond to a request" at WP:PR. The first bullet point there notes: "Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment in the article's section on this page (that is, the article's PR page, the way Tim riley has done below). You're right that it also says, "Feel free to improve the article yourself", and people often do make minor changes. But generally they save major changes for discussion on the PR talk page. Of course you may make any changes you like, but it would be more efficient, for major changes, to discuss them first, and see if a consensus can be found regarding major changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that's the point, that minor changes are fine, but wholesale unilateral restructuring is not the right way to approach peer review. It would be very sad if Amadscientist took comments about the structure of the prose to imply that the image he uploaded should be taken away, for it is most welcome. As, of course, are further comments from Amadscientist, which all interested editors will be glad to see and comment on. Tim riley (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid everything I had done was lumped into one "Stop editing the article and let the experts handle it" by most editors Ssilvers. I did not see the structure issues from your link to the Project page instructions at first. After seeing the examples I understand how the structure is being built from an interpretation of the linked structure guide. However I have concerns and have made a point of discussing here. But perhaps what I should be doing is leaving the peer review to those that have asked me to stop editing and allow them the room to continue. I respect the projects but we don't always agree on implementation.. but I do respect your work with the projects. I don't believe that projects structure is of the utmost importance, but others do. The simple fact that one article has made it to FA is enough to demonstrate that this is likely to head that way without my contributions or my concerns being addressed, although I do think that Ssilvers will do a good job as always. While I do disagree with a number incidents that occurred while I began editing the article, none of them were really from that particular editor. They believe I should allow others to edit and merely make comments here. I can't make that commitment, but I probably shouldn't participate in the PR further. I did delete the poster. I am not prepared to commit to a Fair Use upload of the file under these circumstances. I believe the spirit of Peer Review was not met here in my opinion and that it may be that attempting to stick to a rigid "This worked with these articles so it should be used here" attitude may not be best route. But it is a route that at least can be said to gain an FA rating even if it means that others may not participate with contributing to the article itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is sad and truly regrettable. Clearly Amadscientist, who I understand is an Admin, has very strong views, but one is sorry to see him/her "taking his bat home", as we used to call it when I was a boy. Sad though it be, let the rest of us press on with the peer review, with contributions from as many Wikicolleagues as care to join in – the more, the merrier! Tim riley (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. Taking my bat home....? You told me to stop editing the article and that "my off the bat contributions were not improvements". Fine. Then you upload the poster under your account. It isn't public domain and the work it took to upload it was not an improvement to the article it was uploaded to in your own words. It isn't a free file so I am not going to let it hang around under my name under these circumstances. If you think it is an improvement upload it under your account. There is no strong view here. I was reverted by a sysops who is editing this page with an edit summary that moving large chunks was disrespectful. Not because there was a valid reason he cared to share like: "We are following the exact same structure, including header titles." I may still not agree that that is needed but it would have been a valid revert. They, you and Ssilvers have told me to stop editing and just comment here, even though my original comments were copy pasted here. I was invited to comment on my talkpage, had my comments copy pasted here on this page and then told to stop editing the page. I am not taking anything home. the poster does not belong to me and I am being pushed off the review and I didn't even ask to come here, just made a good faith effort to contribute to both the peer review and the article. Yes, sad is a way to describe the situation, but yes...please continue the PR.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear! Sad, indeed! I hope I didn't tell anybody to stop editing, and I don't believe anyone else has, or would wish to, and it would in any case be ultra vires. I certainly didn't re-upload any image, but if any other editor has, and it complies with WP rules then fair enough. But please don't nurse a grievance. Your contributions will continue to be welcomed throughout Wikipedia; consensus may be against you on this page at this moment, but I hope you won't hold that against us. Tim riley (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I also regret it and hope he will reconsider. While my words seem to have been the source of offense, it is considered a good idea to consult with the nominating editors on these things, and to assume that thought has gone into the current setup.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

What happened is very simple. I received an invitation to post on an article that I have an interest in, as it was the very first professional production I ever did, many years ago. My initial comments were made to the Peer Review thread on the article talk page and were copied pasted here with the expectation that the comments could be discussed. I believe they may have been the first comments made for this PR. This may have been perceived as an attempt to actual review the article and an expectation that I would discuss the article and allow other editors to edit the page was suggested, however my initial "off the bat" edits were to add a fair use poster which was an edit that I made to the article and then discussed in good faith. I was told that in the past, peer reviews have allowed the editor that brought the PR request forward the ability to do the editing from a reading of the guidelines at WP:PR. The edits that I made were determined, by consensus, to have no value and were not improvements to the article, on top of a few other specific discussions in regards to language that were brought up. This was not an attempt to review the article, but to contribute to it. Anyone may upload that poster if it is the specific consensus of editors that it would be an improvement. There are three other editors involved here and each has suggested that I not edit the article itself. I double checked. Editors here have also demonstrated that they have brought other similar articles to FA though this process. This means that they may not wish outside engagement by others at this point and I believe someone even mentioned the fact that the editors have great experience with Richard Rodgers, and Hammerstein. This is a great asset. Ssilvers' expectation that editors not edit the article while reviewing is not per guidelines but as others have also added the suggestion along with the opinion that my contributions were not improvements, I requested the deletion of the Fair use poster as the uploader. Whatever contribution I may have for the article is simply not worth the current effort of pretending to be a salmon swimming up stream against the flow. I encourage all editors to review the full policies and guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review and ask that no one ask another editor to refrain from editing an open, unprotected article for any reason. Suggesting that, perhaps, they join the "plan" and discuss in that direction is easier than just reverting what another took time, in good faith to work on. Clearly Ssilvers is simply following what they have been successful with and I give them great kudos for it. Sorry I am so unfamiliar with this particular process, but I note it seems to be a learning experience that FA can be achieved through the Peer review process as a stepping stone to FA nomination, so I thank Ssilvers for that.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to avoid edit conflicts

Comments from Tim riley

Just two preliminary queries from a first swift read-through: we hyphenate "step-brother" in these islands, though perhaps you don't where you are. And I am 99 per cent sure that Dictaphone is a trademark – so should it either be capitalised or replaced with "dictation machine" or similar? Shall now go and read the article carefully and report back. I rather think I'm going to enjoy this. – Tim riley (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Stepbrother is OK in US English. You are correct on Dictaphone and on reference to Logan's memoirs, I find he used the word properly capped. Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! Aged mind wandering. Not stepbrother at all, but "half brother" - two words in your text, and I wonder if that is usual in US usage. Tim riley (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Does anyone want to weigh in?

Half brother is two words (not hyphenated) in American English. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Muffled rustling noise as Riley retreats furtively. Tim riley (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Detailed comments: first batch:

• Lead

• "should he wed his Asian sweetheart" – I'm conscious of differences in nuance in US and UK usage, but to a British reader "wed" is a word used only by tabloid newspapers; normal people say "marry".

Change made by Wehwalt. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The issue of racial prejudice" – not sure why you blue-link "racial prejudice" having not linked "racism" in the previous para.

Fixed by Wehwalt. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "became the second-longest running Broadway musical to that point in history" – two things here: "in history" is surely superfluous, and though I have no doubt you make it clear in the main text what was the longest, I think you really oughtn't to tease in the lead, and should tell us here what the longest one was.

Change made by Wehwalt -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Its racial theme provoked controversy, especially in the Southern U.S., for which its authors were unapologetic." – ambiguous: R&H were not unapologetic for the Southern US. You might like to think about turning the sentence about: "Especially in the Southern U.S., its racial theme provoked controversy, for which its authors were unapologetic." Alternatively parenthetical dashes rather than commas round "especially in the Southern U.S" would do the trick.

Change made by Wehwalt -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• and it is the only musical production to win Tony Awards" – is there a WP:DATED consideration here? Are you confident enough that such a thing will never happen again to risk it? I'd be inclined to play for safety and say "at 2013 it was the only…"

That would be a significant event in theatre and I think would get enough publicity, with specific reference to it being the only one besides South Pacific, that I think we can count on a rapid change. That's really my test on DATED: will someone else doing it be notable enough that there would be such a change?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I Agree with Wehwalt on this. I also think that it is possible that it will never happen again. In any case, I think Wehwalt is right that if this were to happen, we would pounce on it and update it right away -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Or it will be put in the article by the people who do such things as write the award about each year's Tony awards.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

All right, already! So call a policeman! Wrong show, but point thoroughly taken.

• Background

• "She bent Michener's ear" – a pleasing phrase, but perhaps a touch informal for an encyclopaedia article?

I think it's OK. It tells the reader what happened and evokes Bloody Mary's personality in the play.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "spoke at length" or "spoke incessantly" to Michener? I agree that it's rather idiomatic. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That looks very good to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Casting and tryouts

• "Trude Rittman and Russell Bennett" – no first name for RRB?

Change made by Wehwalt -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Logan persuaded … Emlyn Williams to go over the script" – seems a touch pointless mentioning this unless you also mention the outcome of EW's scrutiny.

Change made by Wehwalt -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

More to come soonest. Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Except where commented on, I've dealt with it. Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Round two:

• Synopsis
  • "to witness a Boar's Tooth Ceremony" – explanation or blue-link needed for those (e.g. me) who have never heard of such a thing. The phrase comes up earlier, but I think the explanation or link is needed at this point

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Additional songs
  • "re-instated" – never seen this hyphenated before

Fixed--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Original productions
  • "and although aged 58, he was acclaimed as a sex symbol" – and what's so surprising about that, pray? User:Tim "alias 61-Last-Birthday" Riley. Only joking. I know perfectly well.

Captain Brackett says something similar when Cable expresses surprise at Nellie's interest in Emile, giving him something of a speech about how although he is fifty, he is a bachelor and does not consider himself to be "through". It's one of the jokes which survives well.

• 20th century revivals
  • "a curtain speech – one (that is, this one) tends to think of curtain speeches as taking place after a performance. Perhaps "a short speech was made before each performance…"?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• 21st century

• "and is scheduled to resume touring in Australia in September 2013" – WP:DATED – point taken about the four Tonys, but ...

I certainly plan to keep an eye on this and update it as news happens. WP:DATED says, "Avoid statements that date quickly, except on pages ... that are updated regularly." I think this would apply to FA pages, which are watched by several watchers. We know that we need to review this item in September 2013. Wehwalt and I will certainly update this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Critical reception

• "Your Maslon source rather over-emphasises the negative reviews in the UK press in 1951. Philip Hope-Wallace gave it a most friendly review in The Manchester Guardian ("South Pacific", November 2, 1951, p. 5), and The Times was well-disposed, but rather bizarrely thought it a bit too American (hello?) in places. If you would care to cite the original Daily Express source rather than Maslon it is: "Alas, Some Not Entirely Enchanted Evening", John Barber, Daily Express, November 2, 1951, p. 3. (Maslon elides two sentences from different paras without fessing up with the dots that ought to be there after "Madame Butterfly".) Copies of all to hand if wanted. – Tim riley (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good to use, as you say. If you could send them, we will insert a few choice phrases.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Tim riley (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt, would you kindly do the honors on this when you have a chance? No rush. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

See also supplementary comment about "half brother", above. Tim riley (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Final batch from Tim riley

• Sex and gender roles

• "Princeton" – second mention. Not linked earlier, and perhaps it ought to be?

This seems to have been fixed earlier. Let us know if you still see a problem. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• "after leaving his place as a barker to love Julie" – this reads rather strangely. Would "for love of Julie" be more precise?

I agree. I think the reference to Julie is redundant, as we have already said they did it for their wives. Deleted "to love Julie". -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Lovensheimer deems Allegro…" – a bit of a marathon sentence. You might break it with a semicolon after "marriage", perhaps

Broke sentence in two. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Cultural effect

• "Fake ticket stubs … washing men from hair" – I just wish to say that this sentence has brightened my day!
• "Mordden notes that South Pacific contained nothing but hit songs" – could you really describe "Dites-Moi", "A Cockeyed Optimist" and "Twin Soliloquies" as "hit songs"? "Mordden notes" implies that you agree with him (and if you do, ignore me); if you don't then "Mordden comments" might be preferable.

Good point. Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• "show opera, and classical performances" – is there a comma missing here?

Yes, added comma but removed serial comma. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Recordings

• "Drawn from the original masters, Columbia released" – oughtn't this to be "Drawing from…"?

I think you're right. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• "According to critic John Kenrick" – you've mentioned him in the previous para. I'd be inclined to move the job description

Well spotted! Fixed. -- ````

• "by Decca" – as you link other record companies perhaps Decca Records might get a piped link too?

OK, I added a link - both of you please check to see that I got it right. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• "were dubbed by other singers" – two things here: if Brazzi, Kerr and Hall weren't up to singing their own parts could you truly call them singers at all? And if not, then "other singers" isn't quite correct. Secondly, are the singers who provided the voices artists we'd have heard of, à la Marni Nixon?

I delted "by other singers" as redundant. I added a mention of Ravenscroft, because he later became a household name as television's spokesbeast Tony the Tiger, and we mention Tozzi further down. I don't think the other singing voices are worth mentioning, and we'd like to keep the discussion of the adaptations brief, if possible. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Notes

• I detect a subtle plot on your joint part to unhinge the pedantic reader (and who might that be, we ask ourselves.) The explanatory footnotes are indicated in the text with letters and when you get down to the notes, lo, they are prefaced with numerals!

That is W's design, but it seems like a great idea to me, to further distinguish the two kinds of footnotes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Aha! I see what's amiss here, and you must have wondered what I was blathering about. You, I have reason to believe, are a Firefox user, and I have just checked thereon and all is well. Ref "a" links to explanatory footnote "a". Using Microsod Internet Exploder, however, you get in the text: She told him also of her plans to oppose colonialism in French Indochina.[a], but the relevant note shows up as 1. ^ Michener later reflected… As more readers use Mr Gates's delightful product than Firefox's (or so I understand) you need to be aware of this anomaly, and perhaps circumvent it by using the old {{#tag:ref||group= n}} format or something else Microsoftproof. Tim riley (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know how to do that. Ssilvers, is this something you can look at?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yours to command, if wanted, Tim riley (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The {{efn|}} would get round this: I'd be happy to help too, if you decide to go down that route. (We're using it on our latest re-write at Terry-Thomas, if you want to see it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Tim and/or Schro -- please do fix the explanatory note style. Thanks very much, in advance! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please feel free, very much so.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. I think it's OK now, but of course revert if it displeases you. Tim riley (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That's all I have. I was expecting a lot from this article, and I was not disappointed. A particularly fine piece of work. Bravi! – Tim riley (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Tim riley! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Just browsing through again, most enjoyably, and I wonder about the nice pic captioned "Florence Henderson as Nellie, 1967". The Commons details say "From the 1967 program for South Pacific", which is doubtless correct, but it looks to me more like one of the standard cast photos printed in all theatre progs, i.e. F Henderson as F Henderson, rather than F Henderson in costume and character as Nellie. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong, but changing the caption to "Florence Henderson: Nellie in the 1967 production" would solve the problem, if problem it is. – Tim riley (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's taken from a page of images from the production. I think it's intended to be. Click the source link and it should take you there so your opinion welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! Point taken. I withdraw. Tim riley (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Further arbitrary break

Comments from SchroCat

Excellent and informative article: long, but not overly-detailed. Well done to all concerned. A few very minor points from me—feel free to ignore what you don't like or agree with; as an Englishman I may have confused a couple of bits of BrEng in AmEng, so forgive my ignorance:

Inception

• "which Hayward grudgingly agreed to"; it may be a little pedantic (or even wrong in US-speak), but "to which Hayward grudgingly agreed" is more correct in the UK.

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which we shall certainly put! -- Ssilvers Churchill

Songs

• "There Is Nothing Like a Dame": Should the Is be is?

Not sure. Ssilvers?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The verb "to be" must always be capitalized in a title, even in those islands across the pond. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks for that—never knew that one before—I shall have to try and track down the similar errors I have made elsewhere with my "corrections"! - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

20th century

• "One in 1957 at Long Island's Westbury Music Fair occurred at the same time that Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus was resisting the integration of Central High School by the Little Rock Nine": I feel there should probably be a comma somewhere in this.

No shortage, so added two.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

First batch done, will resume later. - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, SchroCat. Very helpful! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Second batch from SchroCat
Revivals v Reception and success

• It seems odd to read about the various productions in the 2000s, and all the awards they won, and then to go on to the Reception and Success section to read about the original run. Is there a reason why the Revivals section isn't much later in the article, to give some chronological feel?

I think it is pretty standard in our FA articles so far to discuss all the productions before presenting the reception section, and it makes good sense to me. However, I am tempted to move "box office and awards" below "Critical reception". Can anyone else comment on that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the thing that jarred most was reading the fairly complete breakdown of awards for the string of revivals in the "Revivals" section, then reading the awards of the original in the "Reception" section. Perhaps you could think about taking the awards out of Revivals and moving them all into the Reception section? I'll let others comment and tell me if I'm barking up the wrong tree, but it's worth a thought at least. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Done! Also moved box office below critical reception. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception

• Does the original New York Daily Mirror quote have "Every one", or "Everyone"?

I have not viewed the actual newspaper, but I just checked the Suskin book I got it from and it is "every one", as rendered.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Biblio

• Does "Most, Andrea. " 'You've Got to Be Carefully Taught'" need the space between the double and single quote marks?

It's not necessary, I suppose, but I do it to make life easier on the reader, especially when it is tied up with italics (which it is not in this case, but having the space makes the quotes clearer".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have never added this space, but I'm not sure it's "wrong". I would like to hear from User:Finetooth, who is, I think, the undoubted punctuation expert on Wikipedia. Can anyone entice him/her here? I would love for him/her to give the article the Finetooth treatment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Only the few little extra comments, and still an excellent article on another read-through. Please drop me a line when you go to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Less arbitrary break than before

Brianboulton comments: A great-looking article. With such a wealth of review comments already registered, I'll confine myself for the moment to a couple of observations on the lead:

• Is Logan's peeve really lead material? ("Logan always felt that he was underpaid for his contribution")

I agree with Brian -- I think we can save this for later, eh, Wehwalt? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• The phrasing "spawning a 1958 film and television adaptations..." suggests that there was more than one TV adaptation. Only one is mentioned in the article. The phrasing also half-suggests that the TV adaptation was shown in 1958, when in fact it was more than 40 years after the film.

No, we mention two, although one of them is a broadcast of the Carnegie Hall concert version. I'll let Wehwalt look at the possible ambiguity re: date. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've played with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to read the article in detail, but won't have time until the weekend. If you want to take the article forward before then, that's fine by me – I'll catch it at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Take your time, Brian. We can certainly wait until then, and we would very much value your further comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Later: I've got down as far as the start of the "Reception" section. I've not got a lot to say; the article is very impressive in almost every respect. A couple of points:

• I got a little muddled in the "Inception" section; the details are not easy to follow, and I wonder how interested the general reader will be in the minutiae. Could the section be reduced a little?

Shortened.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Returning to a point I made concerning the lead, is Logan's dispute over credits really worth two whole paragraphs of text? It tends to the article down – most readers will, I think, want to get to the meat more quickly.

Also shortened.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought this was cut a little too much, and I restored a little bit. Does it look good to you now, gentlemen? By all means, cut it back further if you think I restored too much. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection. I'll probably tweak the prose when I get around to it!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

And a handful of very minor issues:

• Background: I suggest the more common word "counterpart", rather than "analogue", which has a slightly un-human connotation

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps a footnote could clarify that in the US military, all nurses are automatically given officer status to prevent fraternisation with the common soldiery. In the UK armed forces, only senior nurses are officers. I see this point is made in the plot synopsis - maybe it could be brought forward.

I've put it fairly far forward, though without a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know whether the example "such as Ensign Lisa Minelli" will make sense to readers without explanation. Was this a jokey reference to Judy Garland's recently-born daughter?

Well, it's one of the names of the nurses. The source called attention to it in much the same way. A coincidence of name. No strong views if you feel it should be removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd remove it -- I don't think it helps the reader. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I will try and cover the rest as soon as I can, but I am not picking up much. Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments, Brian. We look forward to the rest! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Final pickings:

• Critical reception: After Tynan's review, we jump more than 50 years for the next critical comments. Did anyone have anything interesting to say meantime?

Yes, and I've added something which I think fills the gap nicely.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Good, Wehwalt. Note also that comments about revivals in this section are intended to address the show itself rather than particular productions.

• "Another writer" should be identified, as should his publication.

Named and shamed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with naming the non-notable writer, Wehwalt. In fact, I have been meaning to request that we remove all non-notable names of reviewers, although I agree that we should name the publication if it is notable. Otherwise, the reference in the footnote identifies the writer well enough. Please send me an e-mail if you want to discuss this in more detail. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Box office and awards: The sentence "The New York Times and other newspapers published glowing reviews of the show; one critic called it 'South Terrific'" properly belongs in the reception section.

I've deleted it rather than moving it (it is actually on page 194 rather than 195 of Nolan if anyone feels like moving it back in). We have superlatives enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• What are "scalpers" (not a term used in the UK - sounds a bit slangy)?

Piped to ticket resale--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I may be misunderstanding the figures, but with a weekly gross of $50,600 the production gross of $2,635,000 would be reached in a year. The production ran for 5 years, so I would imagine that overall, the Broadway production grossed more like $13 million.

The actual quote is "Its gross of $2,635,000 was bigger than that of Show Boat." It may be a theatre term and they are actually referring to the annualized figure. Ssilvers, can you shed any light here?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. As of what date was that the total gross? The figure struck me as rather low when I first saw it. Show Boat ran less than 2 years. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not given a year, which makes me think it must be an annualized figure. Based on the weekly proceeds, it should not be difficult to calculate. I don't think South Pacific weakened for the summer, at least not for two or three years.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Any money figures available for the London production?

Haven't found any, and nothing obvious on the Web. Will check my remaining sources. I should note that the first-night London reviews Tim was kind enough to supply indicate that prices were much lower than New York, and of course the ol' pound sterling's not what it once was.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where to get historical box office numbers. Some day the information may be available online. I don't think the information is, frankly, of much interest. If the London transfer had been more successful than the Broadway production, then the number would be of more importance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The late Robert Russell Bennett was also recognized that season..." Can you clarify how he was "recognized"? Since he died in 1981, it's hard to imagine how he was recognized "that season", i.e. 2008.

Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The Northern press had a field day" is an editorial observation, perhaps.

Taken almost directly from the source. It's borne out by the actual coverage in the NY Times, which I've looked at. I think "Lovensheimer states that the Northern press had a field day" would be excessive. I actually toned it down, he says Northern "liberal press".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Lovensheimer sees Billis as more defined by class than by sexuality, evidenced by his assumption, on learning that Cable went to college in New Jersey, that it was Rutgers (the state's flagship public university) rather than Ivy League Princeton, and by his delight on learning that the rescue operation for him had cost $600,000 when his uncle had stated he would never be worth a dime." I am afraid that, by the end of the sentence, I have no idea who is talking about whom.

I tossed a noun in there to make it clear the focus is steadily on Billis.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think the words "with a turntable speed of 33⅓ rpm" are probably redundant, given the LP link.

For you, and I, but to the iTunes generation?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Very little comment on the 1958 film. To what extent was it a popular success (box office etc)? What did the critics think, apart from the comment about the colour changes?

I've added some details on its success. I'll see if I can find a generalized comment on its critical reception.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• (Aside): Glenn Close must have been well over 50 when she played Nellie. Did no one notice?

It would have been interesting had the Emile been considerably younger than herself.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to have seen her doing the handstand that hurtled Mary Martin into the orchestra pit. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think some critics mentioned her age, but we do not want to give too much ink to the adaptations. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sterling work on the part of all concerned. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: I don't think it's such a good idea to put an arbitrary break midway through my comments, though.

Moved back up. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and kind words, and for being willing to do this review. I've gotten through all those; I will see if I can find out anything on the finances of the London production.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

My review comments are generally by way of observation, and it is for the main editors to decide how far they should be implemented. The only thing that I feel does need some further clarification is the box office figures: a $50,600 weekly take, a five year run (1900+ performances) and $2.6 "gross" don't add up, and any ambiguity should be resolved before the article goes forward. Brianboulton (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We're puzzling that over still, and if we can't resolve it, we will remove the 2.6 million figure, which strikes me as very close to 52 times the weekly take (with some minor adjustment for the few holidays on which Broadway closes). Understood and thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We're pretty sure it's an annual figure but it is best to remove it I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

---

Isabeau of Bavaria

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing it for FAC and welcome outside perspective and more eyes.

Thanks, Victoria (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi! Victoria has invited me to comment, so I dropped by. The first thing I have to note is the lead image. The 19th-century fantasy portrait is hardly the best choice. This is a contemporary depiction and surely must be better than the 19th-century one. (Besides, the colours are brilliant!) I've taken the liberty to replace it; if you object, I won't mind discussing it further. Anyway, I've done some minor corrections as well. If I find any issues, I will write back. Good luck! Surtsicna (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• " Before the wedding, Isabeau negotiated a treaty with John the Fearless in which she clearly defined family hierarchy and her position in relation to the throne." How exactly did she do that? Did she describe herself as wife of the king or as mother of the future king? Surtsicna (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've added a note to explain that John the Fearless' rank, as cousin to the king, was documented as lower than his father (brother to a king) and Louis, Duke of Orleans (brother to a king). Victoria (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi! Victoria has invited me to comment, so I dropped by. The first thing I have to note is the lead image. The 19th-century fantasy portrait is hardly the best choice. This is a contemporary depiction and surely must be better than the 19th-century one. (Besides, the colours are brilliant!) I've taken the liberty to replace it; if you object, I won't mind discussing it further. Anyway, I've done some minor corrections as well. If I find any issues, I will write back. Good luck! Surtsicna (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Surtsicna, thanks for posting here. I disagree about the image, but as you brought it up earlier on the talk when I tried taking to FAC before, decided to hash it out here. I've found this image of a contemporary statue that I've be willing to use for the lead image; however, I don't know much about the website that's hosting the image and have to assume their information is correct - which could be an erroneous assumption. I very much would prefer to use the Harley manuscript image where it is now for the following reasons: the crop shows a partial image of a much more important and intimate scene, complete with the queen and her ladies in her chamber, and of course with Christine de Pizan presenting a book as a New Year's gift. It seems to me, per MOS:IMAGES, that particular scene illustrates the text to with which it's paired, done intentionally. I'd also like to hear from others, because my preference is for the 19th century image. Thanks.
• Oh and one more thing: I won't revert again, as it destabilizes the page and I'd very much prefer to maintain stability there so as to bring to FAC. I have currently in my possession a source that's overdue from an interloan library so it needs to go to FAC soon, or be left as it is, unreviewed. Victoria (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• Lineage and marriage
  • "lavishing her with gifts" – oughtn't this to be "lavishing gifts on her", or alternatively "showering her with gifts"?
• Coronation
  • Touches of WP:OVERLINK perhaps: "knights" in particular.
  • "Rue de St Denis" – I don't know what it was called in 1389, and I defer to your superior knowledge, but I know it as the Rue Saint-Denis (and, ahem, it isn't burghers lining the street these days)
  • Does the quoted source really give the plural "fleurs-des-lys"? I think the usual plural is "fleurs-de-lis", but if the source uses the former spelling, so be it. Worth a blue-link, too, perhaps. And the direct quote should be cited.
  • "Pageants" – blue link really wanted?
• Charles' illness
  • Second para – more overlinking, I'd say: "wild men" and "ball"
  • "the Little queen" – does the source really capitalise the adjective but not the noun?
• Court politics and intrigue
  • "councilors" – an unfamiliar spelling: perhaps a US-v-UK difference. Just checking.
  • "She was described as "small and brunette, or tall and blonde"" – citation needed for this direct quote.
• Political factions
  • "enacted by the King's" – perhaps just "enacted by his…"?
  • "as his bouts of illness" – I think you need "the King's" or "Charles'" here
  • "between the Orléanist and Burgundians" – Orléanists plural?
• Orléans' assassination and aftermath
  • "was driven by greed, planned" – is there an "and" missing here?
  • "As Henry V had passed earlier the same year" – what had he passed? I think plain "died" is much preferable
  • "per the terms of the Treaty" – on the old principle "prefer good English to bad Latin" I'd ditch the "per" and say "as laid down in" or some such
  • "improbable because Joan of Arc may have been born later than Orléans' assassination" – more than nine months later, presumably
• Reputation and legacy
  • First para: "a viewpoint that began to shift in the latter half of the 20th century"; second para: "historians reassessed her reputation in the late 20th century"" – repetitious
  • "She goes on to say that de Sade knew the charges against Isabeau to be groundless because "he scolds the 15th century chroniclers for failing to report the [full] story of the adulterous queen"" – I don't quite follow this; the quotation reads as though Sade believed that the queen was adulterous.
• Patronage
  • "She also exchanged" – it's a long time since the last mention of Isabeau's name, and it's wanted here, I think, rather than "She".
  • " Countess of Hainault…" and "John, be sent to Hainault" – Earlier on you call it Hainaut. It would be a kindness to English readers if you used the same spelling here, as we think of Hainault as a place on the London Underground, and one has a mad fleeting image of Isabeau travelling on the Central line.
• Bibliography
  • "No ISBN for Hedeman?

That's all from me. I enjoyed this article, and learned a lot from it. It's a pleasure to read, and you've managed to make the complicated cast of characters distinguishable from one another, which can't have been easy. Please let me know when you take it to FA. – Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks much for the close reading. A few replies here:

• source gives the plural "fleurs-des-lis" > haven't clue why I spelled it "lys"
• I've decided to keep the link to pageant but modified slightly, only because medieval pageants, I think, were somewhat different. Certainly different than what a pageant is in the US. Same logic applies to ball, but made consistent w/ Bal des Ardents
• Dunno if Engvar or not, but in the US a councilor sits on a council; a counselor gives counsel - usually legal or personal.
• Hedeman is an e-book and I've tweaked to show that. Can't find and ISBN.

• Otherwise I think I got everything. I'll let you know when it goes to FAC. Thanks again and thanks for the nice words. The cast of characters turned out to be more complicated than I expected when I began this seemingly simple bit of writing. Victoria (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"the Merovingians from Charlemagne"

Does your source really say "the Merovingians from Charlemagne"? I am mainly concern because no royal family in the world can accurately trace their descent from a Merovingian king. The Carolingian only have some obscure connections written down centuries after the Frankish kingdoms that Pepin the Short had ancestors who may have been Merovingians. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 May 1#Merovingian bloodlines. Do you mean to say Carolingian? The Wittelsbachs' fame like all noble families in Europe comes from their power not their descent from Charlemagne, and a family's fame via ancestry usually comes from its nearest famous ancestor not if or if they didn't descend from Charlemagne since virtually all royals and nobles by her time had some connection to Charlemagne even a Count of Supplinburg who became Holy Roman Emperor. The Wittelsbachs were famous because they ruled Bavaria and because Isabeau's great-grandfather was the Holy Roman Emperor Louis IV. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking. The source says: "The Wittelsbachs of Bavaria had a long illustrious heritage; they were descended from the Merovingians and Charlemagne, and Elisabeth's great-grandfather had been elected Emperor as Ludwig IV in 1314." (page 52) Source: Gibbons, Rachel. (1996). "Isabeau of Bavaria, Queen of France (1385–1422). The Creation of a Historical Villainess". Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Volume 6, 51–73

Just to add, I consider the source credible because Gibbons won a prize for this particular piece - can't remember which off the top of my head, but can look it up. I don't really know what to say, if you disagree, but we should sort it out so as to keep the article stable. Thanks for asking. Victoria (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Any price-winning author can use a faulty secondary source and make a mistake on a really miniscule part of his work and still write a good book. The fact is summed up by User:Ghirlandajo in that discussion I linked above: "Christian Settipani in Les ancêtres de Charlemagne has offered a plethora of lines of descent from the Merovingians to the Carolingians, only to conclude that none of them should be regarded as certain. There is too little documentation from the Dark Ages to substantiate any line of descent. Any genealogical reconstruction of a Merovingian descent still involves a good deal of speculation."--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Also could you incorporate the gallery at the bottom into the article or remove it? I personally dislike the gallery template since it just clutters the article, but that's my own opinion.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Can you give a suggestion as how to reword?
• Do you mean to remove the picture gallery of the children? Victoria (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe change it to "Hers was the ancient and well-established Wittelsbach family, descended from Charlemagne, and she was great-granddaughter to Holy Roman Emperor Louis IV."...removing "Merovingian" and the quotation marks. I find the "descended from Charlemagne" unnecessary too, but I will leave that up to you since that isn't a descent that is debated. Also, yes I think the gallery of her children should be deleted or integrated into the article like the rest of the images.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks, I've used the suggested wording. Regarding the picture gallery: I recently boosted the size of and perhaps that was causing a problem. I've put it back to the smaller size. I would incorporate if the section were larger but it's impossible with that amount of text to image ratio, so the gallery is the only solution. I would like to keep it because the images are free, show the children, and some are examples of quite good miniatures by well-known artists, e.g, the Fouquet. I'll be nominating this for WP:FAC fairly soon (you'll notice when the template is added to the article), and you're welcome to comment there about it. Perhaps some of the other reviewers, or even the reviewers here, have an opinion. I'd prefer to get more input before changing the images. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I was truly surprised at the suggestion that the gallery clutters up the article. I think it does just the opposite, and is a welcome inclusion. As to the screen size, I have been advised by a Wikipedia luminary that there are so many different sizes of screen, from hand-held devices to wide-screen laptops, in use nowadays that you can't cater for all of them, and it is probably best to stick to default sizes. Tim riley (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    

---

Drinking culture of Korea

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it includes about drinking culture of South Korea's history

Thanks, Dhtpgus90 (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Jainism

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to know whether the article is ready for being a Featured Article Candidate or not. A lot of work has been done for improvement of this article and it has recently been promoted to a Good Article. I think the article is ready to be a Featured Article, but I would like to know are there any issues which need to be sorted out before submitting the article for Featured Article Candidate.

Thanks, Rahul Jain (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's comments

Just read till Decline, - lead

• WP:JARGON: moksha, samsara. give a short description in brackets. Link to jain specific articles
• Check all links: Udaygiri is wrong.
• Link people like Basava, Ghazni kingdoms like Hoysala etc.
• Jain or Jaina: inconsistent use
• Naming convention: Some in common English, some in IAST. Adi Shankara vs Kumarila Bhatta.
• Add dates for kings, people e.g. Vishnuvardhana
• Suddenly I see Decline, but when it was its helm what was its greatest extent? approx. followers? prominent Jain kings/dynasties (other than the few mentioned)?
• "Shaivite singers introduced Jains to Shaivism" singers??? Are you sure this the right word?
• "the Hoysala king Vishnuvardhana, also known as Bittideva," italicized detail is not needed.
• Reads a copyedit
  • "Shaivite singers introduced Jains to Shaivism" is repetitive
  • "of the Islamic faith" is wordy. of Islam.

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have made certain changes to the article.

• Linked moksha and samsara to Jain-specific articles and gave a short description of it in the bracket.
• Corrected links.
• Added more wikipedia links.
• Changed Jain to jaina wherever the word is used as an adjective.
• Changed the names into IAST

• Still inconsistency Chandragupta, Svetambara, Mallinath, Shaivism, Saivite etc. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Shaivism and Shaivite are foriegn words, they don't need to be in IAST in my opinion. I will change other words into IAST. Rahul Jain (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Added dates to people and dynasties mentioned.
• I don't know whether the first two questions are answerable or not (when was it at its greatest extent? and approximate followers) I cannot find a reference which can precisely answer that question. I, however, have added more kings/dynasties who have patronized Jainism.

• It is covered in many books. e.g. [8][9] Redtigerxyz ^Talk

• I am unable to find the required information in those books. Most of them says that Jainism had many followers without giving any approximate number. Also they do not answer the question as to when was it at its greatest extent. They mention various reasons for decline in different parts of India at different time. Rahul Jain (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Singers was the word mentioned in the source, I have changed it to poets.
• Did minor copyediting
  • The line Shaivite singers introduced Jains to Shaivism now reads Śaivite poets like Sambandar and Appar (c. 7th century CE) introduced Jains to Shaivism
  • Replaced of Islamic faith with of Islam

I have made certain changes only at the history section, please see whether they are OK, so that I can make similar changes to the rest of the article. Thanks Rahul Jain (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Cult film

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've basically rewritten it. The original was an example farm and mess of original research. I haven't gotten much feedback on it, and I'd like to see if people like the direction that I've taken the article. Also, I have concerns that the article is USA-centric. I've tried to rewrite sections that were overtly USA-centric, but I suspect it needs more work. In particular, I'm worried about the Overview section, which might be perceived as tracing a history only through American cinema. Finally, I'd also like feedback on whether the article is clear, concise, and stays on-topic. I've tried to limit the amount of academic terms, jargon, and polysyllabic verbiage, but some did manage to sneak in, near the end of the article.

Thanks, NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

---

South Stoneham House

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has GA status and I believe it fulfils the FA criteria; I would like a peer review prior to submitting it as a featured article candidate.

Thanks, WaggersTALK 14:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

---

2012 Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I will eventually to try to get it promoted to either GA or FA. I plan to go through it with a fine-tooth comb later on, but if anyone can point out the larger issues, that would be very helpful. I'm always focused on creating articles that are non-U.S. friendly, so if the terminology doesn't make sense for those not terribly familiar with the sport, let me know and I'll see what I can do to make it as clear as possible.

Also, for the record, I will say this was not a terribly exciting or even important game. If that's your bag, this will bore you. But I will say I've tried to format it correctly so that it can hopefully function as a kind of reference for future articles. By expanding an article like this, it allows me to try out some things without having to manage a heavily-edited article, like those for the major bowl games.

Thanks, – Runfellow (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Bryan D. Brown

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this article to GA status in the future and I hope to get some outside input on how I could further improve/expand the article.

Thank you for your time, — -dainomite   19:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert: good work so far, I have the following suggestions:

• "General Brown retired from active duty" --> "Brown retired from active" (there is no need to repeat his rank here);
  •  Done fixed
• if known, some details about his early life should probably be added to a small "Early life" section. For instance, place and date of birth, parents, schooling, etc;
  •  Not done I will have to look for some.
    •  Done I found some sources regarding his early life.
• "He was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant" --> "He was commissioned as a second lieutenant in May" per WP:MILTERMS
  •  Done
• "After completing OCS Brown returned to Vietnam as a helicopter pilot": if known, it should probably be stated when and where he did his flight training;
  •  Not done I think I saw this in one of the references, I will go back through and check.
    •  Done Added and expanded upon this.
• watch for repetition, for instance: "commanded U.S. forces during Operation Prime Chance where he oversaw U.S. forces" ("U.S. forces is said twice here);
  •  Done
• this clause seems too far removed from that to which it relates: "which was a result of the Chadian–Libyan conflict" (i.e. it is not clear what "which" relates to here);
  •  Done
• there appears to be a typo here: "From there Brown went on to lead and U.S. Army Special Operations Command"
  •  Done
• comma splice: "in Operation Desert Storm, he went on to lead"
  •  Done
• repetition: "went on to lead..." and then "He then went on to become"
  •  Done
• repetition: "found that Lt Gen Philip Kensinger and other army officers were found" (found is repeated);
  •  Done
• inconsistent capitalisation: "other army officers" and then "retired from the Army" (IMO it should be "Army" in both cases);
  •  Done
• inconsistent date format: "July 27, 2000. Retrieved 2013-04-27";
  •  Done I blame reflinks!
• the See also section is blank and therefore probably should be removed (the portals should probably be moved down into the References section);
  •  Done That makes sense to me, should this also be done with the commons category since "external links" is also blank aside from that.
• "In it Brown is highly critical of the " --> "In it Brown was highly critical of the" (it is in the past, so it should probably use past tense);
  •  Done
• note 15 should be formatted to include title, publisher and accessdate information;
  •  Done
• in the References this appears: "Brown's Official US Army Bio", but it does not have any details explaining how the reader can access it (i.e. date of publication, url if it is a web site, publisher, author, etc.)
  • Removed, there isn't anything in the article that I haven't already found in one of the existing references.
• are there any details about his family? Obviously as a BLP we want to keep things to a minimum in this regard, but I think some indication of a family probably should be made if known. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I haven't come across any. I'm sure there might be some mentions in local papers from the Tampa Bay area because they seem to mention that stuff more often than other sources.
    •  Done I added what information I came across.

Thank you very much Rupert for all the suggestions. I've never taken an article to this point so it is a very good learning experience for myself and I appreciate the time you put in to critique it thus far. I know I can expand on him a bit in regards to him being a helicopter pilot during the Vietnam War. I wish I could find more about him while he was the head of various commands as opposed to just simply stating that he held those commands. For instance, him being the SOCOM commander for four years during the Afghanistan and Iraw wars but I'm not quite sure what to put in there for him serving during that time period. Also, should the "Military service" section be broken down further at all? Thanks again, — -dainomite   15:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "In a career that spanned four decades": probably best not to say that twice in the same paragraph.
  •  Fixed
• "Fort Meade Maryland": comma
  • Do you mean remove the existing comma?
    • Always put a comma between city and state. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Facepalm  Fixed
• "His father, Arnett Brown was": two commas or none
  •  Fixed, removed the one
• "was in the U.S. Army, and a member of the 89th Infantry Division": was in the 89th Infantry Division [most readers will understand that's in the army]
  •  Fixed
• "In High School he played": In High School Brown played ["he" might mean his father]
  •  Fixed
• "... baseball and basketball and eventually made it onto a semi-pro team team": semi-pro baseball or basketball team? I would think this would happen pretty quickly or not at all, so how soon is "eventually"? "made it onto" is informal. - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I would assume baseball but he doesn't specifically say in the interview so that's why it's worded like that unfortunately. Here's the relevent sentences from the reference: " Initially I was more interested in sports than academics, and played high school basketball and baseball. I actually went out for and made a semi-pro team in Fayetteville, N.C., that used to play at a stadium on Highway 301." Should I leave it as is or change it to baseball?
    • "Stadium" suggests baseball to me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
      •  Fixed

Thank you very much for your response Dank. I really appreciate you taking the time to review the article. — -dainomite   04:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

---

French Revolution

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

Thanks, ADI4094 16:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert: G'day, I only had a quick look as it is not a subject I know a lot about, but I looked at it from the perspective of what I would expect to see at GAN or FAC.

• at five paragaphs, the lead is too long. My understanding is that the MOS asks for no more than four, so it might be best to role one paragraph into another;
• there appears to be a mixture of both US English spelling and British English, for instance "laborers", "behavior", "favor" and "neighboring" (US), but "favour" and "organise" (British) (these aren't the only examples). Either is probably fine, so long as it is consistent;
• as the table of contents is quite long, there is a lot of whitespace below the lead. You might consider using a TOC limiter such as {{TOC limit}};
• be careful of overlinking per WP:REPEATLINK. The duplicate link checker tool reports a number of repeatlinks, such as: American Revolutionary War, Jacques Necker, Parlement, Assembly of Notables, Tennis Court Oath, Ancien Regime, Hotel de Ville, Estates General (France), National Assembly (French Revolution), and others...
• the referencing probably should be expanded (this is probably the main area that needs improvement if you want to take it to GAN or FAC). Currently there are a number of paragraphs that seem uncited. For instance:
  • the paragraph ending in "Faced with a financial crisis, the king called an Assembly of Notables in 1787 for the first time in over a century."
  • the sentence ending in "at least 25 years of age, who resided where the vote was to take place and who paid taxes."
  • the paragaph ending in "Necker overplayed his hand by demanding and obtaining a general amnesty, losing much of the people's favour"
  • the entire "Working toward a constitution" section;
  • the end of this paragraph: "They also demanded an end to royal efforts to block the National Assembly, and for the King and his administration to move to Paris as a sign of good faith in addressing the widespread poverty."
  • this sentence: "On 6 October 1789, the King and the royal family moved from Versailles to Paris under the "protection" of the National Guards, thus legitimizing the National Assembly."
  • this sentence (which is already tagged as needing a citation): "The persecution of the Church led to a counter-revolution known as the Revolt in the Vendée, whose suppression is considered by some to be the first modern genocide"
  • the first, second and fourth paragraphs in the "Intrigues and radicalism" section;
  • the first two paragaphs in the "Royal flight to Varennes" section;
  • the paragraph ending: "Danton fled to England; Desmoulins and Marat went into hiding."
  • the sentences tagged as needing citations in the "Failure of the constitutional monarchy" section;
  • this sentence: "The invading Prussian army faced little resistance until checked at the Battle of Valmy (20 September 1792), and forced to withdraw."
  • the entire "War and Counter-Revolution (1792–1797)" section;
  • the paragraph ending: "On 17 August, the Convention voted for general conscription, the levée en masse, which mobilized all citizens to serve as soldiers or suppliers in the war effort."
  • the first paragaph of the "The guillotine as a symbol" section;
  • the paragraph ending: "On the other hand, the socialist conspiracy of Babeuf was easily quelled. Little was done to improve the finances, and the assignats continued to fall in value."
  • this sentence: "The Liberty Tree serves as a constant celebration of the spirit of political freedom."
  • the paragaph ending in: "These connotations made Hercules an easy choice to represent the powerful new sovereign people of France."
  • this sentence: "Even before Léon, some liberals had advocated equal rights for women including women's suffrage. Nicolas de Condorcet was especially noted for his advocacy, in his articles published in the Journal de la Société de 1789, and by publishing De l'admission des femmes au droit de cité ("For the Admission to the Rights of Citizenship For Women") in 1790."
  • the paragraph ending in: "While little progress was made toward gender equality during the Revolution, the activism of French feminists was bold and particularly significant in Paris"
  • the paragraph ending in: "They set precedents for generations of feminists to come."
  • this sentence: "They took it upon themselves to protect the Church from what they saw as a heretical change to their faith, enforced by revolutionaries."
  • the paragraph ending in: "After the upheaval of the revolutionary period, the reestablishment of the Church was seen by many people as a welcome return to normalcy."
• I hope these comments help a little. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

This is a long article and I shall need several goes at peer reviewing it. First batch of comments:

• Spelling
  • You use English spelling (e.g. "organised") and American ("organized"). Be consistent.
• Lead
  • WP:OVERLINK – France. The article would benefit if you reviewed it asking yourself what use each blue link would be to your readers. For example, linking " spectacular French victories" to "Military history of France" (a 10,000-word article) or "modern France" to "modern France" (a non-existent article) is unlikely to be of practical use to anybody.
  • " The first year of the Revolution saw…" Do years see? A touch journalistic in formation, perhaps.
  • "King Louis XVI" – no need to give him his job title at second mention
  • "all mark their birth during the Revolution" – do you mean they all originated then?
• Causes
  • First para – 200 words with not a citation in sight. It won't survive FAC. This is a persistent fault throughout the article. Broadly, for FA, any substantive statement in the main text, unless glaringly obvious, needs a citation.
  • Second para – opening sentence needs a comma to close the subordinate clause. Two sentences in succession begin "While".
  • "Much needed" – needs a hyphen
  • Last para – jingling repetitions of "resentment" and "aspirations"
• Estates-General of 1789
  • "Pour être électeur …" – pointless having this in a box-quote: those who speak French will see that it merely repeats what you have already said in English, and those who don't will wonder what it means.
  • Necker asserted that each estate verify credentials – not sure what this is meant to mean
• Storming of the Bastille
  • Far too many uncited statements in this section; there is even a whole para with no refs at all.
  • "cease fire" – two words or one?
  • Sixth para – why leave the wl to the second mention of "counter-revolution(ary)"?

That's all for the moment. More comments to follow after you've pondered the above. – Tim riley (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Drowning Girl

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the subject has WP:FA potential, but it needs some attention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If I can get this through FAC, I may shoot for the 50th anniversary of its exhibition on September 28 for WP:TFAR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

As I have edited this, I realize that the 50th anniversary for the debut of this piece passed in April.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by NRP

It's a rather good article, but I think you might be able to expand on it, if you want. Can you separate the description and themes, while expanding on both? Why did he choose that image? How did he find it? What is the legacy and influence of this work? What was the overall importance of this work to pop art? Like Warhol, Lichtenstein is often strongly identified with pop art; how did this work affect his reputation, identification, and influence? Finally, the quotation seems a bit difficult to understand. "why should it be I was it and then pushed it a little further [...]" What does this mean? You've got several sentence fragments jammed together. Finally, I might suggest a few anecdotes, from interviews. It's good to see a concise article consisting of critical analysis, but a little fluff couldn't hurt. Wikipedia sure does love its anecdotes, especially in Featured articles. I think most Featured articles go way overboard in this area, but you might consider adding anecdotes about how long it took to make, whether anything notable happened during the process, etc. I'm sure some people will find that sort of information fascinating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Bulletpoints would have been helpful. I may reorganize your comments just so that I can address them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Any chance you could reorganize your comments so that they are not all merged together.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

My take on reformatting:

• Can you separate the description and themes, while expanding on both?
  • Well I am trying. I am not an art scholar though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Nor am I; but you seem to be doing a good job. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Why did he choose that image?
  • I can't find anything specific. But I have added that he parodied things he admired.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• How did he find it?
• What is the legacy and influence of this work?
  • I get the feel that this work is more important for its artistic link in the other direction through its inspiration. However, it remains one of his early "Girl Tragedies"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Postmodern works and works that have influenced postmodernism (such as pop art) are often difficult to discuss, as they comment on themselves and their inspirations as much as anything else. In fact, they can be downright difficult to describe outside of their influences. However, I think this article does a good job of comparing, contrasting, and analyzing. For Featured, you might consider expanding a bit on each of those things, as I've tried to point out, in my comments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• What was the overall importance of this work to pop art?
  • Added it is one of Lichtenstein's two most famous works.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Like Warhol, Lichtenstein is often strongly identified with pop art; how did this work affect his reputation, identification, and influence?
  • Like I have said, I am finding this to be strongly linked to its influences (both the source images and the thematic wave images) and it was a gateway to his tragic girls. I don't see content stating it influenced anything other than his own transition to melodramatic romance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Finally, the quotation seems a bit difficult to understand. "why should it be I was it and then pushed it a little further [...]" What does this mean?
  • I have corrected three typos in that quote.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• You've got several sentence fragments jammed together.
  • I'm not the best writer. If any particular instances are a problem. Otherwise, I will hope that this will lure the WP:WPVA copyeditors when the time comes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Finally, I might suggest a few anecdotes, from interviews.
  • I added a good blockquote on his process. Still looking for more.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• It's good to see a concise article consisting of critical analysis, but a little fluff couldn't hurt.
  • I hope it is not really fluff. I have added some content. More to come.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• ...you might consider adding anecdotes about how long it took to make, whether anything notable happened during the process, etc.

Now reorganized for a proper attack.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Was going to get around to that but got distracted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the current version.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Something like Campbell's Soup Cans might give some inspiration, for example:

• Explicit statements about the message and themes. Why did he paint soup cans? He liked soup. Asking why he did it is half the experience of seeing the painting. That sort of discussion could be replicated here.
• Background information about pop art and how Warhol chose to avoid comic books, as Lichtenstein was already working with that theme.
• Somewhat lengthy description of the premiere.

It might be difficult to find all this information, in the required detail. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• So you are lecturing me by showing me my first WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Do you think I should discuss why he started doing comic strips. I think that discussion was posted more appropriately at Look Mickey 1961.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• That's a good point. The discussion that you currently have seems appropriate and does not put undue emphasis on the history of his comic work. There may be room for further discussion as far as it relates to this work specifically, but I don't see any obvious openings. I think most of these questions ("why a comic?", "why this comic?", etc) have been answered well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Do you think I should discuss his decision to start doing tragic females? That might be relevant. Note that I did include speculation that Picasso may have motivated this. That sources are speculating in this manner suggests that not much more may be known on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Also note that I already have the following content on decision to do romance and war comics: "I was very excited about, and very interested in, the highly emotional content".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• The information presented helps in understanding the background. You might be able to expand the article further by comparing and contrasting it to his other tragic females, but I don't know if you want to get that in-depth. Also, such a discussion could easily get off-topic.
• You might consider strengthening your statements so that they don't sound like Wikipedia itself is speculating on the matter. For example, "Critic A believes that he may have intended this, while Critic B suggests that this may have been the intent." That way, the speculation is explicitly moved onto the critics. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Theatre Royal, Hobart

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review after a major re-write that, hopefully, pulls it out of stub-class. Not sure how well I handled the ghost, to be honest. Or the timeline. I'm a bio:LP, this is my first building but an anon editor seemed pretty invested in getting this article some attention.

Thanks, EBY (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Alice Ball

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first article on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Matthew Brown 18:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Nice first article! I only found minor issues, and I corrected them. I have nominated your article for the Did you know section of Wikipedia's Main page. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A few comments:

• For a first article, this shows a remarkable grasp of the rules concerning the form, structure and referencing of a WP article. I imagine that either you spent a long time on one of the "how to..." pages, or that you had an earlier incarnation, perhaps as an IP? Whatever, the article, though short, is pretty good as a first effort.
• I can find only a few things that I would change:

• Perhaps expand the lead by a sentence or to, so that it is summary of the whole article.
• One or two terms are perhaps a little too everyday in nature to warrant wikilinks. I refer particularly to "chemist" and "postgraduate", but you could check for others
• You should be consistent about whether to use numerals or words for values of 10 or more. At themoment you have "10" and "78", but also "ninety"
• Maybe the sources don't say, but do you know why, specifically, February 1929 was nominated as "Alice Ball Day"? There doesn't seem to be any connection between this day and her life and work.

• I think the article is worth a B classification and have changed its ratings. I also consider that "medium importance" rather than "low importance" is appropriate.

If you are intending to work on other articles, give me a shout if you would like me to take a look. PS: in future would you please sign yourself with your username by using the four tildes. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Gallipoli Campaign

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Since April a small group of editors - including myself - have been working on improving this article, adding references and expanding its coverage. The topic is not one that I am an expert in, so I would like feedback from the community about what needs to be done to take this towards GA and beyond. Thanks, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D

It's good to see this important article in excellent shape. I'm no expert on this topic either (far from it, in fact), but I have the following comments:

• A caption for the infobox picture explaining what each of the photos is would be a good idea
  • Thanks for the review. I've added something along these lines, although it is difficult because the image itself doesn't identify the component images. I have a bad feeling that the image itself will need to be removed at a higher review because the licence probably isn't appropriate (i.e. it doesn't identify the copyright status of the component images). Unfortunately the creator/uploader seems inactive now. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'd suggest that the 'background' section provide some brief material on the (probably avoidable) outbreak of war with Turkey and the status of this fighting in early 1915
  • Yes, fair call. I will see what can be added, unless someone else beats me to it. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • G'day, I've added a bit on this. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I added some more info about how the war developed b/n the Allied powers and Turkey following the declaration of war, including mention of the Caucasus Campaign, the Mesopotamian Campaign and Turkish operations against Egypt and Suez Canal in early 1915. Previously the article was fairly silent about these events and I think the reader may have been left unaware that fighting was going on b/n the belligerents during this period in other theatres. If you get the chance pls review and let me know if it is effective / accurately summarises the events or if you think it needs to be reworked / adds undue weight. Also mentioned Russian request for a demonstration as I could seem to see that anywhere in the article. Do this work where I have put it. Anotherclown (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Were conditions really "hot" on 17 February 1915? This area gets very cold in winter.
  • I've tweaked this to "harsh", although the source (Gilbert) uses the word "heat". AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• "With the support of naval gunfire, the Ottomans were held off throughout the night." - it's not clear who the naval artillery was supporting here (the Anzacs, I presume)
  • Reworded, does this make it clearer? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• "the Allied units became separated as they felt for the flanks " - I'm not sure what 'felt for the flanks' means in this particular context (were the troops looking for gaps in the Ottoman positions?)
  • Yes, fair call. Reworded, I think it should be clearer now. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The dead included a stretcher-bearer, John Simpson Kirkpatrick, whose efforts to evacuate wounded men on a donkey while under fire, became legendary amongst the Australians at Anzac and later resulted in his story becoming part of the Australian narrative of the campaign." - you might want to note the finding of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal earlier this year that Simpson performed essentially the same duties as the other stretcher bearers of the unit he was serving with (which doesn't mean that he wasn't brave; they were all brave - see page 184 of the Tribunal's report here, and there was also a detailed story in the Fairfax newspapers exploring this issue)
  • Not sure about this one, to be honest. I'm concerned that including too much of this might add undue weight. While Simpson clearly wasn't alone in his acts, he is the one that is mentioned the most. Nevertheless, I wasn't actually sure that I should mention him in the article at all because I was concerned that it would put too much of an Australian focus; in the end I decided to mention it, but only as briefly as possible, as I think many of our readers would expect it. The information about the Tribunal's investigation/decision is probably best on Simpson's article, IMO, but I'd welcome other opinions on the matter of course. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that the material which follows after "Historians are divided about how they summarise the campaign's result" is a good summary of the weight of opinion on this topic: virtually everything I've read on the campaign judges that it was a clear defeat for the Allies, with many authors arguing that the campaign was doomed to defeat. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I added a bit more on this. I'm not sure if this addresses your point, though. I appreciate you taking a look at this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Palmeira

Legacy might be extended beyond the national impact to the military thinking subsequent to the failure. This bit is a terse summary:

The Gallipoli fiasco of 25 April–20 December 1915, during World War I, had engendered a belief among most of the armed forces of the world - the United States Marine Corps for reasons of service self-preservation excepted - that in modern war against modern defenses, amphibious assaults cannot succeed. This belief persisted throughout the interwar period.

For example, USAF historical study explores that impact a bit on page 2 with a search on "Gallipoli 'amphibious landings' site:.mil" showing a number along the same line. This USMC analysis might prove useful. If I recall that belief in the interwar period has been attributed to having to move very fast from a small base in developing amphibious technology/techniques absolutely necessary in the Pacific—even if the Marines had always disagreed with that belief.Palmeira (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

G'day, good suggestion. I've added a bit on this now, although I added it to the "Military repercussions" section. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Good place for it and "enough said" in a piece about the event itself. Looks good overall. Palmeira (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

added a brief sentence on the fact Gallipoli was studied by the Brits prior to the Falklands in 1982 also. Anotherclown (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A "top-of-the-head" on this, but "Gallipoli lessons" apply to any ground force projection into hostile territory and have been studied as such by those planning non-amphibious operations as well. Monty should probably have paid a hell of a lot more attention to Gallipoli before trying such a complicated game for the bridge that was made far too far for many of the same "Murphy" causes. At the same time some have misapplied its "lessons", for example, ignoring the fact defensive weapons generate offensive counter weapons as I think one of my refs above noted. Palmeira (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "Dardanelles Campaign'": Don't link bolded words in general, but particularly not in the lead, per WP:BOLDTITLE. You and I know that the garish blue is just an artifact/artefact of bolding and linking, but for the typical reader, it looks like we're singling out one word in the lead as being particularly important for some reason.
• "took place on the Gallipoli peninsula in the Ottoman Empire (now Gelibolu in modern day Turkey)": took place on the Ottoman Empire's Gallipoli peninsula (now Gelibolu in Turkey)
• "A joint British and French operation": why link one and not the other? - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• "The attempt failed after eight months of heavy fighting and many casualties on both sides; the force was finally evacuated.": maybe: The invading force withdrew after eight months of heavy fighting and many casualties on both sides.
• "one of the greatest victories of the Ottomans during the war and is considered a major failure by the Allies. / The battle resonated profoundly among all nations involved. In Turkey, it is perceived as a defining moment in the history of the Turkish people—a final surge in the defence of the motherland as the ageing Ottoman Empire was crumbling.": That says that it was an important victory, four times in three sentences.
• "laid the grounds": Neither the Cambridge Dictionary nor Oxford Dictionaries gives "groundwork" as one of the meanings of "grounds"; what does Macquarie say? - Dank (push to talk) 00:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Howdy - AR is off playing silly buggers with soldiers in the bush for a few weeks so I made a couple of changes based on these cmts. There were a couple I wasn't sure about so I might leave them until he returns. Thanks for having a look. Anotherclown (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks AC. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Question The page looks in pretty good shape but are there any plans to reduce the parts describing battles to summary paragraphs and move the narrative to the seperate pages which are linked?Keith-264 (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Gday Keith. I hadn't planned to do anything like that unless other editors think its too large. Article is only approx. 113 kb which I don't think is too large for a substantial topic like this one (quite a few far larger GAs out there). Not sure about what AR is planning though. He is going to be out of comms for a few weeks so might need to wait to hear what he thinks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Just curious how far you're going, wht with the seperate pages existing, some are quite substantial.Keith-264 (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Sorcerer (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think I improved it considerably from Stub-class article to a comprehensively written one (and there will be a lot more to come in this respect), and I would like to get some creative feedback to see if my changes were adequate and what areas could be further improved, as well as if there are any errors and I'd like to receive some help in order to make references more complete (i.e. I have problems with citing the same book multiple times, but listing different pages in each reference)...

Thanks, Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by NRP

You've done a good job with filling out this article. However, there are a few things that I'd suggest:

• The intro is too long and detailed. It should provide a brief overview. I'd suggest moving those long quotations into Production.
• The plot summary is too short. It should ideally be between 400 and 700 words.
• The information on the title should probably be in Production. You might want to get a second opinion on that, because I can see a decent argument for keeping it where it is.

Finally, if you're looking for help on how to cite the same book multiple times, it's actually fairly easy: use template:RP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The article looks much better referenced now, but you've still got a bit of an original research problem in Influences. You have a source saying one thing, another source saying a different thing, and you're linking them together, using original research. This is called synthesis. Unless you can find a reliable source that links those two ideas together, you can't do it. You might also consider summarizing some of those lengthy quotations. For example, the quotations in the intro definitely need to be summarized or moved. Also, you may have a few too many sections. I think a few of them can be collapsed together. I'll see if I can help with that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Loca (Shakira song)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is vital for WikiProject Shakira. This article, which is of High-Importance to the project, might be ready for a good article review and I just want to have it peer-tested before nominating it for a full GA review. Any problems to the article can be sorted out then.

Thanks, WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

First look by WikiRedactor

Introduction

• Make sure "Loca" is written in quotations, I noticed a couple instances where it wasn't. -  Done
  • Also a question- should I put all the "Locas" that appear in review quotes in quotation marks too? For example- XYZ of RPQ site said, "Shakira's new song "Loca" is good"? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed you should.
• " The single was not officially released in the United Kingdom and Australia, originally to be released digitally and as a CD single on 13 December 2010. The releases were both cancelled and no explanation has been given since." Is this particularly noteworthy information? That seems like something that could be mentioned in the Commercial Performance section.  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Not really feeling the wording "became another big hit", perhaps something like "proved successful" instead?  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• "A music video was filmed for the song in August 2010 and was shot in Barcelona, Spain." to "Its accompanying music video was filmed in Barcelona, Spain in August 2010, and was released the following month."  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Background

• The sample is too big, try 64 kbps. It also needs to prove that it is fair use of non-free content.
  • I couldn't find any 64kbps sample. Can you help with his? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Sure thing0!
      • You sure about the Spanish sample? I think readers of the English Wikipedia would appreciate the English sample more. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I noticed that after I uploaded, sorry! However, I tend to lean towards the Spanish version, since it is the original. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• You should mention the writers/producers more. - Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Billboard.com to "Billboard".  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception

• This section seems a bit quote-farmish; you should paraphrase most of these and quote the keywords.  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, I noticed some of the reviews were not reviews at all, but mere info about the song. I removed such reviews, the section is pretty condensed now. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Commercial reception

• Pick one styling of peaks (number one or #1), but don't alternate with both.  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Pole position" confused me a little bit, it might be more straight-forward if you write "top position".  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Music video

• "Longtime Shakira collaborator" to "Shakira's longtime collaborator".  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Do we really need to know it was a Wednesday? Removed.  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Why are you italicizing artist's names?- I can't see anything italicized? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• "About the video Shakira said" should be combined with last sentence like "to which Shakira commented". --> Had to remove that response since link was dead and couldn't find any replacement. Not sure if it was a response to the authority problems in the first place. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Billboard needs to be italicized.  Done
• Some more quote-farming, paraphrase these reviews.  Done

Live performances

• The Sun Comes Out Tour is done, so it should be "was" part of the setlist.  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Lopez Tonight should be italicized.  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• "According to a YouTube clip" Remove that bit.  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Paraphrase quote.  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Certifications

• Try formatting the certifications like the way they are in Britney (album) or Give It Up to Me, where the templates used show sales marks, too.

Can you please do this? I'm not good at this stuff at all. I almost messed up the entire section when I did last time. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem!

 Done

Release history

• Either add the labels or remove that heading in the table.

Can't get this. See my post on your talk page for further details. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done

References

• The references need work. You should list both the work and the publisher, and my preference is to write out the date instead of using shorthand.  Done
• We have several dead links to address, take a look at Toolserver to see which ones need work. - Basically, all the Billboard ones are dead, maybe the site underwent a big formatting. I'm fixing it. WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "On the week of September 18, 2010 the song debuted at #40 on the Billboard Tropical Songs[14] and #1 on digital tropical charts with great selling of 6000+ downloads.[15] On the week of September 25, 2010 the song debuted at #31 on the Billboard Latin Songs.[16"- These links are dead. But I can't find replacements because I can't find the concerned chart histories. Can you please please help? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Billboard has been working with their new site layout, and I've noticed that a lot of older chart information doesn't show up anymore. However, the site is still in its beta phase, so I continue to link to the charts on their site with the expectation that they'll sort that out themselves.
      • Wouldn't that be a dead link as of now then? That may fail the GA criteria. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
        • That's never happened to me, my understanding was that a little lenience was acceptable because of their messy overhaul. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, you can provide Allmusic as an additional reference if you'd like.
          • Oh, okay! And yeah, I gave Allmusic additional references just in case. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
            •  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And there we have it! After addressing these issues, leave me a message on my talkpage and I'd be more than happy to take a look at the page then to see if there are additional things we can improve. Regards, WikiRedactor (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Second look by WikiRedactor

Great work, the page is in much better shape now! Just a few more areas to correct and you should be ready for a GAN: (Thanks and thanks! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC))

• Try to move the references in the introduction into the body of the article, since it's just summarizing what people are about to read.

Oh you meant take the reference out from the lead and put them into the body! I read the opposite! oops... --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Talk about the song being recorded in Dominican Republic in the "Background and composition" section.  Done WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Official versions" lacks sources right now, that needs to be addressed.

I don't think that section is even needed. Mostly all other GA class articles I saw have no section like this, including Give It Up To Me :P Shall I remove it?--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, any suggestions where I can find the refs?

It seems that we have a variety of remixes for the song, so I wouldn't remove that section. Try looking for iTunes remix EPs and Allmusic, they might have some information.

Tried, could only find the original versions (English and Spanish) sources. All other pages offering remixes were those cheap trashy virus-infiltrated sites. What to do? Who added this section? It's obvious that person knows where he got this info from. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Then I guess if there is no reputable source, we can't leave it in the article. Shouldn't be a huge deal to remove it. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• The references still need some work. There is one dead link remaining, and the others need to fix the work/publisher fields. Only printed works are italicized, the rest are in regular text, and the publisher needs to be added. For example, the iTunes Store publisher is Apple Inc., and the publisher for Billboard is Prometheus Global Media, etc. You'll need to look back at those sites and gather that information.

Working on this first. I think you italicized all the work entries, but work already displays in italics when saved. Work always displays the website cited and is an alias for website. See this- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_web#Title .... Moving on to adding the publishers. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you put the italics in the work field, it makes it regular text and offsets the original formatting. This is what we have to do for several online sources, since many of them are not magazines.

But work is used for websites, not printed mags, so I think it's best they stay italicized. WonderBoy1998 (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I see that you've non italicized them again , so I think we should let it remain that way. And Toolserver isn't showing any dead link, So considering that it's  Done WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Make sure that the date formatting is consistent throughout, I see some varations.  Done WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Make sure the titles of citations are not in all capitals.  DoneWonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I still need to take care of some charts information, I'll get to that shortly. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A thing I noticed- the file which we have used is File:Shakira - Loca Ft Dizzee Rascal Preview.ogg, but when played it is the version ft. El Cata. Is there no way to rename a file? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think we can. I've tried looking for that before, but I couldn't find anything.

Well, seems like only the charts and the official versions need work now. Hahaha...the article is surely no where near a C class article now! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I've finished the charts a few days ago, I just forgot to let you know. My apologies. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Magiciandude

If it's alright, I have a some feedback myself I would like to offer:

• "The song has become Shakira's ninth number-one hit on the Billboard Hot Latin Songs and her thirteenth number 1 hit on the Latin Pop Songs, making her the second female artist with most number-one hits after Gloria Estefan (14) on the former and the female artist with most on the latter. According to Billboard, eight of the top 10 tracks on Billboard's Latin Digital Songs chart are Shakira's, including the number 1 "Loca" which sold 48,000 downloads, the highest-selling week ever for the chart. The single was not officially released in the United Kingdom and Australia, originally to be released digitally and as a CD single on December 13, 2010. The releases were both cancelled and no explanation has been given since." There's not a single reference here.

The person who put this info there in the first place gave a dead link for a ref. I can't find any replacements. Can you help? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Erick (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)'

Somehow, I managed to do something. So it's  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sources with a work parameter without a publisher parameter should just use a publisher parameter.

 Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• About.com is not a reliable source and should be substituted.

Okay, I removed the Top 10 Shakira Songs About.com reference, which was used to cite the sentence "Recorded in the Dominican Republic, "Loca" is an interpretation of the artist El Cata's song "Loca Con Su Tiguere". What about the review reference one used in critical reception. Can it remain there? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend it. I've been told by editors that About.com is not a reliable source and it should be avoided.

Oh, okay. I'll find a replacement. Thanks for informing this to me too!  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good work. My final suggestion is to add the song accolades received. The List of awards and nominations received by Shakira should help you with what the song was awarded and nominated for. Erick (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing! I'll put that in the critical reception section.  Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Erick (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC) More on the way. Erick (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• All done guys! Any further suggestions before I nominate it for GA? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• It looks all set to me. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Yep, same here. Good job! Erick (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Royal Philharmonic Orchestra

This peer review discussion has been closed.
My aim is to get the articles on the five London orchestras up to GA level. (I have no ambitions to FA.) This is the third I have had a go at, following the London Symphony Orchestra and the BBC Symphony Orchestra, which have arrived safely at GA. The London Philharmonic and the Philharmonia are yet to come. This one is shorter than the LSO and BBC SO articles, mainly because those orchestras were founded in 1904 and 1930, respectively, whereas the RPO, the newest of the five orchestras, has less history to draw on. As always, comments on clarity, prose, proportion and so on will be gratefully received. – Tim riley (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Doing, although I see a lot of work happening now. Waiting until it settles down. Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I am enjoying reading this article very much, and its nice to see it develope, even as I set down these minor quibbles.

"adequate public subsidy" - the word 'adequate' is loaded, emotive, and not explained enough in the lead.

In the lead "many of which remain available in the digital era" -this makes no sence, your presenting it as a triumph, surely recordings are now far more freely available "in the digital era" than before.

"He attempted to renew his association with the London Philharmonic Orchestra (LPO), which he had founded in 1932" - there is a huge gap in internal policicing glossed over here. It sounds juicy, and leaves me wondering.

"would accept Beecham back only on its own terms as its salaried artistic director" - Im not sure where the wound here was felt; because he was salaried? Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• All now dealt with, I think. But have I now overdone the LPO stuff at the start? Tim riley (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

Just a few to muse over, flawless Riley stuff as usual.

• It would be great to have a lede image. The arms maybe?
  • I pondered that. It would indeed be good to have an opening image, and the arms would do very well, but then the whole first section would be without any picture to break up the acres of text. I can't think of any free or plausibly fair use image to use instead. Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
    • How about having a free image of Beecham in the first section which then allows the arms to be moved up to the lede? Excuse the awful pun, but it strikes me that Beecham was *ahem* instrumental in its creation. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately the only free images of Beecham show him as a young man in the early part of the last century, and he was getting on for 70 when he founded the RPO. I think it would look very odd. Tim riley (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Later: Does this external shot of the orchestra's home, Cadogan Hall, look all right? Tim riley (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I will be honest and say that I think it does look a bit odd for a lede image. It would be the sort of lede image one would expect to find on the Cadogan Hall article. I think it might get picked up on during a GAC depending on how strict the reviewer will be. However, I think its OK for an image within the body and foresee no issues. Incidentally, I have emailed Crisco and SchroCat with a view of finding a US published photo of Beecham in the 1940s which would make it pre 1963, but I'm not holding out much hope. -- Cassianto^Talk 13:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
          • How about this – swapping the interior and exterior shots, to feature the RPO players in the info-box image?
            • Yes, a lot better. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• "...Davis Theatre Croydon." -- Is there a comma missing from before Croydon?
  • There was, but no longer. Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Among the well-known players who have been RPO principals in the mid-1950s and later, string players include..." -- Repetition of "players". Also, there seems to be two introductions for the players: "Among the well-known players who have been RPO principals in the mid-1950s and later...", and "string players include..."
  • First point: yes, and dealt with. Second point: I think this is all right. It makes the two points I wish to make, viz that they were mid-50s (and later) principals and then distinguishing between the sections. Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• "In 2009, Charles Dutoit was appointed artistic director and principal conductor..." -- are you of the school who use commas after an introductory date, or do you frown?
  • They are better avoided when practical. Certainly not needed here, and duly deleted. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• "...a celebrated Beethoven Seventh Symphony" -- I'm sure it was but would this be peacocky?
  • Removed pro tem. I'll scout about for a reference justifying "celebrated" (which it certainly is) Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Could the reference column be split into two to reduce white space?
  • Very happy for that to happen, but I'm blest if I know how to do it. If you do, then please do the honours. Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC) As you were! User:Aa77zz has kindly done the deed unbidden. Tim riley (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing more from me Tim. Good work as usual! -- Cassianto^Talk 02:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Cassianto^Talk 16:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent stuff, thank you! I shall enjoy going through these points tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC) And now done. Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments Slim pickings from me (and one memorable choking fit):

• "Beecham agreed with the Glyndebourne Festival that the RPO should be the resident orchestra at Glyndebourne seasons." The word "agreed" sounds a little informal; perhaps "arranged" or even "contracted"?
• Consecutive sentence beginnings: "The principal cellist was Raymond Clarke..."; "The principal horn player was Dennis Brain..." Not a major point, but perhaps a slight variation could be tweaked?
• "venturing on"; just "venturing" will do.
• Likewise I would say "had made more than 100" and omit the "others".
• 1961–2000 section: the opening words "After Beecham's death" are redundant
• Shouldn't Beecham's widow have a name?
• Swiss Cottage a suburb? Surely, surely not! I lived there mid-1970s, and would have died rather than accept that description. Hendon is a suburb, as are Finchley, Muswell Hill, Edgware etc etc. But please, please, not the Cottage!
• Question on capitalisation in "Silver Jubilee"?
• "From 1993 the RPO has had..." → "Since 1993 the RPO has had..."
• Will non-musical people know what "residency" means in this context?
• "works by composers ranging from Bach to [a motley collection of 19th and 20th century composers covering about 130 years]" I'm not sure that this describes a "range" as such. Perhaps simplify to "played works by Bach, Copland..." etc
• "in the mid-1950s and later" could be just "since the mid-1950s"
• On a point of curiosity, why did the orchestra record under pseudonyms?
• Minor style point: three of the four paras in the Recordings section begin "In..."

That's what I have. The article is splendidly informative, and evocative of my early concertgoing days (when I lived very close to the centre of action a short distance from Swiss Cottage tube station) Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and profound apologies for causing the choking fit. I've acted on all your suggestions with the exception of the one about "in the mid-1950s and later": I originally had the wording you suggest, but decided it could be read as saying that the players were still with the orchestra. I don't know why the pseudonyms; the source doesn't say. I imagine it was because EMI had some sort of contractual right to the RPO's services, but that's just speculation on my part. – Tim riley (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

From Smerus. Informative and engaging; I enjoyed this very much. The maestri above have I think taken up virtually all the significant issues and points to consider. I would just add that the section '1946-1961' is a bit long and starts (appropriately) in 1936. You could ?possibly make a break after the Lyndon Jenkins quote so as to have e.g. 'Beecham: The Origins' and 'The Beecham Years'. Also; whilst you deal with the threats to the orchestra in the last decades of the 20th century, the absence of any discussion of this in the 21st century might give the reader the impression that the time for these problems is over - there have been actual or threatened cuts of public grant over the past few years, I think (difficult to reconcile the different figures I find on Google), but it may be worth establishing this. Best, --Smerus (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC).

PS: On the vital 'Swiss Cottage' issue: when I were a lad, I used to go to the 'Youth and Music' concerts there (organised by Sir Robert Mayer) and am pretty sure that the RPO was amongst the regular orchestras there - but can't find citations for this. The WP article on Sir Robert (who had a long association with Beecham) says that the RPO played at his centenarian celebrations (again alas without citation). PS: Sir Robert was the only man I have met who had been (so he told me) patted on the head by Brahms - not that it is at all relevant but now my tale is available for all eternity on the internet.--Smerus (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel honoured that a page of mine is the permanent repository for this delightful and impressive fact! Tim riley (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC) I've broken up the opening section as suggested. I think the line about the unpredictability of sponsorship probably covers the continuing financial problems, but I'll scout round for up to date corroborative detail. Thank you very much for your comments. – Tim riley (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Re Mayer: I am pretty certain that it was the LPO, not the RPO, that played at the centenary concert in 1979. I actually remember the concert, though I didn't go to it. I also believe that Colin Davis conducted at this event (at the time I knew a bit about Davis's activities because I knew his sister – not in the biblical sense I must add). I'll bet there's something about it online somewhere, or in one of your newspaper repositories, Tim. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

And, lo and behold, here's something! Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I watched the concert on the television. Davis conducted the Beecham arrangement of the Hallelujah Chorus, I recall (cymbal crashes and all). Alas, I am going to Davis's memorial concert on Tuesday. When I booked, it was to hear the great man doing the Great C major. He will be dreadfully missed. Tim riley (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Closing PR now. Warm thanks to all who contributed. Tim riley (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Regular Show

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We need another cartoon GA. I'm a fan of this show, and I noticed the article was in pretty good shape, so I wondered what else it would need.

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Turkish people

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is either ready for GA status or very close. The article is well-sourced. Although it is a bit long (93 94 kb), a lot of it are statistics; I think text length is fine. Furthermore some other GA ethnicity articles seem to be longer (e.g., British people, 155 kb; Greeks, 134 kb). I would appreciate any help, comments, etc...(just noticed the toolbox; will do those fixes, including improving/expanding the LEAD, within several days 22:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC))

Thanks, Cavann (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Fuck (film)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Fuck (film) is a 2005 documentary film which analyzes the word fuck from a perspective of freedom of speech. The article is WP:GA quality and I'd appreciate help with any further ways to further along the quality improvement process. — Cirt (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture, User talk:Cirt, User talk:Khazar2, User talk:Mwn3d. — Cirt (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Red Phoenix

Just some passing notes, as I'm looking at this:

• "Music" section is a little short, and any expansion there to flesh out the paragraph might help. I feel it's also a little misleading; when it comes to songs and such used in a film, isn't the term "Soundtrack" more appropriate? Could use some more feedback from more experienced Wikipedians on this.
• Reading the lead, it's a little unusual to have the second paragraph start with a comment on the music, but it's not really the main idea of that paragraph, nor is it a significant section of the article. Again, one solution here would be further expansion of the music section, or that sentence could be moved to the end of that paragraph and the sentence starting with the word "Filmmaker" would be a good start to the paragraph, and the music detail wouldn't be a bad way to end it, even if it is out of sequence a little bit.
• In the home media section, the term "DVD" is used quite repetitively; can this be reduced to cut it down and make it an easier read?
• Likewise in that section, the first "paragraph" isn't really a paragraph. Can this be reworked into the next paragraph and make it more substantial?
• Otherwise it looks pretty good to me and I'd support it at FAC. I'm sure some other reviewers might have some more notes to throw in, though, and that's a good thing. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 16:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to comments by Red Phoenix

1. Retitled the Music section to Soundtrack.
2. Moved the sentences around in the 2nd paragraph of the lede. Moved the sentence starting with "Filmmaker" to be the first sentence of that paragraph.
3. Trimmed use of term "DVD" in Home media section.
4. Home media section - moved around info in the two paragraphs to have those two paragraphs be more of equal size.
5. Thanks very much for your support and encouragement and these helpful suggestions!

— Cirt (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Piotrus

I have only two technical concerns before a GA review:

• too many see also entries
• external links in further reading section

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not a GA Review, it is a peer review but thanks, I'll address those in the next several hours. — Cirt (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to comments by Piotrus

1. This is not a GA Review but a Peer Review. This article already had a GA Review and was successfully reviewed and promoted to WP:GA quality.
2. I've trimmed entries from the See also sect.
3. I moved an external link from the Further reading sect to the External links sect.

Thank you for your helpful suggestions, — Cirt (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Rejectwater

• I reviewed the article and found I have nothing constructive to add to the conversation. I don't understand why it isn't FA already. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Rejectwater (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind encouragement about this quality improvement project! — Cirt (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Gary Botting

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… after much objective input, which has been incorporated into the article, it appears to be complete, but there is still a warning attached to the file dating back to February. Therefore a peer review is required.

The article is cross-disciplinary.

Thanks, Gerald Ryder (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Haven't had a thorough look at the article yet, but the first thing I noticed is that the article mixes referring to the subject by his first and last name. It should be the last name consistently throughout. Gamaliel (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Hey Ya!

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently demoted from FA status: as a big fan of the song, I'm keen to get it re-promoted, and I've been going through a complete overhaul of the references, one of the major concerns – an astonishing number of which were dead. However, it has noted on many occasions throughout the demoting that the prose needed work – and, never having written to a featured standard before, I'm not sure where to start. A peer review explaining how any aspect of the article could be improved, whether it be the prose, general formatting or reference, would be extremely helpful.

Note: Please note that I was not involved in the song's original FA promotion: I hadn't even joined Wikipedia back in 2007.

Thanks, I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 21:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Barend Joseph Stokvis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure I have maximised all opportunities to expand and verify its content before hopefully taking it to WP:FAC.

Thanks, JFW | T@lk 20:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
I'll give this a read and add some comments as I go. I'm not promising my review will be comprehensive, but I'll try and be as picky as I can!

•  Done Regarding the lead - the first sentence could do with some improvements. I don't think Dutch needs to be wiki-linked, but maybe link pharmacology? The lead seems a little light, I know the article is not a large one, but maybe some more information could be added. One thing that stuck out for me was that it stated Stokvis was a professor, but doesn't say where?
•  Done After reading the article, the statement "He was one of a number of influential 19th century Jewish physicians in the Netherlands.[4]" seems even more out of place than we I initially read it. Nothing is said about this in the article, yet it is included, but further details regarding his scientific career (which seems to be why is notable) is omitted. I'm wondering if this sentence is necessary, and if instead a couple more sentences about his scientific career could be added.
•  Done Where did he study medicine in Amsterdam?

  Good point; the sources are quiet on where exactly he studied, considered it didn't have an university at that point. JFW | T@lk 16:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done "in 1856.[3][7][8][9]" - maybe try to avoid having four citations in a row

  Reduced to three (one cited the other). Trying to be thorough. JFW | T@lk 16:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• "His thesis closely followed recent work by the French physiologist Claude Bernard" - this doesn't read well

  Rephrased. JFW | T@lk 16:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done " influenced by the chemist Mulder in " why not state Mulder's full name (or at least given name)?
•  Done " the Brussels Academy awarded a gold medal to Stokvis for an essay on the development of albuminuria (a kidney disorder in which the protein albumin can be detected in the urine)." - maybe try and remove the parenthesis
•  Done I think some material in the "Scientific career" could be rewritten a little. Specifically I think there is a little bit of jargon, and it can be quite dense with information. For example, Atropa belladonna is Deadly Nightshade – lay readers may find that Stokvis researched the toxicity of this quite interesting, but may glaze over it if they only see the scientific name. Another example is "Methemoglobinemia" - this is a blood condition, there is no harm in saying so, especially as lay readers would have no idea what it is!
•  Done Is his research into methemoglobinemia related to his research into blood pigments?

  Difficult to say. It is mentioned separately in the source. JFW | T@lk 16:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done "In 1889, he reported on a case of acute porphyria provoked by the newly introduced hypnotic drug sulfonmethane (sulfonal).[1][13] The patient's underlying condition was probably acute intermittent porphyria, which can be provoked by medicines; similar reports by others followed shortly after, and other drugs were also found to be porphyrogenic.[13][14]" - not sure about these two sentences. They don't read well, and are a bit jargony.

  Rephrased and restructured for comprehensibility. JFW | T@lk 16:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done " Olof Hammarsten further characterised the chemical properties of the red compound found in the urine of the patients" - this is very vague, further characterised?

  Rephrased. It was chemical analysis, and confirmation that it was indeed a porphyrin. JFW | T@lk 16:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done " Porphyrins had been described as a chemical entity in 1871 by the German chemist Felix Hoppe-Seyler, named for their purple hue (poxphuros being Greek for "purple")." - this doesn't read well either. Maybe " Porphyrins were first identified by the German chemist Felix Hoppe-Seyler in 1871, and derive their named from the Greek for purple—poxphuros—after to their color."?
•  Done "Stokvis' most important work was judged by his contemporaries" be more specific; how was it judged by them? You may even be able to quote from his obituary, it should be in the public domain

  The author of the obituary refers to his 3-volume book as a "magnum opus". Not sure if there's an advantage to quoting that verbatim.

•  Done "Professional activities" - I'm wondering if there could be a more appropriate section title here - was his "scientific" career amateur?

  Fair point. Changed. JFW | T@lk 16:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done "and he would serve as vice-president of the Academy in 1896." - "and served as vice-president of the Academy in 1896."
•  Done " He received an honorary degree of Doctor of Laws from the University of Edinburgh in 1884." maybe " He was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws from the University of Edinburgh in 1884." - and does this statement need three references?
•  Done " Jewish Poor Board" - what is that?

  It is a direct translation of the name of the organisation (Joods Armenbestuur). It was a charitable organisation.

•  Done "He was also a patron of the arts." - could anything more specific be said on this?

  Like his brother-in-law Wertheim he stimulated the arts. The sources are scarce on his exact contribution.

• "They had two children.[10] He was an ardent swimmer, and wrote poetry under several pseudonyms. He spoke several languages.[3] He died in Amsterdam shortly after returning from a holiday in Ireland,[12] from what was thought to be myocarditis.[11]" this all reads a bit poorly; it is very abrupt and is a little repetitive, with so may sentences starting with He.
• Would it be worth adding an infobox for this article?
• Why was File:Stokvis.jpg painted by Jozef Israëls when he was (according to his en-wiki page) such a notable painter? If there is information on this, maybe it could be added to the caption.

I hope those comments are helpful. Ignore any you don't agree with, but I tried to be extra picky especially as your aim is FAC. The article was interesting, but can read a little dense in parts. I didn't check the references; maybe I'll come back and check them if I have time. - Shudde ^talk 12:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm currently working to improve this article to GA standard. Since this is a multifaceted topic (history, law, social consequences, etc.) I thought I'd get as many eyes on it as possible. I'm particularly interested in any areas where this may fall short of the GA criteria, but all comments and suggestions are welcome!

Thanks, Khazar2 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, guess I'm giving up on this for now; no one's responded here, and another user has arrived to revise the article. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Burger's Daughter

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a GA, and I've since expanded it and would like to take it to FAC. I'd appreciate it if anyone has any feedback or suggestions.

Thanks, —Bruce1ee^talk 15:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... Victoria (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• I'm curious why this is defined as a historical novel because it's apparently not set in a period far removed from when it was written, which is typically the case for historical fiction. Also, I may have missed it, or not found it yet, but it doesn't seem to be defined as such anywhere except the lead.
  • You're right, the novel was written only a few years after the events in the book, and "historical novel" is not mentioned in the body of the article. But I did find two sources that classify it as an historical novel: this book ("Other representative examples of African historical novels include Nadine Gordimer's intense engagement with the history of apartheid in South Africa in works such as Burger's Daughter and A Sport of Nature"); and this journal ("Finally, one may describe Burger's Daughter as a retrospective homage to generations past, a kind of historical novel without the fancy-dress apparatus and worked-up documentary cast that often characterizes such work"). Do you think these sources are enough to call it an historical novel? —Bruce1ee^talk 08:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that's good. Should probably be mentioned somewhere in the body too. Victoria (talk)

• I'll added it to the new "style and genre" section. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Consider mentioning the Nobel prize the lead.
  • Done. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary

• Consider trimming the summary as much as possible.
  • I'll look at that. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Plot summaries are difficult to write so please bear with me - I have a few questions:
• How old is Rosa at the opening of the novel? As written the summary mentions that her mother died a decade earlier but later mentions Rosa was nine when both parents were arrested and she was sent to live elsewhere. The chronology is a bit confusing.
  • The novel opens when Rosa (in flashback) visits her mother in prison when she is 14 (this is not mentioned in the plot summary). In "real-time" the novel starts when she attends of father's treason trial when she is ±23. See also my next comment. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Is the novel written as a flashback?
  • Part of it, yes. The flashback scenes include when Rosa (age 14) visits her mother in prison, when she recalls life as a child in the Burgers's house, when her parents are arrested and she is sent away (9). The rest of the novel is in "real-time", when she attends her father's treason trial (±23), her brief time with Conrad, she sells the Burgers's house after her father dies (26), flies to Nice (±27), returns to SA and is arrested (29). —Bruce1ee^talk 08:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• The summary mentions that Rosa's father was arrested when she was nine, he was imprisoned then? And then mentions that he dies three years later, which would make her about 12, but the next section has her at age 26 selling the family home > again the chronology is a bit confusing.
  • Rosa's parents where arrested, imprisoned and later released several times in her life, including when she was nine. During her mother's last internment she died when Rosa was 14. Her father's last internment was his life-sentence when Rosa was ±23. I hope all this helps. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I want to re-read this section again. Might be useful to add in the plot summary how old she as the scenes are described. That will help the reader understand that the plot doesn't follow a linear pattern - at least that's my understanding from your explanation. Victoria (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll look at reworking the plot summary for clariy. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Realising she needs to be somewhere else" - not sure how to parse this > perhaps trim out?
  • Reworded to "Feeling redundant". —Bruce1ee^talk 08:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• "is able to be herself for the first time in her life" - same as above, not sure how to parse > trim out?
  • Removed and copyedited. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Character list

• I'd suggest eliminating it. See Red Badge of Courage and The Sun Also Rises both FA that present the characters in the plot summary. The characters int the list are all mentioned in the summary, so it seems a redundant list.
  • Removed. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Context for the boxes is lacking and the formatting needs a bit of improvement. Text boxes are nice to use to show snippets of text, again see the two articles mentioned above that make use of them, and also "Big Two-Hearted River" that has a snippet of text in the plot summary.
  • Removed. I thought those were nice quotes, but I agree, they are out of context. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Background

• Gordimer was friends with many of the activist families, including Fischer's, and knew that the children in these families were "politically groomed" for the struggle, and that "the struggle came first" and they came second. > This is a bit of hard sentence to get through, suggest something like: Friends with many of the activist families, including Fischer's, Gordimer knew these families' children were "politically groomed" for the struggle, and were taught "the struggle came first" and they came second.
  • I've used your suggestion, thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Is it necessary to link "non-fiction"?
  • Delinked. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• The paragraph about Nobel Prize is important and probably should be moved elsewhere out of the background section. To the "Honours and awards" section maybe?
  • Moved to "Honours and awards" section as suggested. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

MOS

• It's not necessary to use square brackets for ellipsis - see MOS:ELLIPSIS
  • Removed. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Publication and banning"

• "a decision was made" > do the sources explain who made the decision the have the book published in England? If so, to avoid the passive tense and to give more information, might not be a bad idea to add here.
  • I assume it was either Gordimer or her publishers, but it's not mentioned in any of the sources I've found. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Some repetition: She did, however followed closely by, But she did describe
  • Fixed. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• in the book she had published a pamphlet written and distributed by students in the 1976 Soweto uprising > this is a bit confusing. Did the book contain an actual pamphlet? or did the book contain a description of a fictional pamphlet?
  • The book contains a copy of the actual pamphlet written by students in the 1976 Soweto uprising. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• That's interesting. I'd copyedit it and essentially use the wording you've provided above for clarity. Victoria (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll do that. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Do we know who smuggled the book to Mandela?
  • I've seen no mention of this person in any of the sources I've looked at. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• try to avoid overuse of however
  • Fixed. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"What Happened … "

• What Happened to Burger's Daughter has two essays by Gordimer documenting the publication history and fate of Burger's Daughter, and responding to Publications Control Board's reasons for banning the book, and one essay by University of the Witwatersrand law professor John Dugard examining censorship in South Africa within the country's legal framework. > a long snaky sentence; try splitting up maybe
  • I've split the sentence. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Themes

• Academic Abdul R. JanMohamed > is he a professor of literature? If so, perhaps add a bit more information
  • I've added his title with a citation. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Many of Gordimer's works have explored the impact of apartheid on individuals in South Africa,[8] and journalist and novelist George Packer writes that in Burger's Daughter a theme present in several of her novels is that of racially divided societies in which well-meaning whites unexpectedly encounter a side of black life they did not know about > another long sentence that could do with splitting or rewriting
  • I've split the sentence. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Packer finds that another theme in Burger's Daughter that occurs in several of her novels is that of ordinary people living in oppressive regimes being forced into making choices. > I think this is an example of a sentence that can be tightened a bit, something like, According to Packer, another theme is the choices ordinary people who live in oppressive regimes are forced to make - a common theme in her novels. (Not great, but something like that)
  • I've used your suggestion (slightly reworded), thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Turgeon and literary critic Carli Coetzee explain that when Rosa realises that whites are not always welcome in anti-apartheid liberation movements,[8] she makes the difficult decision of turning her back on all that her father worked for and leaving the country > this needs a bit of rewriting, something like: Turgeon and literary critic Carli Coetzee explain that upon her realization that whites are not always welcome in the anti-apartheid liberation movements,[8] she repudiates her father's struggle and leaves the country.
  • I've used your suggestion, thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• takes you inside each character's head > can this be reworded?
  • Replaced with "lets you experience the novel's characters from the inside" – I don't know if that's better. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Reception

• Maybe instead of jumping in with a quote, try, if possible, to introduce the section with a topic sentence. Something along the line of, "The novel received good reviews" (this is simplified ...)
  • I've added a brief introduction – I hope that's enough. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Honours and awards

• Happy to see the Nobel Prize there. It fleshes out the section a bit.

Images

• Although File:NadineGordimer Burger'sDaughter inscribed.jpg has a FUR, don't be surprised to be challenged about images if you take this to FAC. The lead image of the book cover is non-free and (I think) generally only a single non-free image is allowed. But I'm not an expert on images, and could be wrong.
  • I hope an exception will be made here. This image is of historical significance and it's content is discussed in the body of the article. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I hope it will too. It's a fascinating image. Victoria (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

General comments re organization

• I haven't had time yet to look at all of your replies above, but am wondering if perhaps it's worth considering splitting out a section about style and genre. There you could add the information about the historical novel (and, yes, I'd suspected it was something along the lines of what you've explained). The section could also explain the literary devices Gordimer used - which seem to be important: the use of flashback, or limited flashback, the use of internal monologue and external narrator, etc. I think also such a section would be a fine place to add a text box showing an example of the style. Have a look at True at First Light for a genre section, and Red Badge of Courage for a style and genre section. This might require moving things around a bit, but I think it would improve the article.
  • I'll have a look at that, although this could take a few days, and will probably involve having to source additional material. But thanks for the suggestion. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Don't worry about time, and it's only a suggestion. Wouldn't have to be done during the peer review either. I suggested because the questions you've answered here, about flashbacks for instance, should probably be addressed somehow in the text. Victoria (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

More later. Victoria (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review so far, and for your copyedits. I'm busy at the moment, but I'll respond to your questions/suggestions over the next few days. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

No rush! I've only read about half of it so far, so more to come. Victoria (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I've responded to all the issues you raised. I'll keep looking for the missing info you requested. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll be back later to look over your comment. Just popping in quickly to finish up. Victoria (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think I'm done. It's looking better already and I've learned a lot from this. Good luck with it. I'll keep it on my watch. Victoria (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review and for all your advice and suggestions, I really appreciate it. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    

---

2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nominate it for Featured Article review in the coming weeks. The article has already passed GA review. I have expanded it more since then and I believe it represents complete coverage of the subject and is sufficiently referenced. My biggest concern with the article is the quality of the prose, so that's what I hope to get help with in this peer review.

Thanks, SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... I've done a few articles on football/soccer and specialize in clarity of prose for sports articles, so this sounds like it's up my alley. I'll add comments here in a bit. –Runfellow (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• It looks like you've used the wikiproject's template. Good call. One of the only problems I see with that is the sample first sentence. To perhaps follow WP:LEADSENTENCE more closely, it should more accurately define the subject, rather than just give information about it. As it currently reads, it tells us that open cup final "was played" on a particular date on a particular field, but it doesn't tell us that it was a sports contest, what sport was contested, and which teams contested it. Perhaps it could read: "The 2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final was a soccer match between Seattle Sounders FC and the Chicago Fire Soccer Club played on October 4, 2011 at CenturyLink Field in Seattle, Washington."

Heh, yeah, I'm familiar with that template. Whoever created it was a genius! :) Excellent suggestion for rewording the lead sentence. I've changed it to your suggestion. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Linking the phrase "the oldest ongoing competition" to the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Trophy doesn't seam intuitive, especially since it doesn't include "American Soccer". It could read: "The tournament was the 98th edition of the U.S. Open Cup, the oldest ongoing competition in American soccer."

Good suggestion. I've updated the article as suggested. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The Fire however did not automatically qualify," should be "The Fire, however, did not automatically qualify," or just "The Fire did not automatically qualify,". I prefer the latter, since "however" seems superfluous here.

Agreed. I've gone with the latter. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, the lead should include at least some mention of the major points of the article. Therefore, the following things should probably be included at some point in this section:

• Information about the venue selection

I added a mention of the previous years attendance record which is discussed in this section. There's also this sentence in the last paragraph of the lead: This was the second consecutive year the tournament final was played at CenturyLink Field. Do you think that's enough? --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• The general consensus of pre-game analysis

I added this to the second paragraph: Prior to the final, Chicago and Seattle had met twice in 2011 with Seattle winning one game and the other ending in a draw. Does that work? --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• A very brief summary of the game itself

I was hoping mentioning the goal scorers was enough for this. Is this okay, or do you think it still needs more? --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• At least some mention of the venue selection controversy

I've added this sentence to the last paragraph of the lead: Following the final, criticism was raised regarding Seattle winning hosting rights for each round they played. In response, U.S. Soccer announced changes to the rules for determining the host for tournament matches. I think this works, but may benefit from some rewording if you have suggestions. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Road to the final

• "The top six MLS teams from the previous season's league standings" – It seems like this would be a better place to link to the 2010 Major League Soccer season, rather than the lead.

Good suggestion. Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "and therefore qualified automatically" – "to qualify" is simpler. Same thing goes for "in order to qualify" in the next sentence.

Agreed. Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Chicago Fire

• "on five separate occasions" – simplify to "five times"

Agreed, but I like your next suggestion better, so I went with that. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The Fire reached the finals of the 1998, 2000, 2003, 2004 and 2006 tournaments, winning each time except in 2004." – While not technically mentioned in WP:OVERLINK, I do think this sentence might be a bit of an overkill, especially since you've already mentioned that they had qualified five times before. Perhaps the best way to go about this would be to combine this sentence with the one before it to best match WP:SUMMARY: "Prior to reaching the 2011 final, the Chicago Fire had reached the U.S. Open Cup final five times, the most of any MLS franchise, winning four out of five of the tournaments."

Agreed. Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "nearby Peoria, Illinois" – "Nearby" is relative here, and should probably be omitted.

Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Immediately in the second half" can probably be more precise to avoid the awkward phrase here. How many minutes into the second half?

Changed it to: Just one minute into the second half based on the source. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "gridlocked" implies that the match wasn't just tied, it was also to the point where no team really seemed to be gaining any momentum at all. Is this what you meant, or would "tied" be a better word here?

I didn't write this section, but looking at the source, there's nothing to imply gridlock. I've changed it to "tied". --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "netted the match-winner" – "scored the match-winning goal" seems like a simpler way to phrase this.

Agreed. Less jargon. Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "the Fire leveled the score thanks to a strike from Yamith Cuesta." – I'd be careful about using sportswriting terms and phrases. Although it does get tiresome to write "he scored a goal, then another guy scored a goal" over and over again, it's important to remember this is an encyclopedia, and thus a "just the facts, ma'am" approach is most often the best one.

Heh, agreed. I didn't write this section and have tried to touch it up as best I can. These are good suggestions. I've made the change here. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "extra time" currently links to overtime, which concerns the kind related to work schedules. Probably a better link would be to this section of "Overtime (Sports)" instead.

Great catch. Link updated. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "in which" should probably be "during which", but I'm not 100% sure.

I'm not sure either. Yours sounds more correct. I've updated it. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "remained level" may imply that they remained level-headed, seeing as how the previous sentence regarded a player ejected for dissent. Using "tied" would probably work fine here.

Yup, more sportswriting terms here. Removed. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comma after "only goal in the 37th minute of play". No comma after "MLS Eastern Conference rival"

Good catches. Updated. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Against mostly reserves for New York" – Not sure "reserves" is common parlance. Maybe wikilink to MLS Reserve League?

Yeah, not sure what term to use instead (maybe "B-team" or "backup players"). I like the wikilink suggestion, so I went with that. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Chicago went up 2-0 on Richmond" – "on Richmond" can probably be removed here.

Yes. Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• No commma after "cut the lead in half".

Removed. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Probably strike "However, the late goal was not enough as" and begin the sentence with "The Fire won..."

Simplified as suggested. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders FC

• Since you explain the individual tournament wins in the next sentence, the first sentence seems superfluous. You can probably begin with "In 2009, Seattle Sounders FC became the second MLS expansion club to win the U.S. Open Cup tournament, after the Chicago Fire in 1998. They defended their title in 2010 to win a second straight championship."

This is a good improvement. I've kept all 3 sources from before. I've also tried to make appropriate wikilinks in the new sentences. I think this works well. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Another "nearby" can probably be deleted. See above.

Yep. That word keeps creeping into various parts of the article. Thanks for helping clean them up. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• "early lead in the 39th minute" – The 39th minute doesn't seem "early" to me. Perhaps they took the first lead, but "early" implies they scored in the first few minutes of the match.

Agreed. I've just removed "early". --SkotyWA^T_C 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• "finished a cross from Robert Christner" – should probably be more explicit that he actually scored a goal.

Changed it to "scored off of a crossing pass" --SkotyWA^T_C 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Strike "In the end".

Gone. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Instead of "Seattle got off to an early start in the 4th minute when", I'd just say "Nate Jaqua scored following a pass from Pat Noonan in the fourth minute." Remember that you're just giving a rundown, not analysis.

Agreed. I've changed it to match your suggestion. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Same thing here: "In the 25th minute, Jaqua provided a pass to Fredy Montero whose left footed shot found the back of the net giving Seattle a 2–0 lead." could be "In the 25th minute, Fredy Montero scored a goal off an assist from Jaqua."

Changed it to almost what you suggested: In the 25th minute, Fredy Montero scored with a left footed shot off of an assist from Jaqua I decided to keep the "left footed" detail. Hope that's okay. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• "ensuring the win" – I don't think a two-goal lead really "ensures" a win.

Right. I've removed "and ensuring the win" from the sentence. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• The quote from the goalkeeper just seems like regular press conference banter, not really worth including here.

Yeah, it was a stretch to include it I remember. Just wanted to fill out the section a little more. I'll remove it. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• "finally broke through with a goal" put some analysis and opinion where it shouldn't really be. The "finally" is the issue, here.

Agreed. I've removed "finally". --SkotyWA^T_C 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• "just missed a bicycle-kick" – Did he miss the kick (a.k.a. whiff it) or did he miss the shot?

Changed it to "just missed with a bicycle-kick shot". Hopefully that's clearer. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• The Dallas FC coach's complaints seem out of place here. It's definitely better suited for the "criticism" section below.

I considered it more of a foreshadowing of the criticism. If you don't think it's appropriate to do that here, I can move it. Leaving it for now. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Pre-match

Venue selection

• "U.S. Soccer" should probably be "United States Soccer Federation", since that's the official title.

Not sure on this one. Changed it based on your suggestion, but the original was accurate enough and felt like it read better to me. Happy to change it though. More clarity is always better--SkotyWA^T_C 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• The paragraph beginning with "Seattle defeated" can probably be merged into the previous one.

Good suggestion. Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• "9 days later" – should be "Nine days later,"

Ah yes. I thought I had caught all of these. Missed this one. Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Analysis

• The first couple of sentences have some awkward syntax. Perhaps "With a better MLS regular season record and home field advantage, Sounders FC were the favorites to win the match; however, the Fire had improved throughout the year by improving the play of their wingers and midfielders."

Very good suggestion. I've changed it to that except that I included the "s" in the midfielders wikilink. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete "In 2011, prior to meeting in the Open Cup final," then add "in 2011" to the end of the sentence.

Much better. Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete "but only their first win after a slow start". Always be wary of "only" and "just" statements.

Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "the week prior" – "the previous week" sounds more natural here.

Agreed. Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Rather than "he was credited" (a passive phrase), perhaps it might be more precise to say ESPNChicago.com analyst Charlie Corr credited him with..."

Hmm, this one feels a little weird, but I went with it. Feels like too many details about the source rather than the content. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Seattle had recently finished a long road trip while Chicago's schedule made the match their third in a week's time." – Awkward syntax here.

I split the sentence and got rid of "while". I think this is better. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The Sounders were in good form" implies you're referring to their physical shape, rather than their standings, which is what I think you're referring to here.

Changed it to "playing well". Not sure if that violates NPOV, but given the context I hope it's okay. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Match

• Not a criticism, but I did want to point out that I had never heard of the phrase "tifo" before. Learn something every day, I guess.

I think it has Italian origins, but it's a very common term among American soccer fans. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure, but I think the information about injuries would best be in the "Pre-game" section.

I decided not to move this. Much of the information contained in the paragraph was not known prior to the day of the game. For that, this location felt more appropriate. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

First half

• "opening 2 minutes" – "opening two minutes"

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Neither side appearing to gain control as the match progressed through the first 10 minutes." – "Neither side appeared to gain control in the first 10 minutes of the match."

Good. Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• This seems like a good place to wikilink "yellow card".

Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• In its article, touch-line is hyphenated.

Fixed and wikilinked. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "slowing play down as they held possession and created more scoring opportunities" – Awkward syntax.

Got rid of "slowing play down" since it was kind of redundant with the rest of the sentence. Hopefully this is better. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "5 minutes before half time" – "Five minutes before halftime,"

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "30-yards" – "30 yards"

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "On minute later," – "One minute later,"

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "bounced squarely" – Strike "squarely"

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "still tied" – Strike "still"

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Second half

• "flicked on to Mike Fucito" – Not sure what this means.

A "flick on" is a pass that's more like a deflection, but intentional. It's usually with the head. The player just touches the ball to slightly change it's direction or keep in airborne as it travels (in this case). It's a term very commonly used in American soccer. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Finally, in the 78th minute," – Strike "Finally"

Gone. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• How does one "closely mark" a player? Is this the same as closely defending him?

Yes. Changed it to "closely defending" instead of "closely marking". --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Pavel Pardo" – Should be "Pável Pardo", with accent mark.

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Strike "trying to swing the momentum in his favor"

Gone. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "breakaway play finally tapping" – Strike "finally"

Done. Added "and then" to help the sentence make sense still. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Post-game

• "Most of the record crowd remained after the game" – Your source doesn't indicate this.

Reworded sentence to this: Most of the record crowd remained after the game as they watched Seattle players and coaches engaged in the post match ceremonies and celebrations on the field. Hopefully this is better --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• The first sentence here can probably be merged with the next paragraph, instead of being on its own as it is now.

Merged. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like the sentence about the scarf can be put somewhere so that it doesn't have to be its own paragraph.

Merged it with the paragraph below. Not great, but we no longer have a lone sentence like that. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Probably wikilink Charleston Battery

Wikilinked. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

• Other than the Dallas FC manager and player, who raised the criticisms? This is one area where passive vs. active text makes a big difference. Rather than saying "the criticisms were raised", say who raised them.

Hmm. I can add more sources if that's interesting. The hosting system was widely criticized. I've already specifically called out Hernandez's criticism because it was so public. I'm going to change --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Since the "Criticism" and "Rules changes" sections both regard the same thing, the host selection process, I suggest that the two sections be merged, and that it be retitled "host selection process" or something to that effect.

Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I know these can feel like a beat down, but please know that's not how I intend them. All of the above are just suggestions for improving the article, and are not meant as any sort of personal criticisms of style or content. Best of luck in improving the article, and please let me know if you have any questions. – Runfellow (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not yet read through all of the feedback, but regardless, don't worry for a second that I'm feeling beat down. On the contrary, I'm grateful for what appears to be a very thorough review of the article. I'll try to address each of them over the next day or tow. Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Finally got through all of the comments. These were great. Sorry it took me so long. Too much real life happening to me these days. :) --SkotyWA^T_C 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments – I haven't gone through that big batch of feedback above; if there are any duplicated issues, I apologize in advance. Overall, I found a lot of typos and other issues, and they will have to be dealt with before this is ready for FAC.

• The links to the two competing clubs don't need to be repeated in the lead.

Good catch. Removed the wikilinks. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Try not to start a sentnece with a number, as in "36,615 were in attendance...".

Changed it to "The attendance was 36,615" which still works with the rest of the sentence. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• One word too many in "set the previous year when Seattle also won hosted."

It was intended to have both. I added an "and". --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "by finishing among the top six of the 2010 Major League Soccer season." "of" → "in"?

That's fine. Changed. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The Fire did not automatically qualify, and had play through two qualification rounds before entering the official tournament." Needs "to" to be added before "play".

I introduced that mistake when I made the changes based on above comments. Thank you for catching that. I should have proofread that better. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Road to the final: I normally advocate that articles use less linking whenever possible, but even a hard-liner like me thinks adding a Major League Soccer link would be a good idea here.

Wikilink added. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Chicago Fire: Space needed in "toextra time".

Sigh. My bad. Adding the wikilink tricked me. Thanks for catching it. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• En dash needed for 2-0 in the Fire–Kickers summary.

Added. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Seattle Sounders FC: "In the 74th minute, Seattle midfielder Lamar Neagle scored from cross by Alvaro Fernandez". Needs "a" before "cross".

Yes it does. Added. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Venue selection: An excess space needs removal around where ref 29 is.

Wow. Good catch. Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Match: "For Chicago, midfielder Sebastian Grazzini was a key player that was questionable before the match." "that" → "who".

Changed to your suggestion. This is better. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I still see the original version in the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed this one. I think I made the change and then forgot to save. Anyway. It's done now. Thanks for double checking. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• First half: "Neither side appearing to gain control...". "appearing" → "appeared". Otherwise, this is an undesirable sentence fragment.

The reviewer above had caught this as well and I just hadn't gotten to it yet. Fixed already. Sorry for how slowly I followed up on these this week. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Another number-starting sentence in "5 minutes before half time...". You could just change the number to "Five" to fix it.

Caught by both reviewers again. I'm slow. It's fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "On minute later". First word should be "One".

Again. Fixed already. Thank you. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Second half: En dash is needed for the score range in "Sounders FC now had a 1-0 lead."

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Post-match: "while Chicago was give $50,000 as the runner up." "give" should be "given".

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Charleston Battery should be linked here if it hasn't been already.

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• The first word of the Rules Changes subheading is the only one that should be capitalized here.

Got rid of the subheading altogether based on review feedback. Though this guideline was followed with the new, combined subheading "Host selection process changes". --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "However, U.S. Soccer announced in 2013 that hosing for all rounds of the tournament would be determined randomly as long as both venue's met minimum standards." "hosing" should be "hosting", and "venue's" shouldn't have the apostrophe.

Fixed both. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Publisher of ref 2 (Tacoma News Tribune) should be italicized as a print publication.

Done. I accomplished this by using the "newspaper" parameter instead of the "publisher". --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Same goes for ref 32 (The Seattle Times). Giants2008 (Talk) 01:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your thorough review. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• While I was reviewing comments to strike them, I noticed a stray quotation mark at the start of the Analysis section. That should be taken care of along with the one pesky issue noted above. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed both. Thanks for double checking everything. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Cotton-top tamarin

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in preparation for taking it to WP:FAC. I did the GA reviews for it, including a close look through the sourcing, and I believe the article is already pretty close to FA standard (although this is my first run at trying to take something through the FA process, so what do I know!). I'm not the main author of the article, User:Jackhynes did most of the recent content work, but Jack was gracious and said he'd be OK with me trying to take it to FA.

Thanks, Zad68 13:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

• Don't bold items not in the lead.

Y Zad68 03:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'd combine the first two sections into a taxonomy and naming section.

Y Zad68 03:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

As far as communication for now... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• 1 lb (0.5 kg)—very unusual to give Imperial precedence in any science article, let alone one for a species not native to the US. Also inconsistent with the description section

Y Zad68 03:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• primates, taxonomic, mandibular, molar, monogamous, prosociality, frequency-modulated—link at first occurrence

Y except "prosociality" as prosocial behavior already linked earlier

• grammatical structure, which is acquired. —seems to fade away, perhaps a couple of words to indicate how is it acquired?

Y - the point the article is trying to make here is that grammatical structure is a feature that must be acquired, and isn't innate... tried to reword to emphasize this Zad68 04:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• five percent of its previous size. —I assume you mean area

Y Zad68 04:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Pinché tamarin in English". — how is this English, looks French to me?

Y good catch, fixed Zad68 04:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• in French—Colombia is Spanish-speaking, no justification I can see for having French, German Russian or any other languages

Y removed... I looked into maybe whether the main conservation union used French officially, the IUCN is a Swiss organization, no compelling reason to keep French. Zad68 19:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• The species was first described by Linnaeus in 1758—not under that name though, Simia oedipus according to p. 28 of Systema Naturae.

Y thanks Zad68 19:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• modified claws—how are they modified?

Y I think, I tried to explain how they're modified with some copyediting, suggestions for improvement how to word it welcome. Zad68 20:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Many have stripes—many individuals?

Y good suggestion Zad68 14:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• above 400 meters, but has been encountered up to 1,500 meters. —conversions

Y Zad68 04:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed that birds of prey was linked to bird, not bird of prey

Y fixed now Zad68 14:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• The species is now protected by international law, and although they are numerous in captivity, they are still critically endangered in the wild—changes from singular to plural

Y Zad68 15:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Proyecto Tití —English translation?

Y Zad68 15:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Up to you, but as a layman there seems to be so much on communication that the article may be a bit unbalanced

• I investigated exactly that in doing the GA reviews, and found perhaps the most noteworthy thing about these fuzzy little dudes is their communication, it'd be easy to demonstrate that using secondary sources if the question came up. Zad68 17:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• "snake" and "hawk" are a bit vague, particularly the latter where even the definition is vague. The list of predators seems minimal—no eagles or large owls?

PMID 18473378 identifies "white hawk, jaguar, and tayra"

This identifies "margay and tayra"

Will look for more specificity Zad68 15:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Internal and external parasites?

? Source cited says "intestinal parasites" and that's reflected in the article, external parasites wasn't covered, not sure what further content change you might be looking for here? Zad68 14:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• ref 2 needs italics for binomial

Y Zad68 14:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• What is ref 5? Doesn't look right either for a book or a journal article

Y It is this book by Estrada, filled in ISBN, not sure what else is wrong with it? Zad68 14:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• ref 32 is faulty

Y volume parameter fixed Zad68 14:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• What's the origin of the binomial? I'm intrigued by the oedipus bit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Y explained in article Zad68 15:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• exported for research into Epstein-Barr virus, colitis, and colon cancer. — not sure it's clear that the tamarin is prone to these in captivity Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Y made more explicit Zad68 20:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Make refs uniform

• Check that book refs have a publisher, and give location for all or none. Also isbn

Y all books have a publisher, they are all consistent about location (none), all books that have ISBNs I could find now have that field filled in Zad68 04:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• check that web refs all have a publisher

Y Zad68 03:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Last ref lacks access date

Y all cite webs have access dates Zad68 04:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Some US states in full, some abbreviated. I'd suggest full since not all readers are Americans

Y taken care of for cite books - (locations removed) Zad68 04:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• pdfs variously have (PDF) or not. It's simple not to fill the format field.

Y consistently don't have them now Zad68 15:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• You will find that at FAC consistency is important. A wide variety of reference styles are acceptable, but you must stick rigidly to whatever practice you adopt

• I have absolutely no "religion" when it comes to citation style and will happily redo all the refs to make them consistent. Can you point me to an existing FA that has a ref style I can copy? I'll just use whatever it is, I don't really care. Zad68 17:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• You misunderstand me, you've used the cite family consistently, which is fine, but you need to make sure that

• you meet mos requirements such as a publisher for all citewebs and an isbn and publisher for all citebooks unless too old, page numbers for book refs

Need to find specific page numbers for:

Defler 2004 - ? no searchable text online, may need to find another source

Eisenberg 1999 - Y chapter 9, pages 230-

Estrada 2006 - Y page 35

Garber 1993 - Y hopefully, cite is localized to a specific chapter, about 25 pages

Hershkovitz 1977 - Y also localized to the specific 2 book chapters

Zad68 04:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• after the mandatory mos, you are consistent as to which fields you use, so for books give location for all or none, consistent access date style for citewebs, show PDF or not, page range style (101–106 or 101–6) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Y believe it's consistent now Zad68 15:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Understood now, will make refs uniform. Zad68 14:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

All in-article refs made uniform, but it looks like I will have to go into all the individual DOI templates and muck with all of them now, they are all cite journals Zad68 04:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Y done now, all DOI template are uniform

Final trawl

• Ref 9 has no pages and you shouldn't have caps unless it's actually an acronym
• Refs 10 and 16 have only the start of a page name
• Refs 47, 48. If you don't know the author, it's normal to leave blank
• It's not a requirement to alternate image placements. In particular, one of you left-aligned displaces a heading, which I can't say I like. However, that's up to you
  

---

Never Let Me Down

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. It's already been rated as a GA article and I figured I'd dip my toe into getting it rated as a FA. A good peer review seems like a good first step! I look forward to any feedback.

Thanks, 87Fan (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Ohio State Route 161

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I want to improve and prepare the article to A-class.

Thanks, CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 17:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Closing now, there's no replies since.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 22:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

---

A1 in London

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'm considering taking this to Featured Article status. I think the content, structure and research are OK, so would mainly like attention paid to formatting (particularly of citations) and of prose, as those tend to be the areas that FA reviewers pay most attention. But any general comments are most welcome in how to improve the article.

Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think WP:HWY/ACR would be a better venue to prepare for FAC... out at the roads projects we have 55 FAs (in the US and Canada), so there's an experienced pool of reviewers. That being said, this article has no junction list, which just about every road FA has, and that's a serious problem. --Rschen7754 21:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. How does the junction list you mention fit into the FA criteria? If I recall there was some kind of list of junctions on the article, but that was removed either before or during the GA review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

And where is the A List criteria? I just looked, and couldn't find it. I'd like to be able to check that the article meets the criteria before nominating it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile going through the A listing review process. Though I don't think it would be appropriate to go though that at the same time as a Peer Review, so I'll wait until this closes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It would fall under "comprehensive", as by precedent Wikipedia through the FAC process has set the comprehensive standard for road articles as having a junction list - since over 50 road article FAs have them, it would reasonably be expected that this one would as well. MOS:RJL is the relevant page, but notably there has been some disagreement on how that is to be implemented in the UK. HWY has no "defined" A-Class standard as we use WP:1.0/A, but informally the standard is "would this have a decent chance of passing at FA?" It's really a chance to have people pick the article apart in a more friendly environment so that it doesn't happen at FAC. --Rschen7754 22:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It has a Route section which describes the route through London and mentions significant junctions along the way. That appears to me to meet comprehensive. I value your opinion on this as you have taken road articles to FA, but I don't see how not duplicating information in an infobox is failing the FA criteria for comprehensive. What am I misunderstanding? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the idea of a such an infobox, as I understand that some people find them useful, it's just that I don't see the connection you do. I understand if you say that you have an idealogical preference for such a box, and would encourage their use, but you are not saying that - you are saying this article would actually fail FA because it doesn't have such a boxed list. That baffles me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's more than a duplication of the route description - it provides mileages and locations of exits as well as exit numbers that may not be specified in the route description (and quite frankly should not be, since that would make the route description boring). California State Route 52 has an example. It would fail the comprehensive criterion since having one of those tables is what is expected of a road article at FA. FA does not have subject-specific criteria; all it says is "comprehensive". But editors in each subject area form a consensus as to what "comprehensive" means. I'm asking one of my colleagues to explain it better. --Rschen7754 20:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

With the recent exception of Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, which is an article on a system of roads instead an individual road, all recent highway articles that have been promoted at FAC going back to about 2008 have a junction or exit list table of some sort. Failure to include one would be quite a gap in the coverage of the article in terms of content.

The tables are more than just distilling a description of the route of a road into a tabular format. They provide pertinent data on the locations and details of the individual junctions along a roadway. The distances provide the reader with the ability to gauge how closely spaced the junctions are. They condense other details, like access restrictions at specific junctions, specific destinations for each junction, etc, into the table so that the prose route description isn't a tedious and boring wall of words. Otherwise, the prose would end up becoming a bullet point list, even without resorting to bullet points, that rattles off each junction and its appropriate distance point. Imzadi 1979 → 20:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at what you are saying, the important data you feel is not contained is data by which a reader can make calculations regarding how far apart certain major junctions are. Is that right? And why would the general reader wish to know that? If it's not in a reliable source, then why am I including it? I have read a lot of sources on the route in London, and I don't think I have come upon that information. If I find it, then it could be included in prose, explaining its significance for the reader in the article, otherwise it appears to be data for its own sake, and rather close to simple stats and even original research which by consensus we frown upon. I am not opposed to infoboxes, nor to including important information - it's just that this insistence on this particular infobox, and the reasons given so far, don't make sense to me. This is not a planned motorway with planned exits. This is an ancient evolved route which crosses over other routes, both modern and ancient. What significance or importance are you suggesting can be derived from junction distances, that can't be explained better in prose in the main body of the article? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem is that then the route description basically becomes "Route 2 encounters its first exit, exit 1, at 23.33 km (323.23 mi); that exit provides access to London. Five miles later, exit 2 at 34.4434 km (223.23 mi) leads to Paris" ... which is bad writing and is incredibly tedious. And the information is readily available - in the US we use government documents or GIS information, and if it is not available, then Google Maps can be used (though adjustments to precision need to be made). --Rschen7754 09:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't clear. Sorry. Why would readers wish to know the distance between two junctions? If the distance was in itself important, then a reliable source would contain that information with the reason for it being mentioned, and that should be included in prose in the main body - that is, the reason for mentioning the distance, not just the distance itself.

I am unclear on why information for which there is no reliable source, and which is so trivial that including it in the main body would be considered bad writing, is considered so vital when presented in an infobox.

I am not, I hasten to add, advocating including the distance from junction to junction either in prose or in the infobox, if is unencyclopedic and/or unsourced; so I am not suggesting that the distances are by default included either in prose or infobox. I am suggesting that a good article summarizes reliable sources, and does not add unnecessary additional detail, especially if unsourced. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork ... I'd personally ignore all the above advice, as those who have given it are demonstrating a US-centric bias and don't seem to appreciate that this road in question evolved from a 17th century coaching route, which in turn derives from the Roman network of British roads, and hence a "junction list" makes no sense (unless you want to list every side road on Aldersgate Street and Upper Street, current and past!) For a FAC quality article, you need to cover the entire history of this route from pre-Roman times to the present where relevant and not leave the reader wanting anything else. I will give you a hand in whatever fact checking and accuracy you require, though my time is limited. I would personally recommend dropping a note on Eric Corbett's talk page, as what he doesn't know about getting an article through FAC isn't worth knowing about, and he's been very helpful with me and others in getting articles up to GA / FA standard. Best of luck, in any case. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Then my "US-centric bias" must be warped because Interstate 96 is the modern descendent of Native Amercian trails that were overlaid with a territorial-era wagon trail used by settlers before Michigan became a state. After that, the road was converted into a state highway, the a US Highway, and then the corridor was repurposed as an Interstate Highway. Maybe U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, which was also a Native American trail converted to a state highway and the US Highway before a section was repurposed as an Interstate Highway just further illustrates that I need to be indoctrinated in this bias again. Both of those roads have FA-quality articles, with junction lists. Imzadi 1979 → 14:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

And lest this "junction list = US bias" meme take hold, I should note that D21 road (Croatia) is at ACR with just a list. A1 (Croatia) was brought to FAC with such a list as well. The Aussies use them, based on a look at Mitchell Freeway (recently at ACR) and Kwinana Freeway (currently at ACR). The Canadians use them as well, with Ontario Highway 401 and Don Valley Parkway both FAs with such lists. There's no accusations of original research on the part of the Croatians, Aussies or Canadians to compile them for our readers. Imzadi 1979 → 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very good analogy. I'm afraid - you're comparing a road in the middle of nowhere to a major coaching route in a large city. I think we need some other points of view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Interstate 96 connects the largest and second-largest cities in the state with its capital. If you want something that's a major road within one urban area, you have Capitol Loop in Lansing, Interstate 696 within Detroit's suburbs, and a pair of business loops in the Upper Peninsula: M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan) and U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan). All are FAs, and all have junction or exit lists. Imzadi 1979 → 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. Now, to help us on this article, please could you design an appropriate junction list for this road? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record, when I first surveyed the entirety of WP:HWY in March 2010, I found junction lists all over the place, so this "American" bias is demonstrably false: [10] --Rschen7754 19:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you haven't understood what I meant. The problem here is that junctions in other countries are numbered in terms of mileage, while in this specific case, the A1 / A1(M) does not start numbering until junction 1 with the M25 at South Mimms outside of the Greater London boundary. There are a few junctions such as Henleys, Apex and Staples Corners, but in these instances, I would argue their notability is much more geared towards their regular appearance on travel reports due to congestion, and my sense is their appropriate appearances in the article give the reader the appropriate knowledge. Additionally, there is nothing unusual in some other countries regarding taking an historical track and overlaying a full modern highway with the relevant features in it - that simply does not and would not happen in central London, as even in the 1960s, where schemes such as the Archway and Barnet Bypass improvements were unpopular with residents and drew strong criticism. So I'm afraid you're not really comparing like with like. However, if you can find the relevant junction data to add, and you believe it would improve the article and get it through the FAC process, I think we would very much welcome this input. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"The problem here is that junctions in other countries are numbered in terms of mileage, while in this specific case, the A1 / A1(M) does not start numbering until junction 1 with the M25 at South Mimms outside of the Greater London boundary." - Plenty of road systems have very bizarre numbering conventions; New York is not numbered in terms of mileage, for example. Red herring.

"and my sense is their appropriate appearances in the article give the reader the appropriate knowledge" - no, there's still missing information, and the visual format is quite helpful.

"Additionally, there is nothing unusual in some other countries regarding taking an historical track and overlaying a full modern highway with the relevant features in it" - so what? I don't see how that excuses this article from having a junction list.

"However, if you can find the relevant junction data to add, and you believe it would improve the article and get it through the FAC process, I think we would very much welcome this input." - there you go again with the "You MUST work on our articles to gain any right to have any input!" WP:OWN and all that. --Rschen7754 20:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've spotted some factual inaccuracies with the proposed M1 Junction 3 - A1 link over Scratchwood Open Space. The article implied it would connect to Apex Corner, but in fact it was proposed to connect at Stirling Corner, the next roundabout up. I've rejigged this bit of the article and added two sources from Hansard dated 1989 and 1994, which might imply the project was finally scrapped by New Labour's "Roads to Prosperity" scheme in 1997 - though I know the Conservative government were cancelling schemes before this. I think for a FAC quality article, we need to get the dates exactly right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

Thanks for that. I think the weakest part of the article is the section of the route going through Barnet. This is the modern section (1930s onward), and there is less available information on it, added to which there is little to say about that part of the route, other than it exists. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who made a comment. I'll close this now, and discuss with Ritchie333 at what needs to be done before nominating for FA. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

---

2010 United Kingdom government formation

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is about the forming of the UK coalition government in 2010. I've listed it for peer review because it's currently a GA, and I wondered what may be needed for it to get to FA. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

---

List of Royal Australian Air Force air marshals

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am looking to improve this article with the aim of taking it to MILHIST A-Class and, hopefully, FLC from there. However, I think it needs some improvement before either of these but am a little stuck for ideas. Ideally, I'd like to incorporate a column with the date of each individual's promotion to their respective air marshal rank, but with the exception of the air chief marshals and possibly air marshals I do not think I would be able to source this information. I know the "Senior command(s) and Notes" column as it currently sits probably isn't the best way to convey or present the information either, so am looking for ideas on that. I welcome any and all comments. Thank you!

Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D

I'm not terribly knowledgeable about senior RAAF leaders, but have the following minor comments:

• The article is well constructed, and appears very comprehensive - great work
• "As there are no appointments in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) at the five-star level, there is no prospect of a Royal Australian Air Force officer achieving the rank in a professional (i.e. non-ceremonial) capacity" - I'd suggest adding a 'currently' somewhere in here given that it's theoretically possible that such ranks could be authorised in the future (hopefully never though given that it would imply a huge deterioration in Australia's strategic environment and a massive expansion of the military)
• "or Chief of Capability Development Group" - you might want to note that this is part of the Department of Defence (I think) Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for the comments, Nick. I have actioned both of the above. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Surprising as it may sound, I have to admit that I’m not a great fan of this list, though I’m open to being converted. I think you've probably done as good a job as one could but I'm not sure of the list's value-add, especially given that its main source, the Air Power Development Centre's Air Marshals page, is online. The fact that the vast majority of the entries, i.e. most of the AVMs, are redlinked underlines for me its somewhat questionable utility. Yes, 2-stars seem to be automatically notable but this has raised concerns in the past and the proportion of redlinked entries here really throws the concept into sharp relief, particularly as their number will only grow as time goes on. There are still some AVMs notable in their own right awaiting WP articles (I listed most of them on the talk page a while back) but I think it’d be messy and a bit of a misuse of resources for someone to go to the trouble of creating a bunch of stubs, or at best Start-Class articles, for all the rest, especially since simply being a 2-star, without any other claim to fame, has always been only borderline notable on WP. The other thing is that if such short articles were created, they’d almost certainly be hijacked by those who delight in ghastly medal ribbon displays... ;-) For me, pretty well everything in this list is covered either by the APDC page, or the WP RAAF air marshals category if I want to find links to relevant articles. Sorry I can’t offer more positive criticism...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to elaborate, I feel that lists in WP really have to justify their existence and not be a sea of red or largely repeat similar lists elsewhere. To take an example, the list of RAAF wings that Nick and I are thinking of expanding upon fits the bill, I think, because there's no such list anywhere else that we're aware of and the relatively small number of red links are steadily disappearing (OTOH, it might be argued that it too has a fundamental problem, in that because there's no definitive list elsewhere we can't be 100% sure we've captured all that exist or have existed!). In the case of the air marshals there's an excellent list by the APDC that's detailed, illustrated, accurate and up to date. Only recently I let them know about a couple of issues (one of which Brice had pointed out to me) and they acknowledged and rectified them quite quickly. So taking all this into account, while I wouldn't go out of my way to oppose this at ACR or FLC, I don't think I could see myself supporting... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Will reply to your comments shortly, Ian, and attempt to sway your thinking and explain my rationale for the list. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Dank

• A few comments:
• "vice marshal": usually hyphenated
• "That is, service personnel who have held the rank of air chief marshal (four-star rank), air marshal (three-star rank) or air vice marshal (two-star rank).": Sentence fragment
• "The Royal Australian Air Force was established in 1921 as a separate and distinctive branch of the Australian military forces. Modelled after the Royal Air Force which had been formed three years earlier, the Royal Australian Air Force adopted the same ranking system.": The Royal Australian Air Force was established in 1921 with the same ranking system as the Royal Air Force, formed three years earlier.
• "the 'father' of": double quote marks (in Wikipedia ... not generally in Australian English)
• "A further nineteen Australians have reached air marshal, 116 air vice marshal, and seven officers have retired with the hononary rank of air vice marshal.": nonparallel series. "A further nineteen Australians have reached air marshal and 116 air vice marshal; seven officers have retired with the hononary rank of air vice marshal." - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the comments. :) I have tweaked the above with the exception of the hyphen. The hyphen is not consistently employed for the rank in Australian usage, it being more common now for the hyphen not to be used. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    

---

Perseus (constellation)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just brought it to GA, and would like to take it further to FA. However, I've been staring at the article for like 5-10 minutes, and am kind of stuck on what to do to prepare it for FAC. Any input is appreciated.

Thanks, StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

Yes it is looking pretty good. I was tempted to add stats of some of the other stars with bayer designations, but then reconsidered - I think there are enough egregiously notable stars listed, and just listing unremarkable stats of more might detract rather than add...musing on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

NB: Not sure how much more content you want - the Morton Wagman book has alot on bayer designations etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from BSVulturis

I concur with Casliber. All I might do here is a quibble: alter the "hosts the Perseid meteor shower" in the initial paragraph to "hosts the radiant of the Perseid meteor shower", because by the very nature of showers and their radiant points, you actually don't often see a Perseid meteor within Perseus itself. BSVulturis (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Wahbi al-Hariri

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have done a lot of research on this topic and, specifically, this person for thesis work and other, and I feel this article would benefit from fresh eyes considering the subject matter is timely given MidEast turmoil and US involvements, etc etc--not invoking politics, but referring to the public interest

Thanks, Baronsamedi88 (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• This article needs in-line citations for everything preceding the "Saudi Arabia" section. The editor that originally added that unsourced information did no one any favors. The references in general could use cleaning up; some of the urls are now dead links. I couldn't find any scholarly resources on the subject in a cursory search. I can only assume his work has been discussed in an academic journal somewhere. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Ansan Street Arts Festival

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because our article is not compelete. Please feedback our article.

Thanks, Choi Hyun HeeChoi Hyun Hee (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Modern Korean festivals

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… there are some english problems and do not find out proper photo of them. We need more photo and experience who took part in some festival which were listed on this article.

Thanks, Byung do jung (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get the article up to GA and make a Super Mario GT. It's been three years since the last GAN, and I would like to know where needs to be improved to get it to GA (or FA if you want to say that instead) and would be happy to get a good review.

Thanks, Darrman (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Melchoir

I'm not active at GA, but I think this article is very close to GA quality already!

Some general thoughts:

• The lead section should be a summary of the body of the article, but it currently mentions some things that aren't repeated. In particular, "confusion amongst fans" and "intended to challenge players" could be expanded upon in the body.
• The Gameplay section is a good listing of details, but it should start with a high-level overview before diving in. Something like "This game is very similar to Mario 1, with minor innovations and a higher difficulty." Also, if possible without getting into original research, something should be said about differences in level design that contribute to the difficulty, not just the new game mechanics. For example, are there larger pits that are harder to jump across than in the first game?
• The reuse of music was a little confusing on a first read. The Gameplay section says "Aside from improved sound quality, the background music and sound effects are reused entirely from the previous game (except for sounds added for Mario or Luigi skidding and the wind blowing)." When I read that, I got the impression that there was no new music in the game. Then the Development section says "The game largely re-used the musical pieces from its predecessor, though there were also new compositions, such as the ending theme". I had to go back and re-read both sentences before I noticed the difference. Maybe in the first sentence, remove "entirely", and in the second sentence, replace the vague "largely" with something more specific?
• In Development, Nintendo of America is talked about as if it were a person with thoughts and emotions. It sounds strange, and it makes me wonder if we can be more specific. If possible, it might be better to talk about the actions of individual executives.
• I added a couple citation-needed templates for paragraphs in the Re-releases section. Also, please double-check that every date listed in the infobox is backed up by a citation somewhere.

I don't think the article is comprehensive enough for FA. This is always tricky to judge, since we're limited to whatever information has already been published, and I'm not familiar with the literature. Anyway, here are some ideas:

• The article should describe the development calendar. When did development begin, were there any milestones before release such as press demos or public betas, etc.
• Was the higher level of difficulty an accident, or an intentional design? More insight into the design in general would be good. Are there any interviews with Miyamoto that would shed light?
• There's only one review, by IGN. For such a popular game, I would expect to see more reviews.
• The Japanese version of the article doesn't have references, but you could use it to get ideas. I see that it describes a TV commercial, which might be worth a mention. (I don't speak Japanese; I'm just using Google Translate.) You might want to skim all of the other languages to see if there's anything else that we're missing in enwiki.

Potential sources:

• The developer of Super Meat Boy cites Lost Levels as part of a tradition of games that bring out your inner masochist[11]
• This book seems to have something to say:[12]
• This magazine seems to talk about the difficulty, but with Google's limited preview it's hard to tell:[13]
• Try "1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die"
• Like its predecessor, Lost Levels is NP-Hard:[14]
• "An interesting counter example of a game that was developed to reverse some of the learned conventions is Mario Brothers The Lost Levels (Suellentrop, 2007). This game did not gain much…"[15]

By the way, if anyone here would like to return the favor, I have an open peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Parity of zero/archive1. :) Cheers, Melchoir (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have 1001, Darrman, if you'd like a ref from the book. czar · · 09:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to develop it into a FA. I think its comprehensiveness should be reviewed by editors who have not so far been involved in the development of the article.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Australian Defence Force

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been a FA since 2007, and has been periodically updated. It's now due for another update to take into account the new defence white paper, the 2013-14 budget and various smaller changes. I'd appreciate comments on the article's current material (including anything which should be cut), and new material which should be added. Other editors are very welcome to work on the article as well, of course. Thanks in advance for your comments, Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comments by AustralianRupert: G'day, Nick, good idea to give this one a peer review. I have a few points to get started, although they are mainly just style/presentation points:
  • quotation marks: you seem to use single, where I think the MOS prefers double, e.g. 'tri-service', 'forward defence', 'joint' warfare, 'Strategic Reform Program', etc.
  • capitalisation: "Australian Military" --> this doesn't seem correct to me as it implies that it is a proper noun;
  • "submitted a report to the Government" (the link here at Government probably could be removed);
  • " Approximately 400 of these personnel": I think it is a bit more now [16];
  • "Detachments of two maritime patrol aircraft". I could be wrong, but I think the Orions have completed ops...[17]
  • this should be updated: "The only positions which women are currently excluded from are those in which there is a high probability of 'direct combat', which includes all infantry positions and other positions in which there is a high probability of hand to hand combat";
  • same as above: "it is planned that this remaining restriction will be removed in 2014 once the physical standards required for service in these units are determined";
  • this needs updating: "Personnel from the Army's 16th Air Defence Regiment" (16 AD has been renamed 16 Air Land Regiment);
  • in the Australian Army section: "currently being 'hardened and networked"... I don't think this applies any more. (It is being "Beersheba'ed" now... ;-)
  • this seems awkward: "unrepresentative of Australia's society in this regards" --> "in this regard" perhaps?
  • inconsistent caps: "the government" and "the Government";
  • "The RAN operates 74 vessels of all size"...this number might be out of date.
  • this paragraph seems uncited: "The RAAF has modern combat and transport aircraft and a network of bases in strategic locations across Australia."
  • "36 155 mm towed M198 howitzers" --> "thirty-six 155 mm towed M198 howitzers"?;
  • the "East Timor and after" section could possibly include discussion of the rotation of regular Army forces through both Iraq and Afghanistan in the various roles that are no longer undertaken (e.g. SECDET, AMTG, OWBG, RTF, MTF, etc...)
  • the "Current expenditure" section probably should be updated to discussion the recent budget and the political debate probably could be reduced in weight;
  • a few of the notes appear to be deadlinks; I wonder if archive links could be added;
  • Notes 143, 144 and 145 could be formatted to be consistent with others (such as 136 and 137);
  • the duplicate link checker tool reports a few examples of overlinked terms: East Timor, Operation Astute, Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands, Fiji, failed states, etc...
  • there appears to be an ISBN error for "Organising and Dispatching the ADF's Expeditionary Force for the War in Iraq" (in the Reference list);
  • title case: "Australian domestic security: The role of Defence" --> "Australian Domestic Security: The Role of Defence"?
  • same as above: " War and Profit: Doing business on the battlefield".
  • Anyway, I hope these help. Good luck and thanks for taking on such a high profile topic. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for those excellent comments - I really appreciate them. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
      

---

Zamorano Eighty

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to improve this article up to featured list status and I'd like advise on what improvements or expansions I can make. I already plan to eventually upload images for each book to fill in the final column of the table.

Thank you, Gamaliel (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Parity of zero

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to polish it for a FAC. I ran the article through a peer review and a failed FAC a few years ago, and I've implemented a lot of feedback since then. (See the talk page and especially the links in the "Article milestones" template.) Feedback of any kind toward any part of the article is welcome!

Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Trovatore

I recall one person who thought the question was more problematic than for nonzero integers, on the grounds that nonzero integers have unique factorizations into primes, and you can check whether a nonzero integer is even or odd simply by noticing whether 2 appears in the factorization. For 0 that doesn't work.

I don't know whether this argument has come up in the studies of people's views, but if it's sourceable it might be interesting to add. In this connection, it may be a problem that the article currently claims that "numbers have unique factorizations" but fails to note that 0 in fact does not. --Trovatore (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, unfortunately I haven't seen that idea mentioned in studies of people's views. We can still make sure it's covered in the "Mathematical contexts" section. I just wouldn't want to list it as a reason for why some people that believe zero isn't even.

I've edited the article to say that positive numbers have unique factorizations[18] and zero doesn't have one[19], which is why its 2-adic order is a special case. Melchoir (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Beyond Good & Evil

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was brought up that this year BG&E will celebrate its 10th anniversary. As such I would like to make this reach Featured Article status. And it becoming my first FA article wouldn't hurt either. So if you would please read on and critique the page to help have improvements be accomplished it would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, GamerPro64 21:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• {{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Overall the article is pretty solid, and it's definitely improved since the last time I touched it. Some opening thoughts:

• Jade's health, represented by hearts, decreases when attacked by enemies, but can be restored by using fictional food items "Starkos" and "K-Bups", and increased beyond the maximum by "PA-1s". Okay, besides being a comma splice, this passage is a bit hard to parse. I feel like naming the fictional food items is unnecessary, and I'm a bit confused as to what PA-1s do--can they increase your health total (like stat-boosting items in RPGs) or are they like a powerup of limited duration (like overshields in Halo, etc.)
  • Touched it up a bit. GamerPro64 04:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• There are sections in the gameplay section I think should probably be sourced, such as the bits on health, automatic deaths in later sections of the game, etc.
• Source for this passage? In the original version, an essential part of the gameplay was the ability to move the camera whilst the player was driving the hovercraft inside a building. This ability was absent in the HD version. Additionally, as the camera is now always behind the player, there are various graphical glitches, with polygons filling the screen, a problem that was not present in the original version of the game.
• If we're going to include prerelease reviews, shouldn't they probably go before the summary of the postrelease scores?
  • Flipped-flopped the two. GamerPro64 04:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• I'm going to do a pass on the prose and also a check on sources when I have more time.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Archie MacLaren

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am aiming to take it to FAC. MacLaren was an interesting and rather stormy former England cricket captain. As usual, I'm looking for accessibility to non-cricketers, padding and over detailing (as usual, I'm worried about the length), and general prose issues. All comments appreciated.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

• Opinions were divided over his captaincy, but he was a deep thinker on the game and critics believed him to be tactically advanced. However, his pessimism, clashes with the selectors and inability to get the best out of his players led most commentators to rate him a poor leader. - but... however.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• regular first-class cricket - meaning not clear

• It would work just as well to say "ceased to play first-class cricket regularly", but to me it sounds better as it is. It this an Engvar thing? I'll change it if it's a big issue, but would prefer to leave it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• MacLaren was born - the second son born... - repetition

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• financial difficulties prevented any other family members attending the school. - how could they afford paying the bowlers then?

• I think this is relative. The family were not exactly impoverished, I don't think, if they could send three sons to Harrow. Also, professional bowlers were paid a pittance, and had some responsibility to bowl at club members in the nets. I suspect that they would not have been paid a lot, or for long, and that this was well within the means of MacLaren senior. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• his promotion to the school first eleven. - School or school's?

• Either is OK here, but "school" is more common in this context. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• But wet weather - At the beginning of a sentence?

• I don't have a problem with this if it is used well and not too much. But this one seems unnecessary, so cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• in the school first team in 1888 and 1889 before a knee injury forced him out of the team in 1890. - team/team
• Was it odd that MacLaren was an amateur but not of a rich family or noble background?

• Not really. Noble families tended to be few and far between at this stage, and while many amateurs before WW1 were independently wealthy and could afford to play cricket, many of them struggled to make ends meet while playing cricket, and several dropped out from time to time to work. And relatively poor amateurs weren't uncommon. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• One doesn't get that impression from Amateur status in first-class cricket. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• That article isn't the finest, so take it with a pinch of salt, especially for this period. I could name plenty of amateurs in similar positions, including C. B. Fry, the captain of England in 1912, and Ranjitsinhji an Indian "Prince" (albeit a fake, broke and largely fraudulent one). Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• But MacLaren's financial constraints - again

• I quite like this one, and would like to keep it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• During the winter of 1892–93, MacLaren studied cotton manufacture in New Orleans; - this seems to come out of left field

• It does in the source too, where there is no explanation. Speculating, maybe his father wanted him to go into his business. But I can add nothing more here that is sourced. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• in a region or group (such as professional cricketers) - so amateurs can't be in a representative match ?

• Clumsy phrasing. Reworded; is it any better? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• lots of use of the word "prestigious"

• Well, I only counted two! Changed the first one now. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• before dropping out of the side. - possibly unclear to non-cricket fans

• Reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• But his successful leadership - ...

• Re-ordered this part. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• although MacLaren was caught from first ball of the match, to become the first person dismissed by the first ball of a Test. - repetition of first. Also, first person ever?

• Reworded to make clear that he was the first ever, but I'm struggling to avoid first ... first. Any ideas? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• If you don't mind "but" at the beginning of a sentence, alright. However, I'm concerned that there are more than a few such uses (I see two already in #Test debut)

• Removed one; I do tend to overuse it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• £100 advance - Value in today's pounds?

• Arrrgghh. Minefield! I prefer to avoid this these days! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• He impressed more in the lesser matches, - impressed whom? or do you mean he performed better?

• Yes, reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• his lack of cricket. - Assume you mean lack of playing cricket. Is this acceptable in BrE?

• Yes, but I'll take any other advice here, as it may be cricket-speak that should be avoided. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• they looked like losing. - Perhaps "They seemed likely to lose"? Don't think "look like" is quite formal.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• He batted effectively for the rest of the season, finishing with 713 runs for Lancashire at 54.85; his batting was praised but his absences may have prevented the team from winning the Championship; they finished second. - Three semi-colons?

• I also get carried away with semi colons. Fixed. 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• The wedding attracted media attention and was well-attended. - Glad to see we're not tiptoeing around his wife like last time. Do the sources give attendance figures?

• Not that I have seen. It may also mean that the "right people" attended. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• scored a century in difficult batting conditions - any idea what kind of conditions? Wet?

• Not clear: could be wet, or there may have been other reasons that batting was difficult. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• drawn with England in a dominant position. - Wouldn't a draw be both at the same score? How could England be dominant?

• I've added a link to draw, but a draw in cricket is not the same as a tie. A game is drawn when time runs out, so a team could be hundreds of runs behind with the last batsmen at the wicket, and if time runs out it is a draw. Therefore, a team can be very dominant. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• With the bat, MacLaren's only score over fifty was that in the second Test, and he finished the series with 164 runs at 32.80. - Why do you include "With the bat," here?

• Not sure. Removed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Distinction between bowling and throwing possibly not clear for non-Cricket fans and those who do not click articles

• Hmm. I'm reluctant to go into too much detail here, as it is tangential to MacLaren, but needs including as he was a lone voice defending Mold. I'd prefer to leave it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• another Ashes - ? You don't mention Ashes anywhere earlier except in the lede. Also, Ashes should be linked.

• Tweaked and done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• summoned Sydney Barnes from Manchester to play instead of either. - Thought they couldn't stand each other. Also, why do you include his first name?

• They couldn't, but Barnes wanted the money and MacLaren was a pragmatist in terms of players! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• the toss - Link?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Is the 1902 Ashes series worth its own article? Sounds like there are lots of references available.

• Probably. It has one of sorts, and it is on my list of possibilities for the near future. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Skipping ahead...

• a tactic which often divides critics, - Sure, maybe until now, but the rest of the paragraph is in the past tense.

• I think it needs to be in the present, as it is still the case and using the past would suggest it no longer did. And the source uses the present! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Images

• File:Ranji 1897 page 189 F. S. Jackson making an on-drive.jpg - How can you claim PD-70 without a death date?

• Potential problem here. Some digging reveals that E Hawkins was not the photographer, but the name of the company, named after the late proprietor. I suspect that the photograph would have been registered with the photographer's name, but that is not available and is likely unrecorded anymore. The copyright owner would have been the proprietor, and I'm not too sure who it was at that date. It was probably a George Thatcher, who was born in 1839, so in this case it would certainly be PD-70; although I cannot trace a death date, I think we can safely say he died before 1943. The other possibility as proprietor was "Miss Clara Wivil", who died in 1932, if this site can be trusted (and it is backed up by the National Archives and Ancestry.com if you dig deeply enough. But I cannot find when the ownership switched from one to the other; it was Thatcher in 1895, around the time of this photograph according to this. In either case, we are Ok for PD-70, but how do we show this? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Can't think of anything short of actually putting that down in writing. Or, last I checked, in the UK a copyright where only a company is credited was considered anonymous in terms of duration, so PD-anon-1923 might work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've gone for the PD-anon-1923 for the moment, but I may add an explanation when I've done a bit more digging. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• File:MacLaren 1905.jpg is likely PD-anon-1923 and can be safely copied to Commons.

• I've no objection if anyone does this, but I can't say I have any great inclination to do so myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise quite good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Duplicate links: No-balled (#Full-time cricketer), George Hirst (#Ashes series of 1902), Neville Cardus (#Replacement as England captain), Colin Blythe (#Return as England captain), Bill Ponsford (#Coach and senior figure), batting crease (#Style and technique)

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• strong bowling available. - or strong bowlers available?

• Cricket-speak tends to favour "bowling" here, in the same way that one might say "strong defence/offence". Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• F. S. Jackson - You refer to him as Stanley above. Confusing.

• Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• and he travelled to India with him during the winter of 1904–05. - Since we have two different men in this sentence, this clause may be confusing.

• Reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• the negative tactics - Huh?

• Tweaked. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• he later clashed with committee members unhappy with his decision to use the money to buy a motor car. - Subject of the preceding sentence was "Lancashire". Suggest ", who..."

• Just started a new sentence instead. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "his ridiculous private secretary" - Hmm... not as barbed as Tim's quotes below, but when one gets the legal system to comment like this one must be doing something devilishly well.

• I love Tim's first quote, but I'm not sure it's a notable enough opinion from a cricket viewpoint, no matter how true it is! But I love the contempt in this quote! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• second innings. In the second innings - ...

• Reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• MacLaren kept him bowling for a long period until he tired and was easily punished by the batsmen. - Who was punished, MacLaren or Carr?

• Hmm... From a cricket perspective, it can only be Carr, and I'm reluctant to repeat another Carr here. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but not all of our readers know cricket. "MacLaren kept him bowling for a long period until the player tired and was easily punished by the batsmen." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, used your wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• The World of Cricket - Notable enough for a redlink?

• Not really. A useful book but not a notable one. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Lionel Robinson's team - Who's he?

• Clarified, although he is a hard chap to define. Now, he IS worth a redlink. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Eastbourne Cricket Club - Notable enough for a redlink?

• Not really. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Eastbourne Cricket Club invited him to captain a team named "An England XI" against the tourists following the conclusion of the Tests; he was dismissed by critics when he claimed that he could beat the Australian team; prior to the game, the Australians were undefeated on the tour and had won 22 of their 36 games. - Semicolons abound.

• Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Be careful of repeating "Lancashire" too much.

• I've cut some, but not sure about others where I feel they may be required for clarity. Are there any obvious clangers which could be cut? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • One cannot repeat "Lancashire" too much. Verb sap. Tim riley (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• —including an unpaid champagne bill at Old Trafford Cricket Ground in 1923— - Why does this warrant special mention?

• I think because it illustrates that when MacLaren DID have money, he (to put it bluntly!) pissed it away, and this is a good example. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• In the 1940s, his health began to fail. He was hurt in a car crash and then contracted cancer. - How hurt? Any more details? Cripes, talk about going out with a mewl. Not a pretty fate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is all we have, I'm afraid. And there are many cricketers with worse ends, such as poor old Percy Chapman. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• Lead
  • Not sure that the mention of Mrs M's country of birth is wanted here.
    • Cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Early life
  • Last sentence: two nitpicks – "so" is not a conjunction, and "upon" is two unnecessary letters longer than "on"
    • Tweaked. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Lancashire cricketer
  • "In the absence of other amateurs…" – I think you need a footnote here explaining that the captaincy was always reserved for amateurs.
    • Borrowed one from the Hobbs article. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "accidentally standing on his own wicket" – I'd be inclined to omit the adverb from the piping, and have this as "accidentally standing on his own wicket". (I suppose it's absolutely out of the question to say, "He didn't quite get his leg over"?)
    • Done. And your second suggestion may be slightly clearer to the reader! But never mind... Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Appointment and start of captaincy
  • "MacLaren replaced W. G. Grace" – would it be too much of a digression to say why Grace stood down?
    • I had this in and took it out again as it seemed a digression. It is a good story, but I think it may be a better story about CB Fry than MacLaren. I'll ponder a little more. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Replacement as England captain
  • "a wine merchants" – the plural looks a bit odd to me
    • And to me, so not sure what I was thinking. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "His highest profile success" – I think, but am not sure, that this needs a hyphen
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "The cricket establishment was less sympathetic." – To MacLaren, that is, but at first reading it appears to mean to Warner.
    • Reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "a close personal friend" – I always struggle with this phrase: what other kind of close friend can one have?
    • Ah, good point. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "become his personal secretary" – Later you call him "Private secretary to Ranjitsinhji", and I think the latter must be right: a personal secretary does dictation and typing; a private secretary is an influential confidant and assistant.
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Return as England captain
  • "when fast bowler Claude Buckenham…" – touch of the tabloids here; "when the fast bowler Claude Buckenham… would be better
    • Yes, missed that one. Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That's my lot. A most enjoyable and instructive article, as we have come to expect from Sarastro in diesen heil'gen Hallen.

Ha, that made me chuckle! And thanks for the comments and kind words. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: I said I knew a couple of nice things about MacLaren:

1. This is George Lyttelton in 1957: "It is disillusioning to one with my youthful loyalties to realise that the majestic MacLaren, with his 'superb crease-side manner', was an extremely stupid, prejudiced and pig-headed man, even in cricket matters. Plum always says he had the worst fault of a captain, viz. pessimism about his team, expressed in their presence: 'Just look what they’ve given me—half of them creaking with old age, George Hirst fat as butter' etc etc. But let us remember that when Wainwright gave him a long-hop to leg to get his century off in a Gents and Players, he kicked it away and sternly ordered him to bowl his best." (The phrase about MacLaren's "superb crease-side manner" is from James Agate's Ego 9, attributing the phrase to C B Fry.)
2. MacLaren had the modesty to say, comparing himself with Victor Trumper, "I was supposed to be a batsman in the Grand Manner. Compared to Victor, I was as a cab-horse to a Derby winner." Quoted in Vernon Scanell, Sporting Literature—An Anthology (1987), p. 254 – Tim riley (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• To be honest, despite his less-than-great reputation, and the fact that I was prepared to dislike him, I can't help liking Old Archie, somehow. I like that Trumper quote. I might have to add it somewhere. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is the first half of my observations and suggestions concerning this article. I have been making minor corrections/amendments as I have gone along:

Early life

• I imagine that MacLaren snr wasHonorary treasurer?

• Yup, fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Repetitions: "cricket", "cricketer", "cricket", in line 3 para 1, and again line 1 para 2.

• Reworked this a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Can we have the year of his first appearance in Eton v Harrow?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• also ... also" in third paragraph

• Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Lancashire cricketer

• "But MacLaren's financial constraints kept him at the District Bank". I am struggling with this wording. The "But" should definitely go, and I think "circumstances" would be better than "constraints".

• Tweaked a bit. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• The choice of "moderately" successful is odd, since he topped the 1892 avearges, "scored consistently" in 1893 and won representative honours. What would he have needed to do to be called "successful"?

• The sources are united that he was not as good as everyone expected given his talent. Additionally (and with apologies to Tim!) Lancashire's batting was not amazing in this period. In fact, it was pretty awful so topping the averages was not perhaps the greatest achievement. And the sources call him consistent but he only averaged 25 that season, and in the mid-20s in each of these seasons. Would it be easier to give his batting averages for these seasons? I was trying to avoid just listing averages again, but perhaps it's unavoidable here. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "MacLaren studied cotton manufacture in New Orleans" - on behalf of the bank, perhaps? An explanatory phrase would help.

• As I indicate above, there is no explanation in the source, and my reading of it is that it was on behalf of his father, as that was his father's business. I'm wondering should we just cut this as it is hardly that relevant. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Test debut

• "Approached to organise a touring team by the Australian cricket authorities of Victoria and New South Wales..." Unnecessary detail - "Australian cricket authorities" is enough

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Another "But..." sentence at end first para. I suggest a check through the article for this - it rarely works.

• Oh well! Worth a try! Removed now. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "MacLaren faced financial trouble" → "MacLaren was in financial difficulties"
• The last two sentences are a bit magaziney. I would cut them down to a neutral summary: "On the six-week outward journey MacLaren met (Kathleen) Maud Power, an Australian socialite and the daughter of a horse racing official. They were married on..." (give date)

• Done. I've not given the full date as this is mentioned later. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

World record holder

• Wordcount watch: some superfluities, e.g. "at the first opportunity"; "Somerset had a reasonable team at the time, but"; "he was immediately chosen to play..."; "just 15 runs

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Second tour of Australia

• I suggest rephrasing the opening sentence: "MacLaren's teaching duties meant that in 1897 he again missed the start of the cricket season, and he felt it necessary to resign as Lancashire's captain".

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• The continue: "When he began playing he scored heavily..." etc

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Appointment and start of captaincy

• Although I hesitate to suggest more words, I feel a (very) brief explanation is required (perhaps in a footnote) of the circumstances whereby MacLaren was appointed to the Test captaincy in Grace's place. As I recall, Grace's age (almost 51) was an issue, as was the question of whether MacLaren should return to the team. When it was decided that MacLaren should be in the side, Grace stood down to make way for him. The selectors then made Archie captain, for the reasons which you give.

• This was in an earlier version of the article, as I mentioned to Tim, but I removed it for reasons of space. But it's an interesting story (although probably a fabrication by C. B. Fry, who liked to embellish his part in affairs) so I've put it in a note. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Full-time cricketer

• I have grave doubts about the £40 a week claim by "some sources"; that was a very high salary then, and not just "comfortably more than Lancashire's leading professionals", but about ten times what they were paid. £40 a week is what an Admiral or a Major-general was paid in 1900 (source: Whittaker's Almanack). Senior civil servants, e.g. the Assistant Secretary to the Navy, got £1200 a year or less. "Some sources claim" may not be sufficient grounds to introduce the figure. Perhaps: "Surviving records do not indicate his salary, but some sources suggest he was paid comfortably more than Lancashire's leading professionals."

• Hmm, fair enough. It's speculation in the source, so I've adopted your wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "During 1901, MacLaren recruited a team to tour Australia the following winter, having been invited to do so by the Melbourne Cricket Club." Somewhat clumsily phrased; perhaps "MacLaren was invited by the Melbourne Cricket Club to bring a team to Australia during the English winter of 1901–02".

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "This was the last private England team to tour Australia, with subsequent ones playing under the colours of the MCC." This may not be completely true. It was the last private team to Australia that played first-class matches, but I am sure there have been other private, minor tours to Australia. Maybe worth tweaking the wording a little.

• I've specified Test-playing tour, as there may have been private first-class tours. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The rest will follow in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the first lot of comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's the rest:

Ashes series of 1902

• You should acknowledge that there was a second Test, even though it only lasted a couple of hours (A.C. MacLaren not out 47)

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm slightly concerned about frequent use of "just" for emphasis (e.g. "just four runs") OK in cricket reporting, but not really encyclopedic.

• Cut most. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• "by one wicket in a close finish" - some tautology there?

• I was thinking of the non-cricketers, but I take your point and have cut it. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Replacement as England captain

• I much appreciate "Albert Cotter". You could call him "Albert 'Tibby' Cotter" if you want to appease the cricket community. But I would definitely move the title of the Cotter article.

• Ha! I was thinking of you when I did that one. To be honest, I doubt the cricket community is paying much attention, and is not too bothered even if they have heard of Mr Cotter. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Private secretary to Ranjitsinhji

• "...he declined to put Middlesex's batsmen under pressure when chasing a small but challenging total to win the game; this may have arisen from his dislike of Lord's and the figures in authority there". Am I understanding this correctly? He effectively threw a game and allowed Middlesex to win, because he disliked Lord's and the cricket authorities there?

• A little harsh, and the game would probably have been lost anyway. But yes. I wonder how far he took it. Maybe he just went through the motions and the source embellishes this. But he really hated Lord's. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• "By January 1907" → "In January 1907"

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think a word of introduction for Priestly (e.g. "the politician/cricketer") would help readers.

• Called him a politician as I think this was his more notable profession, although I could be wrong on that. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• In my view there is too much detail about Ranji's finances, and this section could be reduced with benefit

• Cut this back. But I kept the "ridiculous private secretary" as it is a fantastic description. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• The image of MacLaren in 1905 is very poor quality - could be an issue at FAC unless you can clean it up a bit.

• I'll see what I can do. Crisco was OK with it above, but I'll see if I can get hold of a Beldam image of him batting. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Return as England captain

• "As MacLaren's reputation suffered in the rest of the season, blame began to be apportioned to him, particularly after England heavily lost the game." The chronology of this sentence is muddled; surely the logical sequence is: first he lost the game, then got blamed, then his reputation suffered during the rest of the season.

• Reworked this a little as it wasn't quite saying what I thought it said. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Too much "began": "blame began to be apportioned"; "critics began to question..."; "MacLaren began to excuse his position" – all in the second paragraph

• Cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• "But MacLaren..." ?

• Cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• "a lot of" is not encyclopedic

• Reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Final cricket matches

• "...but MacLaren's input pushed it to the edge". This is too cryptic; what was MacLaren's disastrous input?

• It seems obscure. The source is cryptic too, and while it hints that MacLaren messed up, it is scarce on detail. I've reworded this. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• I imagine there is a w/link for the 1921 Australian touring side.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• "in addition, he only chose amateurs on the team" – I don't think this was "in addition" to his choices of bowlers and fielders, I think it was a basic decision about the composition of the team.

• Actually, it was. He specifically only wanted amateurs and no beastly professionals; given that this was 1920s England, it was obviously a huge deal that they won. I've reworked to make this a little more explicit. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Final years

• Among the miscellany of MacLaren's money-making activities is the information that he "briefly owned a hotel". How could someone so obviously skint and in debt manage to acquire a hotel? Or was he managing it on someone else's behalf?

• A very good question to which I have no answer. Knowing him, he might have stolen it. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• "He was hurt in a car crash and then contracted cancer." I imagine there are dates for the crash, and perhaps for the onset of cancer.

• You'd think so, wouldn't you. But nothing in his biography (another slightly strange cricket biography) nor anywhere else I can see. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Cause of wife's death?

• None that I can find. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Style and technique

• In the first few sentences we have "his technique was based on scoring runs safely" and "He scored runs quickly". These statements sem somewhat at odds

• Not really. He scored from shots which carried little risk, but he did so at a fast pace. Bradman did something similar, and batsmen do it all the time in one-day matches now: scoring at a run a ball but not taking the remotest chance. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• "effective ... effective" in the same line

• Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Too many "Buts" ("But judgements...", "But Peter Wynne-Thomas...", "But Gibson..."

• Sorted, I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• The structure of the prose needs looking at. The sentence about MacLaren's unpopularity shouldn't appear in the middle of a discussion on his merits as a captain. I also think that, since about half of the section is about the captaincy issue, the title "Style and technique" is probably not appropriate.

• Renamed section and moved that sentence to the end. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That's about it. I can't say I ended up liking him – there aren't many redeeming features to set off against what seems like massive arrogance and irresponsibility. One thing in his favour is that he wasn't a cricket establishment man – I suppose we can be grateful for that. Definitely not a villain in the Allen mould. I think the article does him justice; if it were my creation I'd probably not give his seasonal performance figures for every season, but maybe some find those figures helpful. I'll keep an eye open for the FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments –

• In Early life, the last sentence of the second paragraph will likely be the source of a citation request during the FAC, so you may as well add one now.
• Second tour of Australia: "did not hear the umpires call and was run out when he left his crease." "umpires" → "umpire's".
• Full-time cricketer: "Yorkshire's Wilfred Rhodes and George Hirst were not permitted to tour by their captain Lord Hawke. Hawke...". Try not to have the name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another like this. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• All done. Took the second Hawke sentence out as it wasn't adding much. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Private secretary to Ranjitsinhji: Space needed after ref 8 early in the first paragraph of the section.
• Final cricket matches: Another case of close name repetition in "with the cricket writer J. N. Pentalow. Pentalow...".
• Note 8: Is the hyphen in "fellow-Gloucestershire" needed? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done these. Not sure about that hyphen, so removed it as I don't think it is essential. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Harold Davidson

This peer review discussion has been closed.

In the pantheon of naughty vicars the Revd Harold Davidson, rector of Stiffkey with Morston 1906–32, holds a high place. His odd interpretation of his duties as a clerk in Holy Orders, not to mention his obsession with teenage girls, got him into trouble with his bishop who, embarrassed and offended by Harold's activities, finally threw the book at him and kicked him out of the Church. Harold campaigned tirelessly for reinstatement, using all sorts of stunts – fasting in a barrel, being roasted in pit while being prodded with pitchforks, and preaching in a den of lions. Unfortunately, one lion got bored and attacked the ex-rector with fatal consequences. It's a wonderful story, part hilarious, part tragic, part pathos, and I hope that reviewers will enjoy reading it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Dr. Blofeld

Hehe, yes indeed, a "naughty vicar"! I was beginning to wonder if "Stiffkey" was a double entendre for naughty activities involving the church organ and his female "guests"! I'm beginning a read through, will post as I go along:

Family

• Why is Revd abbreviated? Same applies to other examples in the article. I know it's common to use it but I've always wondered why it is so difficult to add a further "eren" between the rev and the d. Major and Colonel aren't abbreviated, so why Revd?

• It's an accepted abbreviation for "Reverend", more so than the commonly used "Rev.", but I agree it looks odd in the text so I've made the change. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "while Alice Davidson was a great-niece of Thomas Arnold, the noted headmaster of Rugby School" Who noted him?

• Well. he's a major figure in the development of English education, but I have reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• " many inclined to drunkenness and with little interest in churchgoing." with doesn't seem right here, displayed or showed would seem to fit better.

• Slightly reworded Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Although he could be pugnacious when necessary, a former parishioner recorded that he never turned away anyone who needed help whatever the circumstances". A little awkward, how about something like "although a belligerent character at times, according to a former parishioner he was always eager to assist people, whatever the circumstances."

• "Belligerent" would not be right (too aggressive). "Pugnacious when necessary" seems more appropriate, though I have adopted your wording for the latter part of the sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure the relevance of mentioning the year and who founded Whitgift school, stands out as a little superfluous to me.

• It sort of indicated the kind of school it was – but I agree it's rather superfluous, and have deleted this. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sent to the Tower, you might mention the author before the word farce if he is notable, if not, don't worry.

• No information on authorship, I'm afraid. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Theatre

• Why is Embankment is capitals? If you mean Thames Embankment, please link fully.

• Done Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Having intervened to prevent her, Davidson learned that she had run away from home and, her money having run out, was stranded. " How about "After thwarting her suicide attempt, Davidson learned that she had run away from home and was penniless and desperate."

• Have reworded, combining your phrasing with mine. Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• " enormous energy" doesn't seem to fit to me might be because of the alliteration of the letter e. Tremendous energy or enthusiasm would seem to fit better in my opinion.

• I've gone for "considerable energy. Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• " energies and enthusiasm", I think the word "fervour" instead would cover both adequately.

• Rephrased Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Rector, early years

• North Norfolk - if it is a district link it, if not, I think it should be "coast of northern Norfolk".

• Yes, fixed Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• " At the time of Davidson's arrival in 1906 the village, with a population of around 350, was generally impoverished, although according to Tucker well supplied with shops and public houses" Shouldn't there be a "was" between Tucker and well?

• Yes, and a bit ofpunc work, too. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Enjoyed good relations", I'd word it as "been on amicable terms" but you might prefer the original, just a suggestion anyway.

• "on good terms with". Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Rector, WWI

• Odd that Shetlands and Middle East is linked but Cairo isn't.

• I tend not to link countries or major cities. "Middle East" is a slightly amorphous area, so a link might be helpful to some readers, but if you think it's overlinking I'll remove it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'd delink Middle East then, I think large regions are more generic. I'd be more inclined to link smaller districts/cities/islands than large regions myself anyway.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Rector, prostitutes

• "Typical of these was Rose Ellis, whom Davidson met in September 1920, in Leicester Square." I think it should be "Typical of these was Rose Ellis, whom Davidson had met in Leicester Square in September 1920."

• Yes, good Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "she had no money and nowhere to spend the night. "she was penniless and homeless" would seem to fit better.

• Used "penniless before", but oherwise tweaked as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "He styled himself the "Prostitutes' Padre" which, he asserted to his bishop, was "the proudest title that a true priest of Christ can hold", commas seem to affect flow a little, how about "He styled himself the "Prostitutes' Padre", asserting to his bishop that it was "the proudest title that a true priest of Christ can hold".

• I'm not a fan of "...ing" connectors, but I have reworded to avoid excessive commas. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Downfall, complaints

• "upbraided the major" shouldn't it be the Major, it is a title?

• I think (perhaps Tim will bear me out) that modern usage tends only to capitalise ranks when a name is attached, thus "Major Hamond" but otherwise "the major". Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The press was publicising the story with lurid headlines; there was wide public interest and the matter could no longer be hushed up", needs a bit of polish, maybe something like "The case was widely publicised, captivating public interest with lurid headlines.

• Again I don't like the "...ing" (and I'm unsure of the grammar), so I have rewritten the sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, changes you've made are good.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Downfall, court hearing

• Can you date the photograph in text and in caption as April 1932? I was curious to know when it was taken and I had to click onto a different page to find it. I've done it, don't worry.

• Thanks. I find that I misrecorded the date when I uploaded the image. The date was 28 March 1932. I have amended the cation, text and image description. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for double checking on that one, excellent.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Downfall, verdict

• A little concerned with the neutrality in the paragraph which begins On 8 July 1932 and the Blackpool showman sections, it seems to intentionally draw on the negative more than the positive. Can't see use of The Rector of Stiffkey: His Life and Trial, but I think getting hold of the book would be advisable before taking to FAC just for neutrality purposes to ensure that nothing as been overlooked and any notable family/bio details haven't been missed.

• I don't think the paragraphs to which you refer are not neutral in tone. There is little positive to be said about the ways in which Davidson chose to demean himself, and my summary is entirely consistent with the sources. As to The Rector of Stiffkey: His Life and Trial, this is a self-published pamphlet by a family member, written to advertise Davidson's innocence. It does not meet the FA criteria for a high-quality source. In his scholarly biography, Jonathan Tucker lists the pamphlet in his bibliography. Though he makes little direct reference to the pamphlet, he was no doubt aware of its contents in giving his considered view that (a) the case was mishandled by the court and by the defence and (b) Davidson was irresponsible and foolish, but not immoral. I have reorganised and slightly strengthened my summary, to ensure that this judicial viewpoint is properly represented. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess it was an intense period of his life after all, but it did capture my attention how negative that period seems to be. Poor chap and to meet his demise that way! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath and appraisal

• Delink Second World War per guidelines

• Well OK, but I'm not sure that all our readers are aware of the dates of the Second worls war, which ended 68 years ago. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "when the former was adapted for television, the Daily Telegraph's critic wondered at the artistic justification for a musical about "so sad and peculiar a person", wondered I don't think is quite right, how about "the Daily Telegraph's critic questioned the artistic justification for a musical about "so sad and peculiar a person".

• Agreed Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Overall, as usual, a mighty fine interesting article, which with some polishing I can see becoming a featured article in the not too distant future. Hope my suggestions are useful to you Brian.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these thoughtful and helpful comments. Very largely I have followed your suggestions; where not I have explained why. The article is undoubtedly better for your input. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad to be of service and good luck with taking it all of the way. Feel free to contact me whenever you want input, the volcano roof is open, just watch out for the ninjas..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Schro

A couple of "dittos" from above: the abbreviated Reverend looked odd to me too, as does linking both world wars, perhaps? Aside form those, this is very good indeed—as always—and is almost an unbelievable tale, so bizarre are many of the ingredients (especially when you can add the Carry on name of Stiffkey into proceedings: I have an image of Sid James at work here! To then come across Vice-admiral Tupper just reinforces it all!) I've made a couple of tweaks here and there: please feel free to revert anything you want to. A couple of other bits:

Infobox

• Should there be a space between M.A. and (Oxon)?

• Well spotted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• "generally known as the Rector of Stiffkey": was he generally known as, or was this just his title and he was called something else?

• It was his Church office. I think this is how he is generally known to posterity, rather than as Harold Davidson. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Theatre, Oxford

• Perhaps link the Embankment?

• Done per the Doc, above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's all I've got. Another great piece of work: could you ping me when it gets to FAC? - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• A minor addition: I see the Vice-admiral caps have been changed: I always thought that Vice-admiral was the correct format, but I have asked one of the milhist people if they could provide something definitive for us. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Vice Admiral it is! All the best - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments (no ellipsis faults this time) Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• Lead
  • "Davidson had enjoyed a brief career" – is "enjoyed" necessary?

• • No Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• • "Holy Orders" (here and later) – the WP article can't make up its mind if the phrase is capitalised or not, but the OED is in no doubt – it isn't.

• • You are right (other reputable dictionaries confirm this). I have decapitalised, though I fear there will be howls of wrath from the Anglican community as a result, and I hope you'll back me up. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• • "innocence from any wrongdoing" – "of" would be more usual, I think

• • Indeed yes. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Family background and childhood
  • "had been Anglican clergy, while Alice Davidson was a great-niece of Thomas Arnold" – the "while" implies some species of causality; I'd be inclined to replace it with a semicolon.

• • I've gone for "and" – I'm over-fond of semicolons

• • "the farce Sent to the Tower" – is by John Maddison Morton, who wrote Box and Cox, though I'm not sure I agree with Dr B that it needs mentioning.

• • Well researched, but since none of my sources mention it, and it's peripheral information, I'll leave it out.Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Researched? I knew! That was from the Silvers-Riley Victorian Theatre production line. I concur about not mentioning the author, though.Tim riley (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• • "and missed the chance to win a scholarship that would enable him to study" – a lot of words here – perhaps "failed to win", and it is not clear if the second part just means "a scholarship to study" or something more convoluted.

• • "failed to win" is better. A "scholarship" enables study by providing a financial grant, so I think my wording is OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Theatre, Oxford and ordination
  • "engagements in masonic lodges" – another preposition I shouldn't have expected; "for" or "by" might be preferable (masonic lodges and lit socs being, I think, groups of people rather than buildings)

• • I don't much like "for" or "by", but what about "with"?
    • Placet Tim riley (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• • "greatest triumph, however, was" – does the "however" add anything?

• • It rarely does. Gone. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• • "St Martin's-in-the-Fields" – the WP article calls it "St Martin-in-the-Fields", and so does the church's own website.

• • Well spotted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Early years
  • "First para" – rather a lot of "the marquess"s; I'd be inclined to change one or two for a "Townshend" or so.

• • Yes, OK, check it out now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • That'll do nicely. Tim riley (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• • "salt marshes" – the OED hyphenates this

• • That surprises me; I've not seen it hyphenated elsewhere. I'd prefer to leave it as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• • "acting as a chaperone for dancers recruited by the Folies Bergère" – how you can expect your reviewers to read this with straight faces I have no idea. What was that Gershwin song? – "Nice work if you can get it". Be that as it may, I thought a "chaperone" was a woman and a "chaperon" a man, but on looking into the matter, insofar as I can understand what the OED says on it, I think I was wrong. Worth double-checking, perhaps, from the dictionaries on your shelves.

• • My dictionary tells me these are alternative spellings, and that neither is gender-specific. I think my usage is OK, & chimes with the source. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Good. Rather pleased, in fact. I have learned something. Tim riley (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• First World War
  • "Vice-Admiral Sir Reginald Tupper" – almost impossible to pipe this to everyone's satisfaction, but I'd be disposed to wl "Vice Admiral" and then "Sir Reginald Tupper", but not "Vice Admiral Sir Reginald Tupper, which would look most peculiar. Tim riley (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Now linked per your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Prostitutes' Padre"

"Quoted text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit."

Quoted text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.

• • Quote box – Is it simply personal preference that inclines you to go for the first rather than the second format, which I think is more usual? And if I may impertinently express a personal preference of my own, I think your background colour is too strong. The boxed text seems to me to be easier on the eye in the lower box, with html background colour #E0E6F8 or thereabouts.

• • I definitely prefer the format that I have used, in this and other articles, to the other. I have, however, adopted your suggestion to lighten the background colour. Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• • "whom Davidson met" – "whom he met"?

• • Yes, fine. Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• • "17-year-old girl, Barbara Harris" – red-linked. Are we to brace ourselves for a spin-off article about her? I have to consider my blood pressure at my time of life.

• • The redlink arises from circumstances outlined by me on the talkpage. I have no intention of writing an article on her, but someone may prepare a stub (as has happened with Tupper). Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Good Heavens! The new Tupper article is by Andrew Gray who is jointly running the Ashton ballet Wikibash at the the Royal Opera House tomorrow, which will, scandalously, require me to get out of bed at 7.00 on a Saturday. I shall seek to extract a promise from Andrew not to write up Ms Harris. Tim riley (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Just noticed this - I had wondered about Harris's link as well! I saw Tupper's footnote and on encountering the fascisti could not resist looking him up to see what else there was. Not the most notable of figures, but curious enough, and since I'd got that far I knocked a short article together. I promise nothing on Harris... Andrew Gray (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Footnotes
  • I have always understood that the idiomatic pronunciation of "Stiffkey" is not "Stiffkey" but not "Stewkey" either. In the Norfolk dialect, words like "Stuart", "computer" and, God save us, "beautiful", become "Stooart", "compooter" and notoriously "bootiful". I was exiled to Norfolk in the 1970s and on the few occasions the town was mentioned it was always pronounced "Stookey". I can't find any WP:RS to back this up, but I thought it worth mentioning here, if only for background.

• • Blyth says the locals call it "Stewky"; Parris, who I suspect did little of his own research, says "pronounced Stewkey: villagers remain sensitive on this point." Tom Cullen and Jonathan Tucker both aver that locals pronounce the name as spelt; none of these sources refer to "Stookey". If another RS can be found to support this pronunciation, I will gladly add it to the footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ref format
  • Is a four-col layout usual? Looks a bit squeezed to me, esp in these days of small screens. I merely mention the point, knowing very little about it.

• • 4 cols is my norm (I even cheekily imposed it on the BB article!). No one has ever suggested to me that this presents viewing difficulties, but if it does, maybe 3 cols? Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's my lot. I admired the skill with which you walked the tightrope throughout the article. As SchroCat says, above, there could all too easily be a touch of the Carry Ons about it. You have not missed the comic side of the story, but nor have you missed its sad side. – Tim riley (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim for these comments which show your usual attachment to esoteric detail (and all the better for that). Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Ruhrfisch

• I checked the images and they are fine - either freely licensed (though I had never seen the free license used on the Blackpool photo before) or Fair Use with a strong rationale.
• I wonder if it would help to add to the rationale or description for the lead image that he appears to be wearing his war service medals? This would be highly unusual in an American church. I also note the image was taken at Easter 1932 (which was March 27 that year), or right before his hearing began (March 29). He had to have known this picture was being taken and it seems likely to me that the image tries to present him in the best possible light - serious, in the pulpit, with his medals.

• Unfortunatetly, the sources that show this picture give no information beyond that it was taken on Easter Day 1932. Your conjecture that he wore his medals to give a good impression is quite likely correct, but is not supported, so must remain as conjecture. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have re-sized the image to better comply with fair use policies, and also adjusted the contrast. Hopefully it looks better - if not, let me know and I will revert the adjustment and upload that version. Could the fact that he is wearing medals from his military service be added to the image description? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I do not have access to the sources, but it seems likely to me that Davidson would have known who took the photo of him with the near naked girl. Again the odd thing for me is that it is dated April 1932, or after his hearing began.

• I actually had the date wrong; it was 28 March 1932, the day before the trial started (!) The photo was taken by an unnamed press photographer, in what Davidson believed was a set-up. This was supposedly a publicity photograph to help Estelle Douglas to start a theatrical career; as the article says, Davidson claimed he had no idea she was naked under the shawl, or that the back of her body was exposed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I also resized and adjusted this image (took two tries as I got a moire pattern on Wikipedia that I did not see on my monitor). Again please let me know if looks OK in the article (as I have to delete the other versions). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Both fair use images are too large (file size) - I can resize them over the weekend if you want.

• Yes, that would be helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Two quick points - the DYK for this article says he died after treading on the lion's tail. I assume this is not born out by the RS used, but it might need to be addressed in a note (assume it is a common story)

• There is nothing in the sources to support the treading on tail story. The young lion tamer Irene Somner gives quite a detailed account of the mauling, and doesn't mention it. The DYK is eight years old, from a time when I suspect standards of verification were rather lax; perhaps the story came from some inferior source, or was a made-up bit of detail. I can't really incorporate negative information into the article, so I suggest we allow sleeping dogs (or lions) to lie. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I read the version from 2008 and there were no (zero) refs for the treading on the lion's tale story. Would it be worth adding a note to the article's talk page, right under the DYK banner? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• For myself I'd prefer not to do it – seems like unnecessary drawing of attention to a relatively minor lapse of detail. The point of the DYK, I imagine, was that Davidson was killed by a lion, rather than that he trod on it tail. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• The article on Stiffkey says in part "He was a popular priest in the area and the villagers asked his family to allow him to be buried in Stiffkey when he died, rather than in the family tomb in Sholing, where he was born." Again I have no idea if this true or not, but if it is, it seems worth mentioning.

• There again, neither of Davidson's biographers mention this. Tucker says that the family "simply could not afford to move the body to Stiffkey and were considering having him interred in Skegness". But a friendly haulage contractor offered to transport the body to Stiffkey at no cost. Nothing about the family tomb at Sholing. The story could possibly have some truth in it, but the information is uncited in the Stiffkey article; I have added a citation tag. If a reliable source can be found, this small detail could be added to the Davidson article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Will try to review it for real. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. Further observation will be welcome if/when you have the time; the PR will be open for at least another week. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, here are my comments on the article - I did not find much to comment on, but here are my nitpicks. I added ha for acres.

Lead

• Would the first sentence Harold Francis Davidson (14 July 1875 – 30 July 1937), generally known as the Rector of Stiffkey, was a Church of England priest who, after a notorious court case in 1932, was defrocked by the church when convicted on charges of immorality. be better if the last phrase were changed to ... was convicted on charges of immorality and defrocked by the church.

• Yes, that is tighter phrasing. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Theatre, Oxford and ordination

• I wonder it if would help to add his age at one or two points here - for example, when he helped the 16 year old runaway in London, he was presumably between 19 and 24 years old himself. Or later, should it be mentioned that he was about 31 when he married, which seems somewhat old for the time.

• I have added the date of the "rescue", and have included that he was 28 when ordained in 1903. I think that will probably do. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Complaints and investigations

• It is not clear to me when the press attention to him / his case started, and I assume this section would be the place to make it clearer beyond the sentence "Lurid headlines in the newspapers had created wide public interest, and the matter could no longer be hushed up."

• It is not clear from the sources how the press first got hold of the story; possibly it was through Davidson himself. I have added this possibility to the text, with a reference. I will add an explanatory footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would include the image of Bertram Pollock that used to be in the article.

• The image of Pollock dates from 1902, long before he was Bishop of Norwich, when he was the relatively youthful headmaster of Wellington College. It's also a large and awkward-shaped image. The most relevant placement for it would be in the "Complaints and investigations" section, in place of the quote box to avoid image congestion. Personally I think the quoted text is more germane than a picture of the youthful Pollock. However, if the result of the discussion I have instigated at the foot of this review should result in a decision to omit the Davidson-Douglas photo, then I will bring back the bishop. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Is Barbara Harris likely to have an article of her own in the future? It seems to me that her notability is likely limited to her role in this scandal / trial, so I wonder if she deserves a red link?

• Probably not; this arises from an issue discussed on the article's talkpage, but I think on balance her individual notability would be insufficient to sustain a WP article, so I'll remove the link. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• In the Bibliography, why is one chapter numbered and the other not?

• Parris does not number his chapters, so I've given the page numbers instead. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• It does indeed help. Many thanks for these comments and for your assistance with the images. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I have not that much to say, which given the travails you are under at Stevens, is almost regrettable. Still, I fear not that it will be considered a Friday afternoon (well, night) job, as I see the worthy people who have gone before me.

Lede

• Davidson strongly protested his innocence and to raise funds for his reinstatement campaign he exhibited himself in a barrel on the Blackpool seafront." I advise a comma someplace.
• "while later commentators generally accept that although he was often foolish and eccentric in his behaviour" The problem is, the "foolish and eccentric" comes from a contemporary leading article. It's a rather kind summation.
  • Sorry, I'm not clear what, if anything, you are suggesting I should do. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You say that LATER commentators said that. Yet the phrase is taken from a contemporary commentator, from the 1930s. And I guess I'm hinting that your thumbnail summary of the view of Davidson is a bit on the favorable end, and I felt the quotes you proffered at the end were a bit more mixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually say that later commentators accept that he was foolish and eccentric, not that they said it. The exact words are indeed those of the Church Times report of 1932, but I think they are a generally fair summation of more recent opinion as expressed in the main text, and I would prefer not to change the wording. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Theatre

• Either masonic should be capitalized, or made lower case in Stevens, or we are truly divided by our common language.
  • Well, my understanding is that in current British English usage the use of initial capitals in minimised. According to my dictionaries, the noun "Mason" (meaning a Freemason) is capitalised to distinguish him from a "mason" (meaning a stonecarver). The adjective "masonic" does not carry a capital. I will ask Tim, who is a guru on such matters, to pronounce judgement on this; of course, American usage may be quite different and I see no reason why we need to harmonise the usage. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The OED admits both capitalised and non-capitalised for the word in this sense, but favours the capped version ("... Usu. in form Mason = Freemason") which preponderates in its list of nine examples by six Masons to three masons. I think the caps have it. Tim riley (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
      • – and I had a £1 bet that you would judge in my favour! Oh, the way of the scholar is hard. (Proverbs 13:15, modified) Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• I assume he helped the girl on the Embankment, but possibly the reader should not have to.
  • Again, I miss the point here. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't say whether he did anything to help the girl on the Embankment. I think the reader would be grateful for a brief "rest of the story". Saying he gave her money or found her a room or job would be sufficient.

Have added a line. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Rector

• "Davidson was an acquaintance" A sentence which should be divided.

• the process known as "defrocking" Suggest shortening to "or "defrocking", with a comma substituted for the dash.

• Is Barbara Harris truly deserving of a redlink? Has she notability not derived from the Stiffkey case?
  • I've redlinked it because another editor has found a source, which I do not consider reliable, that indicates that Harris married a well-known artist, was a friend of Dylan Thomas, and led a generally Bohemian life until 2003. See the talkpage for details, and my doubts. Should this be confirmed, then I think Barbara would indeed be worth a short article, but I need to be convinced that the details are true. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• "it is the back of her body that is unclothed, her front is covered by a shawl." I'm uncertain about the present tense here.
  • I've redrafted this bit, & added a few words to explain why the photo was taken. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Campaigning

• "because of his genuine fear of animals" Is genuine really needed?
• " became disturbed" agitated?
• Was Hamond at the funeral?
  • Not recorded, but I very much doubt it. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Shoutout to Cosmo duly noted.

Bibliography

• On the two references where you have chapters, the open parens and the letter C clash on my browser. Consider separating with a non-breaking space.

That's all I have. Excellent work. I will confess to never hearing of the reverend.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Small fixes done, otherwise notes as above. Thank you for your comments. I wouldn't expect Davidson to be known much outside our shores, but here he has some status as a minor anti-establishment folk hero. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I've responded to your concerns above.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from Cliftonian

Great work here, just a few quick suggestions from me. Feel free to implement as you see fit.

• Was his wife's name spelt "Moira" (infobox) or "Moyra" (prose)?
• "Although many of Davidson's parishioners accepted that his London rescue mission was entirely above board, some, including Major Hamond, were less impressed". I'm not sure "impressed" is the best word to use here; perhaps "less convinced" or "some, including Major Hamond, were apprehensive".
• "This statement—which she immediately retracted and was never presented in court". This seems awkwardly worded to me, perhaps "This statement—which was immediately retracted by Ellis, and never presented in court"
• "The enquiry agent's activities continued for months. Davidson was prepared to resign his living if the charges against him were dropped, but Pollock was advised by Dashwood that this was no longer viable". Perhaps "The enquiry agent continued his activities for months. Davidson was prepared to resign his living if the charges against him were dropped, but Dashwood counselled Pollock that this was no longer viable".
• I found the Harris redlink a bit spurious myself on first glances but looking at the comments above I am not greatly concerned by it, and will go with consensus
• Perhaps worth linking KC to Queen's Counsel
• "Davidson raised sufficient funds, partly from the sale of newspaper stories, to ensure he was represented by experienced lawyers." Maybe "Davidson, meanwhile, engaged experienced lawyers to defend him, funding this partly through the sale of newspaper stories."
• "He then began regular visitor to her lodgings" Presume a typo, should probably be "He then became a regular visitor ..."
• "His only recourse was to return to Blackpool and resume his career as a showman;" Perhaps "again resume his career", as he had already reverted to entertainment once?

• Well, perhaps, but during his first Blackpool stint, Davidson was still in holy orders, still Rector of Stiffkey, still collecting his tithes and still preaching from time to time, so his "career" was still as a clergyman. He only fully reverted to his earlier vocation after he was defrocked. It's as broad as it is long; I think I'd prefer to leave it as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• The format of the quotation crediting should be consistent (one says "Ronald Blythe: The Rector of Stiffkey", another says "Ronald Blythe, The Rector of Stiffkey (1964).")

Very well done on a thoroughly entertaining read, and I hope these are helpful. Have a great rest of the weekend. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for these useful observations which, with the exception noted, I have been happy to incorporate into the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you found these helpful. Have a pleasant Sunday —Cliftonian (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

A few comments from Victoria

Lead

• "Davidson's later career as a showman earned him much notoriety but little money, and he had no success in his attempts at legal redress despite recognition, even in church circles, that he had not been fairly treated in the court hearing that resulted in his deposition from Holy Orders" > the first time I read this it seemed a bit long, but on re-reading is probably okay. But mentioning anyway, based on the first read.
• Two consecutive sentences with "His" > "His case" and "His descendents" > maybe vary?

• The sentence was too long, and I've split it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Theatre

• "Davidson's chosen theatrical genre was that of the "drawing-room entertainer"; Cullen describes this kind of performance as "[a]n answer to the demand of a rising middle class which was neither cultured nor resourceful, but which wanted desperately to be diverted".[6]" > This is fine, but the para and section goes on to describe different types of entertainment, so might need a tweak.
• "Her pitiful story made a tremendous impression on me ... I have ever since ... kept my eyes open for opportunities to help that kind of girl."[7] > integrate the quote?

Early years

• "£503 per annum, rising during Davidson's incumbency to £800" > convert?

• I have been long convinced that calculated present-day values of amounts from 100+ years ago can be misleading. The information in footnote 3 gives a better indication of the value at that time of Davidson's Stiffkey stipend. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Notwithstanding his parochial and domestic responsibilities, Davidson quickly adopted the habit of spending much of the week in London, engaged in various kinds of social work" > Not important but I found myself wondering about his proximity to London - is it close, or a long trip for him to make. I'm not sure this is relevant, but mentioning.

• It's a good point, which I can't see that any of the main sources have mentioned. Looking at the map, I'd say the distance is about 130 miles. I'll dig around and see if I can get a more accurate figure from a reliable source. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"Prostitutes' Padre"

• "Although deeply upset by Molly's infidelity, Davidson accepted the child—who bore some resemblance to him—as his own" > I'm just curious, why the resemblance? Do we know?

• None of the sources elaborate, though they all discount the possibility that the child could have been Davidson's. I think it's just one of those mysteries/coincidences. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Financial problems

• "In February that year he failed to pay his local rates" > rates in the US has a different meaning than in the UK. I'd link to Rates (tax)

Court hearing

• "vitiated her testimony" > reword for plain English (good word though)?

• Maybe leave, for its educational value? Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• "She was 15-year-old Estelle Douglas, the daughter of one of his oldest friends" > pronoun antecedent is Oliver, so best to clarify Davidson here

These are all nitpicks and this is as far as I got. I've also commented below re the image. Victoria (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• All useful points, either adopted or noted as above. Thanks for your interest. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Image issue

I am asking all peer reviewers if they would kindly comment on the inclusion in the article of File:Davidson with Douglas.jpg. I did not have it in my initial expansion of the article, as I was concerned that the girl in the photograph was a 15-year-old minor. However, all commentators on the Davidson case are agreed that the photograph was a critical factor in the court's decision to convict him of immorality, and I decided that it should go in.

The age factor has not prevented the photgraph from being widely published - it is in all the recent biographical accounts, and indeed forms the cover picture for Cullen's 1975 book. It is also been published on the internet. The question that keeps bothering me, however, is whether the relevance of the image is sufficient to trump the argument of inappropriateness. The image is not there for prurient purposes, but some might think this, or might in any case feel that a photograph of an unclad minor is not acceptable in any circumstances. I would be very grateful if you would add your thoughts on this, here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's an extremely valuable photograph and one which is clearly very relevant to the article discussion. Some might dispute the extent to which it is used for "critical commentary", but the mention of the photograph and its importance to the case meets the guidelines for use in my opinion and the article would be worse off without it. A picture is worth a thousand words, in this case 10,000, showing up the naughty vicar!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit that the thought crossed my mind too, although only fleetingly. If the girl had been turned around then I'd back it's removal, but showing only the buttocks of the girl, wearing some form of blanket as cover, puts it out of the prurient camp and into the explanatory/educational one. If the image also appears in the reliable print sources, then the lawyers will already have discussed the legality of use and deemed it appropriate. As with Doc's comment, I also think it tells a thousand words. - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Per the above. I think standards have changed so much in eighty years that without the image, the reader is whistling in the dark. As to appropriateness, as I said, standards have changed. I think the article needs it, and it will shock no one.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say if the image has already been used prominently in the print sources, and indeed on the front cover of one, there is no reason why we should not also use it. It's already available on the internet anyway. In any case I do not think that the nudity therein is excessive by today's standards and as the Doctor says this photograph in particular is extremely pertinent to the subject and commentary. And as both the Doctor and SchroCat have already said, the Reverend's apparent demeanour in that picture really does say far, far more than any written description could. So for me it's a keep. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Didn't weigh in earlier, but this is certainly acceptable fair use and would decidedly not fall under child pornography as defined by US law. If this has been widely published in the UK, I doubt it would fall afoul of UK laws. (From a FU point-of-view, however, the size should be reduced) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think this more than meets FAIR USE and should be included in the article. The two fair use images (this and the lead image) show the two views of Davidson presented in his trial. I do find the image disturbing - how could he have not known / seen that she was nearly naked and her whole back and bottom exposed? The photo was obviously a setup - who would use a child (and the daughter of one of his oldest friends) like this? On a technical note, I made the image smaller (about 40% of the original upload) but when I tried to make it smaller still initially (about 33% of the original), there was a bad Moiré pattern. I also briefly considered suggesting cropping the image so not all of the buttocks were shown, but I think the original image is more useful for the article than any cropped version would be. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• I mentioned this in passing on Brian's page and should have been more clear, so just a note her to clarify. The image itself doesn't bother me (well it does a bit) and should be kept. What bothers me, personally, is that the girl was not only 15 but a neighbor's daughter, and clearly, despite his statement to contrary, he's touching her. She of course is obviously almost completely nude. I'm afraid my own personal ethos of what is acceptable and not acceptable kicked in. But that doesn't effect the article itself. Victoria (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• The image made me shudder, but I think it is so central to the narrative that it would be negligent to omit it if it is available. I'm as sure as I can be that it qualifies for fair use. Brian's text is crystal clear, as always, but imagine how its impact here would be diminished without the image. – Tim riley (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have contributed here. I think the consensus is that, distasteful though it is, the image should remain, and I will leave it in place. If the matter should be raised at FAC I will refer to this discussion. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Spellingg Bee

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take the article to FAC soon, and I want to have help improving the article, because I believe the prose is lacking. I'm aware that the article is not as long as many other TV featured articles, but I feel I have exhausted the available sources for the episode.

Thanks, Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Ernest C. Brace

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Ernie Brace was the longest-held US civilian prisoner of war from the Vietnam War. Of course, there's almost no independent reporting for the seven years he spent in Laos and North Vietnam. The article has more sources discussing Brace's earlier court martial. I can't find significant copyright-free supporting materials, either. Is this the best that can be done on this subject or is there something more? Thanks, Chris Troutman (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A few comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "radar/radio": See WP:SLASH

 Not done I need to do some more research on Brace's occupational specialty to get this right. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done I ended up just copying the verbiage from the source since I couldn't determine the Marine Corps job code. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• A lot of sentences begin with "Brace"; it would improve readability to vary the sentence structure a bit.

 Done

• "100 mission": 100 missions

 Done

• "then a Captain": then a captain

 Done

• "The Government": The government

 Done

• "The court martial resulted in the end of Brace's military career.": The court martial ended Brace's military career. (WP:Checklist#because may be helpful here.)

 Done

• "[show]": See WP:SCROLL. - Dank (push to talk) 22:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Many thanks for your comments! Chris Troutman (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

---

HTC One

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've maintained this article even before this smartphone had an official name, and clearly, over the months since its unveiling, I've made this article a showcase of why this device is very important to HTC. Just yesterday, this article reached GA status. But now, I'm wanting to take it to the next level; featured article. But first, I think it could use a nice peer review.

Sincerely, ViperSnake151  Talk  16:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i think there may be still issues with the article despite my editing and also i think the article could be further developed. No doubt, wikipedia is a community, and our contributions can increase the quality of article.

Thanks, Suri 100 (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

---