Wikipedia:Peer review/June 2014

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.

---

World War I reparations

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Previously, I requested a peer review of only sections 1-3 as the final part needed major adjustments. This peer review can be found here. Its advise was taken up and implemented (other than the conversion of inline refs to the sfn template). While this review is underway, I will be putting in a request with the Guild of Copy Editors to attempt to trim down the article and improve the prose were possible.

Primarily, I am looking for a peer review of the lede and section 4 of this article (the analysis section) to address any issues before undertaking a GA review of the article. All images contain alt text and there are no disambig links. All advise, comments, or suggestions are welcome (including those about the other sections of the article). Thanks for your time.

Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. (Note that I'm just copying text without links.) This is my imperfect understanding of what reviewers are looking for at FAC. Per your request, I started at Analysis. - Dank (push to talk)

• "post-war": My recommendation in American English is "postwar". That's what you usually see in dictionaries and print, and once words close up and drop the hyphen, that change in the language tends to become a "done deal" quickly. "Post-war" is still preferred in the UK and Australia.

 Done I have changed the one instance of the "post-war", being outside of a quotation, to "postwar". The others I have left alone as that is how they have been used in the source.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• "In additional to post-war loans,": "addition". Also, the reader has to go on for a while before they see what's being compared to postwar loans, and why; it might make more sense to start off with the "Peukert ... argues that the financial problems that arose in the early 1920s" sentence, so that the reader knows up front what you're giving examples of.

 DoneThanks for the catch. I have rewritten the sentence per your advise. So hopefully should be more clear.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• "He comments had reparations": "He comments that, had reparations". Also, just a suggestion: "comments" is perhaps not the best choice; it suggests (to some readers) an offhand remark of the kind that wouldn't be suitable as a cite for an encyclopedia.

 Done amendments made. Also, I had not taken into consideration how "comments" could have came off. There is 24 other cases of "comments" in the article. Should these all be replaced too?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling about it, you may want to ask around. - Dank (push to talk) 00:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Detlev Peukert highlights that": "highlight" is transitive in M-W and AMHER; can you find anything that lists it as intransitive?

 Done Changed the sentence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Germany would still had": something's missing.

 Done fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• "total public spending ... comprised 33 per cent of German net national product": I don't recommend "comprised" in this sense. Readers have a hard enough time with the usual meaning, roughly, "included, in full". - Dank (push to talk) 17:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done amended sentence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dank for your time, comments, and review. I have addressed your comments above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I realize that this has been open for quite some time and I'm pretty late in getting here. My immediate suggestion is that the article convert to the much superior template:sfn form of citations. With the current system, you have to scroll to the bottom each time to see what work's being used and, from experience, because it is tempting for other users to add citations in this format to article without adding the book also, they tend to degrade much more quickly once they've passed GAR/FAR. Brigade Piron (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Hunyadi family

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently rewritten and needs some attention by an expert before any further action (a copyedit request or GAN) is taken. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Northern Mockingbird

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…It's been a goal of mine to get an article that I've made significant contributions toward to reach an FA-Status, or an A-Class status if the former is possible at the moment. It's my first Peer-Review potentially, so excuse me if I made any errors.

What exactly is holding the article back from reaching FA or A status, potential grammatical errors and sentence structure aside? I have a few peer-review journals that could be used if necessary to improve coverage of particular topics on the article, and I'm wondering if they are necessary in order to buff up the article. Please respond whenever you get the chance!

Thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The FP

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to nominate it for FA. The primary sections I was hoping for help on was the plot, overall prose, and paraphrasing the critical response section.

Thanks, Corvoe (speak to me) 13:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Javanese script

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The Javanese script is a rather intricate writing system, and I've found it difficult to produce a suitable layout. There are no GA or FA regarding an Abugida which I can use as style guide (except Sinhala script). The article also received little attention despite high importance in wikiproject writing system and Indonesia. Following the failed gan, I'm reworking the layout from scratch. Suggestions on the layout and sourcing would be a great help for this article.

Thanks, Alteaven (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Per Alteaven's request, I'll provide some comments for improvement:

• The layout can definitely be improved. The tables are very large and seem like they take up most of the article. Sinhala alphabet has a slightly better solution, but I think you should work towards minimizing them as much as possible.
• Using a Javanese font in the article is not realistic. Very few readers will be able to display it properly. I think you should rely entirely on images, at least if you want the article to be reasonably accessible. This version used images for the tables and worked fine. The current version isn't really an improvement.
• The history section is very short. I would expect more information on its historical usage, along with illustrations from documents.
• Prose needs to be improved. There's non-standard use of bold text ("written both before and after the"), for example.
• The lead isn't a proper summary of the article. The section "Characteristics" seems to be a redundant summary. It should be split between the lead and the more specific headings.
• No detailed info on current usage of the script. The article mentions "decorative and scholarly purposes", for example, but that's about it. Why is it still compulsory in school? How many can actually read it? Are there printed books, newspapers, etc? If this script isn't used to write Javanese, then what has replaced it?
• The explanation of how the system works is very hard to follow. "Aksara" starts with an explanation mentioning sandhagan swara, but doesn't explain it until later (separately for both words). And what's a "basic character"? And which of the characters is it that takes an /a/ instead of /ɔ/? Some terms are explained rather cryptically, like mahaprana. Why is it "obscure"? If it used for aspirated consonants, when were they used and when did they disappear? The article needs to be much clearer overall.
• Explain more specifically what both Kawi and Sanskrit means, per WP:OBVIOUS. I would also recommend not to link to Balinese script with the term "Balinese" It's very easy to confuse it with a reference to the actual language.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I'm going to address these problems one by one. I've already expanded the lead article, explained briefly what sanskrit and kawi are, improved some of the prose, and deleted characteristic section. How is it? I don't think the history section could be any longer, but i'll try to find some information. Also i'd like to ask:

• The font is available as a webfont in Wikipedia, so I thought that it is fine for tables of aksara and sandhangan. Pasangan however, is indeed not properly rendered. Should only the pasangan table use image or all the tables?
• Should tables with information (such as in sandhangan and punctuation) be deleted altogether? I thought that it is the most efficient way of showing the shape of the letters with their usage.

Alteaven (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Plantar fasciitis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article is approaching GA status but would like some feedback and fresh eyes on the article. Constructive ideas to better the article and source suggestions are always appreciated.

Thanks, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Oldelpaso

This isn't a topic area I delve into when editing, but as a (mediocre amateur) runner it piqued my interest. I'm sure I read it at some point in marathon training during one of those "What is this pain? Is simple RICE enough or am I properly injured?" moments. I suppose the readership of the article is likely to be high in people attempting Google self-diagnosis, and that should be borne in mind. My first impression is that it stays the right side of providing general information and not medical advice, and the lead does a good job of avoiding too many technical terms for the lay reader.

Specific comments:

• I don't know if there is a standard structure for medical articles that leads it to happen, but of the eight sections in the body, six are a single paragraph, and sometimes even a single sentence. Could some of them be merged elsewhere?

 Done Some of them probably just need to be expanded. One paragraph can be acceptable for a section. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• There are a number of very long sentences. In an article that inevitably needs to use lots of anatomical and/or technical terms, this harms readability. For example, the sentence "Diagnostic imaging studies are not usually needed to diagnosis plantar fasciitis, but in some cases a physician may decide imaging studies (such as X-rays, diagnostic ultrasound or MRI) are warranted to rule out serious causes of foot pain such as fractures, tumors, or systemic disease if plantar fasciitis pain fails to respond appropriately to conservative medical treatments." is 58 words. There's a slight tendency to overuse semicolons too. A guide I've found useful for chopping up unwieldy sentences is User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing#Sentences.

 Done-Didn't need Tony's guide. Broke them up on my own. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Pathophysiology section: "Originally"... ..."recent studies" When did the change in thinking occur? When is "recent"? There will come a time when it won't be recent any more, so a specific date or date range would be useful.

 Done-Clarified that these histological observations were made within the last decade. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Treatment: the linked text of "calf-strengthening exercises" leads to an unexpected target that has nothing to do with exercises.

 Done-Agreed and fixed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• "its annual economic burden is estimated to be between 192 to 376 million dollars. Each year, pain from plantar fasciitis is responsible for 1–2 million physician office visits" Are these worldwide figures?

 Done-I checked and these are statistics specific to the United States. So far I have not come across global statistics but will continue to search for them. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• While difficult to create, a couple of animations or videos could be useful additions. For example, a reader wondering "what is dorsiflexion?" would benefit from an animation showing the movement in question.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It does, I don't need any help from Tony's guide to chop it down. I'll be able to do that myself but I needed a fresh set of eyes on the article. I'll see about merging some of the smaller sections and expanding the other ones. The semicolon thing is a bit of a matter of style, but if it's growing too repetitive, I can certainly address that. Regarding the pathophys section, unfortunately the literature is sometimes vague about when these shifts in thinking occurred. I'll recheck and see if I can pin down any specific dates. I'll check on the calf-strengthening link. I was unaware that it linked to something unusual. I think the figures are American for the economic burden and physician office visits, but I'm unsure. I'll recheck that as well. I have no idea how to create the animations or videos, but I agree that a video showing dorsiflexion would be an excellent addition. Perhaps another Wikipedia user more well versed in that area can assist. Thanks for the feedback! By the way, WP:MEDMOS is the set of guidelines used for structuring medical articles on Wikipedia. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Royal intermarriage

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been steadily working on this article for the past couple of weeks. It started off rather Eurocentric and pretty poorly sourced. I could do with some feedback on the writing style and overall tone and perhaps some input on the overall layout/order of the content, with a view to nominating at some point in the future as a GA.

Thanks, Sotakeit (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• The lead should summarise the main text, and should contain nothing not covered in the main text. Warning bells ring on this when there are numerous citations in the lead. Thus the mention of the Late Bronze Age should be in the main text as well as the lead, and the citation should go in the main text and not in the lead. See WP:LEAD and WP:CITELEAD.
• One thing that looks like a typo, but one never knows, is the repetition in "Princess Princess Ana Gruzinsky".

Agreed and fixed Sotakeit (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Prenominal letters (HM, HRH etc) are omitted from the article (sensibly, in my view) except in the Islamic Monarchies section, which has a whole rash of them.

Agreed and fixed Sotakeit (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Section and sub-section headings should be in sentence case, not title case (see the Manual of Style), and so "Islamic Monarchies" should be "Islamic monarchies", and "Morganatic Marriage" should be "Morganatic marriage". Not sure about the third and fourth words of "Medieval and Early Modern Europe".

Agreed and fixed Sotakeit (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• References
  • Too many statements lack citations:
    • Medieval and Early Modern Europe para 3. fixed Sotakeit (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
    • List of Ancient Roman examples, each line of which needs a citation here. fixed Sotakeit (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thailand, paras 2 and 3 (which, by the way, I think you could combine to avoid stubby layout)
    • Africa – Solomonic descent and Umar Tali Fixed Sotakeit (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Islamic Monarchies – throughout apart from the last item on the list.Fixed Sotakeit (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Morganatic Marriage – last sentence of opening para, and all items on the list fixed
    • Inbreeding - Jean V of Armagnac: no evidence etc. fixedSotakeit (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Post WWI era – almost all items on the various lists fixed Sotakeit (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no hard and fast rule about this, and I know some editors disagree with me, but I find it helpful to our readers to distinguish between the references we want them to look at and the ones that just give citations (which the casual reader can safely ignore). Thus note 36, which contains useful additional information, should, in my view, appear in a separate section from the lists of citations. You can see an example of this layout here. agreed and fixed Sotakeit (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You include ISBNS for some books but not for others. For books too old to have ISBNs you should add OCLC numbers. WorldCat will oblige. fixed Sotakeit (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Access dates not always given for website refs, e.g. refs 29 and 30.
  • Format of retrieval dates is inconsistent: sometimes "Retrieved…" and sometimes "(retrieved…"
  • I have no idea what ref 18 is meant to convey. fixed Sotakeit (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Foreign language refs: be consistent in naming the language: compare the wording of refs 6, 38 and 40: respectively no language mentioned, "(French)" and "(in Spanish)". fixed Sotakeit (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref 28 – not sure why the editor has his given name before his surname, unlike other authors in the list.

I hope these few quibbles are of use. It is an interesting and well-constructed article, and has the potential to be a good GA candidate, I'd say. Tim riley talk 09:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'm working my way through your suggestions. Most of the issues with reference formatting seem to be because I've used "{{cite book|", "{{cite journal|" formatting, and some of the older references left over from before I started editing the article aren't formatted like this. Similar situation with the ISBNs. I'll definitely make an attempt at getting around to reformatting them! Sotakeit (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I strongly recommend cutting the "In fiction" section: it's nothing more than trivia in my opinion. It's wholly reliant on primary sources, whereas notability guidelines indicate that this sort of material should only be included when secondary sources comment on it. DrKiernan (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. Removed. Thanks, User:DrKiernan! Sotakeit (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what the criteria for inclusion of examples, but there are a number of examples one can draw on from the Byzantine period. One example would be the marriage of Andronikos II Palaiologos to Irene of Montferrat, which led to conflict in the later years of Andronikos' reign as she struggled for a share of the empire for her own children's inheritance. (See Donald Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantintium 1261-1453 for further details.) There is also the political tactics of the Grand Komnenos, the rulers of the Empire of Trebizond who were known for the diplomatic tactic of marrying their daughters to the Emirs & Sultans of neighboring Muslim monarchies. The best examples of rulers who did this were Alexios III Megas Komnenos & John IV Megas Komnenos. (I'm currently at work expanding on the last two articles, & compiling information on the women involved, such as Theodora Megale Komnene, who became the wife of Uzun Hassan. A bit of trivia is that thru her the rulers of Persia descended from Ismail I could trace ancestry from one dynasty of the Byzantine Emperors, making the Tsars of Russia their distant relatives.) -- llywrch (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Great idea Llywrch. Maybe you could be of some help regarding where to place the section? Is it Asia or Europe? Sotakeit (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Palaiolgoi & Komnenoi families fall into that debatable grey area where they could be considered either European or Asian -- or both. I'll see what I can add to the article. (BTW, I think there were earlier examples of Imperial Byzantine families marrying into other royal dynasties, but I can't recall any off the top of my head. -- llywrch (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Vanajan Autotehdas

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have built this article little by little by using the best available sources. Any advice how to further improve it? The target is Featured Article status.

As English is not my native language the text may contain typos and obscure sentences which you are more than welcome to fix.

Cheers, Gwafton (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Bot review Bot review comments copied from this page. My comments below in Italic. --Gwafton (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 35 mm, use 35 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 35 mm.^[?]

Fixed. Please edit or tell me if you spot any places where the non-breaking space should be applied.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]

Repeated only where it is relevant.

• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]

In my opinion it is good as it is but I am also open for other views and ideas.

• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]

I'd prefer avoid of splitting, I don't know how to outline a split-off article.

• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)

There are some redundancies due to the structure but I am open to suggestions.

• • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”

I think the ones which are here are for a reason but I am ready to change my mind if someone can tell me why any of the remaining are disturbing him/her.

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

Seems to match pretty much – but no article is so good that it couldn't be better.

--Gwafton (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Royal baccarat scandal

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The royal baccarat scandal, or Tranby Croft Affair, is one of those particularly British scandals: royalty, high society, no sex, a pantomime villain and some of the finest sideburns seen in legal history. It involved allegations of cheating at a country house game of cards against a wealthy, respected soldier (and philanderer), some poor and shoddy footwork by royal advisers, and a court case at which the heir to the throne was forced to make an appearance. This has undergone a substantial (and occasionally painful) re-write recently and the aim is—if reviewers agree—to push for FA status. All and any constructive comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments

• Looking quickly at the images:

• Why is pretty much everything set to "upright"? These are line drawings; several are very hard to see at upright size
• The PNGs (except maybe the seating schemes) should really be JPG so that they display better in the article
• I will probably be playing with the images later, removing backgrounds etc.; I'll make the conversion to JPG at the time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the tweaks on these! - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Events running up to 8 September 1890 - why is this its own section?

• It separates out the dramatis personae from the events in question - an explanation of wht Tranby Croft, and a possible motive of jealousy for Edward's action. - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• the advice of the royal advisers who, - advice and advisers in such close repetition?
• and the prince was at his most unpopular for a time afterwards, although he did not regain his popularity for several years afterwards. - why two afterwardses?
• I've removed the street address, as it is not particularly pertinent here
• His extra-marital affairs were "carefully confined his serious attention to married women with compliant husbands" - was he married at the time?

• Yes, since '63. Is "extra-marital" enough to show this, or should I add something else? - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'd make it explicit (gives us a chance to link his wife). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Do we need a section on Wilson and his family? It's only a single paragraph. Why not merge it?

• I'm not sure where into. There are three separate groups involved: The prince/courtiers, the Wilsons and Gordon-Cumming. Some in the Wilson group were not regular visitors to the royal circle, so I think dealing with them separately would be an advantage. - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Link Hull?
• Section #Gambling and baccarat in 1890 feels really short and doesn't shed much light on the situation (also contradicts itself "illegal, then not illegal but questionable, then illegal")

• Thanks: I'll re-work this one a bit. I think the confusion comes from the unclear legal situation (and my writing too). - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• the Wilsons also invited Sykes, Lord Brooke and his wife Daisy, and Gordon-Cumming to attend, along with his equerry, Tywhitt Wilson and royal couriers Lord Coventry, Lord Edward Somerset, Captain Arthur Somerset—his cousin—and Lieutenant-General Owen Williams, along with their wives. - this list needs reworking, perhaps because of the several "ands"
• How much of #Events running up to 8 September 1890 is really necessary? The Brookes, for instance; does this need a whole paragraph? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think the Brookes are needed there: the prince found his mistress in the arms of G-C less than a week before the accusations. It could explain a lot about the prince's reaction to his friends problems. I'll trim a bit off the list of attendees (which would also clear up the problem above of too many "ands") and see above a little trimming here and there too. - SchroCat (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Edward's biographer, Jane Ridley, and the former Attorney General for England and Wales, Michael Havers, the lawyer Edward Grayson and the historian Peter Shankland, - This list is also a little odd
• Queen Victoria later wrote "The incredible and shameful thing is that others dragged him into it and urged him to sign this paper, which of course he should never have done". - who's he?
• the Jenks v. Turpin case - worth a redlink or an overview?
• On their advice, he obtained a written summary of the account from Coventry and Williams, and visited his commanding officer, Colonel Stacey, and informed him of the situation. - new paragraph, pronouns should be replaced by names
• Wontner and Sons or Wontner & Sons?
• the Judge Advocate General, - name?

• Unknown, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• According to the Judge Advocate article, William Thackeray Marriott. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Selling tickets... blast. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• All done so far, except where commented on, and except for two areas I need to address peoperly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• So wait, British courts at the time allowed juries to directly question witnesses?

• It seems so. I think they still can (although not directly: questions can be made through the judge, as far as I am aware). - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• the prince was followed into the witness box by Clarke's last witness, Williams. - I'm going to assume this is a metaphor, and suggest not using "followed"
• Sir William Gordon-Cumming - this has been bugging me; when was he knighted? His article doesn't even talk about it.

• He wasn't. The Sir comes as part of the title of a baronetcy (also with Bt. as post-nominals to differentiate from a Knt of the realm). Our own article isn't the best - I'm working on an upgrade! - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Heber Hart - Is the link to Wikisource a good idea? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Possibly not, but it's the best there is at the moment. Once I'm done working on the G-C article, I'll create one for Hart too.

Many thanks for all your help and thoughts on this: it's all very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto comments

Background

• Gordon-Cumming or Gordon Cumming? We currently have both.
• I'm never a fan of short sentences, such as here: " He was a personal friend of the Prince of Wales." Would it be possible to move this down to where we speak of the prince again so we have this "He was a personal friend of the Prince of Wales, and would lend the premises to the prince for assignations with his mistresses."
• I feel a brief explanation of what Tranby Croft is would help. I had to stop and flick up to the lede to find out what exactly it was.
• "he denied having has a sexual relationship" →" he denied having had a sexual relationship"
• "known as the Marlborough House set, named after the prince's home, Marlborough House" -- Marlborough House and Marlborough House, not necessary.
• "Others of the set", or in the set?
• "The set surrounding the prince was constituted of a mix of old titled families" -- redundancy of "surrounding the prince".
• "Wilson was the 52-year-old..." New para, new person, full introduction needed. I get the title of the subsection, but the prince was part of the title, and he was introduced fully; not to mention Gordon-Cumming before him.
• "...her husband, Edward Lycett Green was the some of the local manufacturer" son?

• All done up to date so far: many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay:

• "Godfrey Lushington stated that there was nothing in the court's judgment to that made baccarat illegal if not played for money." -- Is there a stray "to" in there?
• "...putting two card tables along with the smoking room table." →"putting two card tables alongside the smoking room table"?
• The sixth paragraph is rather long in comparison to the others. It make me feel like I'm looking at a rather steep hill.
• I love these Vanity Fair images!

• They're great, aren't they! Not mine, unfortunately - mine are the pen and ink drawings from the newspapers. - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Do we know the identity of the lady who informed him of the events at Tranby Croft?

• Nope, unfortunately. None of the sources let us know, and I suspect WG-C was rather discreet with her identity. - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• "On the advice of his solicitors Gordon-Cumming obtained a written summary of the account from Coventry and Williams, and visited his commanding officer, Colonel Stacey, and informed him of the situation." →"On the advice of his solicitors Gordon-Cumming obtained a written summary of the account from Coventry and Williams, and informed his commanding officer, Colonel Stacey, of the situation."?

More to come...Cassianto^talk 19:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks: all done up to now. - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• "After his opening speech, Clarke then questioned Gordon-Cumming for the remainder of the day." → "After his opening speech, Clarke questioned Gordon-Cumming for the remainder of the day." "Then" seemed a little redundant IMO.
• "After 20 minutes examination by both Clarke and Russell.." →"After a 20 minute examination by both Clarke and Russell..."
• "Under questioning she confirmed that she had seldom played baccarat before..." Would work better with "before" omitted. "Had" offers us the past tense here.

These are my offerings, adopt or disregard at your discretion. Bit of a Busman's holiday for me reading this, but wonderfully entertaining nonetheless. FA worthy for sure! Cassianto^talk 21:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

A handful of quibbles for starters. (Have tampered with your prose, too, which please check and revert ad lib.)

• Background
  • "a personal friend of the Prince of Wales" – as opposed to an impersonal one?
  • "for assignations with his mistresses" – the PoW's mistresses, no doubt, but this is theoretically ambiguous.
  • "Sir Charles Mordaunt, bt" – Bt not bt, but I'd lose it altogether
  • "wife had been unfaithful with three men" – I don't know what this says about me, but I have visions of four in a bed here. I keep trying to write an alternative, but I get too flustered. There's a limerick that ends "And the band at the Waldorf Astoria" that comes to mind.
  • "he was subpoenaed" – "Edward was subpoenaed"?
  • "His extra-marital affairs were "carefully confined his serious attention to married women with compliant husbands" – this needs redrawing into English. Simply removing "were" would work, but it could perhaps be tightened further.
    • I've dropped the "were" for the moment, but will return to it again to tweak further. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Enjoying this extravagantly. More tomorrow. – Tim riley talk 20:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• All done to date: many thanks indeed for your efforts so far! - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Second and concluding batch

• Edward, Prince of Wales, and the Marlborough House set (concl)
  • "prince's home on London's fashionable Pall Mall" – two things here. First, as we're in England not America it's in Pall Mall not on it. Secondly our article about the building says that it's in The Mall, rather than Pall Mall. It's both, of course, and the main entrance is off Pall Mall rather than The Mall, but you may want to consider whether "overlooking The Mall" might be a safer bet. En passant, I don't know that Pall Mall was "fashionable" in the 19th century – full of stuffy middle-class clubs like the Athenaeum and the Oxford and Cambridge. Its fashionable days (Nell Gwynn lived at No 79, and I worked at No 78 shortly afterwards) were long gone.
    • Did you meet her often, while you were there...? SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
• Arthur Wilson and family
  • You don't, I think, mention anywhere which county Tranby Croft is in. (You don't mention John Le Mesurier, either, which shows commendable restraint.)
• Events of 8–11 September
  • "Stanley Wilson and both Somersets met with Coventry" – you can meet with abstract things like disaster, approval etc but you just meet Coventry and other corporeal things.
  • "to the former Attorney General for England and Wales, Michael Havers" – he was indeed once Attorney General, but he later held the top legal post of all – Lord Chancellor – before the book came out, if I have my dates right.
• The news leaks out: the path to the High Court
  • "he again wrote to the Williams" – "to Williams"?
  • "from the general" – I'd lose these three words
  • "…informed him of the situation. Stacey informed…" – "told" the second time, perhaps?
  • "Sir Redvers Buller – the Sir isn't included in the piping as it is (rightly, in my view) with other knights throughout the article
• Trial
  • General comment: Asquith seems to have a hefty share of the action for a junior. Do the sources comment on this, e.g. why Russell delegated so much important examination to him?
    • Sadly not: there is just a reference to what he would later become. - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Italicisation and piping: "The Pall Mall Gazette – but The Manchester Guardian in the next para. Opinions differ on which style is preferable. Brian B prefers the first, I think, and I the second, but consistency either way is probably desirable.
  • "the charges appeared to be so unanimous…" this is the second time you've used this quote. Perhaps paraphrase it the first time and keep the direct speech for here?
  • "the Morning Advertiser" – as with the Pall Mall Gazette, above
  • "the Daily Chronicle" – ditto
• Aftermath
  • It may just be my ageing eyes, but I could do with having both the images in this section at a larger size.
• Lead (left till last, more meo)
  • "English" - surely linking this is WP:OVERLINK?
  • "involving the future King Edward VII" – perhaps "involving the Prince of Wales (the future King Edward VII)"?
  • "a close personal friend of the prince" – another "personal" friend. And were they that close by now? You tell us later that the friendship was soured when Edward found Daisy Brooke with Gordon-Cumming on 6 September.
  • "although he did not regain his popularity for several years later" – shouldn't "although" be "and" here? And do you need these words anyway? They are implied in "was at his most unpopular for a time afterwards".
  • Image: the caption looks a bit odd. "Partygoers" suggests people going to an evening's knees-up. Perhaps just "The house party …"?

That's all from me. I greatly enjoyed this article, which has FA written all over it. – Tim riley talk 10:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

All done, as per your suggestions: many thanks indeed for all your efforts! - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from BB

First half of my review of this juicy affair:

Lead

• The multiple repetition of "scandal" in the first line should be avoided. The affair is often referred to as the Tranby Croft affair – the title of H.S. Green's book on the scandal (not used as a source), so the middle "scandal" in the intro could justifiably be changed.
• "The secret was not kept for long, and Gordon-Cumming demanded a retraction from the family." This is a little cryptic. I assume you mean the Wilson family, and that someone of that family spilled the beans, but this should be made clear.
• "Called among the witnesses was the prince..." – an almost poetic construction, but reads rsther oddly, I'd prefer the straightforward "The prince was called as a witness..."
• "Despite a strong and well-regarded closing speech for the plaintiff..." Not all your readers will identify the legal term "plaintiff" with Gordon-Cumming, and it is not clear from your wording who made the speech.
• You state that the judge's summing up was an "instruction" to the jury to find against Gordon-Cumming. Did he actually instruct them thus? From the article text, this does not seem to be quite the case (more, I think, a matter of the Cantley syndrome), so I suggest you summarise the judge's bias a little more circumspectly.

Edward, Prince of Wales, and the Marlborough House set

• "and could not claim to be inexperienced in dealing with scandal" – rather convoluted, double negative etc. Also, the issue is his past involvement in scandals, rather than in "dealing" with them. I suggest: "and had a history of association with scandals".
• "Three years later, in April 1869, Sir Charles Mordaunt (1836–1897) learnt that his wife had three separate affairs, including the heir to the throne." Not quite grammatical as it stands. We need the past perfect tense ("his wife had had..."). The last part should read "and that her lovers included the heir to the throne".
• The second paragraph is rather overdetailed; adultery is not the issue in Tranby Croft. We can cover the prince's adulterous tendencies more briefly, I feel.
• "Others of the set followed the prince's example and also conducted affairs; because of the adulterous behaviour, "Marlborough House ... became a byword for louche morals". I'd consider dropping this sentence, since it harks back to the well-trodden grounds of adultery.
• "The set was constituted of..." → "The set contained..." (or maybe "comprised")

Gambling and baccarat in 1890

• "...there was nothing in the court's judgment to that made baccarat illegal if not played for money." I suspect that the word "to" is an intruder.

Events running up to 8 September 1890

• I wonder if this brief section really deserves a level-2 section heading? It doesn't really deal with "events"; I'd be inclined to slip it in as a preamble to the following main section.

• As you're the second to pick up on this (following Crisco), I've dropped it down and tweaked the headings (and levels). Does this look logical and OK to you? - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Among the original attendees..." – as they didn't attend, they weren't "attendees". Thus: "Among those originally invited were..."

Events of 8–11 September

• The seating plan for 8 September does not show Sassoon, who according to the text was the game's banker. Also, the chart shows Levett on Wilson's right, not left as per the text. And the caption says that this is the seating plan of the "left side" of the table – it looks like three sides to me.

• I'll check the positions (I think I have mixed up left and right in the text); the image shows the left tableau, with the right tableau continuing on past the blank side: left tableau refers to those to the left of the dealer (PoW). - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• In the text, "latter" is incorrect when referring to the last of three. Suggest "last-named"
• "There was some disagreement between the courtiers on whether to include the prince" – do you mean "involve the prince", or more simply, "tell the prince"?
• "According to the former Lord Chancellor, Michael Havers, the lawyer Edward Grayson and the historian Peter Shankland..." This is a very heavy-handed, and somewhat confusing attribution, naming and describing three joint authors. Attribution is necessary when a source gives a POV or a challengeable account of an event, but not when simply constructing the narrative – otherwise WP articles would become unreadable, with "according to..." prefacing virtually every sentence. In this case I think it would be perfectly OK to begin the sentence: "The two men told the prince..." (see also a later attribution to this trio)
• "he dismissed all except..." I assume; "the prince dismissed..." (not obvious at present)
• "who urged him to sign the document" – the document has not yet been established as an entity, so I would say "who urged him to sign a document that they had drafted"

Second half soon Brianboulton (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

All done, bar one, which I still have to check. Many thanks indeed for your thought so far. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's the rest

The news leaks out: the path to the High Court

• I question whether this section heading complies with MOS. We don't usually include the definite article; "The news leaks out" sounds like a chapter in a boys' adventure yarn. I tend to use all-purpose words/phrases like "Further developments" or just "Developments" and let the text tell the story – you might consider doing the same.
• "He replied to the prince to make a "final appeal..." → "He replied to the prince with a "final appeal..."
• (In footnote j): "address of a club to which he belonged" → "address of a club to which Gordon-Cumming belonged"
• "was informed by a lady" – can you be a bit more specific? If her name is not known, I suggest "a lady acquaintance"
• "informed his commanding officer": this is the first indication that G-C was an active serving officer. His military responsibilities seem to have been extraordinarily light, allowing him, it seems, to come and go at will (winters abroad big-game hunting, etc). Perhaps a footnote would be appropriate here, or maybe earlier, clarifying his precise military status during these years.

• Unfortunately there is nothing in any of the sources. I suspect he was probably on half-pay, as many gentlemen officers were between engagements, but I can't find anything to back this up, or any other explanation of his status. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• I thought he might be on half-pay, i.e. inactive, but in the article you say that Stacey "requested permission to let Gordon-Cumming retire on half-pay", which suggests that he wasn't. Presumably, rich and well-connected regimental officers in Victoria's army were given lots of leeway when they had "done their bit", as G-C had in the Sudan. With no alternative explanation, we have to leave it there. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Edward's younger brother..." You normally refer to him as "the prince", and it won't be obvious to every reader who "Edward" is - I'd stick to "the prince"
• You shouldn't rely on the link to identify Asquith as the future Liberal PM
• "If Gordon-Cumming was tried by a military tribunal, then the rationale for a court case would disappear". The option of a military tribunal has not been raised in the article before. If this was discussed with Buller – as your next sentence seems to suggest – then I think the matter should be mentioned in the previous paragraph. But I'm curious to know why "the rationale for a [civil] court case would disappear"; if the tribunal found for G-C, surely he would still be after the Wilsons et al for damages?
• "his court was converted to accommodate the case." More details, e.g. "enlarged to accommodate the many society spectators wishing to witness the case."

Trial

• "When cross-examined by Clarke he was not brow-beaten by the lawyer's arguments, although Clarke made him appear "brash, conceited and callow". This, I think, is a case where attribution is required, as the assertions are an individual's POV interpretation.
• I am finding rather an abundance of mdashes (almost on the level of F. Scott Fitzgerald – see Tender is the Night). I suggest that you audit these; you may find that quite a few can be replaced by standard punctuation. Sample problem sentence: "At points in the examination by Asquith, Lycett Green contradicted the course of events outlined by Stanley Wilson—which Levett had also done—and on one point regarding a question the prince put to Levett—his answer was 'highly suspect' ".

• Ive done tweaks here and there, but to be fair, some of them are in direct quotes! - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Mrs Wilson lied" - direct, emotive accusations should be avoided. Suggest: "Mrs Wilson stated that only her husband had placed such an amount, but Wilson had not played on either night as he disliked both the game and high-stakes gambling." The "lies" accusation can be properly left to the quote.

Aftermath

• "Clarke remained convinced in his client..." You can't be "convinced in" someone; perhaps "retained faith in his client"?
• "Most biographies of Edward VII contain details of the scandal, but in 1932 the first book to cover the scandal was published; Teignmouth Shore's account, The Baccarat Case, was published in the Notable British Trials series, consisting in part of a full transcript of the case." This is an awfully convoluted and over-extended sentence. Here is my effort to rationalise it: "Most biographies of Edward VII contain some details of the scandal, but the first book to cover it in detail did not appear until 1932. This was Teignmouth Shore's The Baccarat Case, published in the Notable British Trials series and incorporating a full transcript of the case."

That concludes my comments, which I hope you find useful. This looks like a worthy addition to the sub-genre of scandals that is gradually polluting the fragrant FAC atmosphere, and I look forward to seeing it there in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

All covered, I think. As always I am deeply indebted to you for your thoughts and comments. - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

E.S. Blofeld comments

Lede

• Tranby Croft, in Yorkshire...
• "They refused and he filed a writ for slander. " -do we know when?
• "The case was heard " -where?
• "Gordon-Cumming was dismissed from the army the following day," I think somewhere you might add a sentence or so mentioning his background to put it in context, without of course getting off the subject. perhaps earlier where you say lieutenant colonel replace with "a decorated lieutenant colonel in the Scots Guards".
• "two fictionalised accounts of the events." -such as? If not particularly notable don't worry.

Background

• I think it might be useful to link Gordon-Cumming again in the photo caption.
• "At the time of the events at the country home Tranby Croft", in Yorkshire..
• "Also" is repeated a fair bit, you might remove also from "Gordon-Cumming was also a womaniser".

Edward

• Can you link subpoenaed for those of us unfamiliar with the term?

Trial

Admittedly I find this a lot to digest, a lot of quotes, if anything a bit too much detail for me to read comfortably. Perhaps you could trim some of it and paraphrase some of the quotes to improve flow? Just a suggestion.

Thanks Doc: all done with the exception of the trial, which I want to take a bit of time to re-work properly. It's the area where I struggled most in writing for one reason or another, so I want a clear run at it for a re-write. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt, hopefully not too hung over

Very good and compelling. I spotted a few minor prose issues on my first read through, but I imagine my colleagues will tell you of some of them and they will be fixed. Here's my start:

Lede

• "a game that had questionable legality in Britain at the time." Is this really worth including in the first paragraph? There's little that is mentioned in the article as reaction to baccarat being of questionable legality, and much about whether there was cheating going on
• "were his two advisers" the body mentions that the prince had more than just the two advisers. Suggest striking word "his".
• "Stanley Wilson to be illegally adding to his stake" is this intended to be Wilson's opinion, or fact? Similarly, "observed acting" I might say "seen to be acting" which is a bit more ambiguous. After all, we do not know whether or not he was guilty.
• "who he considered to blame" for divulging it, or similar, as they were certainly sued.
• The legal sequence of events in the lede seems a bit muddled. Perhaps, "They refused and he filed a writ for slander. Despite the efforts of the prince's courtiers to have the matter dealt with by a military court [pipe to court martial?], the case was heard in June 1891. The atmosphere at trial was described as like a theatre, and the prince was called as a witness, the first time the heir to the throne was compelled to appear in court since 1411." and go on from there. But is the last bit actually true? What about the Mordaunt case?

• He went willingly(ish) into the box for Mordaunt after he'd been told that there was a legal requirement for him to do so (only the queen can turn down the invitation); this was one that he tried to wriggle out of desperately! - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• More later, though it may be a couple of days what with one thing and another.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks for popping over for comment—much obliged! I've followed all your suggestions, and look forward to reading any further thoughts you have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Resuming. Sorry if anything I write is unconnected with reality, dealing from a copy of the article downloaded Friday.

Sir etc

• "In addition to ..." I would strike "his" in the first part of the sentence (you haven't mentioned them yet), "also" in the second part, and change "the premises" to "it". I would also suggest striking "the" before "royal mistresses". This is stylistic and you may prefer your own way.
• What was Sir Gordon's marital status?

Edward

• Rather than the 1866 scandal, which is a bit obscure, or in addition thereto, would it not be better to mention the 1861 assignation with an Irish woman that Victoria always believed caused Albert's death? After all, neither is particularly germane to the Tranby Croft incident (my acquaintance with was through one of Edward's bios and the Flashman novelette) but sets forth these elements of his character.

• I had toyed with the idea of his time in Ireland, but that was a low key, private incident in his life, rather than the high-profile Mordaunt one: I plumped for the later incident both for the public angle, but also the court appearance. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• I see at least one reference to "the Prince" (in brackets) though you more usually call him "the prince". You also abandon calling him Edward which I think is not the best course for reasons I will set forth later. (I know it is properly "Albert Edward" but I agree that the reader should not be confused).
• As an aside, I don't recall Victoria's conduct in the 1860s being too popular either, once sympathy began to wear off.
• "he carried" perhaps, "he brought"? I doubt he carried it personally.
• I would also mention the prince's marital status. I suppose it is implied in a way through his son George, but people might think poor Alex was dead rather than deaf.
• " the banker—and member of the Sassoon family—Reuben Sassoon." perhaps "Reuben Sassoon, a member of the well-known banking family.
• "to include the new industrialists such as Arthur Wilson." I would strike "the". As an alternative, this whole lengthy description of the prince's set can probably be boiled down to "old and new money".

Visit

• The subsection title seems overly wordy. What about "Preliminary events"?
• "After Sykes ran into financial difficulties he was unable to host the prince, " Perhaps "Sykes had run into financial difficulties and could not afford to host the prince" (as an aside, that was how Elizabeth I would ruin her enemies--come for an extended visit)

Events of 8-11 etc.

• Is it worth at some point giving the reader a brief summary of the rules of baccarat? They are simple enough after all. Or at least the relevant ones.
• "after this happened a second time" This may give more of the authoritative voice behind the allegation that Gordon-Cumming was cheating than perhaps you intend.
• "seats; seating at either of them" Perhaps to avoid the repetition, "... seats. At either of them, Gordon-Cumming would be surrounded by members of the ..." etc.
• " two night's play " This is not my strongest point in British English, but would it be "two nights' play"
• "died unexpectedly that night in Hull; although she and her husband did not attend the races that day," Was the racing that day or the following day? After all, if it was unexpected, they would have had no reason to refrain until the death, I imagine, which argues for the latter.
• "investigated the situation more closely" such as?
• "—and convincing him of Gordon-Cumming's guilt—" surely surplusage based on what has already been said in the paragraph?
• "The courtiers took the document to the prince" the phrase "the prince" occurs four times in this paragraph, one reason for breaking it up with a salting of Edwards.

Developments

• "He replied to the prince with" as it is unclear if the prince wrote the letter, perhaps, "Gordon-Cumming then wrote to Edward with ..."
• " the letter went unanswered from either the prince or courtiers" perhaps pithier with "it went unanswered by prince and courtiers".
• What happened at Newmarket? If nothing relevant, would it not be better to excise that from the quote?
• "a written summary of the account " of the account or the events?
• "although opinion was divided" perhaps "and opinion was divided ..." or "finding opinion divided"
• "even after his brother requested further action" I'm not clear what action the duke had already taken. Perhaps advice?
• "a military tribunal" given the touchy nature of the phrase today, can some phrase like "court martial" be used?

• I'm a little nervous about referring to the tribunal as a court martial, which would mean a breach of military discipline, rather than the civil legal code (I think!) The sources do not make it terribly clear, which doesn't help too much either. - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• "the Queen's secretary," you call her "the queen" earlier
• "Wontners confirming that civil action was taking place" the use of "civil action" twice in one sentence seems unnecessary. Can one (likely the second) be changed to "such a case" or similar?
• "the members rejected the opportunity," I doubt they saw it as an opportunity. Really, it looks like everyone was running for cover, except the civil courts which could not avoid it. Suggest an alternative phrasing.
• The location of the trial (the Royal Courts of Justice, perhaps) should be stated either in this subsection, or early in the following one.

Trial

• Unless the Punch drawing was intended to be an accurate depiction, you may want to throw in a "satirical" before "Punch". It must be: my knowledge of English law is idiosyncratic, but surely there would not have been an actual dock in a civil matter?
• Regarding the prose depicting the way the court appears, I think there are too many quotes, and that the reader can get the point with one or two less, certainly the Shore quote can be safely spared, as it is just an agreement with the previous one.
• Can anything be said about the substance of Gordon-Cumming's testimony, as elicited by his counsel?
• I would strike "(incriminating)". The reader has been told of the profound effect that had on Gordon-Cumming's military career.
• "two direct questions to the prince" What does "direct" add?
• " In comparison with Gordon-Cumming's time in the witness box, the prince" technically, the comparison is being made between "time in the witness box" and "the prince", that is, an interval of time and a person.
• "Gordon-Cumming returned to the witness-box" this seems to be the only usage with a hyphen
• "he was not brow-beaten by the lawyer's arguments" at least technically, the lawyer would not have made arguments during the testimony, though undoubtedly he would have made his views clear. Perhaps "questions" for "arguments"?
• "Although he had not played on the first night, Clarke considered him a potentially dangerous witness, as he may have held vital evidence." perhaps "Lycett Green" for "he" at the start, and the last part to "as he might have vital evidence."
• It's unclear to me if Mrs Lycett Green alleged that she had seen Gordon-Cumming cheat or not.
• "referring to Lycett as" This as far as I can tell is the first and only time you refer to him simply as "Lycett"
• Can the Hart quote be developed? It's the first time there is really a hint that there might be repercussions to counsel for, basically, opposing the prince (and the queen). Might want a footnote as to whether Clarke in fact did suffer such repercussions, or whether, as Solicitor-General, he was too prominent for such things? Did he ever thereafter receive any sort of honour that had to be approved by monarchy?
• Russell gave a summing-up, Coleridge gave a summing up.

Aftermath

• " the death of the prince" this was my other objection to the lack of "Edward"s, given that he was King at the time. Perhaps "Edward's death in 1910".
• "Teignmouth Shore's The Baccarat Case," italics?

Footnotes

• fn b: the figure in acres should be converted to hectares as well. Please check for other English system units not converted
• fn c: "the key to Tranby Court". Again, I don't have impression that people cared about the illegality of baccarat, but about whether cheating went on. After all, there was never any question but that Gordon-Cumming had played baccarat, but that wasn't what got him dismissed from the Army.

Good job. Looking forward to the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic: thanks very much, and a lot to get my teeth into. I've addressed a number of the comments already, with some of the others still to come, once it get back to my books in a couple of days. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Late-to-the-party comments from Bencherlite

Looking at the legal sections and not having looked at the above comments:

• "Lewis briefed Sir Charles Russell to act as the counsel for the defence" - I think the "the" is unnecessary here
• The article says that "After his opening speech, Clarke then questioned Gordon-Cumming for the remainder of the day", which makes me think that we then start the next paragraph at the start of day two. But in fact we have a "brief adjournment" and then the beginning of cross-examination, which runs into day two. (By the way, "the short adjournment" is legal code for "lunchtime", if that's what you're trying to paraphrase!)
• "After 20 minutes examination by both..." - should that be "20 minutes' examination"? I'm never sure... or "After 20 minutes of questions from both"
• Another timing issue - Gordon-Cumming is in the witness box until lunch on day 2; then Edward follows; then the court adjourns for lunch - have we gone into day 3 (looking later, I see we haven't) or are there two lunches or is there a bit of disagreement between sources here...?

Otherwise the legal bits look OK to me. A ripping yarn and I'm not surprised Flashman makes an appearance! Bencherlite^Talk 20:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed for casting an eye over: I've done the easy couple and will go back to the sources to clarify the other two. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The second two points now addressed: it was my clumsy reading and prose that was the issue on both points, which should now be much clearer. Many thanks once again. - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Many thanks to the stellar cast who turned up to review: I'm deeply thankful for all your advice and assistance. - SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Gynecomastia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm working on getting it up to GA status and would like some feedback/ideas on how to further improve it. I feel the article would benefit from some fresh eyes looking over the article.

Thanks, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What this really needs is someone with access to uptodate or dynamed comparing it with the information there. I can do it one weekday next week if I get time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I can access UTD, but not Dynamed. Still, I feel the article would benefit from fresh eyes though I'll give the UTD article a read too in order to see how they compare. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Oxford English Dictionary

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I submitted it as a Featured Article Candidate and the consensus was that my nomination was premature — the article is good, but as-yet not Featured Article standard because of issues with copy, structure, and referencing (as regards the last, I’m fairly sure I can provide a citation for any claim in the article, and that the main thing that needs doing is adding the ref tags in appropriate places referring to existing sources).

DavidPKendal (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Timeline of plesiosaur research

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

... I'd like to get this up to Featured List status eventually and would like general feedback before I nominate it. Also, I plan on creating more timelines of the history of various paleontology subfields and would like to have feedback before I do to start off on the right foot.

Thanks, Abyssal (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 Doing...

Comments

• It would be helpful to state the period when the plesiosaurs lived in the first para.
• The second para switches back and forth between locomotion and birth. I think it would be better to split it into one para on each, finishing with current opionion.
• I think you need to explain that plesiosaur is a order and say a few words about its number of genuses and species.
• You give the date the first plesiosaur species was named, but not the order itself.
• drew a piece called "Duria Antiquior" - piece seems an odd word to use here.
• Sir Richard Owen formally named the pliosaurs. A few words explaining that they are a suborder would be helpful.
• The "surgeon's photograph" of the Loch Ness monster was hoaxed. I don't think that you can use hoax as a verb without an object. Perhaps "The hoax "surgeon's photograph" of the Loch Ness monster was published."
• Michael Taylor published a paper concluding that plesiosaurs would have been capable of moving on land after all - I would leave out 'after all'.
• Robinson publishes follow up research to her previous publication on plesiosaur locomotion.[9] This second paper notably concluded that plesiosaurs were incapable of leaving the water. You need to be consistent on tense - published not publishes. Also notably may be criticised as POV.
• Tarsitano and Riess published a paper harshly critical of Robsinson's previous work on plesiosaur locomotion - typo in name and word previous is superfluous.
• Note: the usual convention is that someone is first mentioned with their full name and thereafter with their surname only.
• Long[disambiguation needed] - you need to check this.
• The number of red links seems too high. If I remember correctly an FL should have minimal red links.
• I am not an expert on citations but your style looks wrong to me. The author usually comes first and I do not think chapters are needed when a book is all by the same author. I would just have e.g. Ellis (2003), page 3.
• A good article but I think it needs more work. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  

---

Vanna Bonta

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have spent weeks on it and it represents a great deal of research. The article has multiple contributors, so I know it still needs some tweaking, but I would like the best direction possible on how to do that.

Thanks, --15:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Georgiasouthernlynn (talk)

---

{{|page=WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Sleeping Dogs (video game)|date=2014-06-11T17:46:13Z }}

---

School bus

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because as with the purpose of peer review, this article needs additional opinions and consideration to move on. For the most part, the article has remained fairly stagnant over the past couple of years and could benefit from outside help.

Thanks, SteveCof00 ^{"suggestion box"} 09:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a challenging article – the topic is large and difficult to outline, it might easily grow too large and it is difficult to compress it without making it too generic. Here are few improvement ideas which came to my mind:

• More inline citations (as pointed out in few places).
• The comments see article in the infobox don't help information seeking readers too much as the article is very large. It is very difficult to spot the right pieces of information in it. I have solved the problem with links as in this article and find it quite practical. I don't know if the practice follows Wikipedia style guidelines though.

I hope you find my comments helpful. --Gwafton (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

---

New Year's Eve in London

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like any views and/or opinions on what may be required in order to improve this article to good article and potentially featured article status.

Thanks, Wes Mᴥuse 14:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• The article has a tone of uncertainty and an ambiguous scope. For example, the first sentence says "...is usually celebrated around the area of the River Thames..." but the body of the article doesn't mention anywhere else it is celebrated. Is this article about an organized annual event (if so, who is organizing and paying for it?) or general celebrations in London (if so, the article suffers from recentism)? There are short quick sentences with no explanation, like "Also, there was no fireworks display for 2001-02 and 2002-03." (no reasons provided? was no event hosted there or was there a gathering with fireworks?) maclean (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh heck, I hadn't noticed someone started the peer review, there was no notices on my talk page to alert me. I shall reword the first sentence and remove the word "usually". From knowledge, I am aware that the celebrations use to be held in a different part of London, but nowadays tend to be held along the Embankment of the Thames. Indeed it is an annual event organized by the Mayor of London. I appreciate the time you have taken to review the article, I and will work more on improving the article to a higher quality. Regards, Wes Mᴥuse 17:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Bikini

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A lot of work has gone into this article. It kept expanding and eventually three new spin-off articles were created - History of the bikini (a good article), Bikini in popular culture and Bikini variants. The popular culture article split its own spin-offs into Category:Individual bikinis. The variants article in turn split into specific articles for Monokini and Tankini. Work has gone into other related article as well, like Thong (clothing) and Bikini waxing.

The mother article is also one of the older articles of the Wikipedia. It was created on Novemeber 1, 2001, One day after Japan. That was before Abraham Lincoln (Nov 4), France (Nov 4) and California (Nov 17) were created on Wikipedia. (courtesy: TonyTheTiger) If you search for Bikini using google the first return is this article. Page visitation reached its highest in 2011, and the highest number of visitors come from India, Mexico and Spain.

I believe the time has come to give it serious improvement drive to take it to a GA, even an FA level. Please check it for everything that you want - copy, layout, citation, structure... anything.

Thanks, Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

In response to your query, I see lots of editorial activity since Talk:Bikini/GA1. Given my extensive suggestions already, I think you should get fresh eyes on the article so I will decline the PR and a GA2. If you get to a point where you think it is a suitable FAC nominee, I will make some comments.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope I have managed address all considerations you raised. Will take another look still. Anyone else interested to do a review? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Review by ResMar

A well-written piece that's probably one of our more closely studied articles, courtesy of the male gaze.

General

• Reference formatting is a chore of chores, but it's still going to be necessary for this article, in particular for those references which seem to be deadlinks.

Etymology

• What makes the lexicon humorous? Seems like standard marketingspeak to me, though I may be too cynical.

Cynicism removed.

In antiquity

• You should make it more explicit in your opening sentence that the two-piece swimsuit predates the bikini.
• What about the two-piece swimsuit can be traced to Çatalhöyük?

Çatalhöyük included.

You're still not telling me what about it can be traced there. ResMar 03:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Çatalhöyük and Greco-Roman world elaborated.

• Where is/was the Roman villa?

Location included.

• You explicitly mention these pieces as bikinis throughout this section, yet your very next section is titled "Bikini Precursors".

See next section.

Bikini precursors

• You immediately jump from Rome to the 1920s; what happened to swimwear in the years between? I think you could do with some reference to the enforcement of female modesty on the beach up through the Victorian era, even if it has to be curt.

The intervening period included.

• Was the spread of those dastardly bare midriffs as a result of wartime shortages what standardized or legitimatized that feature?

fabric rationing included.

I don't see what I'm looking for: was the reduction in fabric used as a result of the a wartime mandate what legitimized the bare midriff, or was it merely the conclusion of a shift that been slowly developing up to that point?

No causality, only corelation.

This is good enough for a GAN but know that if you want to take this to FAC afterwards you're going to be asked to elaborate. ResMar

• "In the 1920s swimsuits began to be fashioned from burlap." Why?

Removed.

The modern bikini

• What had led Réard to take up the lingerie business?
• Are any more details available on why he was unable to find a model? Connect the dots—don't leave the reader interpolating.

Reason included.

• Perhaps "that bikini design" would be a better choice than "that bikini".

Done.

• What do you mean by "was introduced"?

Introduced > invented.

• Any details about why it was a hit amongst the men in particular? Again, best not to leave the reader guessing. Heh.

Rewritten the senescence for clarity.

• Can you be more explicit about whose design ended up where first, and what the relationship between the two was?

Time of invention included.

• Just wanted to say that this is a gem of a sentence:

In advertisements he kept the bikini alive by declaring that a two-piece wasn't a genuine bikini "unless it could be pulled through a wedding ring."

• The London Times piece is probably too far gone—nine years after the other reactions—to be of much use. It should be included in the following section instead.

Removed as unnecessary.

• In June 14, 1948 Newsweek wrote about a "1948 countertrend against the skimpy bikini style... which swept French beaches and beauty contests last year. This belongs in the next section.

Social resistance

• What is the significance of Cole of California?

Qualification given.

• "One writer" for who?

Oh my god! That one writer was the inventor himself.

Heh.

• "a crowning that was condemned by the Pope." I'd move this to the "History" subarticle.

Already there in the history article.

• "The bikini was banned..." I'd change "banned" to "explicitly banned", as I'm sure there was social resistance to their introduction even without a hard nay.

Is that necessary? None of the sources say "explicitly".

From the context I think it's clear that the bikini was implicitly a no-no in numerous other, similar festivals long before its inclusion in this one caused a ruckus. It's not necessary to include "explicitly", but it would be better to do so as it conveys more information in the sentence. However, if you feel that this is too great a leap, feel free to remove it. ResMar

• "remained prohibited" from when?
• What is the "National Legion of Decency"?
• till > until

Edited out.

• "...G-string..." Wait, this predates the bikini?

Yes:

• Beadle, John Hanson (1877). Western Wilds, and the Men Who Redeem Them: An Authentic Narrative. p. 249.
• Rachel Shteir (1 November 2004). Striptease:The Untold History of the Girlie Show: The Untold History of the Girlie Show. Oxford University Press. p. 202. ISBN 978-0-19-512750-8. Retrieved 10 March 2013.

This might be a good point to make a note of, however I wouldn't do so unless there was one or two other points where this would be appropriate. ResMar

• published -> continued to publish.

Edited out.

• "...in the contest..." What contest?

Edited out.

Rise to popularity

• though a success --> though it was a success

Done.

• This first two sentences puts the cart before the horse, sequentially: you should reverse them or join them. At this point I'm going to stop bothering you with semantic nitpicks, and just go over them myself with an iron when I get around to copyediting.

Copy edited.

• and in "From Abba to Zoom: a pop culture encyclopedia of the late 20th century", David Mansour went so far as to describe the bikini as a "definitive looks of the 1960s". Please check your source again and see if it would be appropriate to subsume "a" or "the" into the quotation. Otherwise I don't know how strong the statement he is making is.

Just an FYI, but in the source listed, on that page, there is no quotation where Mansour describes the bikini as a "definitive looks of the 1960s" (on page 345). Please advise. JDanek007^Talk 20:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• In 2011, Time listed Welch's B.C. bikini in the "Top Ten Bikinis in Pop Culture". Elaborate on this sentence to include other famous bikinis that were included in the list, and (presumably) in the "see also" box attached to this section.
• Marilyn Monroe's polka dot bikini does not appear to have its own article. I'm inclined to remove it from the listing of famous individual bikinis for this reason. If you can find some further sources on this I'd wager you'd be able to make a very popular DYK out of it, in fact.
• <ref>[http://idiva.com/news-entertainment/sharmila-tagore-actresses-today-can-drink-smoke-and-live-in/20034 Sharmila Tagore], First Indian actress to wear bikini</ref> You need to format this reference.
• The costume shocked the conservative Indian audience... Do you mean that it shocked the conservative members of the audience, or that the Indian audience was so conservative that it shocked a conservative audience? Format this sentence with one of these signal words to make this distinction clearer.
• The last reference for this section is a deadlink.

Bikini variants

• The focus of the image used in this section is the statute, not the storefront: I recommend you use another image, even though I personally find this one quite humorous. Encyclopedias are Serious Business^TM, after all.

There are two other options (storefront with different styles of bikini, from commons) - File:Holt Renfrew Bikinis.jpg and File:Colour Bikinis.jpg

The first photo is too busy; the second one would be perfect if it wasn't for the balloon and perhaps the color filter (not sure if that adds to or detracts from the focus of the image). I'll leave this and come back to it later, it might be necessary to go on an image hunt to find a clean storefront to place into the article. ResMar

• "A topless swimsuit may still be considered a bikini." ...by who...

That definitely would be a monokini. Not really relevant. Edited out.

• Modern bikini fashions are characterized by a simple, brief design: two triangles of fabric that form a bra and cover the woman's breasts and a third that forms a panty cut below the navel... I've changed the language of this sentence by calling the panties a single piece of fabric. I believe that this is more correct, as it's a continuous piece of fabric, but I'm double checking here because I'm not entirely sure how the counting here is done—perhaps two cuts of fabric that are then linked?

Typical modern day bikini bottoms are two cuts/pieces of fabric joined w/ a crotch-area seam oriented towards more towards the "rear" than the front of the crotch-covering section of the combined piece of fabric - does that make sense? JDanek007^Talk 20:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• The reference at the end of the first paragraph is marked as dubious, but it's easily replaceable.
• The use of cotton made the swimsuit more practical... When was cotton introduced? I've changed "made" to "makes" in the meantime; if you have a year or set of years you can use, change the sentence to "The introduction of cotton in...made the swimsuit..."
• ...miniminis, slingshot, tie-side and teardrop... What are these? They don't fit the format of the rest of the list.
• ...and daring, navel-baring cutouts. "Daring" isn't a word to be used outside of quotations when on Official Encyclopedia Business^TM.
• The description of the bandeaukini mentions that the Bikini Girls mentioned much earlier in the article are depicted wearing this style. I've added this information into that section with parens, but I think this information would be better included in the form of a note.

Bikini underwear

• Swimwear evolved from weighty wool to high tech second skin... This sounds a bit too editorialized, I would consider removing this part of the sentence.
• The second paragraph in this section needs to be merged into the "History" subsection that comes after.

Sports bikini

• In the 2004 and 2008 Olympic Games, inclusion of bikini-clad athletes raised eyebrows. Whose eyebrows? What was the official response (was there one)?

Men's bikini

• I don't think the last two sentences of the first paragraph in this section are relevant.
• ...making them anatomical creations, cut and stitched to outline the body and its sexual characteristics. How so?

Bikini body

• In the 1960s etiquette writer Emily Post decreed that... Can we have a precise year?

Bikini waxing

• People who wax or shave their bikini areas face the risk of folliculitis, commonly caused by Staphylococcus aureus, an infection around the hair follicle,... Complete this sentence, this deserves a full paragraph as well.
• The "Bikini line" section should be merged into the rest of the section.

More comments forthcoming. ResMar 04:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Working on the feedback. Waiting for more. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Some more comments made. ResMar 03:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Issues addressed. Waiting for more. And, please, don't stop bothering with semantic nitpicks. The copy in there is bad. Trust me. I know. I wrote most of it. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I am going to try and knock out this whole article in one go tomorrow. Like Tony said in the GAN review: this article is in need of a large number of small things, and going through all of them on an article this long is going to take a lot of time. ResMar 02:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok I have completed the review. ResMar 18:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Note

Request: Please use only level-4 or higher subsections to subdivide the review. Use of level-2 or level-3 affects the WP:PR page. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Though the sub-head levels were already levels 4 and higher, and though I couldn't find any way it's affecting the WP:PR page, I am changing to header levels 5 and higher. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Puella Magi Madoka Magica

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's been a year since the last peer review, and since then, the article has reached B-class. Recently, Artichoker has been working a lot on the article, and as of late, it's one of the best written non-GA anime articles I've read. With his permission, and also because I'm one of the main contributors to the article, I'm requesting more feedback as to what else can be done, as the article is looking good for a possible GAN. Is the content good enough to be nominated for GA?

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for putting it up for peer review, Naruto. (can I call you that?) I would however like to reiterate that I don't think the article is quite ready for GAN yet. I'm still heavily working on the "Broadcast and distribution section", and the "Other media" section is still a mess. The reception section also needs major expansion, and a copyedit of the entire article will then be needed. Finally, I am a little concerned that the article relies too heavily on sources from Anime News Network (over sixty of the article sources are from that site, last I counted). If anyone can help me find more diverse sources for some information of the article (particularly for broadcast, other media, and sales/accolades) that would be extremely helpful. Artichoker^[talk] 15:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Here are my preliminary comments:

• Lead - looks good, at least 3 paragraphs or so
• Plot - covers every aspect of the series sufficiently
• Reception - agree that it needs to be expanded
• Sources - more diverse sources are needed per Artichoker, all dead citations must be replaced
• Other media - still has some issues as well

I hope this helps somewhat. I'll review it in more detail a bit later. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Reception is actually looking good, in my opinion. It's already longer than the reception on GA Shakugan no Shana at least, so probably this amount of reception could be good enough. As for sources, I agree that more sources other than Anime News Network are needed, but as ANN is essentially the main source of reliable anime information, that can't really be helped. Looking at Shana, many of its sources come from the Shana official website. Madoka could possibly do so as well, but its official website is structured differently in that its news page is a single continuous page and doesn't have individual pages. And finally, for other sources, could you suggest other possible sources to use, including Japanese sources? Finally, while neither Artichoker nor I are going to nominate the article for GA anytime soon, if the article were to have a GAN now, would it pass or not? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should use Comic Natalie, as well as interviews from the cast and crew about their thoughts on the production if there is any (there's a lot so far). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Naruto, for an anime as widely popular as Madoka Magica I don't think the current length of the reception section is long enough, which I why I plan to continue expanding it. It may already be longer than other articles that are GA, but this anime is considerably more well-known than many others and thus I believe more reception exists that can be included into the article. As for the current state passing GAN, I don't believe it would as per my concerns I listed above. I will continue working on the article, and I will nominate it for GA after all of these tasks are completed. I know my progress on the article has slowed in the past couple weeks, but once I finish my real-life obligations, I expect to hit the ground running again. Artichoker^[talk] 20:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Could you specify which citations you found to be dead? Artichoker^[talk] 16:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The production section is really long. I would recommend creating subsections to make the article easier to read. See for example what I did in Psycho-Pass#Production.Tintor2 (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I will try to add subsections to the production. Artichoker^[talk] 16:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Good work. A themes section could also be created. I'm not too familiar with the series but isn't the story deep?Tintor2 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Very deep. But I'm not sure what sort of themes could be talked about that isn't already covered in the prose within production. Artichoker^[talk] 17:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Artichoker:, I've seen that some of the Anime WikiProject's GAs (such as Clannad (visual novel) and Little Busters!) have a "Legacy" section. Could one work for Madoka? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A legacy section is something that can only exist if the sources allow it. Clannad and Little Busters have been out for a considerably longer time than Madoka Magica and thus there may be more information on the overall impact that these works had on their respective genres, industries, etc. However, Madoka Magica is newer and there might not be as much information. Looking around, I have found a few sources that could be included in a legacy section, but since they are fewer and more far in between, they fit much more appropriately in the reception section. Perhaps in several years there will be enough critical commentary for a legacy section in the article. Artichoker^[talk] 20:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I just read the legacy sections for Clannad and Little Busters!, and would argue that those are not in fact actual legacy. I could be wrong, but I take "Legacy" in this context to refer to critical commentary on how the piece of media has influenced the genre, the industry, or popular culture. For example, I think Halo: Combat Evolved contains a true legacy section, but the sections in Clannad and Little Busters! could be more appropriately titled as "Sequels and spin-offs". Artichoker^[talk] 20:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

---

SM Lanang Premier

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to help this article reach GA review. Last Peer Review wasn't reviewed.

Thanks, Funbeta 11:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001

I'm sorry that you've had to wait so long, Funbeta. Having read the article, I'd say that it is well-sourced and relatively clearly written. The "features" section is a little short and maybe the two subsections should be rolled into one. There are many other good articles about buildings you can view here: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Art_and_architecture to see what other editors have done. I'd suggest you nominate for GA and deal with any problems that arise there, as this article is definitely well on its way. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Denmark

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it would greatly benefit from an outside perspective. Since the article was last peer reviewed a little over two years ag it has seen lots of improvements. In 2012 it had recently merged with the Kingdom of Denmark article. Recently there have been concerns raised on the talk page about the clarity of the article; since it deals with both Denmark (the country) and the Kingdom of Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands) some users have said that the topic can sometimes seem unclear. The main purpose of this peer review should be to address any confusion. Additionally, I feel the article is now much closer to becoming Good Article again, so it would be helpful if the reviewer could highlight any major areas for improvement generally.

Thanks, Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 23:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001

Hazhk, this is a well-written and quite comprehensive article, and I commend you and other editors for writing it. In terms of the good article review criteria, the major outstanding issue is the lack of citations for a large number of paragraphs. There is also some confusion, as you note, between "The Kingdom of Denmark" and "Denmark" here, and I suggest a single title is used to refer to Denmark - probably Denmark, as this is the WP:COMMONNAME and also the title of the article. Once this citations are dealt with, I suggest you deal with any issues in the context of a GA review, which in my experience is usually more active and more thorough. Some more specific feedback may be garnered by directly requesting comments from other Wikipedians involved in this article's creation, or posting at any relevant Wikiprojects. Good luck! --LT910001 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will make the changes you recommended. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 16:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Ukiyo-e

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I intend to make this my next Featured Article nomination, and would greatly appreciate feedback to make sure the article is of the highest quality.

Thanks, Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments

• Ah, a 40k article on a subject I know nothing about! Well, I guess I'll learn something. I will focus mostly on grammar and what is difficult to understand for me, a lay reader. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for taking the time! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

  • "ukiyo-e" - what's with the quotes?
    • Signifier vs signified—it's meant to indicate that the term is the subject rather than the artform itself. That's not so clear in the first instance, so I've dropped it, but I've retained the second instance. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Ah, a Saussurian! Well, in that case WP:WORDSASWORDS indicates we should use italics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "brocade prints" led to colour as a standard, - why use the English translation and not the original Japanese? Also, is "led to colour as a standard" logically sound here? I'm thinking it led to the use of colour becoming standard.
    • When there's an English term with widespread use I've chosen to prefer that. Part of that is a reaction on my part to Japanese articles that cram themselves with Japanese terms even when equivalent English terms are more common (I mean, seriously, "mangaka"? Why can't we call a cartoonist a cartoonist? The distinction doesn't exist in Japanese). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • "led to colour as a standard"—changed to "the success of Harunobu's "brocade prints" led to full-colour production becoming standard," Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The Great Wave off Kanagawa - I'm very surprised this is not in the lede as an image
    • I've been mulling redoing the lead images, but I'm reluctant to include The Wave:
      1. It's the one image I can think of that made a splash (har har) all on its own; other artists became known gradually for their bodies of work, rather than for a particular "hit" image that had an immediate impact. For that reason, I think it's appropriate to have that "hit" image in the chronology where it's specifically referred to, so readers don't have to scroll back to see it when they read about it (very few individual images are actually named in the body).
      2. It's atypical of ukiyo-e in general, and even of ukiyo-e of Hokusai's generation. Hokusai influenced an awful lot of artists to take up doing lanscapes, but they tended to do it in a style more like Hiroshige's than Hokusai's highly abstract and individualistic style. As the article is about the genre of ukiyo-e, I think the lead images should represent general trends, and avoid something so atypical.
      3. The Wave (and Red Fuji) tend to dominate attention, drawing attention away from what's around them. The article is about a 200-year period in art, not "HOKUSAI ... and all those other guys" which seems almost inevitably the impression people get of ukiyo-e. Hokusai still gets plenty of attention—he gets foreshadowed, then an entire paragraph to himself, scattered mentions throughout, and then gets three out of 55 images (or 5½%) out of the thousands upon thousands of readily available images by hundreds of artists.
    • Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Considering you discuss erotica as a genre a little, I'm surprised we aren't using something like The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife to represent said genre. The only nude here is considerably more tasteful than the later erotica.
    • Again, the same issues: (1) Hokusai overkill; and (2) the work is hardly typical of shunga. If there's a desire to include explicit erotica, I'd rather go with something by Utamaro, who was a prolific master of this stuff, and whose porn was far more typical in form and content (you can see lots at commons:CategoryKitagawa Utamaro‎ and commons:Shunga by Kitagawa Utamaro‎, and there's plenty more out there).
    • Oh, and plenty of the early shunga was an awful lot more explicit that the Sukenobu in the article; check out commons:Category:Shunga by Hishikawa Moronobu—that stuff goes right back to the very beginning. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • That's why I said like the image. Something explicit and representative of the genre would work. I think Utamaro's Amorous Couple is fairly common in reproduction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Can you link to the one you mean? There are a couple under that name, and I can't find the Japanese names for them—the images I've found though all have some kind of damage to them (wormholes or whatever). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Are you talking about this? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
            • That's more or less what I was thinking of, if it's useable in your opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Why the perfect tense in the Pre-history section? What does "had" add?
    • I suppose I meant "had, by the time ukiyo-e emerged". I 've dropped it, because it doesn't make a difference. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Why the focus on wood block books in Pre-history?
    • Because the earliest ukiyo-e prints grew out of the woodblock books—Moronobu started in wooblock books, and then turned around and sold the individual pages: voila! ukiyo-e prints. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • the new capital of Edo and following... would this work better after you explain the context?
    • I've reversed the two paragraphs—can you check to make sure they work logically? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • shikomi-e - the type you are using here looks considerably different than the rest of the article
    • Whoops! I thought I'd eliminated all those. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Moronobu was ... Moronobu was - ick
    • Threw in a "he". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The paintings of Miyagawa Chōshun (1683–1752) portrayed early 18th-century life in delicate colours. Chōshun made no prints. - why not combine the two sentences, or rework this so that we don't have a really short sentence?
    • How's "Miyagawa Chōshun (1683–1752) specialized in painting, and portrayed early 18th-century life in delicate colours."? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Peachy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Would be nice if you standardised whether or not you italicize genre names.
    • It's hard to tell—we're supposed to italicize unfamiliar words and not italicize words that have become common English. I'm not sure exactly where the line is. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider linking New Year to Japanese New Year, or at least make it clear that you're referring to the lunar new year.
    • Hmmm ... I'm afraid that might come off as "eggy" as the context doesn't make it clear the link's not just to any old New Year, and Japanese New Year focuses on the post-1873 version. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Simply writing "lunar new year" might work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I put it in a footnote, since the fact that it was a lunar new year isn't immediately relevant. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider linking fine to Fine paper?
    • Fine paper seems to talk about a particular grade of paper, whereas this article just means "a higher grade"—in other words, just nicer than what was standard. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • amongst - Wikipedia is very much against "amongst", as it is considered old-fashioned.
    • I have no idea why Wikipedia would think that. I ran into this a while ago, and started asking around. Plenty of people continue to use "amongst" daily (including many Americans), and so far few of those I've brought it up with realized it was even a "thing". Canadian news sources continue to use it, even in titles for "high-falutin'" articles on ice hockey. I strongly suspect the prejudice against "amongst" is limited to writers who have been taught to hold a prejudice against it, totally out of step with the living language. (trivia: the "old-fashioned" amongst is actually newer to the language than among). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I believe it's mostly because a) among and amongst have the same meaning, essentially, meaning that b) the "st" is considered unnecessary. Don't seem to be able to find it in the MOS right now though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
        • If it were a matter of length, we Commonwealthers would be spelling "colour" without a "u" all along (such spelling has a long pre-Revolution history). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Considering how you feel about this, I've left the remainder alone and may restore the earlier ones if you haven't beaten me to it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Eishōsai Chōki - I understand if we don't know his life span, but at least use (fl. 1786–1808)
    • Done. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • though ukiyo-e had a long history preceding these late-era masters. - we've just read through that history; is this sentence really necessary?
    • Well, the point is that Westerners tend to ignore that earlier history, and many have come to associate ukiyo-e with landscapes. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • the latter an area rarely explored in the dictatorial atmosphere of the Edo era, a sign of the weakening of the Shogunate in mid-century. - could be read as the dictatorial nature was a sign of weakening
    • Reworded to "the latter an area rarely explored in the dictatorial atmosphere of the Edo era; that Kuniyoshia could dare tackle such subjects was a sign of the weakening of the Shogunate at the time". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Much better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Will be back tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Looking forward to it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hokusai was the star of his inaugural exhibition as first curator of Japanese art Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, and in Tokyo in 1898 he curated the first ukiyo-e exhibition in Japan - Sounds as if Hokusai was curator.
  • changed to "Hokusai's works featured prominently at". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• that Japanese critics have accused him of siphoning Japan of its national treasure. - later Japanese critics, I would assume, if the contemporary Japanese didn't care much per your earlier statement
  • Changed "have" to "later". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• "At the time of their introduction to the West, woodblock printing was the most common mass medium in Japan, and the Japanese considered it of little lasting value." ... "The drain first went unnoticed in Japan, as Japanese artists were immersing themselves in the classical painting techniques of the West." - Might be worth combining the two?
  • Wouldn't that be awfully long? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Guess you're right. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Whistler focused his attention on ephemeral elements of nature as in ukiyo-e landscapes. - Whistler did a lot more than that, as The Princess from the Land of Porcelain can bear witness to (check out the sakura flowers he later removed, the silk screen, and the kimono); worth mentioning? Not the painting, necessarily, but that it was not just nature which inspired Whistler.
  • Well, I was hoping not to get into an exhaustive list—there's the Japonism article for that. I was hoping to give an overview of different elements that made their way into Western art: focusing on "ephemeral elements of nature" was a new concept to Western art; including exotic images in the background was not. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Degas - you mentioned Degas earlier but didn't link him then.
  • Moved. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Amy Lowell - Why do you give a full name here when almost every other artist has had just a family name?
  • Because James Russell Lowell, Maria White Lowell, and Robert Lowell were also poets. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Combing the hair - Why the miniscule h?
  • Fixed. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• kindai hanga - You may have questions why you don't even mention this term in text
  • It's in a hidden comment in the text—"kindai hanga" is not set term for a movement or period in prints—it simply means "contemporary prints". If the term catches on in the literature it'll make sense to use the term, but so far all I see is Fiorello's web page—and even on that page, Fiorillo only uses it in the title, adn prefers "'Modern' and 'contemporary' Japanese prints" (with scarequotes) in the body. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Earlier or early? (#Style)
  • Changed to "early". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Any of these look interesting?
  • Yes, and some of them (the face made of bodies) are quite famous, but I think they're out of scope. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Unrestricted by the technical restraints of printing, - restricted and restraints in the same sentence feels clunky
  • changed to "technical limitations". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Not quite sure what the value of #Painting is
  • Sorry? Painting was a major part of ukiyo-e. They're "pictures of the floating world", not "prints of the floating world"—several masters never produced a print. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • It looks like you are focusing on Japanese painting in general there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • The techniques described are those of the ukiyo-e painters; of course there's some overlap with Japanese painting in general, but things such as "delineat[ing] contours with sumi ink" are specific to the ukiyo-e world. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• by rubbing with agate to brighten colours; - rubbing what?
  • "the finished print". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• were only in black ink. - what about "used only black ink"?
  • Done. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Arashi Ryuzo - I'm very surprised that there's no article here, and no link to a Japanese article. I'd have thought the sale would have drawn considerable attention to Ryuzo.
  • There is no page for him, just a page that mentions him in the lineage of actors who at some point took the name "Arashi Shichigorou". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Ukiyo-e often went through multiple editions, sometimes with changes made to the blocks in later editions. Editions made from recut woodblocks also circulate, such as legitimate later reproductions, - I'd migrate this north, as it seems to work better near the discussion of the values of reprints
  • Do you mean combine the two paragraphs? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • No, but have them in succession, as they are both about reprints. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
      • They're in succession now—do you mean have this paragraph come first? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I've tried reordering; have a look. Revert if you disagree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Looks good to me. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
• The first exhibition in Japan of ukiyo-e prints was likely one presented by Kōjirō Matsukata in 1925, - Didn't you mention exhibition by that American earlier, which predates Matsukata's exhibition?
  • Hmmm ... the book definitely says "Some of the prints were put on show. This was believed to be the first ever exhibition of Ukiyo-e prints held in Japan." I've totally screwed up the Fenollosa citation—it is not in the Meech-Pakarik book. I'm going to have to hunt through the references before I can fix this. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Aargh! The citation was right, I clicked through to Meech-Pakarik 1986 instead of Meech-Pakarik 1982 when checking it. Meech-Pakarik 1982 says that Fenollosa "collaborated for several years with the Tokyo dealer Kobayashi Bunshichi ...Kobayashi and Fenollosa staged an ukiyo-e print exhibition in Tokyo in 1898 that is thought to be the first ever held in Japan." It cites the 1898 catalogue for the show. I've dropped the 1925 claim. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Anything on the MET and the LOC? Both have fairly extensive ukiyo-e holdings, from what I can tell. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've downloaded a shitpile from both of them, especially Sharaku stuff. Downloading, reuploading, and properly tagging all that stuff takes a lot of time though ... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Sharaku's portrait of Arashi Ryūzō ... you mean this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • May be worth blue linking directly to the image (some art articles do that). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Done. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Prosperosity comments

• Do you think Takashina Shūji (高階秀爾)'s 日本美術を見る眼　東と西の出会い (1991) should be mentioned? I read an excerpt from Suwa Haruo's book on perspective (lemme see that it's called...諏訪春雄 - 日本人と遠近法 ちくま新書, 1998), and Suwa pointed out that even though Takashina's book was in 1991, it was the first to ever link the lack of perspective with a distinctiveness in Japanese art. Suwa also talked about interactions with the west's ideas of perspective showing up a lot in ukiyo-e, pointing out Suzuki Harunobu's お仙と団扇売り, since you can see the torii in the background getting smaller with distance, but the woman is still contorted as if the frame of reference was taken from multiple angles. I see perspective gets mentioned a couple times in passing, but one of the times ("...was generally thought inferior to Western works which emphasized mastery of naturalistic perspective and anatomy.") implies that perspective and anatomy in ukiyo-e is significantly different to Western art, but the article doesn't really explain why. The book also talks a lot about the stance of bijin (how they're 蛇体姿勢 and not straight up and down, even when they're up and down they're looking behind, etc). Even though these were aspects of Japanese art in general, greater emphasis might be needed on perspective/anatomy, especially since it was apparently these that influenced a lot of Western artists. --Prosperosity (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Both books are in local libraries, so I'll check them out tomorrow. Question: when you say "should be mentioned", do you mean cited, or mentioned with someone like Suwa as a citation? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I assume this is the Harunobu you're talking about. I'm having trouble coming up with stuff online that says anything about 蛇体姿勢—everything I'm coming across talks about 怪談話 about women literally turning into snakes. I'm sure there's some other vocabulry that refers to this kind of thing, but I'm not familiar with it. Any other sources you could point out would be helpful. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's the one that was in there! You can see how osen's head and legs are painfully contorted, if you actually give sitting like that a go. I meant Takashina being mentioned in the text, since apparently he was the first one who linked Japanese perspective with the idea that it was a positive, genre-based thing and not just Japanese painters being less superior to Western ones, even though it was 150 years later. These are Suwa's opinions, not mine, so since you've got a chance to look you can evaluate his arguments yourself! I've had a quick search of 立美人図+姿勢 and nothing special was coming up. He'd listed the term as 「蛇体姿勢」 when writing, so apparently it's not his own, perhaps Takashina's. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't come across the term 「蛇体姿勢」 yet, but there are two whole chapters on perspective in ukiyo-e in the book. I'm going to see if I can boil the whole two chapters down to a paragraph. It's a bit disappointing the book has no index ... and it's a dinky little book with even dinkier little b&w reproductions of the artwork. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Try page 103! Ooh, I see, it was a term Wakakuwa Midori used (I'd somehow thought 104 was the first time it had come up). The artwork is really awful, you'd expect a book dealing with art to at least reproduce it nicely! --Prosperosity (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Could you make a note on the Ieyasu portrait that it's Kanō school/from around 1640 and not ukiyo-e? It could be misconstrued. --Prosperosity (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    

---

Adrianne Wadewitz

This peer review discussion has been closed.

1. I've listed this article for peer review because it's been one month since a deletion discussion for the article was closed, as Keep.
2. Since that time, the article has improved in quality to a point where it now cites twenty-six (26) references.
3. An editor has raised the question of what else to do to further improve the page in quality to a point where it could be considered for WP:GA status.
4. I thought that, especially with the prior various discussions in mind, it would be a good idea, first, to bring the article to a Peer Review to solicit additional input from the community and have a discussion about ideas for further quality improvement.

Thanks, — Cirt (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Review from Kaldari

A few suggestions...

• Expand the lead. Right now it is only a single sentence and doesn't cover all the sections of the article.
• "Unlike other versions of the self based on sensibility, it was not predicated upon femininity." This sentence is a bit confusing. It sounds like it's saying that all constructions of the self prior to late eighteenth-century children's literature were predicated upon femininity, which seems unlikely. This is totally a guess, but I imagine what the paper actually argues is that late eighteenth-century children's literature was the first to offer female children a construction of the self that wasn't completely predicated upon femininity. That's just a guess though.
• "In 2009, Wadewitz began putting The New England Primer online..." What is The New England Primer?
• Combine the Climbing and Death sections.

Kaldari (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Kaldari, this is most helpful. I've read over all of the comments and suggestions by Kaldari, above, and I agree with all of the recommendations. — Cirt (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Review from Agricola44

Unfortunately, this page continues to develop in the context of a shrine to Adrianne, much of it being WP:UNDUE. For example, there are large sections of text describing her academic career and individual works when she was only a post-doc and the aspect related to her death is sensationalized. Specifically, there now 27 sources, almost all of them obits or memorials directly related to her death (the remainders being Adrianne's own writings). I would caution against campaigning for GA, because if one reduces the sources to the few main obits (like the NYT) and scales back the text to appropriate weight, there would not be much left. I maintain now, as I did in the AfD, that this article should not be much more than a stub. Agricola44 (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC).

Thank you, Agricola44, for your participation in this peer review. I agree with some of your comments, specifically, that we should rely predominantly upon secondary sources as a way to give weight to various portions of material in the article as described in those sources, and let that be our guide going forwards for further improvement. — Cirt (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is no length requirement for GA articles. They are merely required to be "broad" in coverage. I agree that there is some content which may be UNDUE and could be trimmed without negatively affecting the article's quality, for example, the lengthy discussion of her dissertation. Kaldari (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Kaldari, I think that issue would be solved by re-evaluating references and then relying primarily upon secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Metcalf Sniper Attack

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because why not

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

To answer the question of "why not", the peer review desk (like almost every other content desk at Wikipedia, really) is under a constant, high level of editorial stress. "Why not" is not an incredibly moving reason for listing an article for peer review. This is a short, unsophisticated article which does not meet the minimum requirements for which a peer review would be useful, since the advice I would give to you for every section of this article is the same—expand. This is an event on which a lot of information available, and you could triple the word-length of the article before you arrive at a relatively complete copy ready for review. ResMar 16:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

---

List of nearest exoplanets

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to get some feedback on this list before I submit it at FLC.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Quick comment: I fail to see the utility of listing unconfirmed exoplanets in this list. While it may be interesting if some nearby system does indeed have an exoplanet, until it is confirmed, I can't support anything more than maybe a paragraph in the star article itself and a small footnote in lists. I think that a footnote in this list would be appropriate, but listing them in the main table seems extreme to me. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Why extreme? I thought that systems like Tau Ceti are worth being mentioned in the table. Other than that, all the gray rows are quite close so I thought they are interesting to a reader. Plus, the difference between a confirmed and unconfirmed system is rather gray to me, since some people consider the Alpha Centauri system to be unconfirmed. Nergaal (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• The intro is too long. A maximum of 4 paragraphs is recommended for list articles. I think you could do with less detail.
• "A total of 75 exoplanets have been observed by astronomers to exist within 50 light-years away from the Solar System." The words 'to exist' are superfluous.
• "as proposed by the Working Group on Extrasolar Planets of the International Astronomical Union in 2003." It is not clear what "as proposed" refers to.
• "From 2000 on, more planets were reported by the astronomical community," 'by the astronomical community' is superfluous.
• I would prefer ly spelled out as light years, but I do not know whether there are any guidelines on this.
• "Essentially all the nearest exoplanets have been discovered by measuring the changes in the radial velocity of the host star" It is probably my ignorance, but have not any been found by variation in light intensity during eclipses?

Yes, but Kepler only looked at far-away stars - so none within 50 ly. Nergaal (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• In the list, presumably white is stars with single planets, but you need to have this in the key.
• The statistics by host star is not clearly explained. It took me a while to work out what it is about.

Hope it is better now. Nergaal (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Systems by distance - I would prefer heading 'Distance in light years' to ly on each line.
• A good list overall. It should make FL in my view.

Dudley Miles (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Ayscoghe Boucherett

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see this article get to B grade if possible; if anyone can offer any constructive criticism, that would be very helpful. I have not been editing long and, although I feel that the article is of a decent length and well-cited, as well as covering much of his life as far as I can find sources for, I am not very familiar with the classification scheme and I would like to hear what others more familiar with this and more experienced at reviewing articles have to say.

Thanks, Noswall59 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001

Noswall59, this is a well-written and thorough article. Not only would I recommend upgrading it to B-class, but I'd suggest that you nominate it to become a good article. See here how to do this: WP:GAN/I. A "good article" represents some of Wikipedia's best work. After you nominate, after some time it will be reviewed by another editor. The review will follow these six criteria. You may have to wait a while, but in my experience reviews are generally more thorough than the peer review process and will be a good stepping-stone in your WP career. Good luck! --LT910001 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I didn't expect anyone to recommend GA, but reading over the criteria, I suppose the article could meet it. I can't find any other reliable material published about him, so I think it is largely complete in that there is little more that I could add; the only resource which might be useful is Gordon Jackson, Grimsby and the Haven Company, 1971, but much of Boucherett's work with the company is already summarised in the article. It's a shame that I can't find a portrait of him; it looks like Sir Thomas Lawrence did paint one, but I think it's in a private collection and I've yet to come across a photo of it on-line. I will nominate it for GA and see what happens - there's no harm I suppose and, if it doesn't meet the criteria, I might still get some constructive advice for improvements. Either way, I am pleased that you think it's B-class - can I update it to show that, or is it bad form to reassess your own article? Thanks --Noswall59 (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

Yep, go ahead. If another user disagrees then they can change it back to C-class. For the picture, a number of users I've encountered have directly contacted these organisations, explained that they're from Wiki and that we get a large amount of viewers and are only ever improving in quality, that it's a project that hopes to be enduring, and they can be part of this by providing the image in question. If you're interested, drop me a message at my talk page and I'll contact some of the users who have been successful at this for you. Re. your nomination, don't hold your breath, and... good luck! --LT910001 (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

For the painting, K. Garlick's Sir Thomas Lawrence: a Complete Catalogue of Oil Paintings includes Boucherett in the index (painting no. 118, p. 155, see [1]); however, I don't have a copy of the book and Google Books has limited the viewing options, so I can't see who the painting is owned by, which is frustrating. If you have any suggestions or know of anyone who might be able to find out more, that would be kind, but I do appreciate that I've not given you much to go on and I don't expect you to go "above and beyond". Thanks for your comments as well - I've submitted the nomination now, so fingers crossed (it looks like it may be a while yet). Noswall59 (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

---

Can't Hold Us Down

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring the article to FA-status.

Thanks, Simon (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Judah P. Benjamin

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm taking it to FAC and would like the usual creative feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

First lot – to the end of "Attorney General and War Secretary". Leaving lead till last, more meo.

• Louisiana lawyer
  • "seller of a slave, whom the buyer alleged …" – this gets tangled up in itself, with the "whom" at first seeming to refer to the slave rather than the seller. Perhaps something on the lines of "he successfully represented a client against the charge of selling a slave despite knowing him to have incurable tuberculosis"?
• State politician
  • "Benjamin's mother Rebecca, who he had brought to" – I'd go for "whom", unless you feel it is nowadays too starchy to be borne.
  • "Millard Fillmore, who succeeded Taylor after his death earlier that year" – perfectly clear what you mean, but some clever soul at FAC will assuredly point out the ambiguity of wording.
• Mexican railroad
  • "the New York Times" – two points: first, is a blue link wanted here? And secondly, two paras later you capitalize and italicize the definite article in the paper's title. The latter is my own preference, though there are some editors, not wholly depraved, who prefer the former.
  • "the new Republican Party, a group pledged to oppose the spread of slavery" – how very interesting for a European to discover that the Republicans started as the good guys. I had no idea.
• Secession crisis
  • "it behooved the latter" – this spelling looks most peculiar to a Briton's eye. I have a vague idea that "behoved" is also acceptable in AmEng, and if so, I'd go for that.
  • "According to a letter that Benjamin is reported to have written in January 1861" – is it the authorship or just the date of the letter that is "reported"?
• Attorney General and War Secretary
  • "Meade noted … William C. Davis notes". Too many notes, my dear Mozart.
  • "Although it was revealed…" – this sentence appears to have seceded from the one after it, leaving the "Although" without a subsequent antithesis.

More soonest. I'm enjoying this. – Tim riley talk 09:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Second and concluding lot from Tim

• Basis of Confederate foreign policy
  • "The London Economist wrote in 1853" – a statement calculated to raise a total of four eyebrows, viz those of B Boulton and T Riley, the former because, as Brian has occasionally had to remind me, papers do not write themselves and the latter because the word "London" has no place within the link to The Economist. I wouldn't object to "The London Economist.
  • obiter dicta: "England would feel the shock from Land's End to John O'Groat's" – can you wonder that there is a Scottish Nationalist movement when London papers so arrogantly used "England" as a synonym for "Britain"?

I am changing a lot of "England"'s to "Britain" throughout from the sources. Obviously not being a native speaker :) ... well, that's why we have peer review.

• • "playing poker and faro" – I think Wikipedia editors (me included) often overdo the blue linking but I really think faro looks naked without one.
• Early days (1862–1863)
  • "unless the prisoners Palmerston government would go to war" – words missing here
  • "Benjamin had not been allowed to offer the inducement for intervention that might have succeeded—abolition of slavery" – this puzzles the reader (i.e. me) unfamiliar with the subject. If the Confederacy had abolished slavery what would have been its raison d'etre?

Well, the Confederacy always said that it wasn't about slavery but independence. So did the North, until the Emancipation Proclamation. The slaves were going to be freed if the South lost, anyway.

• • "The Pope, though impressed by Mann's oratory" – how do we know His Holiness was impressed? It isn't usually the sort of thing a pope or his spokesman would say, at least not on the record or in public.

I've consulted the underlying source, and while there is a fascinating bit of back and forth, I don't find "impressed" necessarily supported, though Meade does use the word. Toned down.

• • "For the entertainment of his companions, Benjamin recited Tennyson's "Ode on the Death of the Duke of Wellington"" – I bet that cheered them up no end.

I'm more curious about the national causes that were victories after being in far worse shape than the Confederacy per April 1865, with Lee down to a corporal's guard and Davis fleeing Richmond.

• Exile in England
  • "to shape his old course in a country new" – I like this phrasing very much, but I'll give you odds that some puritanical ninny will object at FAC that the prose is too purple.

I'm alluding to Kent's farewell in King Lear. It was irresistible. I.i.186 if you want to look it up.

Damn and blast and several other naughty words! I should have spotted that. On the other hand it is no small compliment to you that what I thought was Wehwalt's prose is in fact the Bard's iambic pentameter. Tim riley talk 14:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I will confess to some delight in sneaking that one by you. If I must plagiarise, why not the best?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• • "resuming his legal career as a British barrister" – I hesitate to engage in legal quibbles with a practicing lawyer, but this jars on British ears. As you know, the Scots have their own legal system, and Benjamin was a member of the English bar, not the non-existent British one. I realize this may be an unnecessarily pedantic point for any American readers but I think I must make it.

I'm glad you did as I was uncertain on this point. I'll make changes.

• • "transport to Liverpool by blockade runner" – perhaps blue link my native city?
  • "penning columns on international affairs for The Telegraph" – must have been The Daily Telegraph, as there wasn't a Sunday Telegraph till I was a lad (which, before you ask, was later than the 1860s)
  • "became a classic both in Britain and America" – a very fiddly point, but oughtn't this to be "in both", rather than "both in"?
  • "but Benjamin was not included; it was said that he had applied." – not sure of the import of this. Is it that in those days openly canvassing for silk was taboo (as with membership of the Athenaeum etc) and that he had therefore shot himself in the foot, or just that it was rumoured that he had tried and failed?

The source is vague on this point. I will look into it more.

• • "claimed to be Sir Roger Tichborne, a nobleman who had vanished some years previously, and had perjured himself" – now this really is ambiguous. How about "…vanished some years previously; Castro had perjured himself…"?
  • "a streetcar in Paris" – news to me that Paris ever had streetcars (if by streetcars you mean what we call trams over here). I may be entirely wrong about this, but I just flag it up. Will grovel appropriately if shown to be in error.

You are right, it says tram. I was simply desirous of using synonyms, with a view to polishing off serial numbers and whatnot.

• Appraisal
  • "It is true that I am a Jew…" – I reckon he pinched this from Disraeli. I'm sure I read something very like this while we were doing our research for Dizzy.

Most likely. They did meet but I am looking for something solid on that point. Remember, there is no evidence that JPB actually said it.

• Lead
  • "British barrister" – despite my pedantry above, I think this will pass muster in the lead.

Those are my detailed comments. The one general point I want to make is that neither in the lead nor the main text do you mention Benjamin's unique sequence of nationalities. British subject – US citizen – Confederate citizen? – and then what? Did he once more become a British subject? I really do think this point worth following up. That apart, "In every age, a heroic sage struggles to rescue Benjamin from obscurity" – that heroic sage is plainly Wehwalt now. I shall enjoy being associated with a sagacious hero. Nor will you fail. I enjoyed every moment of this piece. I don't know how much I ended up liking the man, but he's a fascinating subject. – Tim riley talk 12:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your rapid review (I only finished in the wee hours and the rough spots are still apparent). He was a British subject by birth as his parents were British and he was born on (temporarily) British soil. He made the point in his petition in 1866 that he had no choice about becoming American as he was naturalised as a minor, and so never renounced his original allegiance. That apparently passed muster at Lincoln's Inn (I am looking for a statement on the irony of LINCOLN's Inn being the choice of the Confederate SecState. I think I read someplace that Lincoln thought he was descended from a foundling left at Lincoln's Inn, rather than from the county or town.) I did not want to put nationality both because it changed, repeatedly (if one grants "Confederate"). I will make other comments and implement changes during the course of the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I've got everything. Thank you for your review and kind words. I'm not just being modest. I do not feel adequate to try to really convey Benjamin to the reader. But in my opinion, no one has successfully, so I take some consolation.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• "referred to other great national causes": This is in quotes so I won't mess with it, but it looks like there's a "he" missing.
• I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I have modified it slightly in two places and duplicated a citation where you split a paragraph. Regarding the Mallory quote, I googled it and it's accurate. If reviewers feel strongly about it, I can put a [he] in.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for reminding me about duplicating the citation when I split a paragraph, I keep forgetting that. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

This is my first batch, covering roughly the first half of the article. Very, very interesting – one of your best, I think (who would ever have thought that a bleeding-heart pinko like me would empathise with a slave-owning southern gentleman – well, almost?). My comments are mostly fairly small quibbles and shouldn't raise any difficulties:

Lead

• The marriage, though lengthy, had little impact on his life and career, so I am wondering why it is thought lead-worthy

Cut.

• "and resigned..." – say what he resigned from?

Clarified.

• "Although there was not much to do in that position, he became Secretary of War." A couple of problems here. I think the intended meaning is that, as he was under-occupied as attorney general, he was able to serve as Secretary of War, but the "although" kills that; it should be "As...". Secondly, "became" should surely be "was appointed"?

Rejigged.

• Reference to the "State Department" – perhaps clarify for non-US readers that you mean the Confederacy's State Department.

Disambiguated.

• "He made his way to Britain" should be "Benjamin made his way to Britain", since Davis is last person mentioned

Benjaminised.

Early and personal life

• Briefly mention context of the "British occupation"

I mention the Napoleonic Wars. What beyond that do you suggest?

• "boarded with relatives in Fayetteville..." – so others had gone before them. I'd recommend you mention this in the previous paragraph, e.g. "the Benjamin family moved to Fayetteville, North Carolina, where they had relatives".

They did have relatives there. I've mentioned that.

• "The boy's intelligence was noted by others in Charleston as well..." last 2 words redundant
• Re Yale: Benjamin left "without completing his degree" – unsurprising, given that he was only 16 when he left. Clearly, what we hink of as "higher education" was structured rather differently then. To avoid perplexing readers on this point, a brief explanatory footnote might be desirable.

Rather than degree, I've stated "course of study".

• What was the nature of Natalie's conduct that scandalized New Orleans society

I can do no better than to give you De Ville at 84 n.12: "Try as we did for some ten years, no details of Natalie's "escapades" have been forthcoming, although Korn reports that rumors were still scandalizing New Orleans when he was doing research for his book [me: on the early Jews of New Orleans] in the early 1960s!" This is an epic. An utter epic.

Louisiana lawyer

• "New Orleans became the fourth largest city in the United States by 1840 and one of the wealthiest": "became" and "by" don't match – "had become". Also, comma required after "1840"

Agreed.

• "His biographer, Evans, denies..." – I'm not sure that "denies" is the appropriate word here (can biographers "deny" on behalf of their subjects?) Maybe Evans "argues..."?

"does not believe"? I'm open on this.

• "successful in being chosen" is a circumlocution for "chosen"

Appropriately enough, given his membership in the chosen people!

State politician

• Penultimate para: Try to avoid close repetition of "plantation" in third line

Subbed in the name.

• Fourth para: "Benjamin's mother Rebecca..." → "His mother Rebecca..." – to avoid successive sentences beginning "Benjamin..."
• I suggest you link "Electoral College", and also state what Taylor was elected president of, otherwise this sentence willl make little sense to most non-US readers.

Clarified.

• "succeeded Taylor after the President's death..." – lower case "p"

Mexican railroad

• Tiny point, but surely "already" is inappropriate in the last line? By the time of the Civil War the project was 10 years old!

Fixed. There is a lot more that can be said about Benjamin's involvement in this and other ventures, but I know it's holding up people wanting to get to the Civil War.

Election to the Senate

• "Judah Benjamin was sworn in as senator from Louisiana on March 4, 1853, at the brief meeting called just prior to President Pierce's inauguration to enroll those beginning their terms". I think the last six words unnecessarily complicate the sentence and could go. If you want to keep thephrase, it would be better inserted after "called". I also think "a brief meeting" is preferable to "the brief meeting".

No, I agree. I wasn't fully happy with the phrasing.

• "In the absence of the Vice President, they were sworn in by the senior member of the Senate, Michigan's Lewis Cass." I'd say this information is of marginal/neglible importance. It's a long article, and such side details could easily be removed without detriment.

Sliced.

Spokesman for slavery

• "whereby the slaves" → "in which the slaves"
• Link "mulattoes"

Both done.

Secession crisis

• Why the redlink "in 1859"?

I plan to do United States Senate election in Illinois, 1859 in due course as part of my continued dancing around the Civil War with an eventual (possibly years hence) shot at a Lincoln FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thinking of non-WP readers, won't they be a little perplexed by a date given inexplicably in red? My advice would be to drop the link until there is something there to link to. Brianboulton (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sliced.

• "The case concerned a land grant by the former Mexican government of California that had been ruled invalid by American authorities. Ambiguous – was it the land grant, of the former Mexican govt, that had been ruled invalid?

Rephrased.

• "By the time Benjamin returned to the East Coast ..." – I don't think you need "in 1860"

Axed.

Attorney General and War Secretary

• "At the first Cabinet meeting, Benjamin advised buying 150,000 bales of cotton for shipment to the United Kingdom..." It needs to be clear who he was advising to buy these bales. And, if I am understanding this transaction correctly, it is the profits rather than the proceeds that would be used to buy arms.

Modified slightly, but I think "proceeds" is correct. The money would already have been paid, for the cotton, in the South. The funds in London would not have been reduced by that cost for purposes of buying cannon, ships, and whatnot.

• A superfluous "But", fourth para third line

Consigned to the deep.

• Re. Benjamin's appointment as Secretary for War, the lead indicates that he remained as attorney general; that should be clarified here.

Clarified.

• "After Cape Hatteras was captured, Confederate forces had fallen back on Roanoke Island. If that fell, a number of ports in that area of the coast would be at risk, and Norfolk, Virginia might be threatened by land." This sentence doesn't fit the paragraph, which is otherwise concerned with conflicts arising from assertions of states' rights. It seems to belong to the next para.

It is meant to be a transition. Cape Hattaras is in North Carolina. How is it now?

• Another dubious "although" at the start of the penultimate para. "Although" means "in spite of the fact that", which does not fit the sentence
• Dates are lacking in the latter part of this section. The last indicated date in the narrative is February 1862. the landing of Union troops at Roanoke. We need some timescale for the events that follow, up to Benjamin's selection as Secretary of State, which should be dated here, not in a subsequent section.

I've inserted the appointment date.

Back with more, soon, maybe tomorrow (public holiday) if it rains as promised. Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Your words in introduction really have brightened my day. I look forward to your thoughts on the final portion of the article, regardless of the weather. I am giving some thought to a hike tomorrow as it is a holiday here as well, so you need not rush. I don't think it's going to rain.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Continuing (and concluding)

Basis of Confederate foreign policy

• Close repetition of "reluctance" (near the end)
• I would insert an "also" at the statrt of the last sentence

Both dealt with

Appointment

• Minor verbosity: "not a great deal of" → "little"

Used in previous sentence. Dealt with alternatively.

• Second para: rather repetitive, e.g. "Jefferson Davis" twice in quick succession. I suggest a contraction: "In addition to his relationship with the President, Benjamin was very close to the Confederate First Lady, Varina Davis, with whom he exchanged confidences regarding war events and the President's health."

Done.

Early days (1862–1863)

• Not too happy with the first sentence whih is a little overcomplicated. Suggest full stop after "vessel", then "They were taken..."
• However, do we need the whole detailed paragraph on the Trent affair, which predates Benjamin's secretaryship? I realise it is important to record the tensions between the US government and Britain that existed at the start of the Civil War, but I think this could be done more briefly. For example, "In October 1861, in what was known as the Trent Affair, a US warship had forcibly removed two Confederate diplomats, James Mason and James Slidell, from a British ship, and imprisoned them. Before the matter was resolved, Britain and the US had come close to war." Then follow on with your second paragraph (though you may have a better form of précis)

More or less done.

• "hypocrisy in freeing slaves only where he had no authority" → for clarity, I suggest "only in the South, where he had no authority"

Perhaps "only in Confederate-held territory, where he could exercise no authority"? By then the Union had captured strategic bits and pieces of the South.

• "That nation's officials..." is slightly ambiguous. Suggest "Britain's government..."
• "and now saw an alternative reason for entering the conflict." – I would add "on the side of the Confederacy". Also, "additional" might be better than "alternative"

The intervention would have been facially neutral, but of course would have helped the Confederacy. I've reworked it slightly but I think contextually, it's pretty clear.

• "deemed" and "deemed" in the penultimate paragraph
• "offering to float": the passive form in which the sentence is constructed requires "who offered to float". Otherwise you could have "...the banking firm Erlanger et Cie approached Slidell, offering to float"

I've played with it. Deemed also dealt with

• I'm not sure that the insertion "in French" is particularly relevant to the negotiations, and it rather interferes with the point about Memminger.

Removed.

Increasing desperation (1863–1865)

• "deemed" again – favoured verb?

Changed to "believed".

• "A British agent for the Confederacy..." – I'm not clear as to the nature of this office; can you explain?

He was the financial agent for the Confederacy in Liverpool. Google gives some information about him, seems well worth a stub if I can find the time.

To the point: I've added "financial"

• "and even sent" – unnecessary emphasis: "and sent..."

Massaged slightly.

• "Confederate General Patrick Cleburne, of the Army of the Tennessee, in January 1864 proposed emancipating and arming the slaves." slightly odd construction; more orthodox, and better in my view, would be "In January 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne of the Army of the Tennessee proposed emancipating and arming the slaves."

Done.

Escape

• To what does "located in Richmond" refer? If it's "Shocko hill" the wording needs to be adjusted – but I'm not convinced of the enyclopedic natire of this information.

That is where Shockoe Hill is. It is to show Benjamin's continued good spirits. As I don't really have a "personality" section, which would be quite problematical, I'm taking the opportunity.

• Why Danville?

As I recall, it was the rail line that had not been cut, and that was in the direction of Lee's troops. Appomattox and Danville are both southwest of Richmond. I've added a bit to make this clear

• "scooped up"? Not encyclopedic

Captured, then

• "After the party reached Abbeville..." → "When the party reached Abbeville..."

The previous sentence begins with "when", so I've adjusted things

• "his ship caught fire after departing St. Thomas..." – St. Thomas being where?

Good catch.

Exile

• "Accordingly, Benjamin sought to shape his old course in a country new" – poetic, but unless it's an attributed quote, I don't think it's appropriate here, unfortunately

See my discussion with Tim above. I would like to keep the essence of this.

• "He was reduced to penning columns on international affairs for The Daily Telegraph" Although this chimes well with my opinion of the dreaded Torygraph, I don't think "reduced" is realy the right word here. Most would consider the assignment a nice little earner.

I suppose, but it is a bit of a comedown from being a wealthy lawyer, US Senator, and power behind the throne of the Confederacy.

Well, you might be surprised to find (or maybe you wouldn't) how many of our recently great and good enrich themselves by writing for newspapers. Some have even given up active politics to become political journalists – they make more money that way. So I'd be inclined to rethink "reduced". Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• "it was said that he had put his name forward" – by whom and where?

Ah. According to his obituary in The Times (thanks to Tim for getting me this), "Having been admitted a Palatine "silk" for Lancashire, it was understood that he had applied without success for rank at the large creation of Queen's Counsel in January 1872; but a few months later he argued Potter v. Rankin ..." The discretion of The Times hides much, I suppose. It's what I've got. The biographers heavily rely on that obit.

It might be appropriate, then, as there is further information cited to the Times obit, to include an attribution in this paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Castro" was a name that the Claimant only used in Australia, and he called himself "Thomas Castro", not "Arthur". His real name was (almost certainly) Arthur Orton – it certainly wasn't Castro, and I think the text needs to reflect this, maybe by means of an alternative source.

My fault, I fear. The Times says "Thomas Castro, otherwise Arthur Orton, otherwise Sir Roger Tichborne, &c" Incidentally, do your Tichborne sources mention him at all? I am sure he did not work cheaply on that one.

None of the sources still on my shelves mention it – possibly one of the books now returned to libraries referred to it briefly, and I missed it. It's still a mystery who employed Benjamin and who stumped up the cash. I may use your Meade source to add a line to the Claimant article, but I'd really like to get to the bottom of the story. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• À propos of nothing, Père Lachaise Cemetery was, I recall, the last resting place of Georges Bizet

I can guess whose grave gets more visitors, though as I said to Crisco, I plan to visit Benjamin's when I am in Paris next month.

Don't forget to look in on old Georges, while you're there. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I shall probably spend much of a day there, or at least an afternoon. It will certainly take some time to locate Mr. Benjamin, to begin with, although I have findagrave bookmarked and took photos of Evans' discussion of where Benjamin is.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Appraisal

• "Those writing on Jewish history were reluctant to glorify a slaveowner, especially in the two generations following 1865, when the question of the Civil War remained an active issue in American politics, and reacted to Benjamin's story with 'embarrassed dismay' ". The lengthy subordinate clause rather destroys the clarity of the sentence. Suggest full stop after "politics, then: "Most reacted to Benjamin's story with 'embarrassed dismay' ".

I've reworked it.

That is it: most instructive and informative to the end. My personal view is that there are opportunities for reducing the 10000+ word count (some of which I have indicated) without in any way reducing the impact of the article. You may wish to consider this; otherwise, my points are relatively trivial and should not detain you long. Please keep me posted on the article's future progress. Brianboulton (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I am undecided as to when to offer it as sacrifice to the gods, as I have found FACs on significant topics whilst traveling to be a strain.

Articles often hang around for a long time at FAC these days. You obviously can't carry your Benjamin library around Europe with you, and may not be able to respond to everything quickly, but why not put it up, say, ten days or so before you're back in the US? That will reduce any delay in getting it through. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably so. I have several coins that can keep FAC in the meantime, leaving time for judicious cutting. I think the background cotton section will regretfully have to be cut, Benjamin's actions as SecState simply do not justify a background section on King Cotton of that length. Possibly the text can be spun off into one of the headnoted articles --Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments

• a Cabinet - why the capital C? This should be cabinet as a general noun if it applies to the Union, Canada, and Mexico as well
• Senate - United States Senator redirects here, so this is a duplicate link
• the Confederate State Department in March 1862 while Benjamin was being criticized for the Confederate defeat - can we avoid having two confederates?
• Personally, I think it's odd that we don't have articles on the Confederate cabinet positions

I don't know how much could be said about them outside the more general articles, plus those on the incumbents.

• Following a tradition followed ... could we massage this a bit? "Observed", maybe?
• Love your hidden text after brit milah

Response to an early copyedit that improved the prose, but not the accuracy.

• The boy's intelligence was noted by others in Charleston, one of whom offered to finance his education. - This may fit best with "a well-regarded school where his intelligence was recognized."

Yes, but there's no direct connection between Fayetteville and Yale.

• Natalie St. Martin had scandalized New Orleans society by her conduct, - How? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I refer you to my response to Brianboulton's similar question, above.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• That's... interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• American adventurers who had tried to spark a rebellion against Spanish rule in Cuba - do we have an article on these men? I mean, Narciso López looks about right, but ...

I will look into the matter.

Yes, Lopez was one of them, the other was John Henderson (Mississippi politician). I can link them, if you think it worthwhile.

• Great. Perhaps a footnote? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• The New Orleans Picayune reported that Benjamin favored secession only in the last resort, but on December 23, 1860, another Louisiana periodical, the Delta, printed a letter from Benjamin dated the 8th stating that, as the people of the North were of unalterable hostility to their Southern brethren, the latter should depart from the government common to them. - May be worth splitting

Split.

• that Benjamin is reported to have written during the crisis, - , reportedly written by Benjamin during the crisis, perhaps?

Yes, good.

• to his Cabinet. - caps here as well, I think
• to appoint a Jew - you are considerably more guarded in the lede, using "the first man professing the Jewish faith to be elected to the United States Senate" for both the Senate and the cabinet positions.

I've added the word "Jew" to the lede which I think takes care of the matter.

• P.G.T. Beauregard - not to stir up a storm in a teacup, but I believe the MOS recommends spaces between initials (WP:INITS). Robert M.T. Hunter too. (Although this is under discussion)

I'm going to await the outcome.

• the Federals - worth sticking to "Union forces" here? Don't think you've introduced the term yet

I was trying to vary the terminology.

• Might be worth noting that General Wise did not fall at Roanoke

I'll look for a suitable way of making that clear without beating the reader over the head.

• Do we have any images to break up the wall of text in #Attorney General and War Secretary?

Images are a bother here. I don't see the point in repeated portraits of Benjamin that vary little. I could move the Confederate $2?

• developed during the first half of the 19th century, by 1860 used more cotton than the rest of the industrialized world combined. Continental Europe, though it used much cotton, - feels like these are contradicting each other

Why? Britain took a majority of the cotton, but that still left an awful lot for Europe. I've taken that book back to the library so don't have stats, but the figures were very large.

• Benjamin as Secretary of State - you mentioned SoS a few paragraphs back; might be worth linking there
• His grave did not bear his name until 1938, - any reason why?

It's a family grave. The images I've seen of it only has the family name, St. Martin and something else. I will be in Paris in late July and hope to visit it, take images, and place a stone on it per custom.

• Did the Union ever try to hunt Benjamin down, or damn his memory? What was the Northern view of him? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really. What to do about the Confederate leaders was very controversial, and Andrew Johnson issued several amnesties, eventually pardoning most, that's covered in his article. In my view, today's leaders could learn something about reconciliation from them. And Benjamin had a legitimate claim to being a British subject, and they were not going to abduct him. Extraordinary rendition is for another era.

I should add that there was speculation, and I say again speculation, that Benjamin not making QC through the normal process and not being made a judge despite his eminent qualification, was because of not wanting to offend the US. But I don't think it's solid enough to include in the article.

• That lead image does not do justice to Benjamin. I can probably make something out of File:JPBenjamin.jpg that's worth having in an FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've boldly replaced it with this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• What do you think of this image of the 36th Congress? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC) On Commons
• The room in which he stayed at Gamble Mansion (on Commons)
• Depiction of Confederates being hanged, including Benjamin

I saw those. I didn't really see what they would add to the article. Apparently there is a plaque to Benjamin at the Gamble Mansion, regrettably I have no travel plans which involve Florida any time soon. Regarding the Brady Congress one, I'm not sure it adds much. As for the hanging one, at thumbnail size, I don't see how it helps the reader. I've seen a couple of drawings of Benjamin in his barrister's gown, if it was a photograph, I'd take my chances since I think a strong case could be made the photographer would be dead by 1944, but a sketch could be post mortem. I will keep looking as opportunity presents itself. I would like one, certainly. I don't want to put in images for the sake of having images.

Leaving aside the image question, I think that's everything. I've decided to defer bringing this to FAC for a cycle to allow for more feedback, and the cutting recommended by Brianboulton and also to look for more images. I have four coin articles to spend that are more or less ready for FAC, I'm letting one of those go first.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you think this would be defensible? 1876 to 1943 is, hum, 67 years and a photographer would have to have been quite young and made old bones. There is the issue of publication though.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• For Britain, publication is a moot point. Commons is currently allowing images which are not in the PD in the US owing to the URAA to be uploaded, so essentially the main issue would be British copyright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks on both. I think I'll add it and let the naysayers decide if they want in on this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps provide a footnote that Oscar Straus was the first person of the Jewish faith to be a member of the US cabinet? Just a suggestion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Added as See Also.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Harta Berdarah

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FAC, and would like feedback regarding how accessible it is to the average reader and well as readability and grammar. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Fighting the crowds here ...

Plot

• Who is Mardjan? Some sort of descriptor is necessary. Similar on Asmadi

• An employee of Doerachman.

• The last sentence of the second paragraph should be split.

• Tried reworking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• "convinces ... convinces" a little restructuring is in order

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• "has the illiterate hadji" You have not said who this is, in the body.

• There's only one hadji in the plot; I used "hadji" to avoid repeating Doerachman

• "stamp a letter" as in a postage stamp?

• No, but apply a seal.

• " her marriage" I imagine to Mardjan.

• Yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• "As they had all work in Doerachman's name" something wrong here

• Tense agreement fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Production

• "As such," this seems a bit of a non sequitur

• Removed as redundant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• "the massive commercial successes" they were long, then.

• Nixed "massive". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• "The film" Fatima is the last film mentioned.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

• "Several ... survived ... several ... survived" Some slight variation seems in order.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• That's about it. Interesting piece. Pity it's lost. Good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by SchroCat

After an interminable delay (for which apologies), I will have a look at this one today and tomorrow. Before I crack on, can I check on which English variant you're using here? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• As usual, this is an attempt at BrE. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Cheers (I spotted a "humor" tucked away in there, which is why I thought I'd check!) I'll take a full read through later and get back to you. As you've written it and Wehwalt's already gone through it, I suspect I'll find little, but I'll see! Incidently I had the pleasure of meeting Wehwalt yesterday as he passed through London - a rather fun afternoon with him, Brian Boulton, Tim riley, Bencherlite, Cassianto and a few bottles of wine. - SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, to be there, enjoying the wine and the cool London summers (well, relatively cool at least). And then going to see if I can get some good photographs :D — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Plot

• There's a "however" at the beginning of a sentence. Although I'm relatively relaxed about it, there are others at FAC who eschew all but the tightest use of the word—especially at the start of a sentence. It may be worth slightly re-framing what you have in order to get round the problem. (and the one in the "legacy" section.

Production

• "director Jo An Djan" -> "the director Jo An Djan..."
• I'm not sure "Native" needs to be capitalised?

Another "small, but perfectly formed" article: I suspect we're probably the best online source of knowledge on lost Indonesian films by some distance now! Please drop me a note when you take this to FAC. – SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Done all but one. "Native" is shorthand for Native Indonesians here. It avoids the anachronism "Indonesian" (not official at the time), the glossing required for "Pribumi", and the possible misidentification if I name just one of the 600+ ethnic groups in the archipelago. Thanks for the review! (BTW, Soeara Berbisa is at FAC if you have time to stop by). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation of N: all good on that one. I'll swing by Soeara Berbisa shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  

---

Ford Island

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to bring it to WP:FAC within the next couple of weeks. User:Mark Miller, User:Mareklug, and I wrote this article from scratch. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments

• Considering how this is closely related to the US Navy, WikiProject Military history's A-class review might provide significant feedback as well.
• There's absolutely no prose about the geography of the island. Is it flat? Rugged? Hilly? Paved over? Covered in mangroves swamps? We don't even find out the area until halfway through the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done--v/r - TP 02:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• United States state - Clunky. I think US state is preferred. Also, per WP:OVERLINK we shouldn't link common terms (such as US)
  •  Done--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• It was used by ancient Hawaiians ... new paragraph, restate the subject (rather than go right to pronouns). This seems to be an issue through the article.
  •  Done--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Repeating United States twice in the same sentence is clunky.
  •  Done--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Film titles should be italicised, per WP:ITALICS.
  •  Done--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • You've bolded them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Whoops, now it's really fixed.--v/r - TP 02:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• NOAA Tsunami warning center - Odd how you don't abbreviate United State, but abbreviate National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration without even a link. Also, is this supposed to be the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• With "such as", you don't need "amongst others".
  •  Done by you--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Standardize your italicization of non-English terms. You have Moku'ume'ume but 'ume
  •  Done--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• It was named after the ceremony that took place there for childless couples called 'ume. - were the childless couples called 'ume, or the ceremony? This sentence could use some reworking
  •  Done--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Ship names should also be italicised (HMS Blonde, not HMS Blonde)
  •  Done--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Early foreign settlers - this section title opens up the possibility of Polynesian and other non-European settlers. Since those mentioned appear European, why not change the header?
  •  Done I went with "18th century settlers" because Seth Ford was American.--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• the Island - "Island" here should not be capitalized, as it is being used as a generic noun
  •  Done--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• The white space in #Sugar doesn't look very attractive
  • I removed the white space, but now it's pinching the text. I'll run to a local library and see if I can find addition information on the Oahu Sugar Company.--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Pinching the text depends on resolution. At 800 pixels wide it's quite attractive. At 2000 pixels wide, the whole article probably looks terrible (don't have anything that big, so I can't verify). I'd suggest trimming some images instead of forcing white space. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• military commission recommended to cession of the site in exchange for tax free importation of sugar to the United States - US military or Hawaiian?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Lunalilo - who is this? Your readers may not be familiar with Hawaiian history, so you should be explicit that he was king at the time before continuing
  •  Done--v/r - TP 03:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• You should not use abbreviations like "wasn't" in the text
  •  Done by you--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• What makes #Army Air Service and #Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Ford Island not part of #History? You may want to rename #History as #Early history
  • The island was essentially decommissioned. It was put into inactive use as more of a 'support' function than operational.--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Major Brooks, - first name?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• US Army - standardize your abbreviation of "United States" (I believe the MOS prefers US, not U.S.)
  •  Done--v/r - TP 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Don't link terms more than once in the article body. I've seen three links to Hawaii already.
  •  Done--v/r - TP 03:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• PK - link?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 21:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• The dredging was done by the United Dredge Company for $1.5 million. - is this really pertinent to the island's history?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 23:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• HAWAII AVIATION PRESERVATION SOCIETY - We should not use all-caps, even in references
  •  Done--v/r - TP 23:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• The paragraph after the first table in #Army Air Service feels like a compilation of trivia.
  •  Done The sentence was disorganized. This was an important time of development on the island gearing up for WWII and to combat the Japanese threat. But the paragraph wasn't written in chronological order. I've fixed it.--v/r - TP 03:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• a target for the Japanese first wave raiders - might want to explicitly mention the attack in that sentence
  •  Done Reworded that sentence.--v/r - TP 03:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• In all, more than half of its planes, 33 total, were destroyed - your pronoun "its" doesn't have a clear subject to refer to. Hangar 6's airplanes? (BTW, I think "aircraft" is preferred, to avoid the airplane / aeroplane divide)
  •  Done--v/r - TP 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• the west coast - if this is the west coast of the US, then this should be West Coast
  •  Done--v/r - TP 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• 450 pounds - I believe this will need conversion
  •  Done--v/r - TP 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• AOM1c - I really don't think this is necessary
  •  Done--v/r - TP 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Wake Island - link?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• However, several of these planes, and others from Ford Island's own complement, were airborne again within a few hours, sent out to search for the enemy. - let me get this straight... the planes were shot down, then sent up again within hours?
• hit by a crashing dive bomber, a bomb and fragments of another. - fragments of a bomber or a bomb?
• The Pearl Harbor sections feel very confused, jumping from place to place and topic to topic, despite sometimes already having been dealt with
• Over the next few weeks, - I've already lost track of time. When is this?
• My impression from reading this is that there are a lot of simple sentences, which although good for readability, are going to raise hell during an A-class or FAC review.
• That's it for today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Why the big jump from the 1940s to the 1960s? Nothing in the 50s?
• the Naval Station Ford Island - if Naval Station Ford Island is the formal name, it doesn't need "the". If it is a descriptor, "naval station" should be lowercase and followed by "on"
  •  Done--v/r - TP 17:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• The State of Hawaii - last we heard Hawaii was independent and a kingdom. Some important information got missed during our time skip.
  •  Done--v/r - TP 17:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• Boat lengths need conversion
  •  Done--v/r - TP 17:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• Access to the island was restricted to US military personnel, their dependents, and invited guests. - when? Last we read, this was open to students learning how to fly
  • It was open to touch and go landings. Students weren't allowed to step out of their aircraft.--v/r - TP 22:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    •  Working Linked touch-and-go. Also, looking up more information on the solo-flights.--v/r - TP 17:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• special legislation 2814 U. S. Code - Is this how it's correctly referred to?
  • All of the sources refer to it as special legislation.--v/r - TP 22:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• the $331,000,000 NOAA's Senator Daniel Inouye Pacific Tsunami warning center - traffic jam; way too many adjectival clauses. Try reworking.
  •  Done--v/r - TP 17:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• In 2004, a former emergency medical facility used during the attack on Pearl Harbor was converted into a lodge. - This is definitely not worth its own paragraph
  •  Done--v/r - TP 17:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• 28 acres - convert template?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 17:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• 34,000 square foot - convert template?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 17:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also opened the Senator Daniel Inouye Pacific Tsunami Warning Center on the island. - you already mentioned this above
  •  Done--v/r - TP 17:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• The island has also the for repair and maintenance and the informal home of the Sea-based X-band Radar, - The what? The what?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 06:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Touchstone Pictures - I very much doubt a company could physically lay a wreath. It was a representative.
  •  Done--v/r - TP 06:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• its restoration projects - the tower's restoration projects?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 06:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Tennessee and Nevada streets - are the italics proper here?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 06:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• The ship was towed off Ford Island for maintenance and was brought out to sea between completion of the maintenance and its return to the dock for filming. - I believe I remember reading somewhere that she moved on her own power for a while.
  • I looked in on it and these three sources, [2][3][4] say that the ship's engines haven't been used since 1992 and that the ship was towed during filming and the tugs were digitally removed from the films (or creatively shot).--v/r - TP 20:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

More later — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• it became apparent that the - I think "it was decided" may work better
  • It wasn't so much decided as much as it was that as they began working through the recovery plan, they realized that the effort was tremendous with little value added. The Arizona couldn't be re-floated, like the Oklahoma, and all other options were too time consuming and costly in the middle of a war.--v/r - TP 08:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • "as a final resting place for those lost.", however, requires human input, as it implies that it was already considered a monument to the attack even before formal recognition. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I suppose. I'll grab some books on the Arizona specifically and see how they describe the period right after the attack. Should be easy, it's less than a mile down the road :)--v/r - TP 08:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Done.--v/r - TP 06:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• I've mentioned this PR to a Wikipedian who is a considerably better writer than I, better versed in American history (though this may be a bit late for him), and probably more handsome as well. He may drop by if he has the time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Definitely appreciated, I can use all the help I can get. This is some excellent learning I'm doing for the next one.--v/r - TP 17:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

• " It has been called Rabbit Island, Marin's Island, Little Goats Island, and its native Hawaiian name is Moku'ume'ume.": Missing an "and" before "Little".
  • Would I have a period after Island then and make the native Hawaiian name a separate sentence?--v/r - TP 06:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • You need an "and" in any series ... "it has been called X, Y, Z" is poetic or informal. The "and" you have starts its own independent clause. All you need is an "and" before the third element, with or without a comma: "Marin's Island and Little Goats Island, and its native ..." - Dank (push to talk) 10:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I think we might be reading it differently. When I read it, the ancient Hawaiian name is the last item in the list. Are you reading it differently?--v/r - TP 17:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
        • There are two main streams of thinking among copyeditors: there are describers and prescribers. Publishing houses hire people who are prescribers ... into style guides and dictionaries, willing to learn and follow a "house" style, and so on. Academics (particularly linguists) tend to be less accepting of dense lists of "grammar rules", and claim to "describe" the language as it's used by the masses, not as the style guides recommend. Nevertheless, on this point, the prescribers and describers agree ... you've got a verb after the Hawiian name, so both independent clauses in that sentence have to stand (or fail) as complete sentences on their own, and "It has been called Rabbit Island, Marin's Island, Little Goats Island" fails. - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Ahh, I see. I had no idea. So the "is" in the last segment makes it a compound sentence? Right, I'll go ahead and make the change then.--v/r - TP 17:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• "but later increased": I'd go with "but was increased in the 1930s"
  •  Done--v/r - TP 06:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• "participate in a large bonfire": sounds strange, like participating in an oven.
  •  Done--v/r - TP 06:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• "a mating ritual": I think I'd go with fertility ritual, even though there was clearly mating going on.
  •  Done I'm not sure how much of a fertility ritual it was, though, in the typical sense.--v/r - TP 06:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The problem is that, in most readers' minds, "mating" isn't a ritual, so they won't know what you mean. If you don't like "fertility", then I'd recommend either less ("for special rituals") or more (a quick description of what happened). - Dank (push to talk) 10:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• "In 1899 ... in the 1850s": I'm confused here. Keeping things in chronological order would help.
  •  Working Thinking about how to reword this.--v/r - TP 06:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    •  Done--v/r - TP 01:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• "sugar plantations in Hawaii became frustrated with US import tax which hindered Hawaii's income.": Plantations can't get frustrated, and income can't be hindered.
  •  Working Thinking about how to reword this.--v/r - TP 06:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Just wanted to give an update - I've reached out to the Bishop Museum whom I understand may have more details about the Oahu Sugar Company. Waiting for a response.--v/r - TP 17:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
      •  Done--v/r - TP 01:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• "to turn his efforts elsewhere toward Australia": to turn to Australia ... for something. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done--v/r - TP 17:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
    

---

SS Arctic disaster

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is an account of a maritime disaster almost entirely unknown in the UK – I'd never heard of it until, in a bookshop a few months back, I saw the provocative title Women and Children Last, and decided to investigate. The story is perhaps better remembered in the United States and in Newfoundland, a sad tale indeed, with few edifying aspects. The article has been a challenge to write, partly because of the grim details but also, for me, as my first attempt to write in American English. I hope this aspect (but not only this aspect) will receive attention at this peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

Background

• Worth a link to Liverpool?
• A slight slip into BrEng here: "26 October 1850" →October, 26 1850.
• "was considered particularly remarkable" by who?

Last voyage

• " Two of these were below the waterline and were admitting large quantities of sea." -- I suppose either would be ok, but water sounds more natural.
• "All but one of its dozen occupants was killed." →All but one of its dozen occupants were killed?
• "Luce ordered the ship's lifeboats prepared for launching" There may be a word or two missing. How about "Luce ordered the preparation of the ship's lifeboats ready for launching" or something like that?

• I've inserted a couple of words Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• with around twelve women and five crew aboard" -- I probably completely wrong, but would it be "on-board"?
  • [interfering]: "They're a ravenous horde and they all came on board, At Sloane Square and South Kensington stations." But either aboard or on board is fine. Tim riley talk 15:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Cassianto^talk 17:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's all I could find. A tragic tale thus far, but very interesting nonetheless. Cassianto^talk 23:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have dealt with all of the above points. Thank you for your review – a tragic story indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Either you're getting better and better at writing articles or I'm getting worse and worse at reviewing them. I can find hardly anything to contribute. My humble batch of gleanings:

• Lead
  • "and nobody was called to account for their actions" – a switch from singular "nobody" to plural "their". You can, without fear of having a suffragette chain herself to you, write "his" here, as all the culprits were men.
• Collins Line
  • It may just be my ageing eyes, but I could do with having the 1852 cartoon a bit bigger on the page.

• • I have slightly increased it. Any larger mucks up the page presentation (and some bugger will probably reduce it anyway) Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Newfoundland
  • "The owners of the steamer Victoria offered their vessel" – we learn where the John Clements was from, and perhaps you might mention the home country of Victoria.
• New York
  • "but was proved false" – but this was proved false?
• Aftermath
  • and no person was called in law to account for their actions – another mongrel singular/plural

That's my lot. What a strange affair! A curious mix of the deplorable, the gallant and the stupid – like life in general, I suppose. – Tim riley talk 07:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these points, all of which I have dealt with. And thank you, too, for reviewing this dismal tale. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Kablammo

• You mention Vesta's watertight bulkheads, but not the fact that Arctic was not so equipped.
• It would be relevant to mention that Arctic was constructed of wood, in contrast to the iron of Vesta.
• Did Vesta also have steel in the hull (likely plating, if so)? Your section on "Collision" mentions steel debris embedded in Arctic.

Kablammo (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these useful comments & for your general interest (as indicated, for example, in your work on the SS Vesta article. With regard to the above, I have added a specific mention of Arctic's lack of watertight bulkheads, and have emphasised that its hull was made of wood. On the last point, I was wrong to refer to steel; Vesta's hull was made of iron, and it was iron debris that impaled itself into Arctic. This, according to the source, was mainly from Vesta's stem and anchor. I have added in these details. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Your changes look good. (1850 was a little early for mass-produced steel.)

I placed a quote on the article's talk page, should you wish to make use of it. I have several more books with some useful material, but likely will use them for the article on Arctic. Kablammo (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote, which I will try to work into the "Aftermath" section. It will be nice if the ship article can be developed further; my work on it was mainly a tidying operation. If I can help with further sourcing, please let me know. Brianboulton (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

A few minor copy edits done - feel free to revert if you don't like any of them. Apart from those, it's very slim fare to pick up on (although I have no idea on the AmEng front, apart from the obvious bits you've already covered).

Transatlantic shipping

• "left Liverpool for Halifax, Nova Scotia and Boston.[5]" This looks like three destinations - and why is NS given, but not MA?
• "transatlantic mails contract": is this right (poss in AmEng), or is it a "mail" contract.

• North American usage refers to "the mails", so I imagine "mails contract" is OK. But I am waiting for an American editor to pass jugement on this and my other AmEng efforts. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Liverpool to the GB

• "100 women or young children": poss "and" young children? ( or poss not!)

That's it: like those who preceded me, I struggled to find much to complain about, apart from the tale itself! - SchroCat (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor fixes done: thanks for your time and enjoy your holiday. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt (lost at sea and never found)

Forgive me if any of these comments seem outdated, as I am working from a version several days old, due to the circumstances of which you are aware and doing this offline.

Lede

• I would move the ownership by Collins to the second sentence, it seems to get in the way of the "headline", if you get my drift.

• I get your drift, but the phrase doesn't naturally fit into the second sentence, and I'm not anxious to add more text. If you can suggest something neat and tidy, I'd be grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Newfoundland is probably worth a link, either to the present day province or what we have as to its political status (crown colony?) at the time.
• "condemnation of" let's not mince words. "anger at"
• ", and their failure of duty towards their passengers" I'm not sure failure of duty is an Americanism, but it strikes me this whole phrase can be safely deleted. I think the crew's actions speak for themselves. There is some tendency to over-explain things and to be wordy here and there. I think spare writing is essential in this article, which should be fast-moving to maximize the impact, though of course preserving the encyclopedic nature. I think people will "get" that it wasn't the crew's place to jump in ahead of the passengers.
• "full enquiry" I think "full investigation" is a bit more common on my native shores. Similarly "called to account" might be "held responsible". Also in the body, where you have enquiry/inquiry in close proximity anyway.

Transatlantic etc.

• " first decades of the 18th century" I assume this typo will have been caught long before I upload this, but it almost certainly is 19th.
• It might be worth mentioning that westbound passages are against the prevailing winds.
• "United States Postal Service" until July 1, 1971 the "United States Post Office Department".
• "from Delaware" possibly "of Delaware". Benjamin was, I mention in passing, a good friend of the Bayard family ... (no action on the latter)
• "transatlantic mails" perhaps better for the US, "transatlantic mail"

Collins etc.

• "around 25 percent" perhaps more formally "about 25 percent"
• I am not impressed by the standard of accommodations, as I read nothing of regular trivia competitions. (no action)

Last voyage

• "the location of the Grand Banks" I would strike "the location of" as surplus, especially with the image.
• "maximum speeds," Either could pass, but I think "maximum speed" a bit more colonial.
• "Keeping schedules was considered paramount" maybe "Keeping on schedule was considered of paramount importance"
• " centre" center. It might be worth mentioning that St. Pierre is French,
• "on which scenes of panic and chaos among the 200-odd sailors and fishermen aboard her were evident." perhaps a bit wordy. "as panic and chaos among the ... "
• "he found that large steel sections from Vesta's damaged bow were impaled in the woodwork of Arctic's hull, creating substantial holes. Two of these were below the waterline and were admitting large quantities of sea." again, I think this can be shortened, increasing the, er, impact. "he found that steel sections from Vestas bow had holed the woodwork of Arctics hull. Two breaches were below the waterline, admitting large quantities of water." or similar.

Confusion etc.

• "and a mood of concern and anxiety began to develop" this seems to be understated somewhat. Will the sources justify something more? Even granted you don't with to repeat the section title?

• I don't think, at this stage in the story, there is understatement here. Initially, most passengers and crew were pretty sanguine about the effects of the collision on Arctic. As Baalham carried out his inspection, and presumably reported what he was seeing, people began to get worried, a mood which developed into panic. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• "but jagged protrusions of iron debris from the impact with Vesta quickly tore the sail apart." as you've referred to the iron before, I think you can shorten this. Perhaps "but the jagged iron protruding from the hull quickly tore the sail apart".
• "at full stretch" not a term I'm familiar with. Perhaps "at full capacity"?
• "Realising" "Realizing".
• " transmit his intention" perhaps "signal his intention"? I would strike "likewise" later in the sentence, as diminishing the impact.

Boats

• "As water levels" I might say "As the water"
• "only a minority could be saved in the boats." perhaps "few could fit in the lifeboats".

Newf

• "was initially cool," and thereafter, I gather. Perhaps strike "initially"?
• "Eventually Victoria departed without payment, " although the following clause provides some hint, this might be read to say that they did not search, but went on their way.

Huron

• Quote box: I don't think the heading is needed. The footer tells us what the quote is.

New York

• Can one of the two "false"'s in the first paragraph be changed?

Aftermath

• You are inconsistent in your capitalization and italicization of The New York Times.
• "Green-Wood Cemetery, Brooklyn" are you certain on the hyphen and capital W? Or was it that way at the time? I'm pretty sure it is "Greenwood" today.

• The cemetery's official website [5] gives "Green-Wood".

• Do we know if the loss of subsidy was due to the Collins Line's loss of ships, or due to such things as the transatlantic telegraph?

• That aspect is not mentioned in the sources. I gather that there was an undercurrent of opinion, even before the sinking, that the Collins line was oversubsidized and that its "luxury" voyages were wasteful. The reduction in the subsidy merely responded to this mood. I have rejigged the prose to clarify this. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• " never returning to the United States" possibly too strong. They might have as relatively anonymous members of another crew. Perhaps "not returning to the United States".
• " and no person was called in law to account for their actions." This does not seem like a US phrase. Possibly (in addition to the "held responsible" phrase suggested for the lede) you might consider "no one was taken to court for their actions".

Notes

• "July 1952" surely 1852.
• note 2: I would strike "financially", surely implied.
• note 4: I would strike "differentiation".
• A most gripping account indeed, and I have no doubt will sail through FAC without incident. I shall ponder the lessons to be learned, given my present situation. Should we strike an iceberg or another vessel ourselves, well, the only child on board is an older teenager who seems to spend most of his time in the gym and who presumably needs no assistance. Possibly I can escort one of the many elderly ladies onto the lifeboat, while brandishing my nail clippers at those who might interfere.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for this exhaustive reading. I have dealt with all the small fixes, Americanizations etc, more or less as you suggest, otherwise I have commented in the notes above. I imagine that you wore a life jacket while you did the review, a wise precaution. I hope that your voyage is proceeding safely and well, and we look forward to more dispatches in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

My cabin steward freaks out if I remove the life jacket from the closet, alas. If I have further comments, I will let you know, but your responses look fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Walt Disney

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to improve it to GA, and ultimately out it to FA. I believe that as Walt Disney is a very prominent and important figure in modern entertainment history, his article should be just as well. Every comment is precious!

Thanks, Forbidden User (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I won't be here until June 25, however, every comment is still welcome!Forbidden User (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001

Hello Forbidden User. This is a wonderful and comprehensive article that is suitable for GA nomination, I'd encourage you on return to go straight there and deal with and issues as they arise. I have only one comment, that the section "Academy awards" could be tighter and appears to duplicate the subarticle. Other than that, good luck! --LT910001 (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Mercury Grand Marquis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone some major revisions and cleanup and I am interested in seeing what kind of work needs to be done to upgrade it from B-Class (its status for several years) to something higher.

Thanks, SteveCof00 ^{"suggestion box"} 09:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001

Wow! SteveCof00, you are clearly very passionate about this topic. I'd encourage you to aim for good article status, which is a reasonable goal this article could definitely work towards. As a lay user who doesn't know too much about cars, after my skim of the article I have a few thoughts:

• Firstly, the article is full of jargon that is difficult for me to understand. For example, "After the discontinuation of the Crown Victoria at the end of the 2007 model year, the Grand Marquis had largely taken its place as the entry-level Panther-platform model." and "With the discontinuation of the Mercury brand, the Grand Marquis ended retail production in October 2010 while production for fleet sales continued until January 2011.". What are fleet sales? What's a "model year"? What's an "entry level car"? These could be made more accessible by:
  • wikilinking some of these terms, as could quite a few additional parts of the article.
  • Adding additional sentences that flesh out what you are talking about
  • Writing in full sentences (cfr. "Introduced as a running change late " --> "The 1986 was introduced..."
• This article has a lot of images. If you're going to nominate for GA status, then these all need to be freely licensed. I haven't checked, but am letting you know as otherwise it may come as a surprise during the review. In addition, you might consider using {{Gallery}} to represent images, although this is really a matter of taste.
• I would consider renaming "Year to year changes" as "Timeline" and possibly putting this in a single section, split into subsections by era, with a gallery to represent images. It's a little strange to see the timelines bespeckled throughout the article.
• As this is an encyclopedia for general use, I'd just note that this article contains a lot of details (for example "For 2006, revisions to engine tuning added 4 hp to both versions of the Modular V8, for a total of 224 and 239 hp, respectively. After the 2007 model year, the 239 hp version of the Grand Marquis was sold exclusively for GCC export."). I don't normally see this level of detail in a good article, and am not sure that it is necessary. I suggest localise these in a single section. If you're interested, have a look at some existing good articles about cars here: WP:GA
• Lastly, if you are considering GA, then you will need to use inline sources to support the majority of your text

I hope this feedback is useful. Most of what I have said is really a matter of taste, so I hope you can extract something useful from it! There is clearly a lot of work that has gone into this article and I am sure that it can make it to GA with the proper preparation. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Improvisational theatre

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

1) The section titled "Practice and Playing - Comedic" seems to be largely opinion, thus lacking a a neutral point of view.

2) The article in general seems to a little disjointed and messy and in need of a thorough make-over, but I may be too close to the subject to see it from a lay-person's point of view.

Thanks, R. Kevin Doyle (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001

I have to agree. Having skimmed the article I'd make the following comments:

• The article is quite randomly ordered. I'd consider grouping some of the sections together or making them subsections under a bigger title (eg "Types of improvisational theatre" / "Theatre in society" (subheadings TV/Community) / "Structure and practice" subheading 'psychology')
• This article largely lacks sources. I think that finding some sources would also help by providing some ideas about structure, organisation, and topics that are relevant to cover.
• This article contains some sections, such as "Practice and Playing - Comedic" which are written WP:INUNIVERSE and are WP:HOWTO. Similarly for "Structure and process". I'd suggest trimming these down and providing sources. If you or other users are feeling rueful about this, then a relevant and high-quality external link could be provided.
• There are some good articles that you might want to have a look at for inspiration about how to structure and report on this article: Hip-hop dance and Music hall.

I hope that's useful. Please let me know if you need any clarification. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Sonic: After the Sequel

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Star. I want one. Please help.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• here you go. Having done the GA review, my main structural comment would be that I understand the difference between GA and FA to be that while every article can feasibly become GA, the comprehensiveness doesn't exist for all articles to become FA. Things like the nuances of the gameplay and how the player controls the character don't appear to exist in the extant sources. There have been a few video game FAs in the last year that have failed on these grounds, if I recall correctly czar ♔ 02:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Czar: First of all, thanks. But I've just realized something hideous: there's basically zero chance that any print sources exist for this. I remember someone opposing Shadow's FAC a few years ago because there weren't any. Is that still a thing? I don't recall it popping up at any recent FACs, but then again, they've all had the sourcing to begin with. Tezero (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be a thing for games that certainly have print coverage, but since this is a very recent ordeal, I would think it's safe to say that print sources (for the sake of print sources) would be unnecessary. (There would certainly be print sources for Shadow, though I think it'd be inappropriate to oppose on that basis unless there are confirmed magazine articles that should specifically have been included.) czar ♔ 16:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

At a glance I think that the demands of an FAC are too great for this subject matter. "The sources/information you want me to include doesn't exist" is not taken very kindly to as a form of reasoning when it comes to FACS (at least in part, because it's hard enough to generate promote votes without telling reviewers you can't do what they want for them). I've battled with it before, and lost. ResMar 04:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Resident Mario: You don't think I could hedge it by stating that the gameplay's modeled after those of the Genesis games and including links to those articles as well as a screenshot? Tezero (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes it's best to concede that it can't be done, and move on. ResMar 04:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes. I'm not ready yet to concede as much here, though; there's a discussion going on at WT:VG right now ("Sourcing for a potential FAC of limited coverage") if you're interested. The feedback seems to indicate that options are available. Tezero (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

---

List of awards and nominations received by Miley Cyrus

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it meets FL criteria. I think it needs a review before nomination. So, feel free to give feedback.

Thanks, Shane Cyrus (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001

Hi Shane Cyrus! This article is comprehensively sourced and clearly & consistently written, so I'd encourage you to nominate for FL and deal with and issues as they arise there. I can't guarantee that this comment is useful, as I haven't reviewed for FL, but this article doesn't seem to have any major areas which need correcting, and based on how long you've had to wait for this review, its likely you'll probably get some better feedback there. Good luck! --LT910001 (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Sheila LaBarre

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs a general clean up and a fresh pair of eyes. GiraffeBoy (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, GiraffeBoy (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

---

List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to nominate it for featured list and I would like feedback first, particularly on the descriptions, but any other areas which may not meet FL standard.

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Just opened this page and will review the article soonest. Tim riley talk 17:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to be much use to you at this peer review, for the very simple reason that I have the utmost difficulty finding anything to criticise or query: this article is a magnificent piece of work. Having had only a few encounters with FL candidates over the years, I've just refreshed my memory of the FL criteria, and this list seems to me to meet them all handsomely. I certainly don't think you need be concerned about your descriptions, which are pithy and to the point. In a desparate attempt to justify my presence on this page:

• You repeat links such as oak whenever the term recurs. I believe it is indeed usual to do this in sortable lists, and isn't regarded as WP:OVERLINK, but I can't lay hands on the MoS authority for it.
• You are inconsistent between St John's-wort at Coldfall Wood, with apostrophe and hyphen, and St Johns wort at The Manor, Havering, with neither.
• St. John's Wood with a full stop or St John's Wood without one? The Saint's wort doesn't get one, and I don't think his Wood should either.

And that really is all I can find. Loud applause. – Tim riley talk 09:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. As so often, the sources conflict how they show names. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Andhra Pradesh

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it was reviewed long back in 2012 and later took place major updation. I've been to this page and contributed along with other users too by improving references sections and content.

Thanks, Vin09 (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Good Game

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… this article was recently expanded by me, adding tonnes of sources and trying to get rid of all the pointless trivia lists. I'm struggling to conceptualise how the article sections should be structures, and am having trouble trying to discern what is important info and what is trivia. I would greatly appreciate a review to help suss out how to refine the improvement. .--Coin945 (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Coin945 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001

Oh my, Coin945, oh my! This is quite a long article! I'd suggest:

• Increase the length of the lead so that it is summarises the article
• Add some wikilinks so that non-informed users can understand some of the concepts
• Decrease the "Hex said...", "Bajo said...".
  • Firstly, these are primary sources and not reliable sources, so if possible information from other sources should be used. I'd strongly suggest find some sources about good game, rather than those that are from good game.
  • Secondly, these are quite verbose and could be summarised (if they are retained). For example "Bajo says "It's always game play for me. I don't care what the game is about, if the game play is engaging, challenging and interesting to me, I will play the hell out of it and I'll love it. Second, for me it needs a good story. I'm also a graphics whore, I just need it to look good".[" can be summarised as: "Host Bajo prefers games that are engaging, challenging, interesting and with good story and graphics". Note however that this is Bajo's own description of what he prefers, and, as stated, not reliable.
• Consider splitting the long paragraphcs into paragraphs organised by topic. Use a topic sentence to group information. This will enhance readability
• There's a really long list of good articles about TV shows here: Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Television. You might want to check out one or two to see how other editors have arranged articles about TV shows.
• Consider trimming some of the "Relationship with audience" section. One helpful thing to think about is whether or not the content here will be relevant to users reading this article about good game in 5, 10, 15 years time.
• Consider combining some of the smaller sections together. The "Good game spinoffs" section could include the sections about the book and mobile app
• Consider combining "credibility" with "Critical reception", or "Critical reception" and "Awards"
• Consider changing the organization of the article so that there is some discussion of what the show is, how long its been running, the layout of each episode, the hosts, and then special episodes and reception, in what I think is a more logical order for readers who aren't acquainted with the TV show.
• I'm not sure where "Philosophy" belongs but probably in the first section I suggested above (about the structure of its show and seasons).

It's clear that the editors are quite passionate about this article! However it may need some new sources and a significant trim of quotes from the hosts. I hope this is helpful! Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thankyou very much for the feedback LT910001. I don't suppose peer reviewers actually help with the edit, do they.. Gahh I suck at this part of the article evolution process. Every time I try to start copyediting I run away in fear. I think I need to acknowledge this is not my area of expertise and know when to seek help from those more experienced than I. I wonder where I could go about getting better sources from. I seemed to swipe all useable sources from a number of different places. Hmmm..--Coin945 (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• (I would be quite happy with a brutal series of edits that removes all the crap and trivia that's bogging the article down. A similar thing happened to Carmen Sandiego's Great Chase Through Time, and Horrible Histories (book series) - all of which were heavily edited by me but subsequently chopped down--Coin945 (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Coin945, sorry, I'm not knowledgeable about this topic so I wouldn't know what to cut! You are in the best place to make this decision. In the case of very long sections, it may be worthwhile re-writing sections from scratch in your sandbox and then replacing the sections at hand. As you're writing you can use sources from the original sections, but you don't have that pressure to conform to the previous writing layout or style. Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

---

New England

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it only has a couple of active editors, despite being very important. As it stands, the article is probably too long. Some of the sections can be reduced, and their content transferred to related articles (e.g., Culture of New England, Politics of New England, &c.). It's too great a task for me to do alone.

This article has been listed for peer review a number of times over the course of several years, as well as having been nominated a few times for GA status. In each case, nothing came of it. I would really like to finally get New England the recognition it deserves as a thorough, well-cited and decently written article. It just needs some work and a bit of help.

Thanks, TimothyDexter (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001

A lot of work has clearly gone into this article. A few comments:

• I found the lead and writing style very clear
• Large portions of the article will require inline citations for GA.
• I agree with your view that the article is quite long. A lot of this length comes in sections that already have a child article ("History", "Politics"). I'd suggest moving some of the content in these sections to the child articles. It is always tempting to want to put everything in the parent article, but I think that the consequence is that it is quite overwhelming for the reader and that the prescient and relevant details get lost. This will also help with endeavors to source and copyedit the article.
• In addition, there are a lot of subsections which makes reading this very disjointed. I'd consider integrating smaller subsections together.
• The table of contents is very long. Consider using {{TOC limit|2}} or {{TOC limit|3}} so that not all items in the TOC are displayed.
• The 'politics' section is very short (one sentence)
• There are an awfully large amount of hatnotes in some places. I'm not sure how, but do you think they'd be able to be trimmed back somehow? They're quite distracting. In addition, hatnotes are placed somewhat haphazardly, at the top, middle, and bottom of subsections. I'd localise them all to the top parts of the subsections and cut down on the number of hatnotes if possible, integrating some into the paragraphs, particularly when the paragraphs are quite short (such as the history section). Again, if content is moved to a subarticle then that may help.
• I don't know what the last section, 'transport#Routes' means. Sorry!
• The 'see also' section is quite large. Per WP:SEEALSO, I'd suggest removing any links that are already mentioned in the article.
• I am not sure all the external links are relevant. Having a link about one area or a forum will probably encourage future users to drop more helpful links to other areas or forums, so I'd prophylactically remove them.
• There are a couple of raw URLs that are dead links in the sources
• You may be interested in the layout of similar good articles, and how other editors have dealt with issues of coverage and depth. A list can be found here: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Geography_and_places

Overall this is a very thorough article that clearly has been the subject of a lot of effort. It may need some work before it is ready for GA, but with a steady work ethic I'm sure it will be ready in a month or two. I hope this is helpful and that you can extract something useful from my thoughts. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Afterthought: Try not to feel too disheartened. The significant issue here is, I feel, the one you identify - a lot of content could be covered in the subarticles. If you focus on moving the content to the subarticles, which is not too difficult to do, this article will become a lot shorter and a lot easier to deal with. Have a look at some of the other GAs for ideas and inspiration. I reviewed China and I suggest you have a look at China#Culture, which uses child articles and summary style to efficiently cover a great deal of content. --LT910001 (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions; thank you! --TimothyDexter (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by ServiceableVillain

• I came here by coincidence, as I was searching for a particular piece of info about NE and saw the little blurb that mentioned Peer Review. The info I wanted was either not present or difficult to find. Frankly, I (crankiness alert) am not enthralled with the way the infobox is set up or populated. There is an NE flag atop the box, the a St. John someone-or-other. While the local NE'ers may be eager to show their local symbols, I clicked to the article to find a very clear map with very clear borders and very clear labels (no geographic features) that makes it abundantly obvious which states are which within NE. I think such a map should go atop the infobox. Move the flag and the mascot/symbol to the article body; I am 50+ years old and have never seen or heard of them before, which makes their relative importance rather suspect. Certainly if Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, people from other countries will want a map of NE very pronto immediately, to give them a visual/spatial orientation and to help them see which states are in the NE fold.yes, the states are listed early in the text, but many people are visual learners and grasp info better from images... Good luck with your future GA bid, I assume, and probable march to FAC after that. But please do consider my cranky complaints. • Serviceable†Villain 03:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed--there used to be a good political/geographical map there, but it somehow disappeared some time ago. If anybody has any suggestions for a decent replacement, I'm all ears. --TimothyDexter (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC) I should add, though, that the article is about New England as New England and not just a list of the different states in New England. For example, Southern United States has the South as a topic without going into great detail about the differences between Virginia and Louisiana. --TimothyDexter (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Lake James (Indiana)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it to a Good Article. I could not find a good "template/other lake article" to pattern this article after. This lake is very popular in the Fort Wayne - Southern Michigan - Toledo region—so I think it is important to upgrade this article. Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Finetooth comments

On a first read-through, I see this as an article with clear FA potential, and I encourage you to think about that as the next goal beyond GA. It's pretty close to GA already. The prose quality is high. The article is broad in coverage, and the coverage is approaching comprehensive, I believe. I have concerns about a few of the images and/or the way they are licensed, and I'm working on a short list of nitpicks. It will take me a while to read more carefully and write down my thoughts. I will post them here when they are ready. Meanwhile, I found two FAs about lakes that you might consider as models: Chew Valley Lake and Lake Burley Griffin. Since neither is in the United States, they won't be exact models, but they look very useful anyway. More later. Finetooth (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll add my comments in installments as I find time to work on them. Finetooth (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to review this article. I know there are people waiting to see the final version. Thank you so much. I have a work deadline June 5, so I may be slow to respond in some cases, but I would like to get this article to GA, or even FA. TwoScars (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Lots of good ideas. I probably will not be able to get to them until Saturday or Sunday—working about 11 hours per day right now. TwoScars (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No need to hurry on my account. Finetooth (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

• The general reference, "Lake Diagnostic Study Steuben County, Indiana", which I assume is the reliable source for the quantities, names, and other data in the box, should be linked to the source.

The url for this source is http://lakejames.org/pdf/FullToOverflowingFinal[2].pdf. The "[2]" appears to confuse Wikipedia, so I had to comment it out. Is there a way around the problem? TwoScars (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the brackets cause the confusion. In any case, that particular document, mostly about boating capacity, does not support the statistical claims in the infobox. However, the Aquatic Enhancement document, pages 22 through 24, does support most of the claims. I added a ref to it that links to the relevant item in the bibliography. Finetooth (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd suggest moving the map into the infobox to see how it looks. It can go into the "image_bathymetry" slot in the infobox, as in Chew Valley Lake. As it is, the map now overlaps a main text section boundary, which is a layout no-no.

Moved map. TwoScars (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Finetooth (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

✔I like it there too. TwoScars (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• The infobox mentions three inflow creeks and one outflow creek. If any of these have names, you should include their names. Others can be identified as "unnamed", if you have a reliable source for that.

Plan to address inflows and outflows in the Geology and climate section. TwoScars (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Many lakes have been assigned a trophic state index based on the nutrients in the water. If you can find a reliable source that names the trophic state of Lake James, you should add it to the "type" line in the infobox, which can still include "Glacial as well.

Page 126 of the Diagnostic Study says 46 for Lake James in 2005—Mesotrophic ("intermediate level of nutrient enrichment"). TwoScars (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Finetooth (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

✔Discussed under Geology and climate. Is Geology and climate a good section heading, or would Geography be better? TwoScars (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Lakes have a catchment area, which means the same thing as drainage basin or watershed. You should try to find a reliable source that gives the size of the Lake James basin and add it to the "catchment area" line in the infobox.

I'm pretty sure I can find this in one of the sources already used, although it may be for the entire James Lake Chain. TwoScars (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

✔Done. TwoScars (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• If you can find a reliable source that gives it, you should add a quantity to the "residence time" line in the infobox. Also referred to as the lake retention time, it's a measure of how quickly the water in the lake is refreshed.

I can get that. TwoScars (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can find this in one of the sources already used. TwoScars (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

✔Added to the Water subsection under Geology and climate. TwoScars (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• The article's lead image, the one of the beach house, is washed out. I'd like to see a much sharper image in this position. If you live near the lake and can take your own high-resolution photos, that would be great. If not, you might consider using File:Potawatomi Inn Pokagon State Park.jpg in the infobox rather than the beach house or looking around for even better images, if any exist that are appropriately licensed. Finetooth (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I live near the East Coast, and have not been to the lake since the 1990s. Our family photos either have people as the main focus, or are old B-W. I'll try to find more pictures, but it has been a challenge. TwoScars (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I like to take my own photos when possible, but it's not always possible. You're a long way from James Lake. Me too. Finetooth (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Switched the two Pokagon pictures. Will try to get a new picture for the Today section—may take a while. There are all kinds of Lake James sandbar pictures on the web, but I don't think they can be used—and they may be little too wild for Wikipedia anyway. TwoScars (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks much better to me now than before. The beach house works OK in its new location near the bottom. Finetooth (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Images

• The good news is that the licenses for the two "Mr. Harmon" images look fine to me as do the railway schedule, the old-timey photo from your father's collection, and the woodpecker. I replaced a dead URL on the bluegill license page with a live one to the source image, and I think that license is now OK too. However, the news about the other three images is somewhat less good.

• The two Pokagon images that appear in the Early Chicago Encyclopedia are not licensed appropriately for use on Wikipedia. File:Leopold Pokagon.jpg is flagged at the Commons for review. Its license lacks author information, a description, and a date of original publication. The Early Chicago Encyclopedia claims copyright for all of its contents, and this might be true in the case of the Leopold Pokagon image. Can't tell. To use that image on Wikipedia, you need to show that its use does not violate copyright. The Simon Pokagon image, File:Simon Pokagon.jpg, has a license that says, "Simon Pokagon, potawatomi, Portrait is from Chief Pokagon's book 'Queen of the Woods'(1899). (It also appears in the Chicago encyclopedia.) This source information does not provide the page number on which the image appears. It would be really helpful if you could track down a copy of Queen of the Woods to see if the image is there and then add the page number to the license on the Commons. It think it's possible, even likely, that this book also includes the Leopold Pokagon image; if so, you would have proof that the Leopold Pokagon image is no longer under copyright, and you could fill in the missing license data. I tracked down basic info on this book through WorldCat, and the first edition was copyrighted in 1899 and published by C. H. Engle in Hartford, Michigan, in 1901. Here is a link to the WorldCat page. I then added the name of the publisher and the publication date and full title to the license page on the Commons. This might be good enough for GA but probably not for FA. The book might be available through interlibrary loan. The two images would be nice to use, but it might be hard to prove that the Leopold one is not a copyvio.

I'm not set on the two Pokagon images, although they are nice to have. I thought that since they were already on Wikipedia, they were OK. I'll see if I can find more on them this weekend, or find replacements. I think it is good to have some type of image for the Pokagons or at least something related to the Potawatomi. TwoScars (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Things on Wikipedia, including the Commons, are not necessarily OK to use. People upload images with the best of intentions, but they may not be familiar with licensing requirements. The problems remain until someone sees them and attempts a fix. Finetooth (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The image of Simon Pokagon is between pages 33 and 35 of his book "O-gî-mäw-kwě Mit-i-gwä-kî: (Queen of the Woods)". The page is not numbered, but I will use page 34. There are actually two portraits: a painting with Simon in "tribal attire", and the photograph. Both are between pages 33 and 35. Google Books has a copy. There is another version of book, a 2012 reprint, also available. TwoScars (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• The quite useful map, which looks good in the infobox and provides essential information, needs a link to the USGS source map, if possible. What USGS map is this? If you or someone else modified the USGS map, that should be noted and explained. It appears that the road names and numbers, for example, might have been added to the original. Also, one of the map conventions on Wikipedia is to upload PNG or SVG versions of maps rather than JPGs. (See WP:WPMAPS for an explanation of the map conventions.) I can convert the JPG version to PNG and re-upload, if you like. Finetooth (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

All I did was bring up the map on the USGS web site, and snip it to a JPG file. No other modifications were made. Linking to USGS web pages is not normal. OK with me to convert to PNG. TwoScars (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Um. Fact-checkers at FAC and quite possibly at GAN will want to click through to the source map from the licensing page. That's where I would put the URL. I don't know off the top of my head where to find the source map. Finetooth (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I added these instructions in the description of the map:

• Go to http://geonames.usgs.gov/

• Click "Search Domestic Names"

• Enter "Lake" for feature name; "Indiana" for State, and "Steuben" for County. Click Send Query.

• Be patient – the USGS system is slow. Feature Query Results will come to your screen.

• Click the first feature, probably Booth Lake.

• On the right side of the next screen, click "GNIS in ESRI Map" A map will appear.

• Unselect "Show Cell Boundary" in the upper left part of the screen.

• Use "+"-key to zoom in. Use curser to move map. Lake James is nearby, and part of what the USGS calls the "Angola West" section of the map. TwoScars (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I just got "smarter". The USGS site says "Stop! Do not bookmark or copy/paste this URL before reading"—that is what I meant about the "linking is not normal" (for USGS). However, this url will get enable one to skip the first 5 steps: http://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:436929 TwoScars (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was able to follow your earlier instructions, actually, and to see where the map came from. I hate to say it, but this leads to a further tangle involving copyright questions. The USGS has obtained permission from various entities to republish proprietary map data gathered from those entities, which may have put restrictions on how the data is used. One of these entities, noted in the lower right-hand corner of the USGS map, is the Environmental Services Research Institute (ESRI). When I click through to the ESRI "Copyright and Trademarks" page, I see that its legal department says in part, "Esri grants the recipient of the Esri information contained within the esri.com Web site the right to freely reproduce, redistribute, rebroadcast, and/or retransmit this information for personal, noncommercial purposes, including teaching, classroom use, scholarship, and/or research, subject to the fair use rights enumerated in sections 107 and 108 of the Copyright Act (Title 17 of the United States Code). All copies, whether in whole or in part, shall include the appropriate Esri copyright notice." The problem here is that the Wikimedia Commons does not accept images with a "noncommercial" restriction in the license. Even though a wing of the Federal government has published something, it's not necessarily true that the publication is solely the work of a government employee and therefore in the public domain. It might not be, and it appears to me that the USGS-ESRI map is not. DeLorme, another entity cited by the USGS as a data source, may also have put restrictions on how the USGS can use the data. I'm no authority on copyright law, but my usual approach to these questions is very cautious, and I seek solutions that involve zero risk of any kind of copyvio. Early in my Wikipedia career, I had an unfortunate encounter with a private entity whose map work had been legally reproduced by NASA. I mistakenly thought that because NASA was the publisher, I could legally reproduce the map on Wikipedia. A considerable fuss ensued, and my upload of the map, to which I had made further alterations, was removed from the Commons. I'm telling you all this negative and possibly boring stuff because I feel obligated to give you a heads-up and some kind of explanation. It should be possible to create a map free of copyright problems by using a simple locator map based on U.S. Census Bureau maps, something made from Open Street Maps, or something else. I'm willing to pursue this further, if you like. Finetooth (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please pursue this further. I can always get a map from a pre-1923 book, maybe even from one of the older sources that I already have, but I prefer a map that shows how close the interstate highways are to the lake. What about the second choice, the "USGS The National Map"? TwoScars (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried to find the answer in FAQs and articles related to the USGS map services but without success. Just now I sent an e-mail to the USGS asking specifically about the Lake James map and more generally about the USGS map in ESRI. It may take a couple of days for the USGS to reply. I'll let you know if, when, and what I learn. If I don't get an answer, or if the answer is unclear, I'll ask someone at the Commons. Finetooth (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I wrote to the USGS and got an immediate but hedged reply suggesting I ask someone at GNIS. I tried this but after four or five days have not received a reply. This morning, I posted my question to a very knowledgeable editor at the Commons, and I'm hoping he will know the answer. Finetooth (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. Today I got responses from the GNIS and the editor at the Commons. Since they are fairly long, I won't reproduce them here, but you can see them at User_talk:Finetooth#USGS_map_question. In my mind, at least, some doubt remains about my interpretation, but I'll give some thought to alternative maps just in case I'm right. Finetooth (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your research. Does the National Map have similar problems? Following the same steps for the first map, one can select "USGS The National Map" instead of "GNIS in ESRI Map". I could use that map and add a few labels. Another, but less desirable, option that I can think of is to find an old pre-1923 map and clean it up a little. TwoScars (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Unlike the ESRI map, no symbols suggesting ownership by any non-USGS entity appear on The National Map, as far as I can see. Virginia Tech, on its page explaining the map, has marked the resource with a green globe symbol that means "Freely accessible database, available to anyone without restriction". I can also find quite a few maps on the Commons that cite The National Map as a source; e.g. File:Leesville Lake from USGS.png or File:Kootenays WV regions map.svg, which cites The National Map as one of several sources. Finetooth (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It helps avoid copyright issues if the map is in some clear sense "your" map, your colors, your choice of typeface, your inclusion of an overlay of roads or other features not necessarily copied from a single source. Finetooth (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I may have a second choice, although it is not as colorful. It is in Wikimedia now—here. TwoScars (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this one serves the purpose and avoids the troubling copyright questions. Finetooth (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I had another thought while I was poking around looking at lake maps. It would be useful to add a locator map that shows where the lake is in relation to a larger geographic area. I didn't find any lake articles with two maps in the infobox, but Round Lake (Michigan) shows how it can be done with a separate template that would be easy to cut-and-paste. The green dot position is determined by the coordinates. Just a thought. Finetooth (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Replaced ERSI map with map from National Map—definitely not as colorful of a map. Also added a locator map. Tried to get a locator map with the USA in the lower corner, but did not work. TwoScars (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

When I get time, I'll convert the first map (the one based on The National Map) to PNG, and I'll make a stab at a composite locator using your second map (the green dot map). Finetooth (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@TwoScars::I uploaded the PNG version this morning, then I created a File:Indiana map with national inset.png locator map specific to this article. I'll leave it to you to decide whether this is an improvement before installing it. If you spot any errors or would like me to modify it (font, color, or something else) in some way, just let me know. Finetooth (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I added it, replacing the map without the USA. Looks good—thank you very much. TwoScars (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad you like it. Finetooth (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead should be a succinct summary of the main text. This lead is fairly complete already, but I would suggest adding a brief mention of the plants, animals, and fish, as well as the railway.

✔Added mention of boating and fishing, and the railway. TwoScars (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• The lead should include no information that does not appear in the main text sections. With this in mind, I'd suggest adding the location of the Potawatomie Inn to the "Description" section. I'd also suggest adding this material, expanded and re-worded to avoid exact duplication to the "Description" section: "Much of the development consists of cottages and homes, and some of the cottages were built over 100 years ago. Two additional lakes of significant size, Jimmerson Lake and Snow Lake, are connected to Lake James. Water from these lakes flows west, and eventually reaches Lake Michigan." Specifically, I'd elaborate on the development, if possible including statistics about the acreage, number of cottages and homes, and percentage of shoreline that is privately owned. I'd add the approximate locations of the sandbar and the Christian camp. Also, I'd give the details about the course of the water from Lake James to Lake Michigan. If this is too complicated or over-long, it could go into a note at the bottom of the article, but I think all of this information should be included in the "Description" section. Finetooth (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Plan to work on this, may take another week. TwoScars (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Description

• In addition to the additions I mention above in the Lead comments, I'd add the distance to Angola in this section and also say in which direction Angola lies.

✔Added that to the description section, and will add to lead too. TwoScars (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd also mention the James Lake Chain and then list all of the components of the chain including the lakes and connecting waterways from the upstream end to the downstream end.

✔Added James Chain section. TwoScars (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd include a description of the James Lake Chain watershed here too. There's a good summary on page 12 of the Aquatic Enhancement & Survey study. I see that not only Angola but Fremont, Indiana, and Kinderhook, Michigan, are in this watershed. There's a nice USGS aerial photo with the watershed outlined on page 13.

✔All now in James Chain section. TwoScars (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• "All three basins also have sunken Islands, and an island in the lower basin remains above the water level." – I assume the lower-basin island is the Kemery Island mentioned in the infobox. If so, I would use its name here too in the main text. If you can add details about the size and shape of Kemery Island, that would be good. Is Kemery Island used for anything such as boat docks, parties, suntanning? What is the RS that gives the name of the island? I can see it on bathymetry maps in the Aquatic Enhancement study, but I can't find its name on the maps.

Probable source is one of the older books, I'll check. The island actually has a cottage on it, although I have rarely seen it occupied. TwoScars (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

✔In Description section now, although I'm wondering if it should be under Geography or Geology and climate. TwoScars (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Is the sandbar worthy of further description? Finetooth (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The sandbar is worthy, but we have to be careful. Google Lake James sandbar party, and you will see what I mean. TwoScars (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It may be too dull rather than too naughty to include as an external link, I would say, though other editors might want to include it. Finetooth (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Geology and climate

• This looks fine except that the phrase "and the fishing was great" struck me as odd. When I clicked citation 13 to see if the Indiana Department of Natural Resources supported the claims in this sentence, I found myself on a general fishing-report page unrelated to James Lake. Can you fix this? The aside about the quality of the fishing at that moment should probably be deleted, but the statistics about the ice thickness need a reliable source.

For now, commented the entire sentence out. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources updates the same URL for its fishing reports, meaning the report I cited has been replaced (probably the next day or week). (That is why I had "and the fishing was great"—it was from a fishing report.) I have e-mailed the IDNR for help. I would like to get something more recent for the ice cover/ice thickness to replace the sentence commented out. TwoScars (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The IDNR says it has no ice thickness reports, but sent me ice thickness estimates from a local fisherman who fishes often on Lake James—nothing I can use for Wikipedia. I'm going to have to search some fishing reports in newspapers and hope I get lucky, but I am not optimistic. TwoScars (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Railway

• "In 1928, the property was sold again, and became the Lake James Christian Assembly." – It's not clear what is meant by "property" since the railway property was linear and mostly not right at the lake. Could this be clarified or made more exact? It most likely means the resort property at Paltytown and not the entire railway property.

Notes and references

• I found and fixed minor glitches in all of the redlinked "Cited works" except the last one. It doesn't seem to correspond to anything in the main text and could probably be safely deleted. It doesn't have an URL, but I found something similar here that might be of use in the future.

External links

• It's probably best to delete any external links that refer to Wikipedia articles already linked in the main text.

Removed the Lake James Association since it is in the reference section. TwoScars (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed Pokagon and the Christian Assembly too. TwoScars (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing a few more today. TwoScars (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Other

• If you take this to FAC at some point, you'll want to add a section detailing the contents of the lake water, mentioning the pollution around the sandbar and elsewhere in the lake, giving government statistics about nutrients and invasive vegetation, and mentioning anything else related to water quality, trends, and mitigation efforts.
• This is the end of my review. As I said above, I think the article is close to GA quality already and, except for the image license problems, should be relatively easy to spiff up. Please let me know if any of my comments are unclear or if you have questions. Best of luck with this interesting article. Finetooth (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done with improvements except the following: Railway section - miles need metric version; Water section - cubic feet per minute needs metric version. Other (long-shot) possibilities: map of bottom of first basin that shows the 3 largest tributaries (might be hard to fit); better pictures (difficult to get currently); Bledsoe's postcard (probably would not fit well, and I prefer to keep the Spring Point picture somewhere, since it is mentioned in the text and shows cottages from nearly 100 years ago). Any other thoughts or suggestions, or have I missed anything? Thanks for all your help! TwoScars (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks very good to me on a quick read. I'll read it through carefully again today and post my thoughts here. I converted the flow statistics and the railway lengths just now. I notice that the lake size and the park size are given as more-or-less identical: 1,200 acres (490 ha). This coincidence is supported by the sources but might appear to readers to be an error. It might be worthwhile to mention this coincidence directly in the "Description" section or in a note. More later. Finetooth (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I made a few minor proofing changes but found only one remaining issue that's really worth mentioning. It has to do with organization of the material, which seems comprehensive or nearly so. These are just things to consider:

(1) Move "History" up to just below "Description".

(2) Since "Geology and climate" has very little about geology and much about the lake chain and water flow and quality, rename it "Watershed". Then move the "James Chain" subsection to just below the opening paragraph with the stuff about geology and rename the "Water" subsection "Water quality".

(3) Move the climate material into its own section called "Climate".

(4) After "Climate", "Plants and animals" can stay where it is, and so can "21st century", but I think "Recreation" would be a better head than "21st century".

I was enthusiastic about the article to begin with, and it has improved substantially since then. Very nice job. Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Reorganized—it makes sense. More difficult with the pictures. Had to comment out Simon Pokagon. TwoScars (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Certainly ready for GAN. If you eventually take it to FAC, please let me know. Finetooth (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

---

List of Bleach video games

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback about issues that need to be resolved. After that, I would like to nominate it for a featured article.

Thank you for your time, (Nightwolf87 (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

Comments by DragonZero

• Use the VG release template correctly
• MoS:Caps
• The Best is not a retitle. It is a label.
• Reference Overkill. Place them beside the date or something. If they're in the table, don't repeat it in the prose if it's going to be a swarm of cites.
• Why are single games separate tables?
• Inconsistent prose in the tables. Compare other games to single games. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  

---

Sleeping Dogs (video game)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback about issues that need to be resolved. After that, I would like to nominate it for a featured article.

Thanks for you cooperation! URDNEXT (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Why information of small DLC packs and release information of the bigger ones were removed? Replacing it with pure plot summary isn't an improvement. --Mika1h (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't on purpose. I accidentaly deleted them while taking the plot summaries from the synopsis section. Can you revert it? URDNEXT (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber

Random notes...

• Avoid standalone setences - try to incorporate them into paragraphs.
• Make sure everything has a citation.

Done, what now? URDNEXT (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Let facts speak for themselves - see [6] - not sure if there are other examples of this

Ok, now I get it. I'll try to fix some of the issues. URDNEXT (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Forthcoming... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, man! I appreciate it! URDNEXT (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Sleeping Dogs (video game)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback about issues that need to be resolved. After that, I would like to nominate it for a featured article. Thanks for you cooperation! URDNEXT talk URDNEXT (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia:Peer review rules say you can only have one PR open at a time, so if you're more interested in the SMB3 PR, you may want to close this one czar ♔ 14:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks czar ♔! Closing it right now. URDNEXT (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

---