Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/March 2013

< Wikipedia:Peer review

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.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky edit

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was not promoted at its first FA nomination. Its length, choppiness and pictures were the major issues. I hope this time it receives a comprehensive peer review to ensure it passes the next nomination. Regards. Tomcat (7) 12:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check (though not really "quick")

  1. Infobox image (do cyrillic letters work in wiki-links?) - OK (great image)
  2. Signature - OK
  3. File:Wki_Dostoyevsky_Street_2_Moscow_Mariinsky_Hospital.jpg - not sure, Russia has no "Wiki-usable" Freedom of Panorama and the statue is dated 1918 and is an integral part of the image. Any information about the statue's creator available?
    1. Yes, it was made by Sergey Merkurov, but in 1919. It was later moved in 1936 near to that hospital.--Tomcat (7) 11:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. File:Image_dost_01.jpg - OK, author unknown, but creation date is old enough for PD-old-100
  5. File:Trutovsky_004.jpg - OK
  6. File:B_pokrovsky_kazn_1949.jpg - OK, author date of death unknown, but creation date is old enough for PD-old-100 (needs category check on Commons, just as info)
    1. Checked categories and removed some.--Tomcat (7) 11:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. File:Dostoyevsky_in_prison.jpg - OK, author unknown, but creation date is old enough for PD-old-100
  8. File:Valikhanov.jpg - OK, author date of death unknown, but creation date is old enough for PD-old-100
  9. File:Dostoevskij_1863.jpg - not OK, please check if you can find either source or author information (the image has to have a source, all images do), (needs category check on Commons aswell, just as info)
    1. Added source, checked cats.--Tomcat (7) 11:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. File:Annagrigdost.jpg - OK, tweaked license tags
  11. File:Casino_Bad_Homburg_1849.jpg - OK, author date of death unknown, but creation date is old enough for PD-old-100
  12. "Fyodor_Mikahailovich_Dostoyevsky_Study_in_St_Petersburg.jpg" - OK, tweaked license tags
  13. File:Dostoevsky_house.jpg - OK, own work
  14. File:Fyodor_Mikahailovich_Dostoyevsky_1876.jpg - OK, tweaked license tags
  15. File:Fjodor_Michailowitsch_Dostojewski.jpg - OK, tweaked license tags and summary
  16. "Dostoyevsky_funeral.jpg" - probably OK, but could use some cleanup. Source link is dead (and couldn't find the image on the new .EU-site), date of death of "V. Porfiryev" available?
    1. Replaced reference, almost nothing about the drawer is known, only that he made this picture. I could not even find his forename.--Tomcat (7) 11:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. File:Dostoyevsky_on_his_Bier,_Kramskoy.jpg - OK, but source link is dead.
    1. Replaced reference.--Tomcat (7) 11:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3 needs more information and research. Point 9 needs atleast some source or author info to be acceptable. Point 16 is somewhat borderline OK. Some others could use minor cleanup or additional details or new links (see comments). "Unknown authors" would be nice to know, but are not strictly necessary, when the image is old enough. GermanJoe (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comprehensive check! --Tomcat (7) 11:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check (part 2)

  • point 3 - the artist died in 1952 (assuming Wiki is correct), so this work fails the PD-70 limit. If you want to keep it with the statue included, i suggest to ask for clarification at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright (Russian copyright beyond the most basic rules isn't really my strong point admittedly). Maybe there is some other Russian copyright nuance to cover this.
  • I asked there and am awaiting for a response.--Tomcat (7) 19:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • point 9 - improved (i realize, old data can be hard to come by).
  • point 16 - not sure, we are using the right tag here, but should be PD.
  • 3 more images at bottom of article (oops, missed those) - all OK.
  • "Personal life" and "Beliefs" is pretty long text, would be nice to have 1-2 appropriate images here to break it up a bit.
  • I will dig for some PD files. I already have plans which to use :).--Tomcat (7) 19:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • not image-related, but Bercken (2011) in "Religion" sources is actually not used in the article. GermanJoe (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realized that, but it is a good source either. May find some information from it. Thanks again for the responses. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Herriman edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC. It has passed its GA review and has been through a copyedit at the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Ideally, I'd like to see this article pass in time for it to hit the main page for 28 October 1913, which is the 100th anniversary of the debut Herriman's signature comic strip, Krazy Kat.

Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • I would move the sentence about his birth to the top of the section, and "His birth certificate lists Herriman as "colored".[2]" could be moved above where his ethnicity is discussed
  • Or, I would briefly discuss his parents' background, then his birth, ethnicity, etc
  • There are some small mistakes, such as no period after "hoping his chances would be better there"
  • The "Style" section is a bit too short. Isn't there more to say?
    • I'd love to add more, but I haven't come accross much written in reliable sources (only blogs) about his style (or, rather, the sources all say the same, brief things—it was loose and scratchy). Having said that, his style didn't change drastically over the years, and unless I come across something brilliant someone has written about it, I think what's there pretty much sums it up. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "List of comic strips" could be moved to the bottom.
  • That the cat is androgynous is not mentioned in the prose as far as I see. Make sure you don't introduce new items in the lead.
    • It's in 2nd para New York again, and Krazy Kat (1910–1922)' – "The gender of "Kat" was unclear from the start. Herriman experimented with a decision about the character's gender, but it remained ambiguous and he would refer to "Kat" as "he" or "she" as he saw fit." Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure the pictures are also public domain outside the US
    • Are you talking about File:1937 1107 kkat brick 500.jpg? The uploader claims to have checked it out with the Library of Congress, and the copyright wasn't renewed. My understanding is that in most other non-US countries, copyright only lasts 70 years for works created for a corporation—the image is from 1937, which should put it in the clear. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why the notes should not be migrated into the text.
    • Some of them were, but I found they interrupted the flow, and the information in them wasn't crucial. I didn't want to remove them, so I put them into footnotes. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Tomcat (7) 11:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Somehow I missed that Tomcat7 had posted feedback here—I thought I kept a pretty close eye on my watchlist! I'm sorry about that. I'll get on htese right away. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very interesting article, glad to see this up for review. I'll make some copyedits as I go through, feel free to object to any of them. A few initial comments:
  • I'd suggest moving the third sentence to the end of the paragraph.
  • Also, the last sentence of the lead seems a bit trivial for the lead section.
  • For "Early career in New York (1900–1904)" I think the MOS suggests "1900–04" for the abbreviation.
    • Ugh...If someone were to change this, I woudln't revert it, but I can't bring myself to do it... Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering why the Baron Bean image is down in the List of comic strips section.
    • I thought it would be nice to illustrate the section, and I thought the strip fit nicely—it wasn't a Krazy Kat strip, but mixed in a Krazy motif. Originaly someone had a Krazy Kat Sunday of to the side, which looks nice on wide screens, but doesn't work on portable screens. I thought it was too much to have something that size open the section, so I chose a daily strip. It's not something I'll fight to keep. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, not a big deal, just my point of view. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "New York again, and Krazy Kat (1910–1922)" the pictures feel a bit jumbled, in my opinion.
  • "Herriman's father, George Herriman, Jr., was 30 at the time, and his mother, Clara Morel Herriman, was 25.[2]" I'm not sure what "at the time" refers to, or why we're getting their ages for it.
  • "Herriman's father, George Herriman, Jr., was 30 at the time, and his mother, Clara Morel Herriman, was 25.[2] When he was ten" Who is "he" in the second sentence?
    • Done. It looks like this got garble when some sentences got moved around. The ages are their ages when Herriman was born (none of my sources give their birth years), and "he" is Herriman. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When he was 20, Herriman sneaked aboard a freight train bound for New York City, hoping his chances would be better there." His chances for what?
  • "He often used sequential images in his cartoons, which was akin to the emerging comic strip medium." I'd suggest "He often used sequential images in his cartoons, a style which was akin to the emerging comic strip medium."
    • Reworded to "He often used sequential images in his cartoons, as in the emerging comic strip medium." I can't commit to calling it a "style"—several theorists call it a fundamental aspect of the comics medium. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between June 15 and October 26, 1901, eleven of his cartoons appeared in that magazine's pages" I think "11" might be preferred here, but I'd have to check the MOS to be sure.
    • According to WP:NUMERAL, it's in that grey zone where either numerals or words are acceptable. To me, such a small number looks odd in numerals... Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In June, Herriman was employed by the New York World, where he provided illustrations to Roy McCardell's commentaries on local events, beginning June 28 and running to the year's end." What does "beginning June 28 and running to the year's end" refer to, his employment or McCardell's commentaries?
    • Reworded to "In June, Herriman was employed by the New York World. There, he illustrated Roy McCardell's commentaries on local events, beginning June 28 and running to the year's end." "year's end" refers to McCardell's commentaries. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for the delay, but I should have more comment soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you incorporate more information about KK's contemporary reception into the "Personal history" narrative.
  • You might be able to incorporate some details from the end of the "Personal life" section, as well.
  • I think you might be able to fit more details about analysis of his work in. i.e. To what extent did his art anticipate postmodernism?
    • I'd like to know, but I don't recall any of my sources taking that angle. I'll have to hunt around. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would you say was the zenith of Herriman's popularity? Could that be reflected in the text better?
    • My understanding is that it was in the teens and early twenties. I'll see if I can find a source to confirm it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention in a couple places he was a fan of Fisher and Chaplin, can you add any more detail about how they (or others) influenced his work?
  • "Hearst had given Herriman a lifetime contract with his company King Features Syndicate, which gave Herriman the security to live anywhere he wanted." You might want to spell out why Hearst gave him the contract. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know the answers to these off the top of my head, and it'll probably take me a bit of time to track down sources, assuming there are any. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've found some interesting stuff, but it'll take me a while to digest and assimilate it, and massage it into the text. Please be patient. (I have to say, this is one of the things I enjoy most about Wikipedia—finding out how much more there is to learn about a subject I'd thought I'd already known a whole lot about). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The strip was not particularly inspired" You should probably attribute this. Perhaps, "Critics do not regard the strip as particularly inspired"?
  • "His artwork began to appear on nearly every page, resulting in greatly increased sales." Just checking, but his cartoons increased sales of the Examiner?
  • "Inspired by the success of Bud Fisher's daily strip A. Mutt in late 1907" What happened in late 1907, the inspiration or the strip's success?
  • "Herriman drew with what cartoonist Edward Sorel called a "liberated, spontaneous-looking style ... a cartoon counterpart of expressionism"." You should probably put an inline citation after this quote.
  • "Cartoonist Edward Sorel wrote that Krazy Kat's lack of popularity later in its run was largely due to Hearst's editorial policies." So although Hearst was a big fan of the strip, his actions hindered its popularity? That's pretty interesting, you might want to note this more explicitly.
  • There are some short sentences in the first para of "California again, later career and death (1922–1944)", might want to lengthen them some.
  • "He said that he dreamed of being reborn a Navajo." Who is the first "He" in this sentence?
  • I made a bunch of copyedits, might want to double-check that I didn't introduce any errors. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mother India edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We want to take this article to FAC soon and would like some outside opinions.

Thanks, Redtigerxyz Talk 10:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

  • a 1957 Hindi epic film ... a melodrama - These two may work together better in the same sentence
  • That sounds okay, yes. I generally think genres should be with genres. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • India's Gone With the Wind is cited in the "Critical reviews" section, where three sources (critics, authors) are cited. Shall we change the sentence in the lead as follows : "Known as India's Gone with the Wind according to several critics" or "Regarded as India's Gone with the Wind" by several authors/critics" ?
  • If several sources make the comparison there's no need. Perhaps rephrase "Often referred to as India's Gone with the Wind..."
Better to leave it out from the lead. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation needed tag added.
  • Citation added for "most revered film".
  • Present day? When? 1957?
  • Present day/time the time of the narrative of the film, which is likely to be 1957. But the film does not explicitly mention whether it is 1957 or 1956 or any other year. So, what do you suggest? Any change of the semantics? I am not sure.
  • I think 1957 would be safe, as it's clearly not the present day for our readers (2013... she'd be quite an amazing woman to live so long). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "The film begins in the present time (1957)" in the beginning of plot; at the end of the plot section, changed to "The film ends in 1957...".
  • the village - Does it have a name?
  • I have not come across the name of the village in any publcation so far. I don't remember the name from the film either (I saw the film partilly many years ago). I will ask in WT:INB is someone remembers.
  • You should definitely watch the movie again. Perhaps you could develop the plot a bit more (although it looks fine as is). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link names on first mention
  • I will go through the article to check if we missed any linking on first occurrence (as in the cast section). There are a few actors/crew whose names are not linked at all, as they do not have wikipedia articles. Do you prefer red-linking them?
  • No, I was thinking of the actors and actresses in the plot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did.
  • 500 rupees - Roughly how much in pounds or dollars at the time? 500 rupees now is... not that much. Then?
  • I shall add the US dollar equivalent of that time (in this instance, and also other in other parts of the article). However, am not sure if we can add inflation-adjusted value, because I don't know where to find the inflation-adjusted values. Will try.
  • Added 1957 equivalent in dollars. However, this loan of 500 rupees was taken much earlier than 1957. The "present time" of the film is 1957, and this loan took place maybe 25-30 years earlier. Will think about this, and add perhaps an explanatory note.
  • "sell herself" - Her words? If so, would be nice to have a footnote here.
  • Removed this bit for now, as we are not sure if those were in the script of the film. I will see that part of the film again, and if she says something similar (in Hindi), will add that in a footnote.
  • sweep through the village, destroy the harvest, and kill Radha's youngest child. - are all of these because of the storm, the flood, or a combination?
  • Again, I wll see the pertinent part of the film, and then comment.
  • Changed to "A combination of storm and the resulting flood demolishes houses in the village and destroys the harvest; Radha's youngest child dies during the calamity."
  • migrate - Evacuate?
  • Changed to evacuate.
  • exactions - Perhaps a more common synonym?
  • Hmmm... extortion? demands?
  • Changed to demands.
  • Sukhilala and his daughter, lashing out at his family. - Feels redundant. I think you could lose "lashing out at his family"
  • Removed that part.
  • If Sukhilala's daughter has a name, it would be useful to avoid awkward constructions like "the wedding of Sukhilala's daughter"
  • Will try to find out the name. I can't recall now.
  • Got the name, Rupa. Used it in the article.
  • who had promised that Birju would not do harm, - Promised who? Was Birju invited? Also, wouldn't "would do no harm" be better?
  • Changed that part as followes: "...Birju returns with has gang of bandits to take his revenge. He kills Sukhilala and kidnaps his daughter. Radha, who had promised to Sukhilala that Birju would do no harm..."
So, Birju actually attacked (not invited) as a bandit on the day of the wedding, and took Sukhilala's daughter away on his horse. When he was fleeing from the village, Radha shot him from back. Please have a look if this is clearer.
  • So why/when did she promise Sukhilala that Briju would do no harm? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried to explain all these. The last few sentences now read "He is chased out of the village and becomes a bandit. Radha promises Sukhilala that she will not let Birju, the bandit, do any harm to Sukhilala's family. On the day of the wedding of Sukhilala's daughter, Birju returns with has gang of bandits to take his revenge. He kills Sukhilala and kidnaps his daughter. When Birju tries to flee the village on his horse, Radha shoots him. He dies in her arms.".
  • Mayo singled out the "rampant" and fatally weakening sexuality of its males to be at the core of all problems, leading to masturbation, rape, homosexuality, prostitution, venereal diseases, and, most importantly, premature sexual intercourse and maternity. - If "rampant" is a direct quote it needs a source right at the end of the sentence.
  • Removed the quotation marks.
  • Mayo created an outrage across India - Mayo or her book?
  • The book; changed.
  • on a matter related to producing the film. - What matter?
  • He sought permission from the import authority to import film stocks for the film. Mentioned that in the article now, not sure if it is clear.
  • There has been considerable confusion and misunderstanding in regard to our film producing Mother India and Mayo's book. Not only are the two incompatible but totally different and indeed opposite. We have intentionally called our film Mother India, as a challenge to this book, in an attempt to evict from the minds of the people the scurrilous work that is Miss Mayo's book. - Best to provide the original (Hindi?) as a footnote, if it's not in English.
  • It was actually in English (a common language for official communication in India), and here it is copied verbatim from the source (Sinha 2006, cited)
  • Should the book have a redlink? I.e. Mother India (book)? If it got such a big reception, it's definitely worth its own article.
  • Wikilnked.
  • 1937 and 1940 - Perhaps link to the two films here?
  • Linked The Good Earth (film) to 1937. Surprisingly I could not find information on The Mother! Is it wrong information? May be. I will check Sinha's book (the cited source for this sentence).
  • Indeed it was wrong info. The source book did not mention The Mother as a film. I have changed the sentence as follows: "Khan took inspiration from another American author, Pearl S. Buck and her books The Good Earth (1931) and The Mother (1934); he also saw the film The Good Earth (1937) directed by Sidney Franklin".
  • (based on a novel by Maxim Gorky) - Not quite relevant here
  • Removed.
  • An unrelated Indian film named Mother India was released in 1938. - Probably not worth having in the article, perhaps a hatnote?
  • Removed this.
  • The caption was "Hindu mother and child. She feeds it opium when it cries." - This doesn't seem to be related to the film.
  • removed the image for now.
  • The production section needs some rearranging, some of it seems redundant (i.e. much of the paragraph starting "Khan took inspiration from another American author" should be in #Script
  • Moved to Script, as suggested.
  • assistant director of the film, - Who?
  • Named the particular assistant director.
  • Master Sajid - Was that his first name, or is Master an honourific?
  • Male child artists in Hindi film in those days were credited as master x, master y etc, while female artists often had the prefix baby! i do not readily have a documentary proof of this, just telling from experience. in this particular instance, master Sajid was what was written in the credits. Do you suggest an explanatory note? (again. I do not have an evidence to support this). Or else, just Sajid could be an option.
  • I'd just use Sajid, if Master is an honourific like that. Roekiah was credited as "Miss Roekiah" for much of her stage career, but Miss certainly wasn't part of her name. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the honorific in all instances.
  • Link "lakh"
  • wikilinked.
  • Agree about the US$ being needed here
  • Added US dollar equivalents in 1957 exchange rate.
  • Did not find any notable names. Some names (such as the site of the canal, the location of the fire scene) were mentioned in Chatterjee's book, but no major notable names. The credits of the film actually had a thank you note to the chiefs of all the villages where it was shot. But IMO that is not a significant info to include in the article. What do you think?
  • Khan insisted that the film be shot in 35mm. - Why do we need to know he "insisted" on it?
  • Removed.
  • processed to - Sounds weird
  • Changed to "converted".
  • If the flood scenes used a farmer's land, what was Irani shooting in Uttar Pradesh?
  • Generic flood scenes without actors were shot in Uttar Pradesh. The specific flood scene was shot later. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • free of cost; however he was paid later. - Did he not ask for reimbursement but have it given anyways, or did he change his mind?
Option 1. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the reference to Chatterjee book. Described now the way it is described in the book, and attributed "the belief that those were free of cost" to the author Chatterjee.
  • 200 farmers, horses and tractors - 200 each of farmers, horses, and tractors?
  • The source, Chatterjee's book, use "scores of horses...". Now incorporated that term, within quotes.
  • The fire scene was shot in Umra, Gujarat, - What fire scene?
  • Provided the context of the fire scene.
  • reel-life - Erm, this looks like a neologism
  • Changed to "in the film" and changed the sentence construction. Please have a look.
  •  — a popular actress at the time — - This should have been when we were first introduced to her
  • The sentence reads "Nargis — a popular actress at the time — fell in love with Dutt, who was in early stages of his film career and played her son in the film;" So, the phrase "popular actress" is used to contrast with the relatively new-comer Sunil Dutt. That's why I think it should be placed here, rather than in the beginning (lead? ) of the article. It tries to provide some context to the then background of the two actors.
  • Should note their actual date of marriage after you say that they were told to hold it.
  • Done.
  • Doing a fairly extensive copyedit as I go, make sure to point out anything I've changed that you don't agree with.
  • That's it for today, quite a bit for you to chew on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed it for now. The photo is from the copy of the book that is hosted in the Australian version of gutenberg, that is why the Australian pd tag.
  • This image doesn't seem to be removed yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now removed.
  • File:Mother india soundtrack.JPG - This is clearly not an original CD (there were no CDs in 1957) but a rerelease of the original album. I don't think you need the cover art here anyways, as it's not particularly pertinent to context (i.e. NFCC#8)
  • Removed.
Thanks a lot for the detailed review. We are working on it, and replying immediately below each bullet pointed comments. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • distribution zones - Does this have a good target? Not sure it's a common term.
  • Changed to regions.
  • screening in Calcutta. - One or two?
  • Changed to "a screening".
  • 1,06,35,95,000 - huh? what? Huh? This number doesn't make sense. Also, the total before inflation should be in the article too.
  • No reliable data is there for the box office earning. Total before inflation is not available. The numbers are just estimate by trade websites. Mentioned this in the article now. Even Chatterjee's book (based on her research including accounts of the production house) does not give any idea about the exact earning.
  • There was a renewed interest in the film in 1970s when ticket sales showed an upsurge. - Was it in theatres again? Why?
  • It is mentioned later, in "legacy" section in the article, that the film was in continuous distribution (in theatres) since its release up to mid-1990s. Any suggestion if this needs be mentioned here? Or, the 1970s info be moved down in legacy?
  • Yes, Eastern bloc; used that term in the article now.
  • so a "color motion picture process" held a screening? Erm... doubt it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its the name of the company as well, the full name is Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation. Indeed Technicolor SA seems to have been a sister company of that, and changed its name to just "Technicolor" in 2010. The source simply mentions "Technicolor", according to Wikipedia aarticle. Should we change that to "Technicolor Motion Picture"?--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might need to dig further. For now, unless we're certain, we shouldn't link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Les Bracelets d'or - Why the capital B? French naming conventions avoid capitals after the first word.
  • Changed to bracelets.
  • Paragraph starting "Greece and communist countries..." is very list-y and needs to be rewritten, perhaps in further summary.
  • Tried some trimming, although not a lot. The problem is this paragraph mentions the name of countries or group of countries; so it has the listy feeling. I am unsure how much successful I will be in summarizing this paragraph without loosing some information.
  • Baburao Patel of Filmindia - Is this a magazine, a newspaper...? Tells us about the publication.
  • In a 2002 review in The New York Times, film critic Dave Kehr said that the film "...is often said to have helped set the pattern for the nearly 50 years of Indian film that has followed it." and the following sentence - Seems more suited for a legacy section
  • Moved the "50 yeras..." sentence to legacy. Regarding the following sentence (on comparison of the film with other films like Gone with the Wind"), do you think it can stay here? I mean it can probably fit in both sections if fitted correctly!
  • Probably preferable to keep it in Legacy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved the whole Gone with the Wind bit to legacy, as suggested.
  • Contemporary Indian (or foreign) reviews would be a blessing, although admittedly a little tough to get.
*Baburao Patel is Contemporary, we can check if others can be found. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New York Times' website should have something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added bits of two contemporary international reviews. Will try for more.
  • Critical reviews section seems a bit too dependent on quotes for me.
  • However, the submitted entry was dramatically different from the original version released in India. The version sent to the Academy was edited down to 120 minutes, cutting at least 40 minutes from the film for the benefit of a foreign audience. - Is this the same as the international edition noted above? Might be worth expanding on there instead.
  • Yes the Oscar version was similar to the international version, but with two changes. The Oscar version had English subtitles, and the logo of Mehboob production was removed. Now, whether the international version did not have English subtitles? I don't know. I am digging at the source to see if any info on that is available. So far, it seems the Oscar version predates the version that was released in English-speaking Western world. So, likely that the version reeased in US and UK had English subtitles. In that case, some clarification will be added.
  • Several when and where tags.
  • The editor Redtigerxyz seems to have taken care of these tags.
  • masala - What does this mean? If it's still closely related to the Indonesian masalah, it would mean "problem", so I'm not exactly getting his point.
  • masala "a varying blend of spices used in Indian cooking." - Merriam Webster. Indian word incorporated in English. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Themes usually goes after production.
  • Moved the theme section; it is now right after Production.
  • classical music - Like, Mozart classical?
  • Yes, like Mozzart classical. Slightly changed wordings and wikilinked.
  • woodwinds - Link?
  • Wikilinked.
  • Removed played loudly.
  • Check for tense agreement in the legacy section
  • It is one of the films on Box Office India's list of "Biggest Blockbusters Ever In Hindi Cinema".[1] - Not particularly impressive, it can be trimmed.
  • Removed.
  • Trimmed. Contained only Deewar.
  • Themes section looks like a mess, I'll put it off for now. Maybe tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The piece is unmelodic and effectively creates tension over such a negative moment in the film. - Opinion, needs attribution.
  • Changed the wordings, and attributed.
  • Themes section is inherently POV, so we have to cite who's POV we're writing. As an example, "Nargis's Mother India is a metonymic representation of a Hindu woman, reflecting high Hindu values, with virtuous morality and motherly self-sacrifice.": according to who?
  • Started working on giving proper attribution in the theme section. This is taking some time. Searching, and also making sure there is no close paraphrasing.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attributed all sentences except a few becasue either could not find the attribution (added cn tag in article), or could not find the page numbers mentioned on-line (left inline comments, so that this can be addressed later).
  • Reduced the quote; left about half within quote, and rest converted to prose.
  • "The red water that flows from the canal irrigating the green fields at the end of the film is seen as the blood of Indians in the struggle for independence flowing to nourish a new free India." - Is this still Chatterjee's opinion?
  • It is not Chatterjee's opinion; indeed it's from a video (a TV production) in YouTube. I have commented out this sentence for now, until we check that video.
It is Chatterjee's view as in the documentary. Redtigerxyz Talk 13:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the earth-mother - What's this supposed to mean?
  • While the nationalistic representation of Hindu values may seem unusual in that the "Mother India" figure was portrayed by a Muslim actress and directed by a Muslim director, - According to?
  • Ya, it was editorial comment. Removed, Retained just the fact that acted by a Muslim, and directed by a Muslim.
  • Mother India's actions - The character's name is not Mother India.
  • Changed to Radha.
  • Note the citation needed tag
  • This section is written extremely well, much better than the others, so I'd strongly suggest you do a thorough check for close paraphrasing. It's difficult with theme sections, but we need to be extra careful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did check for close paraphrasing by copy-pasting sentences/clauses in google search. One significant result was returned. I converted that clause within quotation marks ("vied for alternative definitions of Indianness"). --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • account ledgers of the production revealed that they were paid - Who was paid? Unclear from context.
  • Vilklagers were paid; mentioned that.
  • Karlovy Vary International Film Festival - Probably needs an "in" before modern day Czech Republic
  • Added "in".
comments from Tim riley
  • General
    • Punctuation: be consistent about use of double or single quotes. WP prefers the former, for some occult reason.
Not sure about this. Can you please give an example. Will stick to double quotes. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one that caught my eye – there may be others that I missed – was as the 'mother' of the village in the plot section. And the Rushdie block-quote in the Themes section shouldn't be enclosed in quotation marks (see WP:Manual of Style#Block quotations) and has a rogue single quote mark before the words that image. Tim riley (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Script
    • "was penned by Babubhai Mehta" – rather repellent journalese. What about "written"? There's another "penned" later, too.
    • "the public will not accept their casting as mother and son because she has done several" – surely "would not" and "had done"?
Both done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casting
    • "directors'" – there seems to have been only one director, so the possessive apostrophe needs to go before the s.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Themes
    • "all time iconic images" – I think (but I may be wrong) that you need a hyphen in all-time
You are right. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release
    • "were invited to the premiers" – premieres, not premiers
Oops. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music
    • "Another "penned" here.
    • "similar discordal orchestral music" – neither the Oxford English Dictionary nor Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians has heard of the word "discordal"
Was "discording". Changed. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanatory note b
    • "can not" or "cannot"?
Both are acceptable. [1]. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography
    • I found the jumbled mass of web refs and book refs heavy going. Too late now, but in future articles it will be much easier for your readers if you put web refs in the notes, and have a bibliography of printed books. Hacking my way through the undergrowth I noticed some missing ISBNs for the printed sources – e.g. Ghandy, Rajadhyaksha, Sinha (1998).
Since there is no concrete policy on this, we used the current one, which is advised during making of FA Ahalya. Earlier, I followed the style you described in FA Iravan. Will fill ISBNs. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. Tim riley (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim riley for the comments. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know when you take this article to FAC. I'll be glad to add my support. Tim riley (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bollyjeff

  • While links to sources like newspapers and websites are linked mostly first time in the text, they are linked randomly, and very often in the references. Try to do first times only. Also, Hindustan Times is not italicized in the fourth bib entry.
  • Within Bibliography, wikilinked on the first instances. Great observation. Italicized the Hindustan Times.
  • In Music section Planet Bollywood is incorrectly italicized. Probably should check all non-newspaper web sources for this.
  • This one rectified.
  • Newspaper and film names are not italicized at all in the footnotes. Is that by design?
  • It is by design.
  • A fair number of red links.
  • That's not a problem for the article. If you think any redlink is undue, that can be removed. Most of the redlinks are notable, and deserves an article, so kept the redlink.
  • Full video on youtube and links to external pictures; allowed?
  • External pictures are probably ok. Not sure about youtube though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to feedback I received while working on Darah dan Doa, external links for films are copyvios unless the films are PD, CC, or hosted by the company. In other words, as the film is not PD in the US an EL is not a good idea. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worthwhile to make sure newspapers use cite news instead of cite web and vice versa
  • As far as I understand, it is the output (how the readers are reading the article/references) that need to be consistent, not the particular template that is used. That is, templates used may be different, but the article, while reading, should look consistent. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true (I don't know), but 'cite news' usually contains work=, whereas 'cite web' usually has publisher= which would help the italics to be right more often. BollyJeff | talk 15:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doing. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may be back later, but it looks quite good. BollyJeff | talk 01:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know that this could be challenging, but in the name of comprehensiveness, how about Home media? BollyJeff | talk 01:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the availability of DVD and distributor. Not much concrete data available, as you suspected.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are several other DVD releases listed on Amazon as well. Knowing which one came when etc. is a real challenge. If you can find out when it first came out in any format, that would be good. BollyJeff | talk 00:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there are some more DVD releases listed in Amazon; all are distributed by Eros. One entry is on a region 1 release. All regions include region 1, so we chose this particular entry. I could not find when was it first released in DVD. Moreover, it was released in VHS before, and there is one catalog for VHS ( company name something like Al Mansoor of UAE) in WorldCat. Since not much information is available, we just included the availability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mark Arsten

  • I've made it down to "Reviews" thus far. It looks pretty good, not a lot of complaints. I've been making some copyedits as I got, but feel free to revert any of them.
  • Check for consistency with the serial comma.
  • That's a difficult one :) Will try. In general, we are probably tending to use it.
  • Check that reference numbers are in ascending order, i.e. [9][26] instead of [26][9]
  • I hope this has been addressed.
  • De-linked orchestra. I guess polemical is a difficult word, and would be ok for a wikilink?
  • For "According to the academic Nalini Natarajan" you might want to specify which type of academic he is.
  • Hmm, good question, I'm not sure. I guess you could leave it as is. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The production team had planned to release Mother India to commemorate the tenth anniversary of India's independence on 15 August 1957, but the film was released over two months later." Any idea what caused them to miss the target?
  • I did not find anywhere any explicitly written reason for the delay. However, the main book that we have used (Chatterjee 2002) mentins that the director had to do "tremendous effort to bring the film to the release print stage as quickly as possible and dispatch it to the Technicolor office in London. Mehboob then proceeded to London for the final editing and colour correction, and Irani accompanied him for sound editing." We can imagine that the delay was probably due to such protracted post-production; however, lack of such explicit mention prevents me to say so in the article. At best, we can add an explanatory note What say?--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was a renewed interest in the film in 1970s when ticket sales showed an upsurge." which film are you referring to here?
  • Clarified in the article that the film in question is Mother India.
  • "Technicolor arranged one screening of the film in Paris on 30 June 1958, under the name Les bracelets d'or." What does that translate to in English?
  • Added in the article.
  • "Mother India was also acclaimed across the Arab world, in the Middle East, parts of Southeast Asia and North Africa and continued to be shown in countries such as Algeria at least ten years after its release." I'm curious, is there any information about its reception in Pakistan?
  • In my readings, I did not come across any mention of Pakistan. I seriously doubt whether it was officially released in Pakistan. There was a ban on Indian films in Pakistan (not sure about exact timeline though).
  • "It was released in US on 9 July 1959 to lukewarm response, and the UK release was also a commercial failure.[64] The initial international version of the film was 40 minutes shorter than the Indian release version." This was subtitled, I presume?
  • Yes, it was; will add that.
  • When was it released in the UK?

Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Birju, embittered by the demands of Sukhilala since he was a child" To be nitpicky, the "he" here is somewhat ambiguous.
  • Changed to "Birju, embittered since childhood by the demands of Sukhilala..." Indeed this "since childhood" phrase may be deleted altogether.
  • You might want to add the dates of the reviews in the reviews section.
  • Dates added.
  • " but there were fears it might not be accepted by American audiences" Might want to specify who feared this.
  • Clarified this by changing the sentence construction.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, sorry for the delay, but that's all my comments. Looks good to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Algiers history edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like the article to be as neutral as possible.

Thanks, M2545 (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dana Boomer

In general, articles that have cleanup banners are not supposed to be nominated at WP:PR. This article has a number of them:

  • POV tag at top of article
  • Expand tags in Prior to 16th century, 20th century and 21st century sections
  • Worldwide view tag in Further reading section

In addition to these tags, there are a number of other issues with the article that I can see on a quick glance:

  • The lead needs to be expanded to provide a summary of the article.
  • There is quite a bit of referencing that needs to be done. For example, the whole Prior to 16th century section is unreferenced.
  • Further expansion, explanation and/or linking is needed in quite a few spots. For example, what does "Medersa opens" mean? What is Medersa? What is the relevance of "Flood"? Floods happen all the time - what was special about this one? What is special about the three population dates you've chosen?
  • I'm not really seeing any major manifestations of POV, but I could be missing something. In expanding the article, make sure that you're not inadvertently creating a POV by only including events that were important to any individual group of people.

You may want to check out some of the "Timeline of..." articles that are listed as featured lists to get an idea of what the lead, content, referencing and other standards are for the really good "Timeline of..." articles. For a couple of examples, you could check out Timeline of prehistoric Scotland, Timeline of chemistry or Timeline of the far future, although there are a bunch of others listed on that page.

Once the tags, referencing and lead expansion are dealt with, I think this list will be in much better shape. Are you planning to take the article through a featured list candidacy? Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that, for example, building of mosques and hospitals jars a bit in the middle of invasions, bombardments, floods and so on. You should seriously consider yanking out these events in a SEPARATE time-line called something like "History of landmarks, monuments and civic development of Algiers", a time-line you can affix at the end. Stuff like when important mosques are built do belong in the general historical picture of the city, but right now, the time line feels rather jumbled together.Arildnordby (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Janet edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that with some copy edit work, Hurricane Janet will be improved to a quality suitable for sending it to FAC. While I'd like comments on all parts of the article, specifically I'm looking for comments on the Impact section of the article.

Thanks, TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 18:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • A weak tropical disturbance was first reported by the airlines Air France and Iberia east of the Lesser Antilles early on September 21. needs a citation; it's not in the one given after the next sentence.
  Done - It actually is – "Early on the 21st, pilot reports from the airlines Air France and Iberia indicated..." – though I added page numbers to the citation to make it more accessible. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By September 22 the storm system had already attained winds of 60 mph (95 km/h) needs a citation, it's also not in the citation given after it.
  Done - Added ref. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a result, the hurricane became disorganized, with winds weakening to 90 mph (145 km/h) by 1200 UTC on September 23. needs a citation.
  Done - Added 'best track' ref. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does it mean for hurricane winds to become 'disorganized'? Is there a relevant wikilink that could clarify, or can you explain in the article? Does it just mean the hurricane weakened?
  • In this context when I said the hurricane became disorganized it meant that its structure lost the compact spiral characteristics seen in intense hurricanes, and instead became more of a 'mess' of thunderstorm activity. In turn a disorganizing hurricane correlates with weaker winds. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hurricane was estimated to have intensified to Category 5 hurricane intensity—the highest rating on the modern day Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale—at 1200 UTC on September 27, while in the western Caribbean Sea. needs a citation.
  Done - See the reference in the following sentence. Its inscribed in the data. If you want an easier to read track data source, see [www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyread-2012.html this link], but I just used the other citation since its part of a template. They both, however, relay the same information. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Janet maintained peak intensity as it passed over the Swan Islands before making landfall in extreme northern British Honduras between Corozal Town and Chetumal, Mexico. In Chetumal, a barometer indicated a minimum barometric pressure of 914 mbar (hPa; 27.00 inHg) in the eye of Janet. Although this is mentioned in reference 5, you may want to add the citation to these two sentences, as that's something that might get brought up in FAN.
  Done - I assumed you meant to copy the reference in the comma to the end of this phrase. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Janet eventually made its final landfall 50 mi (80 km) north of Veracruz, Veracruz by 2200 UTC on September 29 as a Category 2 hurricane. needs a citation.
  Done - Mentioned in reference 8, located a sentence ahead of it. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything in the preparations section could use more citations.
  • Not sure, the preparations section is based off of a few links, since there weren't many evacuations and just mostly warnings and watches. I could add sources for newspapers stating that a warning has been issued, but that would just be rehashing the same information located in reference 8. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a small but rapidly intensifying hurricane, Janet passed just south of Barbados on September 22, becoming the first hurricane to strike the island in 57 years, since the 1898 Windward Islands Hurricane. needs a citation.
  Done - See reference 5, though it might be some OR since it doesn't exactly point out the 1898 hurricane, but it does state the 57 years back from 1955. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon penetration of the hurricane's eyewall with an altitude of 700 mi (1,100 km), a final transmission was received from the reconnaissance flight before it presumably crashed in the Caribbean Sea. Doesn't need a citation, per say, but you might want to throw one on there.
  Done - Re-added the reference ahead of it. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there more information available on the storm's impact on the Yucatan?
  Done - Well Quintana Roo and Belize sections are part of it, but other than that information relayed from there was not as much. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chetumal, Mexico was devastated, with only four buildings left standing. Storm surge pushed water to a depth of 6.5 feet (2 m), 1600 ft (490 m) inland, despite the peninsula protecting the city from the open ocean. needs citations.
  Done - See reference 8. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the British Honduras section needs more references.
  • Not sure if there are any more references for that kind of general analysis of damage, but will see if there are any. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The government also declared a state of emergency for Corozal, Orange Walk, and Belize administrative districts, including a ban on liquor sales. needs a citation, and also why did they ban liquor? To keep the population working at reconstruction? Religious reasons?
  Done - Not sure if reference 40 is too far ahead of it, but it does source that. For the liquor ban, no reason was specified. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the automatic peer reviewer, you need to use non-breaking spaces between numbers and their units of measurement, and you shouldn't use th in dates.
  Done - Not sure where the measurements without non-breaking spaces were, but just in case I replaced all convert templates with raw input. As for the 'th' it has identified a 'th' in a citation. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference number 1 (What is a super-typhoon?), and the reference to barbadosadvocate, need more complete references.
  Done - Redid references. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 5, 8, and 54 need format=PDF.
  Done - Added attribute. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I noticed for now. --TKK bark ! 13:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Suns edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted it to be thoroughly revised so that I could nominate it for a good article. I have tried to nominate it twice, but it failed to be upgraded. Not wanting to fail again, I've decided to ask for a peer review for this article. I've fixed many problems that was identified during the GA reviews (citations, references and expanding the "commercial" section) but I just want you guys to see if there are still more problems.

Thanks, Jal11497 (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Let's start with References.
References 71, 90, 99, 103, 145, 159, and 190 all come back dead on Checklinks. Are there archives of these pages available?
I personally cannot access references 69, 82, and 215. This may be a problem on my end, or it may be a problem with the site itself.
References 12, 28, 73, 91, 109, 127, 129, 142, 156, and 161 all throw redirect errors. Can you make the urls more direct?
Reference 24, 155, 156, 157, and 161 are missing an access date.
I see you cited some of the track listings, but not all of this - is there an album article-specific reason for this that I'm just not aware of?
Images
A lot of your images are missing alt text. Can you fix this? You may find WP:ALT to be helpful.
This is more personal preference, but in many of your multiple image boxes, the images are different heights; it would be more aesthetically pleasing if they were all the same height within each box.
Style
but doesn't live up to their debut, Hybrid Theory (2000). should be expanded from the contraction into 'did not' or 'does not', or otherwise include it in a direct quote.
There are numerous places, such as immediately after the style and composition heading, and in the singles section, where text is 'boxed' between two images or an image and another box. Is it possible to space the images out so this doesn't happen? --TKK bark ! 00:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South African cricket team in India in 1996–97 edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take this to GAN. This is the first time I'm working with this kind of article. Suggestions are welcome.

Thanks, —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment – You may proceed in this way, I think. Zia Khan 13:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the hint. But this one is way too old, promoted six years back. —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

After a very quick read,

  • Laxman scored a fifty in his debut innings,

No, second.

  • VVS Laxman 51*

Not not out.

  • Fanie de Villiers 67 (136)

This one was not out

  • Virinchirpuram Ramaswamy

Keep it as VK. Nobody uses that expansion.

I guess you will soon expand it further Tintin

Comments from Sarastro I've done some copy-editing to the lead to tidy it up slightly. But it's hard to comment on this at the moment as it looks very unfinished. The lead should summarise the article, but there is not really an article to summarise. I think more is needed in the lead on the Test series to give it a little narrative (it was a brilliant series, as I remember), but it is a decent start. However, much more is needed to reach GA. If the article is about the SA tour, why are the ODI series results not included? What about a list of SA players at the very least. What about a brief report on each match, not just a scorecard. For a recent GA to compare, what about this one? Or for a similarly structured article (i.e. this is about a season, not a tour, but the structure could be used) this is a FA. I think these are the lines you should be looking to pursue to reach GA. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've included the one-off ODI that was played between the two teams. Another concern is that, Should I include the Titan cup? —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The biggest improvement that can be made at this point is to add prose on the matches. Wihtout that there isn't much to review outside the lead, as Sarastro says. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Unnatural (The X-Files) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAN one of these days. I feel it is nearly there, but I'd like to get someone else to take a look at it.

Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wario edit

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Now I don't normally edit video game character articles. But since I want to get the article back up to FA status to claim the bounty, I would like get get as much feedback on what needs cleaning up or just what should be done to improve it. GamerPro64 05:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead might need a little expansion to properly summarize the article. The first paragraph seems pretty good, but I think it needs a more about the appearances and especially the reception, which isn't mentioned at all. —Torchiest talkedits 15:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the lead a bit and added reception and a bit more on appearances. GamerPro64 04:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks interesting, hope this project goes well. Not sure if I'll get to do a proper peer review, but I suggest if you take this to FAC you make sure you're not missing any good sources (since the article is relatively small, attention will be paid to 1C). For example, this book looks like it has some perspective on Wario. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure the formats of the reference dates are standardized.
  • "The creation of Wario allowed them a character of their own to "symbolize their situation".[1]" Could you explain this a little more? I'm not sure I follow.
    • From reading the reference, the team who made Super Mario Land disliked making the game as they did not have a passion for making games for someone else's character. So to "symbolize their situation" was them creating a new character. GamerPro64 21:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • For some reason the way it's written seems unclear to me, maybe add another sentence or two of explanation? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that Martinet auditioned for the role, but you don't note that he got the role. Also, when did he audition for it?
    • I mentioned that he got the part but I don't know when the audition was. GamerPro64 01:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Voice actor Charles Martinet, who had voiced Mario since 1995, auditioned to provide the voice for Wario. Martinet was told to speak in a mean and gruff voice, and described voicing Wario as a looser task than voicing Mario, since Mario's voice and personality is free-flowing, coming from the ground and floating into the air, while one of Wario's cornerstones is self-pity." This is a fairly long sentence, I'd suggest breaking it up a bit.
    • Actually those are two sentences. Do you mean breaking up the second sentence? GamerPro64 23:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention Waluigi in the last sentence, but I think it might be a good idea to introduce him before then and note that Wario inspired his creation.
  • "Since his debut, Wario has become the protagonist and antihero of the Wario Land and WarioWare series, spanning both handheld and console markets, in addition to many appearances in spin-offs in the Mario series, as well as also appearing in Super Mario 64 DS and Yoshi's Island DS and in cameos for Densetsu no Stafy 3 and Pilotwings 64." This is a fairly long sentence, I'd suggest breaking it up a bit.
  • There's some repetition of "design" in the first paragraph of "Concept and creation"
  • I've made some copyedits, feel free to revert if I've messed anything up. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for consistency with comma usage, I see "That same year Wario was also featured" & "The following year, the sequel Wario Land 4 debuted"
  • "features Wario in two of the stories. It features a variety of storylines" Some repetition of "features" here.
  • " including a story of Wario's past explaining his rivalry with Mario" Is this story canon? If so, you might want to summarize it.
    • I actually read that comic yet I'm not certain if its canon or not. GamerPro64 01:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Computer and Video Games found the levity of Wario's games "liberating" compared to big Nintendo franchises such as Mario and The Legend of Zelda, and that regarding the character, "perhaps secretly we empathise more with the hopelessly materialistic Wario than goody brown-shoes Mario. Deep down, we'd all rather chase pounds over princesses."[26]" I'd suggest breaking this sentence up.
  • Are any of the Wario games notable for a positive or negative reception? If so, you might want to note that. Actually, I just saw that we have Wario (franchise) too, those details might be better suited there. Speaking of which, you should probably link to that article, and maybe consider a hatnote.
  • Check for repetition of "voice" in the second paragraph of "Concept and creation".
    • Instances of "voice" have been reduced, though more can still be done. Yiosie 2356 07:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " They focused on his behavior, which alternates between good and evil.[6] Etsunobu Ebisu, a producer of The Shake Dimension, considers Wario to be a reckless character, who uses his strength to overwhelm others. Tadanori Tsukawaki, the design director of The Shake Dimension, described Wario as manly, and said he was "so uncool that he ends up being extremely cool"." You switch tenses here, I'd try to avoid doing that.
  • You should also standardize whether you provide locations for references. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although it does not use the Wario Ware name, it incorporates gameplay and characters from the WarioWare series." Is it "Wario Ware" or "WarioWare"? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its WarioWare. Closed the spacing. GamerPro64 20:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I finished my read through the article. Overall I think it's in pretty good shape. My only concern is its length. I suggest you read through some of the references again and check for relevant information that you may have left out. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: Some have the publisher wikilinked, others don't (like IGN), also Game Zone should be GameZone, and wikilinked (we have an article on them). --Teancum (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wiki-linked all the publisher that I could and took care of the GameZone one. GamerPro64 20:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Hero of Indonesia edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to Featured List Candidates soon and wanted to see how accessible it was to a non-subject expert. Also, the normal feedback (grammar and whatnot etc.) would be greatly welcome.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt
Standard disclaimer that I have done very little work with lists and am unfamiliar with the criteria. Interesting reading though.
  • I think you need to make it clearer that this is an award which is only given posthumously. That comes through at present only from criterion 1 in the list of factors. I suppose your mention of someone's lifetime in the lede is a hint, but only a hint as it could arguably mean a person who still lives. Mentions of the recipient's deeds in the past tense would help, mention of their survivors showing up for the award ceremony, that kind of thing:
  • Done one, might add more
  • "before being selected". Omit. Redundant.
  • Done
  • "Proposals for new recipients undergo a four-step process, whereas each step must receive approval." I'm not sure where the whereas is coming from. Given the heavy use of the word "proposal" around there, suggest "Nominees undergo a four-step process, and must be approved at each level." or something like that. Perhaps "recommendation" could sub for proposal once?
  • Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria 2,4,6 and 7 read oddly to me and perhaps should be rephrased. I looked at the underlying source and understand it's a translation. Consider whether some of the ones that are not, should be in the past tense.
  • Tried rewording, added original text
  • "A proposal is made by the general populace" It's not clear here whether you mean that collective action is required or you just mean any member of the public can nominate.
  • Can't think of good wording for this, but it's essentially public acclaim at the first step
  • "as represented by" This reads oddly to my ear, but I don't know enough about Indonesian affairs to suggest an alternative.
  • Removed "as"
  • Suggest putting a date on when the title was given its present name.
  • Not in source, sadly
  • "have originated" Odd-sounding. Possibly "came"?
  • Have any designations been revoked, or is there provision to do so?
  • Haven't seen any which have been revoked. Article 36 of the law allows for the revocation of Medals and Stars, but I didn't see "Title" there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The prose feels a bit stiff and perhaps edging towards being a little too formal.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps. I'll try and bug someone to see if they can copyedit. Thanks for looking! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giffnock edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like someone with a fresh eye to take a look over the article and point out areas for improvement. I'd like to eventually take this to GA but I know I'm not the greatest content writer.

Thanks, Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 17:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some things to look as you develop the article further:
  • The history section could use more of a narrative rather than list of facts.
  • Additional citations should be found for those uncited bits, like the last paragraph in the History section (about the proposed housing development), the Geography section, and much of the Culture and Sports section.
  • Check out some of the local history books, [2] maclean (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of springs in Florida edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida and I'm trying to improve Florida lists to "featured" quality.

Thanks, Mgrē@sŏn 00:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impalement edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because on the second GA fail, no comments were given. However, I have made a major restructuring from a primary draft, in which I made a basic geographic listing, rather than synthesizing reviewed evidence into a "Main Uses" section. That primary draft suffered from excessive repetition, which I believe has been remedied by hiding away similar evidence in refererence notes in "Main Uses". I hope, however, that a peer review might point to other things I should do.

Thanks, Arildnordby (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a few MOS fixes but feel free to revert. This is not a topic I'd normally look at and I'm certainly no expert but a few comments: Lead

  • This appear short & could be expanded to more fully summarise the article.
  • "unintentional accident" can an accident be intentional?

Main uses

  • Jean de Thevenot is a redirect to Jean de Thévenot - presumably the accent on the é should be included
  • I wouldn't include the organisational guidance ie Below, some examples are presented, but most are referred to in notes pertaining to this section, or within the "Methods" section. - this should be clear to the reader or they may enter the article via a link at a different point.
  • I don't understand "In addition, impalement as a form of post mortem indignity is recorded"
  • Should "Levant" be wikilinked? I don't know what it means here

Mass executions and spectacles of horror

  • I would combine the 2 bits about Boudicca's revolt
  • Dozsa Rebellion is an external link - should be turned into a ref
  • Why is the last paragraph indented? if this is a translation quote should speech marks be used?

Africa

  • Thomas Shaw is an ext link
  • Why is the second paragraph indented? if this is a translation quote should speech marks be used?

Asia

  • How many "t"s in Latakia / Lattakia

Notes

References

  • in Ref 14 Malabar currently points to a dab page - but I don't know which one is correct.
  • Ref 29 "Turkish Culture: The Art of Impalement" is a deadlink
  • There seem to be several "*)" eg 4 & 32 - what are these about?
  • Some web refs don't have access dates eg 61, others have the accessdate in inconsistent formats eg 116 v 84
  • Some books eg 89 don't have publishers
  • It might be worth thinking about listing the books as a bibliography so they are easier to find eg Moore & possibly using a citation template such as Template:Harvard citation or Template:Sfn to simplify the list

General comments

  • Lots of short 1 sentence paragraphs - I have seen several GA reviewers prefer these to be combined.
  • The indented paragraphs confused me - not sure if all are quotes or translations - if not why are some of them laid out like this? Check speech marks

Hope these comments are helpful.— Rod talk 10:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you for helpful comments! I'll write a few "responds" here, as much for myself "to do" as to you: 1.The indented paragraphs are direct quotes (using "quote" template), I'll clarify that. 2. I had thought of a Bibliography list, but was worried about length of article? 3. The "*)" marks each distinct evidence in the listing of them, in order to separate them from each other. 4. I'll go over the links etc. Arildnordby (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial standardization of bibliography and webcitation is required and in progress, as per very valuable peer input. In addition, I have come to the conclusion the "Methods" section needs substantial expansion, to explain rather varied techniques. Medical effects need to be expanded as well. I choose therefore to close peer review for nowArildnordby (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Titanic edit

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it is a former FA and one of the most read articles on Wikipedia. It has undergone many edits since last peer review and could need a new review. Last review version: 9 November 2011.

Thanks, Soerfm (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Quick comment:

  • "he faced social ostracism that followed him for the rest of his life and beyond.": The thought is fine, but "ostracism" is the wrong word if we're talking about how he was regarded when he was dead. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence has had two former versions (the present version is from 17 July 2012):
  • 4 March 2012: Some of the male survivors, notably the White Star Line's chairman, J. Bruce Ismay, were criticised for perceived cowardice for leaving the ship while women and children were still on board, and faced ostracism and social isolation.
  • 6 March 2012: Some of the male survivors, notably the White Star Line's chairman, J. Bruce Ismay, were accused of cowardice for leaving the ship while women and children were still on board, and they faced social ostracism.
Is any of these better? ~ Soerfm (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did something a little closer to what we had; see if that works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 23:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom fries edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I like to see this article promoted to GA status and I believe this event was a substantial part of the beginning of the Iraq War and American sociology.

Thanks, Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 02:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the article needs expansion to be at least two to three times as long. The lead is far too short. The artcile could use a little more context and a little more explanation (with RS) with some background around the exact situation that lead to the controversy. The artcile could use a reaction section with some referenced quotes from public figures, as well as any international reaction. A timeline may be of value with mention of the key figures for the actual renaming.
The article will be celebrating it's 10 year anniversary this March. Even after ten years the page is still rather short. I would wonder if there is a lack of interest or if the subject was just forgotten. It has potential to be a good article and even a feature article but needs a lot of work. It may need to have a few more eyes, so I suggest placing a notification on all the relevant editor talkpages and at the project pages. Be careful though as the neutrality of this article could easily be lost in partisan pros and cons.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really sure it has the potential to ever be a good article, let alone featured. It's slightly more than a dictionary definiton, since it covers the name change in the cafeteria at the Capitol, but the subject is so trivial that it doesn't really lend itself to much more than is already there. I'd be more inclined to say it could be merged with Anti-French sentiment in the United States and then work toward improving that article instead. Other than that, I agree with Amadscientist that it definitely needs serious expansion, I'm just not sure there's much more relevant information out there. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 20:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree with Kafziel, the only hope of freedom fries being mentioned in a GA is integrated into a larger article. Even the scholarly literature that discusses freedom fries combines them with other concepts, like this peer-reviewed journal article: "Politics in the supermarket: political consumerism as a form of political participation". Andrew327 16:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl (2012 HBO film) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like a pre-FAC assessment. I've done a lot of work on it over the past six weeks or so, and it seems to be fairly complete. But is there anything else I should add? Also I'm interested to know if this article would be acceptable at FAC. There's been some debate over the issue on the talk page, together with a third opinion that seems to give it the green light, but I've held off re-adding it just in case there is a problem. In reviewing this please note that because I use text-to-speech for reading lengthy articles, and edit with a screen magnifier some issues, such as punctuation may be difficult for me to address. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: if you want to know if something is acceptable for FA or not, the verifiability noticeboard (WP:V/N) is the place to go. Cheers, ResMar 03:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll give it a shot. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly this has gone unanswered at the above noticeboard and the question is now archived, so I have to assume it could be a problem unless otherwise advised at FAC. I've removed two further refs added yesterday for the same reason, as they dated back to the 1970s, decades before anyone had thought of making this film, and even before Hedren herself made allegations against the director. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's most likely that a FAC reviewer will question the source since the article is being hosted by a wiki. Have you tried WP:RS/N? All the best, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I did try them, but didn't get a response. The statement is supported by a more up-to-date source that discusses the information in relation to the film, so I guess it doesn't matter too much. The discussion is archived here if anyone wants to give it a shot. Cheers. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, I'd forgotten that V/N and RS/N were one and the same. Anyway, good luck! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. You kind of confirmed what I was thinking anyway. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamloops Airport edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it at featured article status fairly soon.

Thanks, TBrandley (what's up) 15:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Checklinks threw me two dead links when I ran it, but both links seem like they should be easily replacable. Here
  • The image captioned "A Central Mountain Air aircraft sits at the Kamloops Airport." needs alt text
  • "The airport's parking lot, which is used to gain access to its terminal that was expanded by 2009." Should read "expanded in 2009.
  • "However, by 2009, its terminal, runway and navigation aids were upgraded with about $25 million dollars, which was funded by the British Columbia government, who gave $4 million dollars, the Canadian government, who gave $6.6 million dollars and the airport itself for the remaining money and announced in 2007; $13 million dollars was used to upgrade the runway, $3 million dollars was used to expand the navigation aid, while $4 million dollars was used for terminal improvements." is grammatically horrible. Try "However, in 2009, its terminal, runway and navigation aids were upgraded, which was funded by the British Columbia government, who gave $4 million dollars; the Canadian government, who gave $6.6 million dollars; and the airport itself for the remaining money. The expansion was announced in 2007. $25 million dollars were spent, with $13 million dollar used to upgrade the runway, $3 million dollars used to expand the navigation aid, and $4 million dollars used for terminal improvements."
  • "but 150 more spaces are expected." expected to be added when?
  • "The navigation system is owned by Nav Canada,[49] which operate an air traffic control system at it." Do they operate air traffic control at the entire airport? Can you clarify the end of the sentence? The grammar is terrible here.
That's all for now. --TKK bark ! 20:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwell Park edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've worked this article up from a stub to a successful GA nomination last month. I'm considering giving this a run at FAC and would like someone to cast an eye over it for some of the things I usually fail to spot such as grammatical errors, poor use of HTML/templates and the ocassional puffery...Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


You've certainly done an excellent job on this article so far, and I can see this gaining Featured Article status in the not-too-distant future. I've a few comments for you, mostly picky ones which are down to my personal preferences regarding sentence structure which you may or may not agree with.

Lead:

  • Why is the website URL in the infobox commented out?
Spotted and fixed Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and is (in 2012) one of fifty Green Heritage sites in the UK" → "and was named one of the UK's fifty Green Heritage sites in 2012"
Seems reasonable; changed. I've also updated slightly (there are now 55 and the park is still one of them)Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 3 and 4 are the same URL.
Indeed. Merged Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conception and opening

  • "was in the hands of William Wailes–" → "was owned by William Wailes," (I believe it's better to use a comma here instead of an endash).
Okay, changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 8: this citation appears to be incomplete. Is Pevsner the author or the title? Is there a URL, IBSN, publisher or date available?
Good spot – for some reason I didn't include a bibliography. Rather than start one with just one book I've added a 'cite book' ref. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd paragraph: it might be worth wikilinking Sir Water James here, assuming he has an article - I'm making an educated guess that this is Walter James, 1st Baron Northbourne, although it could well be the 2nd Baron.
I reckon it is the 2nd Baron and have linked accordingly. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his entire estate for £32,000[nb 1] and, in March 1875," → "his entire estate for £32,000,[nb 1] and in March 1875,"
Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In March 1875 the park committee formally opened talks with Wailes" - As the term "in March 1875" has already been used in the previous sentence, repeating it here affects the flow. Consider changing this sentence to "The park committee formally opened talks with Wailes shortly afterwards"
I've changed to 'Later that month' to improve flow as suggested. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands at the moment, the year 1875 is mentioned four times in three sentences, and as these events occurred in the same year, this repetition isn't necessary. Consider changing "after various proposals were considered and rejected, in September 1875 the council decided to buy the entire Saltwellgate estate"to "after various proposals were considered and rejected, the council decided to buy the entire Saltwellgate estate five months later"
Good spot. I've removed two of the four to reduce this redundancy. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after having secured" → "after securing"
Changed as suggested Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Design and layout

  • Reference 13 - although the link still works, the link redirects to a different URL (chances are the website owners have reorganised some of its pages since the reference was added to the article). Update the URL, just in case the website's owners decide to remove their redirects altogether.
The redirect has indeed gone. Updated as suggested Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...known as Saltwell Grove, or locally "The Grove", after these were purchased..." → "...known as Saltwell Grove (or "The Grove") after these were purchased..."
Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Principal attractions

  • "great, great grandson" → "great-great-grandson"
Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To the north-west of Saltwell Towers there is a stable block, built in 1871" → "A stable block is located to the north-west of Saltwell Towers, built in 1871"
Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is a sandstone construction, dated 1872, with a basin in the central alcove." → "Dated 1872, this is a sandstone construction with a basin in the central alcove.""
Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a Grade II listed statue of Alderman John Lucas. This is a bronze statue on a sandstone plinth and granite base." → "is a Grade II listed bronze statue of Alderman John Lucas, mounted on a sandstone plinth and granite base." (wikilink optional!)
Changed (wikilink included!) Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but this is something of a misnomer– " - the endash needs a space before it as well as after.
  • The sentences describing the wildfowl have inconsistent pluralisation - some species are described as singular (mallard, coot, moorhen) while some are plural (ducks, swans, geese). Personally, I believe these should all be plural.
This has now been done Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common pochard --> Common Pochard
Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There have been animals kept in Saltwell Park since June 1877. In the immediate years after the park opened these included monkeys, deer and a raccoon." → "There have been animals kept in Saltwell Park since June 1877 – initially, these included monkeys, deer and a raccoon."
Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and this was replaced" → "and was subsequently replaced"
Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was then moved to the island in the lake and moved again to Saltwell Grove." When did these moves happen?
  • "well used" → "well-used"
changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Park use

  • "On opening," → "Upon opening," Also, consider moving reference 10 from the middle to the end of the sentence.
Both done Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three fun runs around the boating lake attracted over 4,000 participants" - did each fun run attract 4000 participants, or did the 3 runs attract a total of 4000?
4,000 in total. Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • I've noticed a number of reference titles use an endash with a space after but not before (for example, "Gateshead Places– Saltwell Park"). Ideally, there should a space before and after the dash, as you've used for reference 3.
I think I've got these all Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 16:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for picking this up and taking the time to read through and leave suggestions. I'm snowed under at work at the moment so will start working through them over the weekend... Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better late than never; I've now addressed all of these. Thanks for your effort in providing this PRMeetthefeebles (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan (actor) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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

Thanks, GleekVampire | talk! 13:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Gleek, really good job on the article, though some amount of polishing is required. :-) Here are my first bunch of comments:

Lead
  • "...the grandson of noted director and producer Nasir Hussain." The usage of the word "noted" here is not required.
  • Didn't Khan pursue film-making at the New York Film Academy? The statement regarding this is a bit confusing.
  • The sentence "His performance in the film earned the Filmfare Award for Best Male Debut." is a bit weird.
  • Don't use a word like "lull" in the article, it's pretty unencyclopaedic.
  • What do you mean when you say "Khan is a celebrity in India" ?
  • "..written columns in India's national newspaper." Not a very good sentence to read.
  • "PETA Programme in India". PETA is a organisation, what programme are you referring to?
  • In the final sentence, usage of the word "girlfriend" is redundant.
  Done.
Early life and background
  • " Khan later admitted that frequently changing schools made him independent and a loner." This sentence puts two rather contrasting ideas in the same breath. I think you should change it.
  • The statement in the parenthesis "(calling Dahl his "guru")" is quite redundant.
  • "...he went into market research and advertising". "Went into" is unencyclopaedic.
  • "Khan eventually returned to Mumbai and began training at an acting institute in Andheri, mentored by Kishore Namit Kapoor (a member of the Film and Television Institute of India)." Isn't it easier to say "Khan eventually returned to Mumbai and trained to become an actor at Kishore Namit Kapoor's acting institute". Why is the location and Kapoor's membership information required?
  • "Khan auditioned for the role again, before being signed for the film."?? The prose does not explain if he had auditioned before.
  Done. GleekVampire | talk! 21:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments later. --smarojit (buzz me) 16:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article looks very good. Here is a minor style point: Newpapers and magazines like Hindustan times, Economic times, Times of India, and Outlook are italicized in the text, but not always in the citations. Look out for Work=, which italicizes, and Publisher=, which does not. BollyJeff | talk 02:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image and artistry section: "chocolate boy" What does it mean?
  • "He is considered one of the most popular, stylish and handsome celebrities in India" Source covers stylish, but not so much the other two. Another source or two might help.
  Done. GleekVampire | talk! 06:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Little edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

A forgotten 19th century investor with patchy referential coverage. He's outside of my typical area of expertise, so I guess my question is, is this developed enough to pass a GAN? Comments (obviously) welcome, ResMar 02:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: It took me a little while, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I found his obituary in The New York Times, which gave his birth date and death date, pall bearers, date and location of funeral. I added this to the article - the obit also has the names of all the pall-bearers, funeral organist, and that he lived in Union Square at the time of his death. I have the obit as a PDF - email me if you want it.
I'm good. ResMar 15:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would split the lead into two paragraphs.
  • Direct quote in the lead ("Great Bear of Wall Street") needs a ref per WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE. Ditto with "bearing the market"
Done. ResMar 15:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The language is rough in spots - not sure if you eventually want to go for FA, but if you do it will need work on the prose. A few examples:
    • in the lead I would not use "migrated" (makes him sound like a bird - use "moved" or something similar),
    • Awkward sentence Although he exerted great influence on the stock market in the immediate aftermath of his death, he was quickly forgotten and today has been relegated to relative obscurity. I think it means he exerted influence on the markets (in his life), but was soon forgotten after his death, but it reads that he exerted market influence right after he died, then was forgotten and still is today.
    • It also seems a bit odd to have in the lead BOTH that he is ...remembered today as the Great Bear of Wall Street" and then later in the lead that ...he was quickly forgotten and today has been relegated to relative obscurity.
    • Plural (banking and stock-brokerage) vs singular (its) Little entered the stock market at a time when banking and stock-brokerage was coming in of its own.
I've addressed the first three here, not sure about this last one. I don't really intend to take this to FA, so I think it's fine for a GA. ResMar 15:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would make it clearer what his own business in 1822 was (as opposed to his later brokerage)
-> business. ResMar 15:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox says his name is "Jacob Allison Dove" but that name is not used anywhere else in the article - not sure what this means - is it a typo? If his name changed, then this needs to be sourced, mentioned in the text and explained.
This was in the article from before I got around to it; I assumed it was accurate and left the vetting for later (and forgot about it haha). It probably is but, whatever, I'll just hide it. ResMar 15:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would follow the example of the Tammany Hall article and use "Democratic Party political machine" (with links)
Mmm. ResMar 15:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources could be better. A quick Google Books search on "Jacob Little" Wall Street returns several modern books on Wall Street etc. which are not cited here.
Rehashes of earlier sound bites, most of them. ResMar 15:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, current refs 12 and 13 are to dealers that sell stock certificates, which seem a bit sketchy for WP:RS
As far as I can see, they're used to back up fairly noncontroversial statements (a quote, a second reference for a sentence, etc.). ResMar 15:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've put things to PR before sending it to GAN, but this the first time the opposite operation has happened! ResMar 15:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You had mentioned this on the PR talk page so I reviewed it - just took me a while. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius P. Rhoads edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was primarily written by a small group of contributors and could be copyedited and improved to incorporate the information presented in a smoother way.

Thanks, Andrevan@ 21:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • There's no images in the article - is there a picture of Cornelius or perhaps one of the places where he did most of his work that could be used?
  • You have a disambig link to Memorial Hospital
  • You have a couple dead links that look like they could be easily replaced; specifically, "Consider the Source" and "A History of Secret U.S. Government Programs"
  • You have some raw URLs as references, can you add more information to these?
  • All websites need access dates.
  • Can the representation in popular culture section be converted to paragraphs? In bullet-points it seems too much like a trivia section.
  • The intro should touch a little more on the New York and WW2 section.
  • "Rhoads was born June 20, 1898, in Springfield, Massachusetts, the son of a physician." Springfield was the son of a physician? This needs to be reworded.
  • "Rhoads became an intern at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, where he caught pulmonary tuberculosis." needs to be linked to the disease and a bit of clarificiation.
  • "...in 1931 as part of the Rockefeller Foundation's sanitary commission there (later the International Health Board)." what? Can this be restructured? A general rule of thumb in writing is if you need to use parentheses, the information in them would be better off in an actual sentence, or not included at all.
  • "...succeeding James Ewing, a noted oncologist." Noted for what? That little 'a noted oncologist' bit could probably be removed entirely.
  • "He has been accused of involvement with the radiation experiments performed on prisoners during World War II." By who?
  • The post-war section and last years section are both extremely brief. Could they be merged?
  • "The mercantile monopoly is backed by the financial monopoly... The United States have mortgaged the country to their own financial interests. The military intervention destroyed agriculture. It changed the country into a huge sugar plantation..." this direct quote (and all the others in the article) need citations immediately after their inclusion.
  • You need to use citations a little more liberally.
That's it for now. --TKK bark ! 00:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where No One Has Gone Before edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because having worked on the article in an effort to bring it up to GA standards I found a great deal more information than the average TNG episode I've been recently working on. Therefore I would like to look a step further and see if I can't get this up to FA at some point this year.

In addition, I have some bad habits that other editors have to continually fix. I'd like to reduce my reliance on the kindness of others, so I present this article here without excessive copy editing so the problems with my prose can be highlighted in order for me to stop repeating the same mistakes over and over.

Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I've got it up from stub to c-class (probably), and I'd really like to improve it one or two more grades, but I thought that would be easier if multiple editors suggested ideas.

Thanks, King Jakob C2 18:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Force edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan on nominating it for FAC and it was suggested during the copy edit to have a peer review done.

Thanks, Astros4477 (Talk) 04:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "When built in 2000" try "Once built in 2000" instead
  • "it broke or helped to break ten world records" don't understand it, "broke or helped"?
    • Well for example, it didn't directly break the park records. Like for the most roller coaster track at a park, it didn't directly break it. It helped to break that record. Do you get what I'm saying?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the first sentence at the lead, I notice far too many "it" openings, try something different such as "the roller coaster" or its present name itself
  • "Cedar Point’s at $25 million" use a regular "'" mark per WP:MOS, it appears that one is curly
  • I believe WP:RELTIME is against the use of "today" or simlar words

Further concerns to come later, but I did notice a "citation needed" tag in the history section, so that would certainly need to be addressed. TBrandley (what's up) 03:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked, so I'm peer reviewing this article. I'll also copy-edit as I go, and when I see things that can't be easily fixed or things I have questions about, I'll put them here.

Figureskatingfan's comments

Lead

  • Once built in 2000, Millennium broke or helped to break ten world records; it was the first complete circuit roller coaster to exceed 300 feet (91 m) in height, it was briefly the tallest complete circuit roller coaster in the world and the fastest complete circuit roller coaster in the world, before being surpassed by Steel Dragon 2000 in August 2000. This sentence is too long; I recommend breaking it up and re-wording it to make it less awkward. I think "once built in 2000" is awkward. When you say that the ride was "surpassed by Steel Dragon 2000", do you mean that it was both the tallest and fastest in the world before the SD was built? I suggest changing it to: "After its completion in 2000, Millennium broke or helped to break ten world records, and was the first complete circuit roller coaster to exceed 300 feet (91 m) in height. It was briefly..."
  • I think that the sentence about the park's investment belongs earlier in the paragraph, so I moved it.

History

  • The first rumors that a new record breaking roller coaster would be built at Cedar Point in 2000 began circulating in early 1998. Compound adjectives should be hyphenated; I went ahead and did it for you. Do we need "in 2000"? You say later on that the MF was completed in 2000.
    • I think so because that is the first mention of 2000 in the history section.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point, but's still chronological without the first mention of 2000. Thanks for making the change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rumors ranging from a 10 inversion roller coaster from Bolliger & Mabillard to a Arrow Dynamics MegaLooper surfaced. I think this is awkward, so I recommend combining it with the previous sentence. If so, this is how it would read: "The first rumors that a new record-breaking roller coaster would be built at Cedar Point, which included speculation about a 10 inversion roller coaster from Bolliger & Mabillard and a Arrow Dynamics MegaLooper, began circulating in early 1998."

More later, perhaps tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Construction and opening

  • 226 footers: As per WP:ORDINAL, it's best to spell out numbers when they start a sentence, or if possible, recast the sentence. In this case, I spelled them out because the source doesn't state who did the digging, so you can't recast.
  • I separated the first paragraph where the concepts (construction, completion) differed.
  • New 2nd paragraph: You use the words "about" and "approximately" too much; plus, there's no estimation in your sources, so I removed them. I moved ref1 after the next sentence because the information is there, not in ref15. You should either explain or link (if possible) "pull-through", since few readers will understand it and it's explained in the source, anyway.
    • It was actually already explained, I reworded it.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The rewording makes it clearer; I changed the wording slightly to make it flow better.
  • Ref19 says nothing about MF breaking ten records, that it was the first Giga coaster, and that other rides later surpassed it. Please make sure that your sources support your statements.
  • Seat belts: You should specify the "incident" that inspired the change in seat belts and the difficulties with them. You should also state that they instigated new weight requirements and why.
Like most readers, I assumed that the blue link would take me to the Bizarro article, and not the specific instance. I suggest that you do that--link the entire article to "Bizarro". Then you should do this: At the start of the 2004 season, Millennium Force's seat belts were modified because of an accident in May 2004 on the Bizarro roller coaster at Six Flags New England. You should also add information about the new weight requirement, since it was also inspired by the Bizarro accident.
  • Ref25: The source only states that when the article was written (2012), they were in the middle of their three-year re-painting project, not that it was the first time it had been re-painted as you state.
    • Well there's not going to be a reliable source that states it was the first time. Riders are generally painted every 10 years so it makes sense that 2011 was the first time.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But please realize that I, like most non-coaster fanatics (sorry, I'm too afraid of heights to think it's fun to put yourself through all that after standing in lines for two hours, but that's just me), won't know that. The simplest solution is to state that it was re-painted over a three-year period of time, starting in 2011, since the source states that 2012 was the middle of a three-year re-painting project. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fast lane: You state that there were two times when the park developed the system to decrease wait times in lines: in 2000, a month after the ride opened (called "Ticket to Ride") and in 2012 ("Fast Lane"), after they had tested it at other parks. This brings up a Few question for me: Do either programs have anything to do with each other? If not, you need to say so, and if you can't find any sources that back up a connection, then you shouldn't mention it. How successful were both programs? Again, if you can't find the information don't talk about it. (It's unfortunate that ref20 doesn't include the second part of the newspaper article.) IOW, you need to give us more information about the programs: why they were established, what people thought of them, and their effects--if possible. The second phrase in the last sentence in this section breaks the tenses rule; I suggest either removing it or re-framing it when you expand information about it.
    • I never experienced "Ticket to Ride" but from what I've read on forums, it didn't last long because there was really no organization to it. The system could be easily cheated and they received many complaints. Their new system, however, has received much better reviews. Of course you're always going to get people complaining about how they're "cutting" in line and its "not fair" but that's just the way it goes. The systems relate to each other in that you're getting to the front of the line with a minimal wait, but the way it is done is different. Unfortunately, there's not going to be really any reliable sources on what there effects were/are.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have actually come across a source that talks about Ticket to Ride and I have added it to the article.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that; nice job. I liked how you described that here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ride experience

  • Queue: Ah, you repeat the same information as above. I think you should remove the queue info in the previous section and put it here. Then you can expand it as I suggest. None of your sources about paying to wait shorter times says anything about why "Ticket to Ride" was discontinued.
  • Layout: It's too bad that this section isn't more interesting, since it's about a thrilling ride. I'm not sure what you can do about it, since it's stats and probably necessary. (The YouTube clip, which is way cool, helps.) Some OR went on in the writing of this section, hmm? ;)
    • I wish it could be more exciting but that's how the summaries go. I'm sure everybody would love to read "After reaching the top, the train drops at rapid speeds while your heart is racing and your hair is blowing in the wind." Of course, we know that's not possible. There may be a little OR here and there in that section... :)-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the sources are for. And good for you; like I said, not my thing. Guess I'm just an old fuddy-duddy. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need to stop again; more later. I'll probably be able to finish tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to all your comments.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going on:

  • Station: The station features futuristic music. I see that ref41 links to YouTube, which is a clip of the music. I just listened to the first part of the clip, but it seems that it doesn't characterize itself as "futuristic", which may be your characterization. I know that it's obvious, but someone else may characterize the music in another way. (I mean, I had Stevie Wonder playing when my husband called me earlier today, and he called it "noise", but what does he know? One person's noise may be another person's greatness.) Is there a source that describes it? If so, you should include it, along with the YouTube clip. If not, you need to remove the sentence, and perhaps put the clip in the "External links" section.

Track

  • Ref42 appears twice in this section; you don't need it, so I suggest that you just it once to support what the source states about the track. Does the source describe the three sizes? It's unclear if what follows are descriptions of the shapes; if so, you may need to restate them to clarify.
  • You already talked about the re-painting; you don't need to repeat it again here.

Lighting

  • Ref43 seems to state that, unless I'm reading it incorrectly, they didn't end up using floodlights at the base. You should state it, if that's the case, simply by adding "Instead" to the beginning of the next sentence.

Inspiration: Is this a traditional section in articles about roller coasters? If not, how about changing the section title to "Influence", since it's about how the MF changed how they were built?

Done now. Nice job; thanks for following my suggestions. I think that it's a good candidate for FAC once you clean it up a bit. I suggest going through the refs meticulously, to make sure that they support what they're supposed to support. I have some concerns about how often you use Cedar Point and industry websites. Some reviewers at FAC make take offense of it, so you'll need to make a case for needing to use them to ensure comprehensiveness. I also suggest that you have at least one more editor give it a copy-edit. Let me know when you submit it to FAC. Good luck! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Barberini edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've edited the article extensively so I thought it best not to review anything myself. I'm inclined to think it qualifies as an A Class article, if not FA at some stage. But I'd like some outside opinion, advice and perhaps even copy-editing if others have a few spare minutes. Cheers, Stalwart111 11:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dana Boomer

First of all, you've done a great job in expanding and improving this article over the last few years! That being said, there is quite a bit of work that needs to be done if you want to take this article to FAC. I don't think either of the WikiProjects that support this article have working A-class assessment groups, so a good article nomination may be a good first step instead of A-class. Some specific thoughts on the article:

  • The sourcing standard is far below what is expected at FAC, or even GAN. Many paragraphs and even full sections are completely devoid of refs. The entire Patronage of the arts section has only one true reference!
  • In a related comment, it may be best to split the notes and the references so it is clear which is which when reading the text. At this point, it looks like some spots have references, when in fact they only have notes that give even more unsourced information. Out of 15 refs at this point, four are actually notes, which reduces the (already slim) referencing by a quarter.
  • What makes ref #4 (Rome Art Lover) a reliable source?
  • For FAC, all book references will need page numbers, publishers, isbns (if available).
  • For FAC, web references will need proper titles, publishers, access dates, and authors if available.

Overall, the prose and layout appear quite well done. The referencing is the biggest hurdle to overcome if you're looking at a FAC nomination. In adding references, I often find that I come across additional information, which could be used to fill in some of the shorter sections (for example, the Early life and Later life sections). Some of the religious personage articles listed at WP:FA may be helpful as guidemaps for what these types of articles look like - sourcing, content and otherwise. I will be watching this page if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great advice Dana! Thanks for taking the time to look at it. I'll try to prepare some more detailed queries - would be good to get some advice about some specific sources if you have the time. But for now, thanks again! I'll start working on your suggestions. Stalwart111 14:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On ref #4 - Roberto Piperno is an amateur historian and the site in question is his own private site dedicated to the history of Rome's various buildings and associated historical events. It most definitely falls into the category of WP:SPS. But Piperno (while probably not notable in his own right) has been cited in a number of books as a reliable source of information on his specific subject area. He is variously described as a "scholar" and "expert" and has himself written a number of, admittedly also self-published, books on the same subjects. I wouldn't want to rely on it for notability purposes but my impression was that enough people had expressed view on his "expert" opinion to give his work some semblance of reliability. But I went through exactly the same thing when first added the source and, to be honest, never really entirely convinced myself that a better source couldn't be found - I was just never able to find it. Stalwart111 06:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough! It sounds like he's a fairly good source. It's always better to have non-SPS sources, but if this is the best you can find, it should be OK. Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Potential sources

I did a quick check around the Internet, and came up with some possible sources:

I don't know how accessible any of these are, or how useful. There are also a ton of mentions of him in other publications on WorldCat, GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar, so there's definitely a good amount of source material out there. Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Awesome, thanks! I had seen one or two of those but for some reason hadn't included them. I start work on adding them. Stalwart111 07:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent some time today adding some new sources and citing sources for particular sections where they were missing. In the process I found some more info and expanded the article a bit. Stalwart111 09:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's looking better! Don't forget that for FA status, you'll need page numbers for books. It's often easier putting them in as you go along, rather than having to go back through all the books later trying to remember what page you got the information from! (Speaking from personal experience here :) Dana boomer (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I considered that. What's the best way to do it for sources cited multiple times? Stalwart111 13:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referencing information to a bunch of different pages, or just a couple? If the latter (say, less than 5), you can just use ref naming, as you already do in the article. If you're using a bunch of different pages, or page ranges (for example, pp. 10-11, 25-28 and 92-94), you can either repeat the information for each separate page range, or you can use a short refs format. See for example the notes/references sections in Cleveland Bay, where all of the information for the refs is given once, and then just the author, title and page number are used for in-line referencing. You can use different combinations of information for the short refs - author, page number is another one, if you don't have multiple works by any one author, or author (date), page number is a third. There are a bunch of different ways to do referencing, but for FAC the only rule is to maintain consistency among all of your references and to, at some point in the page, provide full information for each reference. Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not sure which way to go. While I'd really like to see the article improved (I think it has been, somewhat) going back and re-referencing (effectively) represents a large amount of work for an article in a subject area where the vast majority of articles are barely referenced at all. Do I work on making one article brilliant, or a bunch of other articles okay? The Cleveland Bay article is awesome, by the way. Congrats. Stalwart111 00:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Del Rey edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive ideas on how to improve this article.

Thanks, teammathi (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Escape from Tomorrow edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I put it together in a week after reading about this film, which it doesn't look at the moment will be any more widely released than it already has been, in The New York Times, and a lot of people went out of their way to say how much they liked it when it was on DYK. What more improvements could be made?

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • It has been called "the ultimate guerrilla film" -> "It was called". Eliminates the weasel words.
  • "While they conceded the film's audacious production made it worth their time to watch, other critics found some flaws." -> "other critics found flaws"
  • "Disney would have to convince a court that the use of its protected imagery in the movie could reasonably lead viewers to believe that it had some role in the film's production" -> "had a role in the film's production"
  • "such as keeping their scripts on their iPhones and shooting on handheld video cameras similar to those used by the park's many visitors." -> "used by the park's visitors"
  • "such as charting the position of the sun weeks in advance since they could not use any lighting equipment." -> "use lighting equipment"
  • "To compensate for their inability to control the lighting in any way" -> "inability to control the lighting,"
  • "He had little hope that it would be accepted due to the festival's many corporate sponsors." -> "festival's corporate sponsors"
  • "nor taken any legal action by the middle of the following week" -> "nor taken legal action"
  • "Even if it were to successfully prevent any official distribution," -> "prevent official distribution"
  • "Despite all the critical apprehension that the film would never be shown outside the festival" -> Despite critical apprehension"
  • " In his Post review, Smith suggested that Disney prevent all this by taking the opposite course," -> "Disney prevent this by"
  • Needs some kind of alt text for the movie poster

That's all for now. --TKK bark ! 12:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made all these changes. Thanks! Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPad (4th generation) edit

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve it to reach Featured Article status.

Thanks, Zach Vega (talk to me) 02:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank L. VanderSloot edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we have a very long section at Frank_L._VanderSloot#Melaleuca.2C_Inc.Frank_L._VanderSloot#Melaleuca.2C_Inc., which I want to divide into subsections, which could be named as follows: (1) History is on top, followed by (2) Business model, (3) Memberships and (4) Investigations. (I am not wedded to these titles; they could be changed.) The section as it is now is very disjointed and has information about various activities spread all over. Dividing the section into subsections would make for easier comprehension by readers and editing by Wikipedians.

There is opposition to this suggestion, so I am asking for neutral help from people whose interest lies only in improving the layout and practicality of WP articles. You can get a preliminary taste of the issue by going to Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Rearrange_Melaleuca.2C_Inc..2C_section.

Thanks, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Recreational Roads in Texas edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get comments on how to improve it before I take this to another FLC nom.

Thanks, Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 00:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mahavira edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how this article can be further improved, possibly to at-least meet Good Article Criteria.

Thanks, Rahul Jain (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz's comments
  • The main problem is references. The article is filled with [citation needed] tags
  • Major aspects missing:
    • Worship/Veneration: festivals
  • Short sections (1 para) should be merged
  • Jargon: nirvana (died..), arihant

Frankly, needs work of work for GA status. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St Pancras railway station edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to Good Article status in the near future. I know some of the references are dead, but I am working on replacing them. I'd like further suggestions for improvement.

Thanks, Rcsprinter (yak) @ 16:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The map of St. Pancras' location includes anecdotal data regarding traffic that could perhaps be omitted. --LucLewitanski (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


comments from Tim riley
  • General
    • Quotes – you need to standardise on single or double quotes; WP prefers the latter, for some odd reason   Fixed 16:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Punctuation – you need to decide between the English form – St Pancras – or the American – St. Pancras. At present there are both to be seen.   standardized 16:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
      • It being a British station, I've fixed most of these to the British form (we don't add a full stop to an abbreviation when the last letter of the abbreviation is the same as the last letter of the word abbreviated) I have left a few alone: the hotel and the tube station are wikilinks to pages where the full stop is present in the article title; and one online source [3] also has the full stop. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikilinks: please reread the Manual of Style section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, and note in particular "as a rule of thumb editors should only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article", and remove your duplicate blue-links accordingly. For instance "Midland Grand Hotel" (four links) and multiple links to Thameslink, King's Cross St Pancras tube station, etc.   just one link each 16:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Lead
    • "celebrated" – a POV word; others would say "notorious". Better to use a neutral word such as "known"   word replaced 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "the Queen" – but later you capitalise her definite article (and the Duke's). Lower case, as here, is better, IMO, but either way be consistent
  • Overview
    • "impressive" is POV (others might prefer the adjective "appalling") unless you find a citation   word removed 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Location
    • You have told us twice in successive paragraphs about the Midland Grand Hotel
  • Public art
    • "The sculpture received a poor critical reception" – Gormley's comment seems to me absolutely ad rem, but it does not on its own constitute "critical reception". At least one other citation is needed for this statement. You might like to consider this from The Independent.
  • Requirement for a new station
    • "reach effective gridlock" – this raises the question "what is ineffective gridlock"
  • Design and construction
    • "Regent's Canal at height, allowing" – if I correctly understand your meaning you don't want the comma here   comma gone 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "Beer" – why capitalise two out of three mentions here?
    • "with the Barlow's assistant" – is the definite article wanted here?
    • "the stations bottom level" – possessive apostrophe lacking   apostrophe added 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "Additional advice" – in addition to whose?
    • "The current record holder for this is the Dallas Cowboys Stadium in Texas, USA." – no doubt, but (i) is it relevant and (ii) who says so?
    • "fronting the station, the Midland Grand Hotel began" – you need to close the subordinate clause with a comma   comma added 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "and opened in 1873" – the construction didn't open, as this says; the hotel did   Fixed 17:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Grouping, nationalisation and privatisation
    • "After the sectorisation of British Rail" – means nothing to the general reader; either a wikilink or a few explanatory words needed here   linked to explanatory article 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "Snow Hill tunnel, re-opened" – unexplained comma here   comma gone 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "Thameslink" – linked twice in successive paras   Fixed 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • A new role is planned
    • "Eurostar operation, Eurostar (UK)" – why italics?   whole piece removed; redundant 17:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "LCR retain ownership" – see WP:DATED: better to have a date here
    • "The original reference design" – what is a reference design?
  • Rebuilding
    • "King's Cross Thameslink" – linked twice in the same section
    • "According to a BBC Two series broadcast in November 2007" – and which cannot now be viewed. A verifiable citation is needed here: see WP:SOURCEACCESS
  • International station opens
    • There are six paragraphs in this section, two of them consisting of one sentence each, and two with only two sentences. The effect is rather staccato; some merging of paras would be welcome.   merged 17:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "the singers Lemar and Katherine Jenkins" – might be safer to list these two the other way round, to avoid ambiguity; it looks at first glance like the piping for a couple such as Ike and Tina Turner.
  • Hotel
    • "It held its grand opening" – the hotel, presumably, rather than the Manhattan Loft Corporation, as appears from the prose.   Clarified 17:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Services
    • I recommend pruning all the many blue links in this section that are duplicates of earlier ones, such as Thameslink etc, or are duplicated within the section, such as Luton, Southeastern etc.
  • Great Northern
    • I think it might be helpful to your readers to give an example of the northerly or eastern termini from which one will be able to travel direct to Sussex and Kent. You might like to consider WP:DATED here too, perhaps saying "It was announced in XXXX, 20XX, that ...", which will always remain true.

That's all from me. Happy to discuss any point if wanted. – Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1988 Giro d'Italia edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've done considerable work on the article to get it from stub to Good Article status, with my main hope to make this a Featured Article. I feel like I've gathered and compiled all the available information - from the reputable sources that I could find - on the 1988 Giro and condensed it into the article. I would like Featured Article level criticism and help with any possible breaks in the wikistandards(?). Just an all over review and list of corrections I guess. Thanks for the help. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 04:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC) This peer review discussion has been closed.[reply]

Rowing clubs on the River Wear edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article provides a good coverage of the topic, but likely could do with improvement. The small amount of text could be improved but would this distract from the main intention of the article.

Thanks, Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American football edit

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see this improved to featured article status at some point in the future. The article recently underwent a good article review and was promoted. The article itself outlines the topic of American football, giving a short overview of the game's origins from soccer/football and rugby football (particularly rugby union), a brief but detailed overview of basic gameplay as well as a longer and more detailed rules section. Equipment, positions, leagues, and variations or related sports also have individual sections. Toa Nidhiki05 21:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lewisville, Texas edit

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Although it may not be the most exciting subject, I've listed this article because I believe that with a little work, it can meet FA criteria. Any suggestions for its improvement would be very helpful. I've been known to create awkward sentence syntax through editing, so if you can point me to any instances of that, please do.

Thanks for your help, – Runfellow (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Cardiff edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to get this to Featured List standard and would like to get an outside opinion on it before submitting it for review.

Thanks, ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 14:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • There was a similar, unfortunately failed List of athletes from Montana. I think creating such tables would be a good idea, and I am sure many would wish that plain lists were sortable tables.
  • Looks good overall. Pictures seem to meet the image criteria
  • Some general work is needed describing the people, eg Goscombe John is a sculptor, but the list does not mention it.
  • Some small MOS issues, like unitalicized TV shows, eg QI and I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue
  • Make sure that every member of a band was born or shares a strong association with the city
  • If you have "Politics", then I think "Sport" should be "Sports"
  • I know that football is football, but I recommend changing to "Association football"--Tomcat (7) 12:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. I have toyed with the idea of a table - this is currently in progress at User:Bald Zebra/Cardiff people, using the Sortname template to sort by surname rather by first name. Question is, one big table with a "Field" column (like in the example), or split it into fields as it is on the list right now? Some of the descriptions will be expanded beyond a single word.
    • With regards to the bands, the only one which doesn't actually come from (or was formed in) Cardiff are the Manic Street Preachers, but they are commonly acknowledged as being part of the local scene (this is shown on the reference). Would you say this was enough for inclusion in the list?
    • I don't know about the rest of the world but in British English, "Sport" is often used in the singular while "Politics" is always plural.
    • ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 13:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding the fields, I say keep it as is, but probably someone won't like that system at FLC. If there will be enough space, then you could create another column for that information. About the bands, I am not sure, but I would say remove everyone in the list that was not born or raised in Cardiff. It is confusing because the list does not note if an individual was born, raised or have strong ties with the city. I mean, include only "the sons and daughters" of Cardiff, the other people could be excluded. Also, worth adding {{Dynamic list}} at the top? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 09:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I definitely think you're right about keeping the list split in its current sections (perhaps amalgamating "Nobility" into "Historical Figures") as having a single table would be way too long - a comparable example would the the various "List of awards and nominations" tables, which are split into sections. And that's a fair comment about only including those people actually born or raised in the city. My only query would be Aulus Didius Gallus - he wasn't born in the city but he has very a strong connection with it as it was long-thought that the city was actually named after him. Do you reckon that would be a good enough reason to keep him on this list? ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 10:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think that he should be included, because it seems Cardiff did not exist at that time. And that the city was named after him is not a clear fact. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're right, it's best to keep the inclusion criteria simple. I've deleted him and a couple of others and I'll give it a full sweep once I've finished tabulating the list. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 12:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it took a few days, but I've finished converting the lists to sortable tables. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 15:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

Could you include a photo of George Whitcombe from his Wikipedia page in his welsh jersey?

God of War II edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, assuming that my other FAC passes, I will be listing this article for FAC and want this article to be readily prepared for an FAC nomination. I would appreciate a comprehensive review that would help improve this article so that it would likely pass an FAC nomination. A lot of what has been done to the article has been based on feedback from the FAC of my other article (the previous game in this series).

Thanks, JDC808 ♫ 05:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political career of John C. Breckinridge edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I started trying to expand John C. Breckinridge and quickly discovered there was too much about the man for a single article. This is the first of what I think will eventually be three sub-articles. I've never done a biography sub-article before, so I want to see how well or poorly I did. Obviously, after having done this much work, my goal is FA, so you may review it as you would at FAC. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to make sub-articles here, you really must deeply consider that the "political career"-article warrants its separate existence from the general "biography". Thus, in particular, in neither of the articles should it be significant overlaps with the other (so you'll need to work on BOTH articles). I think you are right to put political influences and philosophy into the "political career" article, but perhaps his war role is too general to be contained within that specialized article, and should be in "biography" instead?

Arildnordby (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on the article proper, then decided there was far too much for a single article and created this one. My ultimate plan is to have this article, one on Breckinridge's military service in the Civil War (currently being drafted), one on his escape and exile from the U.S., and the primary biographical article. Until I finish the three sub-articles, I won't really know how much detail is appropriate in the biographical one. I plan to put the sub-articles through their paces, then trim and adjust the main article accordingly, per WP:DEADLINE. Hope that's OK.
With regard to his war role, I assume you mean his service as Confederate Secretary of War. I went back and forth on whether to include it in the political career article (since it was a political office) or the one I'm currently working on about his Civil War service. Ultimately, I concluded that it was probably best to keep all the political offices in one article, with the Civil War article focusing on his military career, including various assessments of his performance as an officer. I'm open to differing views on that, however. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your dilemma. But that creates a dilemma for us who are to review as well: Your set of articles are not currently in what you could call stable state, in that you as principal editor will shift material back and forth, still having lots of constructive ideas on your own "interfering" if you like with what an outside perspective on an essentially finished article. Thus, to help us as reviewers, it will be a great help that you meanwhile points our focus to sections you regard as basically done, rather than to whole articles that are, regarded as a whole, likely to undergo major transformation on your part. (If, on your spare time, you could take a look at the peer review on my Impalement article, I'll be grateful)Arildnordby (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tend to think of this article as basically done. I wanted to get feedback on the quality of the prose, the level of detail (too much, too little, too much focus on particular areas), the comprehensiveness of the coverage, the appropriateness with which the assessments of various historians are presented, compliance with the manual of style, etc. I really see the major changes coming in the biography proper. I had started that expansion, but very early on in my progress through Davis' 600+ page biography, I saw that article was going to become HUGE, so I immediately ceased development on it and began this sub-article. What I anticipate, then, is a reduction in the material already in the biography proper, "moving" it, essentially, to this article. But in actuality, it's already in this article; it just hasn't been trimmed from that one yet. Hope that makes sense.
My particular style of article development requires me to write the details before I attempt the summary. That's why I always write the lead last. In this case, I need to develop the detailed sub-articles, then decide how much of that detail needs to also appear in the biography proper. There will necessarily be some overlap; although the political career article gives the details of Breckinridge's vice presidency, for example, the fact that he was vice president and a synopsis of his actions while acting in that capacity have to appear in the biography proper for completeness' sake. Some readers won't want all the details. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll take a look at it!Arildnordby (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section: I find this far too detailed, in that much of this material ought to exist in the main body text, rather than in a swift (but accurate) overview as a lead should be. By no means regarding my version as perfect, here's a radical alternative of summarizing lead section, perhaps the "perfect" lies somewhere in the middle to your own lead section?

"The political career of John C. Breckinridge included service in the state government of Kentucky, the United States federal government, and the government of the Confederate States of America.

A champion of strict constructionism, states' rights, and popular sovereignty, he supported Stephen A. Douglas's Kansas–Nebraska Act as a means of addressing slavery in the territories acquired in the Mexican–American War.

At the 1856 Democratic National Convention, he was nominated for Vice President and upon electoral victory, Breckinridge became the youngest vice president in U.S. history.

In 1859, the Kentucky General Assembly chose him for senator in 1861. Nominated as well as canditate for US presidency, Breckinridge lost the election to Republican Abraham Lincoln. As Senator, he futilely worked to peacefully reunite the states and opposed allocating resources for Lincoln to fight the Civil War. Fearing arrest after Kentucky sided with the Union, he fled behind Confederate battle lines and joined the Confederate States Army. He was subsequently expelled from the Senate.

Breckinridge served in the Confederate Army from October 1861 to February 1865. Concluding that the Confederate cause was hopeless, he encouraged Davis to effect a national surrender. After Davis was captured, Breckinridge fled to Cuba, then Great Britain, and finally Canada, remaining in exile until President Andrew Johnson's offer of amnesty in 1868. Returning to Kentucky, he refused all requests to resume his political career and died of complications related to war injuries in 1875."Arildnordby (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm known for over-long and over-detailed leads, but I do think your version omits some important details. Let me give it a shot.
"The political career of John C. Breckinridge included service in the state government of Kentucky, the United States federal government, and the government of the Confederate States of America. In 1849, Breckinridge became the first Democrat to represent Fayette County, Kentucky in the Kentucky House of Representatives, and in 1851, he was the first Democrat to represent Kentucky's traditionally Whig 8th district in almost thirty years. A champion of strict constructionism, states' rights, and popular sovereignty, he supported Stephen A. Douglas's Kansas–Nebraska Act as a means of addressing slavery in the territories acquired in the Mexican–American War.
After reapportionment made his re-election unlikely in 1854, Breckinridge returned to private life and his legal practice, but he was nominated for Vice President at the 1856 Democratic National Convention. When he and James Buchanan won the election, he became the youngest vice president in U.S. history, but enjoyed little influence in Buchanan's administration. In 1859, the Kentucky General Assembly elected him to a U.S. Senate term that would begin in 1861. Dissident Southern Democrats nominated Breckinridge for president in 1861, and despite capturing the electoral votes of most of the Southern States, he lost the election to Republican Abraham Lincoln. In the Senate, he futilely worked to peacefully reunite the states and opposed allocating resources for Lincoln to fight the Civil War. Fearing arrest after Kentucky sided with the Union, he fled behind Confederate battle lines and joined the Confederate States Army. He was subsequently expelled from the Senate.
Breckinridge served in the Confederate Army from October 1861 to February 1865, when Confederate President Jefferson Davis appointed him Confederate States Secretary of War. Concluding that the Confederate cause was hopeless, he encouraged Davis to effect a national surrender. Davis's capture in April 1865 ended the war, and Breckinridge fled to Cuba, then Great Britain, and finally Canada, remaining in exile until President Andrew Johnson's offer of amnesty in 1868. Returning to Kentucky, he refused all requests to resume his political career and died of complications related to war injuries in 1875."
Better? If not, let's discuss individual facts that you would suggest removing. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a) "In 1849, Breckinridge became the first Democrat to represent Fayette County, Kentucky in the Kentucky House of Representatives, and in 1851, he was the first Democrat to represent Kentucky's traditionally Whig 8th district in almost thirty years."

Note of year of first entry in state politics appropriate, but the more detailed info on context should belong in main text, but possibly include he was first Democrat in 30 years from his district, for eample:

"In 1849 Beckenridge was the first Democrat elected from his county in the Kentucky House of Representatives and in 1851 he was the first Democrat to represent 8th district in almost 30 years". It is no need to make Fayette explicit (it can be contained in link), and it is unnecessary here to point out the 8th district as traditionally Whig (Breckinridge's success against the local odds is evident from his being the first Democrat in 30 years elected)."

I'll get back to more points later.Arildnordby (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to mention "his county", you might as well go ahead and say "Fayette County", in my opinion. No need to hide it with an Easter egg link to save a few characters. The point about the Whigs, however, is well-taken. I can live with that change. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

b) I do not think the highly technical reason for Breckinridge's temporary withdrawal is in place here. "Regarding his chances of 1854 re-election unlikely, Breckenridge returned to private life. In 1856, however, he was nominated for Vice President at the 1856 Democratic National Convention"Arildnordby (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never thought of reapportionment as being "highly technical", but I'd be willing to adopt your solution. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if readers wonder why the Democratic wunderkid who just won three straight elections in a Whig district suddenly finds his chances of re-election "unlikely". Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that for me, and other non-USAns, reapportionment is highly technical, about as highly technical it is to you about "adjustment candidates" in Norwegian parliamentary tradition. As for wonder about wunderkids, political favour and support change swiftly for a number of reasons, so it isn't really that strange with sudden reversals and returns of fortune.Arildnordby (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, point taken on this one. I'm OK with that change. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

c) " Dissident Southern Democrats nominated Breckinridge for president in 1861, and despite capturing the electoral votes of most of the Southern States, he lost the election to Republican Abraham Lincoln." Here, I find it too circumstantial that it was dissident Southern Democrats who nominated him, and also how the voting preciselyturned out. Those sure are important in main text, but in lead?. Thus, I'll go for "In 1861, Breckenridge was nominated for president, but lost to Abraham Lincoln, and took up seat as Senator". Or something like that.Arildnordby (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to note that his nomination was somewhat irregular and that, despite this, he still did pretty well in the election. You don't think those are salient points for the lead? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think lead should summarize the really central points (nomination and loss), the main text could show it was a close race under irregular circumstances.Arildnordby (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the "local" (read, U.S.) knowledge that the 1861 election is probably one of the best known in U.S. history is coloring my view of its importance in the lead. I'll consider this a little more. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

d) Otherwise, I think lead is OK now.Arildnordby (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, for something completely different: I believe that family influences really belongs primarily in biography. The critical factor is to get out here is Breckenridge's political platform as "inherited" by his grandfather (possibly modified by non-democrat family). In general, the "Political Career" ought NOT be stand alone as it is now, but delving into those moments particularly important there. I feel that I'm going to read this through critically with the following questions predominant in my mind: i) What were Breckendridge's primary political positions? ii) Who were his principal allies? iii) Primary enemy factions? iv) What is the timeline for principal career points? v) Principal work and successes in elected positions?

Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with your premise that this article ought not be stand alone. From my perspective, it really should be stand alone. Also, I included a lot of detail about the family influence on Breckinridge's political philosphy in this article precisely because I thought it was too detailed for the biography proper. In that article, I'll already be summarizing huge, important periods in Breckinridge's political career (and dealing with them in more detail in this article). I can only imagine a reviewer looking at the biography proper and wondering why there are two paragraphs on family history viz a viz political philosophy and (hypothetically) two paragraphs on his time as vice president, given the relative disparity in importance between the two. It could be seen as running contrary to WP:UNDUE. I believe examining the source of Breckinridge's political views, especially influences on his disputed personal position on slavery, are within the scope of this article. I'd like to hear feedback from other reviewers before making changes here. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying these points aren't covered, but that by my first readings these points tend to get submerged in lots of other details. For example, it is asserted that Breckenridge's most important work was with a "bank reform", but that isn't addressed nowhere as thoroughly as his work relative to asylums and his appointment as director. If "bank reform" was his most important work, then THAT should be given primary focus, not everything else he was involved in. I hope you see I try to be constructive here, but it will take quite a time for me to develop specific points of criticism, since the article is very detailed to begin with.Arildnordby (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the bank reform issue is an anomaly within the article. Davis says it was his most important work, but gives no detail, and the other sources don't mention bank reform at all, leaving me in a conundrum. I can't really leave it out if it was his most important work, but I lack the information to elaborate. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But, lacking details, the very least you ought to do is to move "bank reform" at the very top relative to Breckenridge's work, rather than as an incidental detail at the bottom? Thus, the section on "work" proceeds from the "most important" to "less important"?Arildnordby (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's a reasonable suggestion. Done. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On reconsideration. The 1861 presidential election, due to its gory aftermath, is WAY too important to be given short thrift as I suggested. In fact, I think you ought to ADD something here, within the lead, making it clear how that election became a principal battleground on the issue of slavery, with Lincoln on the abolotionist side and Breckinridge (perhaps uncomfortably?) on the "pro-slavery" side? Inserting a sentence or two about this prior to the sentence concerning his futile efforts as Senator will not make this awkward, but will show how Breckinbridge tried to continue a policy he fronted during the 1861 presidential campaign?

A very radical alternative (or formulation of that point) would be to start your lead section by mentioning Breckenridge as the principal antagonist of Lincoln in the fateful 1861 election, i.e, emphasizing this as the pivotal moment of Breckridge's career, and only later on in the lead recapture the chronological rise to "just" fame you already have explained Breckenridge deserves.

These are then two ideas that might whet the apettite for the general reader to read the more detailed article?Arildnordby (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'll get dinged for repetition in the lead if I try the second solution, but let me take a stab at the first, while incorporating your earlier feedback.
"The political career of John C. Breckinridge included service in the state government of Kentucky, the United States federal government, and the government of the Confederate States of America. In 1849, Breckinridge became the first Democrat to represent Fayette County, Kentucky in the Kentucky House of Representatives, and in 1851, he was the first Democrat to represent Kentucky's 8th district in almost thirty years. A champion of strict constructionism, states' rights, and popular sovereignty, he supported Stephen A. Douglas's Kansas–Nebraska Act as a means of addressing slavery in the territories acquired in the Mexican–American War.
Considering his re-election unlikely in 1854, Breckinridge returned to private life and his legal practice, but he was nominated for Vice President at the 1856 Democratic National Convention. When he and James Buchanan won the election, he became the youngest vice president in U.S. history, but enjoyed little influence in Buchanan's administration. In 1859, the Kentucky General Assembly elected him to a U.S. Senate term that would begin in 1861. Dissident Southern Democrats nominated Breckinridge for president in 1861; he was one of three candidates opposing Republican Abraham Lincoln. Despite capturing the electoral votes of most of the Southern States, Breckinridge lost the election to Lincoln, and the election prompted the secession of the southern states to form the Confederate States of America.
Though he sympathized with the southern cause, tn the Senate, Breckinridge futilely worked to peacefully reunite the states. After the firing on Fort Sumter, he opposed allocating resources for Lincoln to fight the Civil War. Fearing arrest after Kentucky sided with the Union, he fled behind Confederate battle lines and joined the Confederate States Army. He was subsequently expelled from the Senate. He served in the Confederate Army from October 1861 to February 1865, when Confederate President Jefferson Davis appointed him Confederate States Secretary of War. Concluding that the Confederate cause was hopeless, he encouraged Davis to effect a national surrender. Davis's capture in April 1865 ended the war, and Breckinridge fled to Cuba, then Great Britain, and finally Canada, remaining in exile until President Andrew Johnson's offer of amnesty in 1868. Returning to Kentucky, he refused all requests to resume his political career and died of complications related to war injuries in 1875."
Ran out of time before I could thoroughly copy-edit, but see what you think. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a LOT better lead than your first, by giving sufficient weight to the pivotal 1861-65 years, relative to the other years. That lead is for keeps, I think! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proceeding, I think your first section's title "Political Philosophy" jars somewhat with its content. I feel "Formative years" might be a better title?Arildnordby (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry for the long delay. Busy at work, and my little girl has been sick. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SO..you now understand the blessings of the idle loner's life I enjoy? :-) :-) I'll place this on my watchlist, and we can work on and off on it.Arildnordby (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. If this review closes, we can pick it up on the article talk page. I know it's a long article and may take a while to get through, but a non-U.S. perspective is always important on these kinds of articles. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On "Early influences": "..letter to Robert Breckinridge, who became his surrogate father after Cabell Breckinridge's death, he wrote.."

Here, a) is it really necessary to keep the info of surrogate fatherhood in the political career article? If you think yes, then that particular info ought to have a reference attached to it. Otherwise, if you don't think the info necessary, drop it.

I think it is necessary because it shows that he had a strong relationship with his uncle. This abolitionist wasn't "crazy Uncle Robert"; he was a "surrogate father", and his opinion carried weight with young John C. Breckinridge. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! but then put in a reference there, for example to the page number in which Davis(?) where it is stated that Robert did become John's surrogate father.Arildnordby (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are two cites at the end of that sentence. One of the two mentions the surrogate father relationship. Don't remember which one right off. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then, neither will the reader understand which, if any, reference refers to the factoid of surrogate fatherhood, and which, if not both, are comments on the significance of the letter itself. Therefore, this can be easily improved, by in the reference concernig surrogate fatherhood simply say something like "On Robert as surrogate father, see..", whereas for the reference on the letter, write "On letter, see.."Arildnordby (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I've never had that request before, nor have I ever really seen it done in a Wikipedia article. In my past FACs, it has always just been sufficient to provide all the citations at the end of the sentence without qualifiers. Is there a policy I'm not aware of? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

b)"..he wrote.." The last active individual in previous sentence is "William Birney" (who was an abolitionist, and perfectly well could scoff at people's fears of emancipation that the 1841 letter includes), and I suggest you write "..John wrote.." instead, to keep the individual referenced to clear.Arildnordby (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Reputation: "As late as the 1856 presidential election, some believed that Breckinridge was an abolitionist" Who are these "some"? Any influential ones? Political allies? Enemies? Newspaper commentators? The sentence would improve by tangentially including a principal believer in Breckinridge's abolitionism, say by writing : "As late as the 1856 presidential election, some believed, for example A and B, that Breckinridge was an abolitionist"Arildnordby (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's kind of a passing mention in the text that some charged him with being an abolitionist during the 1856 campaign. That might be enough to conclude that it was political enemies making the charge. What do you think? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'd rather say something like "some even charged him with being abolitionist in the 1856 campaign", than using "believe". "Believe" is too ambiguous and vague, really (Furthermore, you can perfectly well charge someone for some attitude you don't believe they have. politics is the art of lying, after all..:-))Arildnordby (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken on the "believed" vs. "charged" issue. I just changed that one word, which I think takes care of the issue. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky election: ".. which was heavily Whig". To a non-USAn, you have already said he was the first Democrat elected, and "obviously", then, tradition spoke against his actual success, whoever "the Whigs" were (clearly not the Republicans, but somebody else!). The very first thing you should do is to include a link on Whig, bacause absolutely nobody outside US knows who the Whigs in pre-Republican US actually were. I can't see you have done that at a previous stage in your article, and you really ought to make such a link to "whigs" (I'm sure an article on them exists).

"Whig Party" is linked in the first sentence of the body. To re-link it here would probably run counter to WP:OVERLINK. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I didn't see that one!Arildnordby (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The intricacies of local state elections need not be delved into, but is what you really mean to say that: ".. which traditionally had been strongly Whig" or even "".. which remained, however, heavily Whig". Hope I made my point clear here, leave, the judgments on this too you..:-) Arildnordby (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The former is what is meant; I'm not sure how that differs appreciably from what I said, though. Many more folks in the district identified with the Whig Party than the Democratic Party, and the district elected Whig candidates to nearly every office almost exclusively for years prior to Breckinridge's candidacy. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"had been" traditionally Whig means that Breckinridge effected a change in the outlook of the voters, "remained heavily Whig" that he was effectively, a Democrat one-shot (due to personal charisma?). It's a quibble on my part, you might keep what you've written if you won't put such specific suggestions into the heads of the readers.Arildnordby (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you are saying. Actually, Breckinridge was kind of a "one-shot" in the district, but within a few years of his candidacy, the Whig Party kind of died out on its own. The Whig dominance didn't continue long after Breckinridge, but it wasn't directly connected to his candidacy. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think the non-committal "was heavily Whig" you have in the text per now should stand. As I said at the start of this comment, if any more precision means delving into local political intricacies, you basically should avoid it. But, I wanted to air to alternate word choices that might have been preferable to the one in the text, and I think that it is now clear "was heavily Whig" is the best out of those 3.Arildnordby (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Formative years": Be hyper-accurate with your Johns here! You write: "..John Breckinridge believed the federal government.." and for quite some time mean the grandfather, rather than John C. Isn't it more safe to write in that sentence "..John Breckinridge sr. .."?Arildnordby (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody really called the elder one "John Breckinridge, Sr." I guess I just need to make sure I consistently refer to the younger one as "John C." Did I miss one of those anywhere that you see? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, I think, the article editor is entitled to demand of the reader to read closely what is written, rather than the editor having to spell it out for the lazy ones. In this case, I agree with you; when the text is read closely, there won't be any ambiguities here.Arildnordby (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A first impression on J.C.B's general political outlook:

When I read the more detailed sections, I feel that I would have had benefit from a prior guide-line to his basic/predominant political views, i.e, a spelling out of how his "strict constructionism" guided his ideas. For example, in general opposition to federal funding, along with fight against tariffs and advocacy for free trade. You certainly do give some examples of this, but they come in-between election fights and exceptions to "the general rule" (i.e, where he DOES accept federal funding, for example). You are very good at showing how his views on slavery must be understood as flowing from his general ideas of strict constructionism, but I do wonder if your article might improve if you make those slavery sections as subsections within a "Political stance"-section, in which the long/stable lines in B's political outlook is detailed. Anyhow, to effect such a major change in article structure is premature at this point, I think, but I wanted to point it out, so that the idea might mature, or eventually be rejected by both of us. I'll proceed sectionwise to begin with in my next comments, major restructuring might wait.Arildnordby (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was my original intent, but what I found was that there was comparatively little about his political views viz a viz issues other than slavery, which is understandable. Apparently, you were able to draw the connections when they were called for (e.g. strict constructionism, generally, didn't allow for federal spending on internal improvements) so I wonder if a radical restructuring is necessary. Whatever we might gain from examining the various stances of his political career early on in the article, we would almost certainly lose as much or more in basic chronology. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's a dilemma. However, the constructive way then for me to read your article is to point out places where a simple word insertion of the type "in line with constructivist thinking, John C,..." (or, "in contrast with"). I do NOT think this needs to be done at all places, that would, not the least, make the article tedious and repetitive, but an occasional reminder to the lay reader might be in order. (I think, BTW, you have been good at pointing expressly to John C.s clear breaks with typical constructionist thinking, but to me, political views aren't either/or categories, but points on a sliding scale (or points on a map with multiple scales) where it also will be benificial to the reader to be reminded of the clear constructivist position John C. will have had on some positions). I'll take one point that puzzled me on slavery: From what I have understood, such like the "Fugitive Act" that southerners wanted to retain places a duty on non-slave states to return back fugitive slaves, does it not? But, this breaks completely, as I see it, the constructivist idea of the states being bound together merely on a voluntary basis, subject to the will of the people in each state, rather than the states being provinces of a Superstate called the USA, where federal laws can be quite intrusive in local practices. The "Fugitive Act" limits the scope northerners can act within their own states, relative to their southern neigbours. Hope I made my puzzlement clear here..:-)Arildnordby (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add. What I've come up with as a sort of "solution" is that within (John C's) constructionism, the Federal Government had no right to define what "legitimate objects for property" was (other than that ownership rules like inheritance or rules for sale had been followed), but that federal authorities had a duty to ensure that lost property were returned, or compensated for the private individual. I'm not sure if I make sense here..Arildnordby (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you've got it. The idea was that "property" was protected by the federal constitution, so any state law interfering with that protection was unconstitutional to the strict constructionist. It wasn't just Breckinridge that felt this way, of course. There were lots of other constructionists that came to the same conclusion. This is one of the nuances that many people fail to recognize about the Civil War when they say it was "fought over slavery". As you can see from the article, Breckinridge may well have abhorred slavery as an institution, but his constitutional scruples caused him to side with the Confederacy. Not saying that was a good decision, but it was at least logically consistent, in a way. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had to think quite a bit about that! Glad I got it right. Now, I made a minor comment as well in regard to clarifying your references on the surrogate fatherhood as well, you might take a look at it.Arildnordby (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky years: "Heck wrote that most of the session's bills were "local or personal... and in any case, petty".[53] Breckinridge's first speech favored allowing the Kentucky Colonization Society to use the House chamber; later, he advocated directing Congress to establish an African freedmen colony and pay to transport settlers there.[ Funding internal improvements was traditionally a Whig stance, but Breckinridge advocated conducting a state geologic survey, making the Kentucky River more navigable, chartering a turnpike, incorporating a steamboat company, and funding the Kentucky Lunatic Asylum. As a reward for supporting internal improvements, he presided over the approval of the Louisville and Bowling Green Railroad's charter and was appointed director of the asylum."

Here, I do not deny, or oppose the content of the first sentence that most session bills were petty, but I think you agree that the cases you DO mention here afterwards cannot be called petty or personal at all? Here, I believe Heck's assertion is important enough to include (if not examples of that pettiness), but I do think that your first sentence ought to be your last instead, in the shape like this, for example: "Despite such acts, Heck writes that most of the session's bills were "local or personal... and in any case, petty". Again, it's a question of hierarchy of importance, in which "more important" issues should be listed first (like the bank reform), less important (but still noteworthy!) listed last. BTW, I leave it to your judgment on the referencing issue you responded to lastArildnordby (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, it is aesthetic to keep Heck's overview to begin with as you've done, but perhaps insert a sentence after it like "However, some more important bills were also passed". Just something for you to chew on..Arildnordby (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those judgments are relative, really. Breckinridge's advocacy for giving the Kentucky Colonization Society use of the legislative chambers and the congressional directive (essentially, a non-binding resolution) to support their mission were "petty" in terms of long-term or broad impact, and also probably very personal to Breckinridge. Internal improvements issues were notoriously local, rarely affecting statewide transportation. Even the lunatic asylum may have been local to the extent that the legislature probably dictated where to build it. Only the geological survey and perhaps the asylum (in terms of its function) were really of statewide import. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"First term (1851–1853)" This is a dense, highly informative section, but precisely because of this, might benefit from "chapterization", say with the semi-colon template. Some points I react to: a) You say John C. and Lynn Boyd became factional enemies, but I don't see any such animosity evidenced in your article? Should you add examples of this, perhaps?

I did find it curious that both Heck and Davis mention the animosity between the two, but neither really gives any elaboration or concrete examples. I was on the lookout for such things because I was also curious, but the only real sign of conflict between the two were electoral in nature. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

b) I feel that the whole Young Americans-debacle ought to be placed in a single, paragraph:

Confrontations with Young Americans

"Breckinridge resisted United States Democratic Review editor George Nicholas Sanders' efforts to recruit him to the Young America movement.[70] Like Young America, Breckinridge favored westward expansion and free trade, but he disagreed with the movement's support of European revolutions and disdain for older statesmen.[70] On March 4, 1851, Breckinridge made his first speech in the House, defending presidential aspirant William Butler against charges by Florida's Edward Carrington Cabell, a Young American and distant cousin, that he secretly sympathized with the Free Soilers.[71] Then he denounced Sanders for his vitriolic attacks on Butler and for calling all Democratic presidential candidates except Stephen Douglas "old fogies".[72] The speech made Breckinridge a target of Whigs, Young America, and Douglas supporters.[73] Humphrey Marshall, a Kentucky Whig who sought Millard Fillmore's re-election, attacked Breckinridge for claiming Fillmore held unclear views on slavery.[74] Illinois' William Alexander Richardson, a Douglas backer, claimed Breckinridge unfairly implicated Douglas in Sanders' attacks on Butler, but Breckinridge showed that Douglas endorsed the Democratic Review a month after it printed its first anti-Butler article.[75] Finally, Breckinridge's cousin, California's Edward C. Marshall, charged that Butler would name Breckinridge Attorney General in exchange for his support and revived the charge that Breckinridge broke party ranks, supporting Zachary Taylor for president.[76] Breckinridge ably defended himself, but Sanders continued to attack him and Butler, claiming Butler would name Breckinridge as his running mate, even though Breckinridge was too young to qualify as vice president.[77]"

Then, the next section might be like this, for example:

Other political developments

After his maiden speech, Breckinridge took a more active role in the House.[77] In debate with Ohio's Joshua Reed Giddings, he defended the Fugitive Slave Law's constitutionality and criticized Giddings for hindering the return of fugitive slaves.[77][78] He opposed Andrew Johnson's Homestead Act, fearing it would create more territories that excluded slavery.[77] Although generally opposed to funding local improvements, he supported repairing two Potomac River bridges to avoid higher costs later.[78] Other minor stands included supporting measures to benefit his district's hemp farmers, voting against giving the president ten more appointments to the U.S. Naval Academy, and opposing funds for a sculpture of George Washington because the sculptor proposed depicting Washington in a toga

Breckinridge visited Kentucky when the legislature rose in April, then returned to Washington, D.C. and made daily visits to an ailing Henry Clay.[79] Clay died June 29, 1852, and Breckinridge garnered nationwide praise and enhanced popularity in Kentucky after eulogizing Clay in the House.[69][80] Days later, he spoke in opposition to increasing a subsidy to Collins Line for carrying trans-Atlantic mail, noting that Collins profited by carrying passengers and cargo on mail ships.[81] In wartime, the government could commandeer and retrofit Collins's steamboats as warships, but Breckinridge cited Commodore Matthew C. Perry's opinion that they would be useless in war.[81] Finally, he showed Cornelius Vanderbilt's statement promising to build a fleet of mail ships at his expense and carry the mail for $4 million less than Collins.[81] Despite this, the House approved the subsidy increase

To emphasize: I think the actual content you have given in this section is extremely interesting and well written, but I think you might improve a bit on how to structure and highlight the varied material, in a way that makes the reader grasp all of it, instead of tiring halfway through.Arildnordby (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I worried about overusing headings, but I think your suggestion has some merit. My first concern is that those additional headings would make the image of Boyd spill over into another section. That's obviously fixable by deleting the image or choosing a new image relevant to one of the suggested subsections. The other concern is what to do with the following two sentences: "Considered for Speaker of the House, Breckinridge believed his election unlikely and refused to run against fellow Kentuckian Linn Boyd. After Boyd's election, he assigned Breckinridge to the lightly regarded Foreign Affairs Committee, and the two became factional enemies." They don't really belong with the preceding paragraph, and they certainly don't belong in either of the suggested subsections. I don't really think they make a very good paragraph by themselves, either, especially given how little we know about the relationship between Breckinridge and Boyd. Open to suggestions. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second term, Election subsection: Here, you cite differing contemporary estimates on sleazy campaigning outlays. If Davis and Heck or other modern scholars have chosen to come up with their estimates, I think such estimates might be valuable to include in the section, in addition to the ones you've mentioned.Arildnordby (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they didn't. It would probably be difficult to do, since keeping and preserving accurate records of such things would be less-than-desirable from a candidate's perspective. :) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to the other issues, but for now, on Boyd vs John C. I'm glad you share my sense of the incongruity between the use of the word enemy here, with lack of examples. Furthermore, reading your article, John C. strikes me as a person who didn't develop personal hatreds, or just took a fight, just out of combative nature. Rather, to me, he seems to have preferred to decline fights if he thought it would be too much hassle, or deferring (including to Boyd) to the election of "antagonists". Thus, even though your sources say that they were enemies, is that an assertion you need to transmit, when the sources are inadequate on examples? That Boyd was an alternate candidate to breckinridge at different times is amply evidenced by your other writings, and even if Heck and Davis want to make a drama of "enemies" here, I don't think you need to do that.Arildnordby (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose that is reasonable. At present, it is only really connected to Boyd's failure to reciprocate Breckinridge's deference with an important committee assignment, so we can probably drop it and allow the facts of later elections speak for themselves, as you suggest. Done. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 00:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If any of your sources have a letter or something in which John C. expresses disappointment at the ingratitude Boyd showed him, then that would, in my view, a better insertion than the "factional enemies" element.Arildnordby (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If such a letter does not exist, do you think your sources warrants an explicit assertion that the assignment John C. was a snub, or act of ingratitude? That element is, as for now, adequately emphasized by the "factional enemies" phrase, but if that is to be removed, then I think a rephrasing of the remainder is in order to highlight to the reader that Boyd acted, in fact, rather shabbily towards John C. I don't feel that the "lightly regarded" phrase on its own is sufficient emphasis of that point.Arildnordby (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either Heck or Davis – maybe both; I can't remember off the top of my head – mention that many people had expected him to get a plum committee assignment, especially given his deference, but neither elaborates as to who was included in that "many people", which makes it difficult to use. Davis kind of talks about the idea that it was a snub, if I recall correctly, but that's just one person's opinion, and not even a contemporary, at that. As for a letter from JCB himself, Davis emphasizes in several places that JCB usually avoided political intrigue and finger-pointing, even when such finger-pointing was obviously justified, so I suspect little would be forthcoming on that front. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for judgments of petty cases: If Heck regards these cases as examples of such pettiness, I think you should explicitly state that, by way of introducing them like: "As examples, Heck mentions..", or something like that. Otherwise, the reader is left uncetain about whether to regard the given cases as the typical bills passed, or if they are to be regarded as exceptions to that rule.Arildnordby (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little uncertain on that point myself. You'll notice that the detail about the bills Breckinridge supported is attributed to Davis, so it may be that Heck thought them petty, but Davis not so much. It could also be that Heck's biography is fewer than 200 pages and Davis' is over 600, so Davis just had more room to elaborate. Without any way to connect Heck's judgments to Davis' detail, I'm kind of left to my own devices. I rather think Heck's description could apply to these measures, but it may not. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the subsectioning issue relative to John C. being considered Speaker. Personally, I thought that Speaker is a highly honourable position, and that therefore, it is rather unusual that a rather new politician like John C. should get it? Thus, it might possibly be warranted to expand that a bit, for example by noting those who did want to honour him in that way. If such an expansion is possible on basis of your sources, then the problem of subsections, with the present sentence being too short as a stand alone subsection will disappearArildnordby (talk) 10:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a freshman rep being elected speaker would never happen today, but it wasn't unheard of at that time. In fact, the much-talked-about Henry Clay had done just that a few years prior. At that time, it was more a recognition of ability and, to some degree, eloquence, while today it is almost exclusively a matter of seniority. Again, Davis is rather vague about who sought JCB's election as speaker, so there is no way to characterize them as a bloc. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Heck vs. Davis. Since Davis must be regarded as the most significant biographer for John C., I believe that his value judgments are the ones to retain in your article at points of uncertainty, as a general rule. If Heck's judgments bring in a refreshing quality to the article, by all means include them then, but if they generate uncertainties or puzzles instead, perhaps you should consider dropping them? To simply retain Davis' list of bills, without Heck's opinion of them, illustrates quite well on its own the rather humdrum, day-to-day affairs, and readers might be left to decide for themselves whether to regard this as "important" stuff or as petty. And that is for the best, I think, when none of your sources give clear guidance on what types of bills are the usual ones, and what types are the exceptions to that pattern.

That's not a bad suggestion. I expanded from the Heck biography first and added this assessment because there was so little about what Breckinridge did in the state house, but after the expansion from Davis, it isn't really necessary. Removed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, precisely because Davis is John C.s main biographer, I think his opinion of John C.s assignment as being a snub is worthwhile enough to mention. Furthermore, most readers will not be aware that it wasn't impossible for a freshman to become Speaker; I believe it would be a valuable addition to your article to say precisely that, referring to the precedence case of Henry Clay.Arildnordby (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plain sailing until US Vice President. Here, I believe the charged word "enemy" relative to Boyd should be changed to antagonist; you have given ample evidence of the competition between these two for positions previously, so "antagonist" is warranted, if not "enemy".

SheiKra edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I plan on nominated for FAC once the peer review and copy-edit are completed. The peer review is to help get other opinions on what can/should be improved in the article before I nominate it for FAC.

Thanks, Dom497 (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I noticed while copyeditting was the use of British spelling (i.e. "Rumours") in an article about an American rollercoaster. Would WP:TIES apply here? Also, I noticed you have archive links for pages which are still active, and these should be denoted with "|deadurl=no". FallingGravity (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Boys to Men edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to promote this to GA-status, if not FA. I believe it is of far better quality than GAs like Money No Enough and I Not Stupid. I also wish to get helpful feedback so I would know what to improve and further work on.

Best, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Blofeld edit

  • Lead needs to be expanded to reflect the whole article.
Enhanced overview by adding home media release dates, background, music and the part on Dolby Atmos surround sound. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot is too long and bloated to read, part 2 is insufferable. Try to make it easier to read and use more paragraphing
Trimmed it a bit, and allowed for appropriate paragraphing. I have tried my best to shorten it; plot is bit lengthy as the film is considerably long. (But part one's plot is in fact longer then part two's!) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cast appears disorganized, we don't usually add summaries of characters, some content might be suitable to a casting/production section
I have organized it a bit more, by unbulleting minor characters, but I feel it won't hurt or compromise the content by adding cited summaries of the character or the real life actor within the "Cast" list. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Themes, too short, haphazard arrangement of short sentences. The readability of the article is really affected by this sort of thing later on, some long paragraphs interspersed with paragraphs which are too short.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Made it more readable by consolidating into one paragraph of data ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan Hills High School edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I and other editors have done extensive research to provide a complete, neutral and verifiable article using referenced resources. I am fully aware of the lack of photographs or images of the school in the article and have attempted to contact the school district's communications director for permission to use images from the PCSSD's website.

Thanks, Djharrity (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Lansbury edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

George Lansbury, largely forgotten now, was a significant figure in British politics in the first half of the 20th century. He began in the 1880s as an agitator for social reform, became a women's suffragist and a pacifist and, in his old age, leader of the British Labour Party. His idealistic pacifism was not attuned to the international situation in the 1930s, and his career ended in failure, though not without honour. Unsurprisingly, many more people today relate his surname to Angela, his granddaughter, aka Miss Marple and much else besides (Comparative WP article av. daily viewing: Angela 3619, George 170). I'd appreciate any comments on this account of an interesting career which I have tried to make reasonably accessible to the general reader. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

This is a splendid affair, and it will take me two or three bites. Bite the first:

  • Lead
    • "beliefs which, aside from…" – to my eye that's an American construction. Perhaps I'm wrong (it has been known) but I think "apart from" is the idiomatic UK construction.
    • "paper maintained a strident pacifist stance" – is "strident" a touch tendentious? Would something like "vehement" make the same point less judgmentally?
      • I think its tone was pretty strident. And vehement. However, I've compromised to "strongly"
    • "but remained loyal to Labour" – ditto, in spades
      • Not sure I agree that saying he "remained loyal" is particularly judgemental. The fact is, he stuck with his party. I neutered it a bit.
  • East End upbringing
    • "led to at least one near-fatal accident" – tease! Near-fatal as in the victim was so gravely injured, or an accident that could easily have been fatal but all was well?
      • From the source I think the latter. All Shepherd says is "he almost lost his life in an industrial accident involving a hand-winch", but nothing is said about injuries. So I can't really add more.
    • "Lansbury remained a devout Anglican" – one of the nice things about being an Anglican, I find, is that none of us are devout. Staunch, firm, even committed. But we leave devoutness to nonconformists and RCs.
      • I think I meant to write "devoted" but it came out wrongly. "Staunch" is probably better. [Digression: I had a religious upbringing that would make your eyes water - see life of Edmund Gosse for approximate details. An eventual escape into Anglicanism was to me the balm of freedom]
  • Australia
    • "decided that his their best hopes of prosperity" – one or the other; I didn't presume to guess which and amend it myself. [Tangentially, I found this section illuminating, shocking and absolutely fascinating.]
    • "apart from a period of plain sailing in the tropics" – a touch digressive, possibly?
  • LCC elections, 1889, and aftermath
    • "newly formed London County Council" – I am none too ept with hyphens in such constructions, but I think you need one here
  • Social Democratic Federation
    • "or to demonstrate solidarity with industrial disputes" – this feels subtly wrong: a dispute has two sides, so he can't have had solidarity with the disputes themselves. Not sure how better to put it, though, without extensive verbiage.
      • "solidarity with workers involved in industrial disputes" is what I thought I'd said. Shows the value of peer reviews.
    • "clergy's unsympathetic approach to poor relief, and their opposition" – if "clergy's" (singular) then "its" opposition? Not sure about this, but I mention it for your consideration.
      • I think this is OK. The "local clergy" are manifestly a group of people, so I think "their" is justified.
    • "convinced Lansbury to give up his job" – oh, now look! That is a blatant Americanism. Either "persuaded to" or "convinced that he should".
      • I obviously do too much WP reviewing and am getting my idioms confused. I have humbly reworded.
  • Poor Law guardian
    • "critique of capitalism; only the reorganisation" – I think I'd have used a colon, not a semicolon here, but ignore me if you disagree, natch
    • "a campaign of adverse propaganda to discredit the principle" – adverse is perhaps tautological in this context
    • "Lansbury was appointed to a Royal Commission on the Poor Law" – according to that absolutely excellent article Octavia Hill it was the RC on the Poor Laws plural. (I bet the old bat gave poor old George a handbagging).
      • You are right about the plural. If anyone gave George a handbagging it was Beatrice Webb, not the saintly Octavia.
  • Campaigner for women's suffrage
    • "You say "suffragist" in one sentence and "suffragette" in the next. The first now seems to be the approved PC term, so I suggest you standardise on the second.
      • You are right. I have changed all remaining ettes to ists
        • W.S. Gilbert regularly updated his libretti for revivals. At one point (1908-ish from memory) he changed "that singular anomaly the lady novelist..." to "that singular anomaly, the lovely suffragist – I don't think she'd be missed." This is of no relevance whatever, but I thought you might enjoy it. Tim riley (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the more militant" – there were only two?
      • Probably only two main ones, at the time. The other was the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, founded in 1897. There may have been other minor groups, but the WLF, and Milicent Fawcett's mob, came later.

Here endeth the first batch. – Tim riley (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these well-considered comments. Unless I indicate otherwise I have followed your wise advice. I look forward to more. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Round two:

  • War, Daily Herald and Bolshevism
    • "and early in 1914 assumed the paper's editorship" – sounds a touch transcendental; didn't someone, or a board, appoint him? Did he oust the previous incumbent?
    • Lansbury was a director of the newspaper. According to the source the board became dissatisfied with the original editor, one Lapworth, and fired him (on Lansbury's casting vote, apparently). Other names were touted for the editor's chair (including Rebecca West) but no one was forthcoming, so Lansbury himself "assumed the editorship". Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and Lansbury failed to retake" – perhaps "and he failed" might flow better
    • "Lansbury travelled to Russia and met with Lenin" – I reckon that one meets with disaster, approval or other incorporeal things, but just meets people.
  • Labour backbencher
    • "resigned through ill health" – "through" seems odd here; perhaps because of?
    • "He believed that his exclusion from the cabinet followed pressure from the king – I assume we don't know if Lansbury was right to suspect King George of putting the royal oar in?
    • Who knows? A memorandum from Lord Stamfordham, recording the king's first meeting with MacDonald, mentions the king's annoyance with Lansbury for his suggestions of "court intrigues", but there is no further discussion in the document relating to Lansbury's appointment or non-appointment. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In 1928, short of money following the failure of the family business, Lansbury published his autobiography – Do we know if he made any money out of it?
88 Added a few words.Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final years
    • "followed by a memorial service in Westminster Abbey" – Not relevant to this peer review, but I've just looked at the Times report. Rather a poor turnout: Churchill, Chamberlain and Attlee all sent understudies. One hopes it was pressing concerns that kept them away, rather than indifference to the old chap. On the other hand the congregation contained a remarkable number of clergymen, which shows how much GL was valued in the C of E.
    • I think the turnout, especially the non-appearance of leading government figures, might have been affected by the critical war situation in France. The service, on 23 May, came midway between Churchill's "blood, sweat, toil and tears" speech on 13 May and "fight them on the beaches" on 4 June. I don't think it represented discourtesy. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this second, and concluding, batch is so much shorter than my first, but I'm pretty sure I haven't missed anything I wanted to raise. This is a lovely article. I learned much and took a real shine to the old boy. Having just done a bit of work (bread-and-butter stuff) on the serpentine Binkie Beaumont, I found reading about a good man with unwavering principles a treat. And GL is a much pleasanter companion than the last Labour MP you took to FA! – Tim riley (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and suggestions, which have helped me in several places. I agree that Driberg was a shit, but not without a certain horrible fascination. Lansbury was much nicer; I wonder if the two ever met? Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt

My first tranche of comments covers about the same span as Tim's, above. I also want to take a look at my Nev references to see if anything is said about Lansbury.

Lede
  • "re-elected to parliament" Given that he was not the incumbent, perhaps "elected again to Parliament?"
Australia
  • There is a mild disconnect between "his father-in-law" and "the Lansburys" which you might wish to adjust. It might be OK as is, but I'm being picky.
"London County Council elections, 1889, and aftermath"
  • ^Isn't conciseness suggested for section titles?
  • I've cut "and aftermath"; will that do?
  • "Bow and Bromley and Brixton" while this is clear to me, it does look odd. Perhaps put the borough name after its candidate, and drop the "respectively"?
  • "ending of sweated labour" While it sounds very Dickensian, is there a link that this "sweated labour" could be piped to?
  • Were the grounds for the ladies losing their seats that they were female? I gather it was by the proposed legislative action, but this should be made clearer further up.
Social reformer
  • "One factor in his disillusion with the Church was the local clergy's unsympathetic approach to poor relief, and their opposition to collective political action." Sounds like two factors to me. I'm not certain the comma is really needed in this sentence as it stands, by the way.
  • Did Lansbury lose his deposits in the two 1895 votes? (which remind me of the poor guy in the Trollope books who spent a large amount of money which wasn't his to bribe all the electors and be elected in the by-election, only to not have enough funds to fight the main election)
  • It says earlier that the legal status of women as candidates or councillors was not clrear. I have now added that the challenge to Sandhurst was indeed on the grounds of her sex.
  • "These dismal results convinced Lansbury to give up his job at the sawmill and become the SDF's full-time salaried national organiser. " Ah, a couple of related things. While you mentioned his father in law's business, you have not previously mentioned Lansbury's employment there; in fact to the present he has had no visible means of support. Second, unless the job at the sawmill was particularly choice, it strikes me as something Lansbury might want to do even without the dismal results, which presumably did not affect the sawmill. I will resist the temptation to say that it seems Lansbury was in an ideal situation to craft planks for his political platform and to ask if they sawed wood when he spoke. (oh wait, I didn't).
  • Nicely whimsical, but the first line of the "First campaigns" section reads "On his return to London, Lansbury took a job in Brine's timber business."
  • "the election of a Liberal government in 1906. The new Local Government minister was John Burns," I would clarify a bit as technically both Burns and the Liberals came in, in 1905, after Balfour resigned. I doubt they did very much until after the 1906 election, though. Also, I'd consider relinking Burns.
  • Technically you are correct about the dates, but it would require a few sentences of explanation to explain this, which has nothing to do with Lansbury and would merely stretch the text. If you insist, I could add a footnote, but I'd prefer to leave it.
  • "the Poor Laws were finally abolished" at Nev's instigation, as I recall. You might want to clarify to the reader that this abolition also got rid of the Poor Law Guardians. The tone of this is to suggest that the 1929 Act accomplished (at least some) of Lansbury's goals, but the thing is, he opposed it (calling Nev "a pinchbeck Napoleon", btw. Among other things. I'll have suggestions on that when I get to that.)--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I 'll defer comments on your last point until your further information appears. Thanks for the comments so far, to most of which I have responded per your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
National prominence
  • Was Lansbury allowed to write his anti-war views in the Herald? I note that you mention that in 1918, he was an "anti-war candidate".
  • The Herald maintained a pacifist stance throughout the war. Its war reports, as mentioned in the article, tended to be somewhat more objective than the "beastly Hun" stuff served up by most other papers. The description "anti-war candidate" should be understood as meaning "candidate who had opposed the war", and I have clarified this.
  • How long was he imprisoned for?
  • Text says "After six weeks' incarceration..."
Parliament
  • Ah, back to Nev. Glancing at David Dilks' bio of Nev (Volume 1, Volume 2 never appeared), there are a fair few mentions of Lansbury, generally in the context of opposing the Conservatives on things like the local government. The biblio info's in the Nev article if you care to use any of these:
  • Referring to an Economy Bill Nev was pushing in 1926 and 1927, and to the protracted divisions during the debate, p. 456. "One one occasion an unlucky party of thirteen Opposition Members, led by Lansbury and Wheatley, lay on the floor of the lobby and refused to move. The rest of the House waited three-quarters of an hour and eventually the thirteen were suspended."
  • Referring to Nev's bill (1926) allowing the Minister of Health (him) to replace Poor Law Guardians who did not fulfill their tasks properly, p. 497 "When Chamberlain spoke of unabashed corruption in the election of Guardians and the distribution of public funds, Lansbury asked him to define 'corruption'. "I think I have made it perfectly clear", Chamberlain replied, "I mean that the system naturally tends to set one candidate against another bidding for the support of the electors by promising extra relief. That is what I mean by corruption." "Exactly the same", Lansbury replied sharply, "as a Protectionist candidate."
  • Same timeframe, Nev proposing changes in the grants to Poor Law authorities, p. 504 "Any rules the Minister [Chamberlain] drew up would produce inequities and hardships. Whenever he defended them, he sounded like Scrooge. "I say it is an inhuman policy", cried Lansbury in one of the debates about unemployment; "and the responsibility for the health of every widow and child … whose relief has been cut down by 6d., 1s., or 2s., and the responsibility for the death of many of these old people in this severe weather, will lie at the doors of the Ministry of Health, and nowhere else."
  • (p. 519 emailed to you)
  • pp. 522 and 523, the British sending troops to the concession in Shanghai in 1927. "Lansbury, a genuine pacifist, argued that the British should hand over their concession at Shanghai, and should not have sent troops. Chamberlain retorted that it was a good thing the Labour party were not in office. "If you think you have been bitten by a mad dog, you do not go to an [page break] anti-vivisectionist. When we had to defend Shanghai we did not go to a pacifist to ask whether we should use ships or troops. We went to our Chiefs of Staff."
  • p. 576, discussion of the minister's powers under the Local Government Bill in 1929, Chamberlain is contending that as councils will be receiving more than half their funding from the state as they took over the poor law functions, that the minister had to have the right to intervene in their decisions. "Mr Ernest Brown for the Liberals and Mr Lansbury for Labour opposed this vehemently. "A pinchbeck Napoleon!" cried Lansbury."

Whether you use these or not, and it's entirely up to you (I will trawl the rest of my Chamberlain bios for you if it is helpful), I think you should say something about his opposition to the Conservatives' local government proposals in the 1920s. Let me know if you would find page images helpful; I did not want to tie up your mailbox with tons of images.

  • There's some interesting material here, much of which I have (from the opposite perspective) in my sources. I will use this stuff to add a little more colour to the "Backbench" section, which is perhaps a little bland beyond Lansbury's jaunty promise to raise parliamentary mayhem whenever he could. On his opposition to Nev's Poor Law/Local Govt reforms, George wanted the laws reformed in his way, as outlined in the 1912 minority report, and was clearly going to act all oppositional against a Tory government's reforms, even if they went some way to meeting his objectives.
Cabinet minister
  • "a mutually cordial relationship" I would strike mutually; it is implied
Party leader
  • I suspect that if you could find a source, Lansbury was the oldest major party leader at the start of his leadership since Reform.
  • I'm sure that is so, but I don't recall seeing a source that says it (and it's trivia, really)
Final years
  • "He addressed large crowds in 27 cities before meeting President Roosevelt in Washington, to present his proposals for a world peace conference." I'm not certain about that comma.
  • Interesting he died just before the Norway Debate … what he said on 3 September was much like what Nev said in his radio address.
Excellent read, very enjoyable.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All minor points fixed. I'll give more thought to the George v. Nev issue as outlined above. Thanks for your suggestions & the proffered material. Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. I had another look, and I think it is a fine writeup about an important figure who gets too little attention. Looking forward to the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: the list of GL's published books starts off in date order but gets wobbly in the middle. I thought about dealing with it on the spot, but forbore just in case. Tim riley (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pub. date for My England is 1934 not 1940. Thanks for spotting this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (very minor and short) from SchroCat
  • There is some inconsistency around Labour Party and Labour party (similarly with Conservative & Liberal party/Party)
  • There are a fair few ellipses without a nbsp before them, but that's just my personal preference more than anything else.

Australia

  • "Lansbury decided that his their best hopes"
  • "a stonebreaking labourer" Should stonebreaking be two words or hyphenated? It looks odd being a single word, but if that is what it used to be called then so be it! (The OED currently has it hyphenated, if that helps)

Social Democratic Federation

  • I think "Anglican church" should probably be "Anglican Church", especially as you refer to "the Church" elsewhere.

Final years

  • "näive" Should it be naïve?

All minor suggestions in an otherwise (as always) excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments, all of which I have acted on. Leaving out the nbsps before ellipses is a regular blind spot - until you remind me to do it. "Stonebreaking" is one word in the source, but I've slightly altered the text to sidestep the issue. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro: He sounds like an interesting chap, and I enjoyed reading this. Learned quite a lot too! I'm not a specialist on this period, having only a vague familiarity with most of it, but I followed this easily. Everything that was not clear in terms of background was explained very nicely. Just a few minor points and questions.

  • "campaigning against established authority and vested interests, his main causes being social justice, women's suffrage and world disarmament": At first reading, I thought he was campaigning against social justice, women's suffrage and world disarmament! Could this be smoothed so that he isn't simultaneously campaigning for and against things?
  • Do we need to mention women's suffrage twice in the first paragraph?
  • "Through his radically-minded mother and grandmother young George became familiar with the names of great contemporary reformers—Gladstone, Richard Cobden and John Bright—and began to read the radical newspaper Reynolds News.": Radically…radical: is there another way to do this?
  • "the family experienced illness, discomfort and danger": This leaves me wondering what the danger was.
  • Postgate writes of the ship rolling, pitching and tossing, and describes a monsoon in the Indian Ocean. I've added a few words. Brianboulton (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which developed from David Lloyd George's "People's Budget"…" Could this be reworded to avoid having two links next to each other that look like one long link?
  • Could we describe Blythe further than just a "writer"; as his opinion is expressed in this article, it would be useful to know why it matters! From his article on here, maybe something like "essayist" or "social historian"? In particular, his judgement on the first Labour government, while doubtless true, seems rather definitive. Is it backed up by more general historians of the period?
  • I have elevated Blythe to "essayist" which I think is more appropriate. I've also changed "According to Blythe..." to "Blythe suggests that...", which I think makes his opinion personal rather than authoritative. I have also added a comment by Shepherd on the lacklustre nature of MacDonald's first government. Brianboulton (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contrary to previous expectations the two formed a cordial relationship": Something a bit off here: why "previous"? Could it not just be "contrary to expectations"? Or is this suggesting that they got on despite Lansbury's previous criticisms? At the moment, this rather falls between two stools.
  • Expectations that they would have difficulty relating to each other were likely mutual, Postgate says, and probably broadly shared. In the end they got along fine and even seemed to enjoy each other's company. Brianboulton (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, nice to see Cricinfo even getting a look-in here! Everything boils down to cricket if you look hard enough! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for these comments, all addressed. I put the Cricinfo stuff in to tempt you to read the article. Lansbury seems to have been very fond of cricket, at least in his early days, but none of his biographers give any information as to his playing record, unfortunately. Brianboulton (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Botik of Peter the Great edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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

Thanks,  Ryan Vesey 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well done! The overall article includes an interesting and summarizing lead, which comes across the reader as very engaging and professionally written. The article is relevant and focused on the topic at hand for the full length while maintaining WP:NPOV. Style guidelines are followed correctly and images appear to be properly sourced. Adding a few more sources to the reference section could be beneficial, but the ones that are currently listed appear to be reliable. Overall, I believe that this article meets the WP:FAC. Good luck with this nomination for featured article! Be sure to let me know when you officially nominate this article - I would love to do support you! Tayisiya (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

Just a few thoughts I noticed:

  • The wording of this sentence in the lead is a little awkward: "...patriotism during the outbreak of the Second World War led to a renewal of the importance of Peter the Great and the botik along with him." Specifically, "...the importance of Peter the Great and the botik along with him." Perhaps saying the importance of Peter the Great and everything associated with him, including the botik. Not sure it just seems a bit awkwardly worded and could be snagged at FAC.
  • "Wearing naval uniform, Empress Elizabeth escorted the botik." The connection of this sentence to the context is missing for me. I'm not very familiar with Russian history so perhaps that's the problem but I don't see how this sentence relates to the marriage of Catherine the Great. I understand Elizabeth was the mother of Catherine but if this is in reference to the actual wedding ceremony perhaps a bit more here would help clarify that.
  • Any information as to what the preservationists found? The article ends somewhat abruptly, any conclusions to research?

These are the only things I found in the article - all a bit nit picky. It looks to be in good shape. The external links check out. I didn't do a dab check, so if that hasn't been done I suggest doing that before nominating. Otherwise good luck! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria
  • Russia does not have freedom of panorama, so the licensing of images of 3D Russian works (including buildings) should reflect this
  • Ranges should use endashes
  • Any information about the pattern visible on the boat? Do we know its significance?
  • Possible to provide translations of Russian titles? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this has been archived, but I just wanted to say thank you all for your comments. I probably won't address them until school is done. I still plan on bringing this to FAC, but I'm hoping to find more information about its history under the Soviet Union and under the Russian Federation

Lyme disease edit

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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

I am uncertain what this article needs to go from B grade to GA grade. Please advise.

Thanks, GT67 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think right now the largest opportunity for improvement will be replacing primary sources with updated secondary sources (like review articles per WP:MEDDATE). Consider the sentence "In northern Africa, B. burgdorferi sensu lato has been identified in Morocco, Algeria, Egypt and Tunisia.[144][145][146]", for example. It cites sources from 2000, 2004, and 2006. But what if the most current sources consider one of these reports not worth citing? That's the main thing I see right now, in line with what Sasata said at User talk:Sasata. The article was written more as a review article, and it might have been top-quality when it was last polished up, but it requres more effort to keep a review article up to date than it does an encyclopedia article. Feel free to use this peer review page to post any questions about content GT67, thanks! I'll also go through and provide more feedback. Biosthmors (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Biosthmors edit

  • Linking tick-borne disease seems to make more sense than linking the phrase emerging infectious disease, which seems to be more of an epidemiological phrase than a basic definition calls for (WP:First sentence).
  • There should be an "or" between the two bolded terms in the first sentence.
  • Do updated sources provide any more specificity in a definition than "at least three"?
  • I think something more relevant to the disease should be included in the WP:LEAD from the history section rather than the trivia of the town.
  • Consider also expanding the lead to three (or maybe four) paragraphs to offer a more comprehensive summary.
  • "Except for one study in Europe" is a sign of review article prose instead of encyclopedic writing.
  • All species names should be in italics for consistency.
  • The prognosis section states "A meta-analysis published in 2005", which should be able to be updated per WP:MEDDATE.

I hope these comments are helpful. Please let me know when and if you would like more comments to address. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Barefoot edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would love to see this article reach FA-status, but since I am unfamiliar with the requirements/process I need someone to look through for potential issues or improvements needed to meet the criteria.

Thanks, Thhist (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being Norwegian, I find it easy to follow your article in "Reign" section. However, foreign readers will be helped by given some concise geographical pointers to Haakon's and Magnus' respective areas of domination ( insert something like "North" and "South", with Upplands in the middle?)
Arildnordby (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and done. Thhist (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is perhaps too focused on the martial aspects of Magnus' reign? Perhaps the article will improve with developments within civil society then, and not just go into detail of Magnus' wars?Arildnordby (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a short section on other developments on his reign, but as I have explained in the section, the original sources themselves are so heavily focused on warfare (or otherwise trivial events) that it is hard to make much of other developments or events. The little I have found in the literature is a more general description of developments in royal power and the church during the period of his reign. Otherwise, the only specific event that seems to be known is a coin reform that happened during Magnus' reign. Thhist (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fully do I know that gore&glory was very heart of sagas, to exclusion of everything else. :-) I think your "Other developments" section is excellent (and it was needed!). I will, if you choose to keep the peer review open, come with comments on different issues. Just now, I'm slightly dissatisfied with too much detail in your lead section, but I'll try to be more specific on that, and for other sections.Arildnordby (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal view on leads: They should not get bogged down in imputation of motives or detailed circumstances. Those belong in main text, in my (restrictive) view. For example:

"..in the process of getting the building supplies" Is this necessary within the lead? Why not just "-- probably also gaining suzerainty over Galloway". That the odd circumstance of getting suzerainty specifically in order to secure flow of building supplies belongs in main, I think.

"..by defeating the Norman forces of "the two Hughs"." Belongs in main, IMO.

"in return for his effort." The same

" after claiming an ancient border with the country" The same

"eventually unsuccessful " not needed

" fearing that the conflict could get out of hand." Not needed here

", and possibly greatest", not needed

"uneasy". Why was alliance "uneasy"? I think judgment of that belongs in main text, unless a direct suspicion of the Irish king's complicity in Magnus' death is conventional, in which case that suspicion SHOULD be included in lead. If there really isn't anything within the uneasiness of the alliance sufficiently important to include in lead, then drop the word here. (In direct contrast to the correct inclusion of the uneasiness of the previous co-reign of Magnus and Haakon, a necessary info on his earliest years and battles as king). Arildnordby (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have to say I agree with you about much here, that at least some of this is not necessary or too detailed for the intro. Thhist (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing reign: It might be of value to emphasize in the text that Hamnøy is in the (semi-)extreme North of Norway, a region where Magnus' reign had been non-existent. The hanging of Tore at Vambarholm resonates with Magnus feeling strong enough in a region hitherto outside his grasp, or alternately, that Tore had seen a colapse of his general power base, withdrawing to what he thought was "safe teritory". But, of course, these not altogether silly speculations of mine shouldn't be references, but if you can find some discussion among the historians at the significance of the final battle taking place in the far North, rather than in what was "traditionally disputed" territories like the upplands and the Nidaros region, you might possibly put into perspective that Magnus' victory here was actually very important in finally bringing Northern Norway under the heels of a Southern based monarch? Just an idea you can chew on..
Furthermore: You mention the indispensable networks of nobles both Magnus and Haakon had. Perhaps geographic pointers, if existing, as to where, for example, their respective foster-fathers resided?Arildnordby (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find anything relevant for this. Thhist (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning uneasy co-rule Haakon and Magnus: I just read Snorre, and I wondered whether you should emphasize and clarify that uneasiness, by relating the anecdote told by Snorre of Magnus' keeping his ships war-ready at wintertime, and Haakon strongly suspecting one night that an attack might be imminent?Arildnordby (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth a breif mention. Thhist (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some anecdotes from Snorre concerning increasing state power under Magnus, that you might wish to look into? (I'm using the Holtsmark (1975) edition here:

Paragraph 7: Magnus is said to put down Vikings and robbers, making "good peace in country", peace mentioned in paragraph 26.

Paragraphs 17-20: Royal prerogative on inheritance forces Skofte Ogmundsson and sons to flee.

Paragraph 26: Hard taxes for the leidang makes him an unpopular ruler

Arildnordby (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I have little in the way of knowledge about Viking sagas and Norwegian history, so I'll confine my comments to a layman's perspective in terms of readability, grammar, MOS etc etc.

  • Lead. The jump from the first sentence to his campaigns is strange. Perhaps the second sentence should provide an overall assessment of his reign. Currently it begs questions.
  • Throughout the article there is a tendency to assume knowledge in the reader. This is particularly relevant to the mentions of what I can only assume are Viking sagas. I suggest you explicitly state up-front in the Background section that much of what we know about him has been drawn from these sagas and name them and explain when it is believed they were written. Another example of this is that you merely introduce "Edgar" (linked), but should introduce him as "Edgar, King of Scotland" and probably briefly explain who he was. There are a number of examples of this.
  • Suggest you explain terms such as "hird", " Øyrating" etc as you go, they are not loanwords and most readers will have no idea what they refer to.
  • a general GOCE c/e might be in order, as there are a number of grammatical errors, eg "(although Magnus not necessarily intended to side with the Welsh originally)" which I suggest should be something like "(although originally Magnus did not necessarily intend to side with the Welsh)" or similar
  • Where you refer to a historian, eg "Randi Helene Førsund", I suggest you state that is what he is when you introduce him for the first time.
  • There are a few duplicate links in the article. Sweden, skalds, and Denmark.
  • In the Ancestry template, there is a pointback redirect to this article from "Magnus II of Norway". Probably just change it to "Magnus Barefoot".
  • all the external links are green. No probs.
  • I suggest you put alt text on all the images now to avoid getting held by it later.
  • Reflinks check comes up green too.
  • Earwig indicates no copyvios.
  • Suggest you convert the 10 digit ISBN to 13 digit now.
  • Suggest you separate the journals from the books in the Biblio section.
  • Suggest you add DOIs or similar to all journal articles.

Will respond promptly to any queries about my comments. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for many helpful comments which I'll see to address. It's not always easy to know just how far it is appropriate to go in assuming knowledge (or not) about certain terms and subjects, but I shouldn't have any problems with expanding my threshold for explaining a bit more though. Thhist (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a standardization of web citation on your last external source. Do you like it? If not, remove it, but you really ought to have retrieval date of web resource included in your metadata.Arildnordby (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it's necessary for "External links"? I at least don't think it's appropriate to use the ref tool "{{cite web|" etc. for medieval primary sources. Thhist (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a judgmental call. After all, even academic sites can be closed down,and it will then be of future benefit to know when the now archived sourced were active links (for retrieval purposes). At the very least, even if you choose not to use the cite web format, you should append to each source a retrieval date, so that later editors can get alarm bells to checkr, even update, the old content. (Links more than 5 years old screams to be clicked on!, I think...)Arildnordby (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you an example: In "my" Impalement article, I had a nice ref to a very good table a Mr. Ian Mortimer had on his personal website. When I rechecked the link 2 months later, the idiot had rewritten the whole article, so that MY reference to it was totally wrong. I ended up with rewriting my own reference, adding retrieval date.Arildnordby (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed the primary sources in a similar format as other books under a new Primary sources section in Bibliography, which I think is a better solution(?). Thhist (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.Arildnordby (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very good rewriting! However, it suddenly struck me that saying Magnus was illegitimate jars with the ideas of legitimacy back then (what mattered was that you could claim you were a king's son, not whether your mother had been the wife of that king!). Thus, it would be better, I think, to use formulations like "Born out of wedlock" or "born outside of marriage", or something like that.Arildnordby (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's probably not very important to note at all. Thhist (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To my annoyance, I have registered that on Norwegian king lists and so on (not made by you, but by others), the word "illegitimate" is used all the time. But, perhaps this is just a pet peeve of mine..Arildnordby (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually brought this up recently in one of my discussions with another editor (great minds think alike, eh?), and you can see my proposal for another format for the Norwegian king list here (the "illegitimacy"-thing is not the only issue). I've become a bit preoccupied with other things on WP in the meantime, but the king list is definitely high on my "to do list". Thhist (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal at King list is much cleaner than the one currently in use. I think it is correct that children are not included in the list, but I would suggest that parents should be referred to. Say, in the forms "Father: Bla-bla", alternately "Father: Bla-bla (claimed)" or "Father: Bla-bla (disputed)", and similarly with mother (possibly with an additional options like "Mother: Several claimed", "Mother: Unknown", options rarely the case for fathers of kings, but occasionally the case for mothers)Arildnordby (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what DOIs are and how I find them (or what you mean by "or similar")? Seems a bit complicated.. Thhist (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DOI is Digital Object Identifier, i.e, some sort of classifying system for digital intellectual property, like isbn for old-fashioned books. Journals have their own classification system, and the other editor here suggested you add such metadata to your listing of journals.Arildnordby (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but where do I find them? They don't seem to be easily accessible for reference. Thhist (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They should be stated in the journal itself? If you don't have the journal at hand, you should be able to get that information from Universitetsbiblioteket (UB) (University Library)Arildnordby (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satyajit Ray filmography edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Satyajit Ray is said to be one of the finest directors of all time and I am planning to take this list for FLC in the near future.

Thanks, - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tomcat7

just a forewarning that I am not so knowledgeable in the film industry, but am interested in helping you to get thist list to featured status.
  • I am not sure if " (About this sound সত্যজিৎ রায় (help·info); 2 May 1921 – 23 April 1992) " is needed here. Since this list is about his filmography, the abbrevation of his name and his date of birth and date are not probably particularly important.
I had referred to some of the existing FLs and found that the similar (not exact) pattern was used. (Christopher Walken, Charlie Chaplin, Gene Kelly, David Lynch, Mary Pickford and David O. Selznick)
  • ", who worked prominently in Bengali cinema." - remove comma, as that relative clause is substantial.
Done
  • "With the career spanned over 40 years," - I don't think that phrase is connected with the next one, that he is one of the greatest directors. I would move it to where you discussed his overal work, eg "He made his directorial debut with Pather Panchali (1955) and within 40 years directed total 36 films, which includes 29 feature films, five documentaries and two short films."
Done
  • ", then known as Calcutta," - I would reword "(now Caluctta)", but that is just my opinion
Done. Hmmm. OK. No problem.
  • "into a Bengali family" - probably just "to a "
Done
  • "French film director Jean Renoir in 1949, who had come to Calcutta to shoot his film," - "in 1949" should be moved somewhere else, because a relative clause should directly follow after the subject, in this case Jean Renoir
Done
  • "The River (1951)" - add comma after it
Done
  • "and his London visit in 1950 where Ray saw Vittorio De Sica's Italian film," - same here, "London, where", probably "his 1950 visit to London, where"
Done
  • "Italian film" - I would remove that
Done
  • "made an impact on Ray to become a film-maker.[3][4]" - add "which" ahead "made"
Done
  • "He made his directorial debut with Pather Panchali (1955) and directed total 36 films, which includes 29 feature films, five documentaries and two short films." - "He" -> "Ray", "a total of", "which includes" -> "including"
Done
  • "Ray's work got wide critical acclaim over the years.[5][6] He was also criticized for "exporting poverty"[5] and "distorting India's image abroad" through films like Pather Panchali and Ashani Sanket (1973).[7]" - I would write "Although Ray's work generally received critical acclaim (over the years not needed imho), films as Pather Panchali and Ashani Sanket (1973) were criticized for "exporting poverty"..."
Done
  • "Alongside working for his own films" - working on, "alongside" -> better "besides"
Done
  • "Ray composed music and wrote screenplays for the films made by other directors as well.[8] "
Done
  • ", and authored several short stories and novels written in Bengali language, most of them which were primarily aimed at children and adolescents.[9][10]"
Done
  • ",[15] Carlos Saura.[16]" - I would change the comma with "and"
Done
  • "Ray desired to make various other films," - I would change "desired" with "intended" or "planned"
Done. Used 'intended' over 'planned'.
  • "Sitar" - "sitar"
Done
  • Comma after "sitar player" not needed
Done
  • "the Mahābhārata" - add comma after that
Done
  • "His The Apu Trilogy (1955–1959)"
Done
  • "appeared in the Time magazine's All-Time 100 Greatest Movies.[19]"
Done
  • ", Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 1984[20]" - add "the"
Done
  • Sorting of "Year" "Original Title" "International Release Title" and "Language(s)" would be great. Use {{sortname}} for names, {{sort}} for other things.
This is very much achievable but not sure how to proceed for the multiple values like Hindi, Urdu, English or bullet values like Teen Kanya, Kapurush-O-Mahapurush.
  • Original Title -> Original title, International Release Title -> International release title", etc
Done. Also changed 'Credited As' to 'Credited as'
  • For notes, I would use {{efn}} instead of {{sup}}
Done
Done
  • That's all for now. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed most of them. Working on rest. Fixed all. Question for one point. - Vivvt • (Talk) 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three intended works (Docu on Ravi Shankar, adaptation of Mahabharat, and Passage to India) are mentioned in the lead. While this information is appropriate for the article Satyajit Ray, I am unsure if this is needed in this list. I don't have enough experience on FLC, so you can probably keep this for now. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is ok to mention those in this article. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Another Believer

I am not familiar with the subject or filmography lists with Featured status, nor have I read the above feedback, but following are my initial thoughts.
  • Do filmography articles typically have infoboxes? Might be worth exploring...
Not seen for any of the filmographies. Also, infobox filmography template itself is not available.
  • Do other filmography articles include birth and death dates? This does not seem like necessary information.
Some of the featured lists has this information. (Christopher Walken, Charlie Chaplin, Gene Kelly, David Lynch, Mary Pickford and David O. Selznick)
  • I do not think the Key should have its own section heading.
Done
  • Consider adding the Film and India portals.
Done

I wish I could be of more assistance. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your inputs. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

  • Where is this sourced? I see tables, but no references.
  • I think all the sources are mentioned under "General references". There is no footnote/superecripts though Those may not be needed as such.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, although I'm worried about a lack of verifiability. Mind you, some FLs use that format. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though I have used ! scope="col" | and ! scope="row" | for all the tables, please let me know if I am missing anything which I am not aware of.
  • What is an "advertisement film"
I believe it is lengthier than the usual advertisement duration. Though I did not find any hard definition as such, this is the way it is credited to him in his own book Satyajit Ray on Cinema here.
I had used "An aged man wearing a white Kurta and right-hand kept on his chin" which I now prefixed with "A portrait of" for better clarity.
  • Having his name in the original script and dates of birth (not year) is a bit much. It's about the filmography, not the director
Done. This was coming repeatedly, so I have taken it out.
  • Added a citation needed tag.
Done. Provided the reference.
  • Image is fine (no action required)
Ok
  • Otherwise I've copyedited, be sure to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your copyediting. I have fixed some of your concerns. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Hay Beith edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have no ambitions for this modest little article, and I have put it forward for peer review for a single reason, viz to ask Wikicolleagues' opinions on how to refer to the subject. The man's real name was Beith, and he achieved some military distinction under it. But he was much better known as Ian Hay. (See the list of references, notes 4, 24 and 25, where headlines referring to Beith added an explanatory "Ian Hay".) It felt peculiar to write "Beith's play" etc when everyone would have thought of it as "Hay's play". But can I chop and change between Beith and Hay in mid-article? Grateful for any views. (And any other comments, too, of course.) – Tim riley (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: A small gem; my few comments are nothing to write home about, but here they are:

  • Link second class degree
  • "temporary posts" → "temporary teaching posts"?
  • "until 1918, at which..." doesn't sound right. Perhaps "until 1918, when..."?
  • "second lieutenant" shouldn't be hyphenated, and a link is available. Likewise "captain" should be pipe-linked via Captain (British Army and Royal Marines)
  • Do we have any detail of the action in which he won his MC? Otherwise "In 1916 Beith was awarded the Military Cross" sounds a bit routine
  • Link major and major-general in the sentence "From being a major on the retired list, Beith was given the honorary rank of major-general."
  • One last observation: it's interesting that he signs his photo portrait "Ian Hay Beith" which was neither his name nor his nom-de-plume.

No further questions, m'lud. Worth a shot at GA, surely? Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you for that. All shall be attended to. Tim riley (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Schnauzer edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've reciently overhauled this article, and would like to push it to GA quality.

Thanks, TKK bark ! 19:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to Create a Mind edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm wondering how I can get this up to GA. It is rated B now after many rounds of changes. This is the first article I've written, any ideas welcome.

Thanks, Silas Ropac (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good for a first article; here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the NYT best seller seems to only be in the lead (and I would check for other things)
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is not really anything on the Analysis or Reception sections. Please see WP:LEAD
  • There are two schools of thought on references in the lead. One says to have refs only for direct quotes and extraordinary claims, since the refs for everything else will be in the body of the article when the material is repeated (most editors follow this). The other school is to cite the lead like everything else. This lead is somewhere in between...
  • I would use Kurzweil (and not "He") to start the third paragraph of the lead  Y
  • The Background section is a bit sparse - it would help to let the reader know a bit more about who Kurzweil is and what he has done besides write similar books. See Provide context to the reader
  • In general, avoid the passive voice - one example ... it was announced that Kurzweil was hired by Google to work as Director of Engineering "on new projects involving machine learning and language processing".[9] could be active voice and tightened as something like Google announced it hired Kurzweil as Director of Engineering "on new projects involving machine learning and language processing".[9]
  • The Content section could be clearer about this coming from a book - use introductory phrases like "Kurzweil begins his book by ..." or "In the (first / second / third) (chapter / section), Kurzweil argues that..."
  • Spell out abbreviations on first use - what is "PRTM"? So "Pattern Recognition Theory of Mind (PRTM)" (could be i nthe text, not in a section header)  Y
  • Identify critics / reviewers where possible, so who is Simson Garfinkel? (name needs to be spelled correctly too) Computer science professor and journalist Simson Garfinkel... Y
  • There is a free picture of Mr. Kurzweil in his article which could be used in the Background section and one of Mr. Gerfinkel that could be used in the Analysis section Y
  • Would "Reception" be a better title for both the last sections? They seem to be how fellow scientists reacted to his work (Analysis) and how the media reviewed his book (what is now called Reception), so could these be subsections of a big "Reception" section? (you would need a new name for the last section then) Y (Reception with two subs: Analysis and Reviews)
  • If there is information on how the book came to be written that would be useful to include
  • Ref 3 needs a publisher  Y
  • I would include the last three External links as references (and incorporate whatever they say into the article).
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)  Y

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments. I have added  Y to ones I think I've addressed. Silas Ropac (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarnia edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheKurgan

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in acquiring FA status for this article. I spent a lot of time last year getting it up to GA status, and think it's pretty doggone good. I looked at Hamilton, which is an FA, and think my article is at least its equal. I want feedback, though, so that I do not stupidly nominate an unworthy article. Thanks ahead of time for all your help, Wikipedia Editors! I appreciate all that you say.

Thanks,

There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sevilla FC edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was widely expanded with good neutral sourced, references, translated and copy-edited and wikified. As it was already B-class before, it is worth a peer review to be a GA.

Thanks, Indiasummer95 (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YouSendIt edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
With some feedback from several editors, I have incorporated a first draft of the article that I have written with a COI as a PR professional. I would like to bring the article up to GA eventually and am interested in feedback on what it needs to be ready for a nomination. CorporateM (Talk) 20:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions and recommendations
  1. Per WP:LEAD, citations should be cited in the body text of the article and the lede should itself only be a summary of the rest of the following body text.
  2. Looks better always to have citations appear after punctuation, not just randomly after a word or something. It looks like there are places where there could be a comma or semi-colon before a cite in a few spots.
  3. Chronological order: Background sect should appear before other stuff, grounding the reader in some basic background info.
  4. Reception sect: Any more info here? Can this be fleshed out a bit more? Perhaps with a couple quotes, or a few paraphrased portions? Also, any critical feedback?
  5. Reception sect: "TopTenReviews gave it a 9.5 out of 10." -- is there a cite backing up this info?
  6. Images: Is there any chance the copyright holder for those images could be contacted to ask if they will license those few images by a free-use license such as: Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike 3.0, so that the images can be moved to Wikimedia Commons for use on other language projects?

Thank you for the quality improvements to the article so far, — Cirt (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can you please reply below, instead of interspersing your comments, above, so that it doesn't break up the numbering I had used initially? Can you please move those replies here, below? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (moved/summarized) Thanks so much for the feedback!! I may have a distorted view of how balanced the Reception section is, but I'll give it another run. I thought it was weird I got feedback on the draft to add cites to the lead - fixed that. I added a couple commas, but not sure if they were the ones you meant. I noticed other software articles had an Overview above the history/background, but I went ahead and changed it. The cite for TopTenReviews was at the end of the following sentence - I just duplicated the cite so each sentence has one. CorporateM (Talk) 14:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks a bit better, I'll see if I can go over it again soon. — Cirt (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impalement edit

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for a new peer review because I have followed the very valuable ideas in the previous to create an explicit bibliography, in addition to to create a much improved "Methods" section. I hope that other editors can come with some constructive criticisms to an article I know (finally) regard as "finished" on my part

Thanks, Arildnordby (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. You've been putting a lot of work into it I know. GA material now I reckon. Basket Feudalist 19:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Always especially pleasing with a 180 degrees thumb reversal! :-) However, I'll try to pull in a few "quid pro quos" here at Peer Review prior to a GA nomination.Arildnordby (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have written a well-researched article which seems to cover the most relevant aspects about impalement. Some things I noted was however that the sections about Africa and America are very brief compared to the sections about Europe and Asia (Africa only about Algiers and America only mention one instance). Although I know the source material generally is far scarcer about the two former continents, I couldn't help thinking that it should be possible to find more information here? Thhist (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good point, but it has been, in part, a judgment call on where to put the material, rather than lack of it (but also that). For example, Americas: The only native American case I've found is impalement as occasional punishment for adultery among the Aztecs, and I chose to put that chance reference within the note in "main uses", within the adultery and sexual crimes reference. Furthermore, it was a judgment call as to where to put a couple of references on the Conquistadores in the Americas section; I chose to put them within the references attached to European colonialist practice in "Main Uses". Africa: I have found three accounts on "barbarous customs" of human sacrifice among the natives of Africa, all of which are accessible on the human sacrifice note in "Main Uses". It was a judgment call to merely explicitly refer to Herodotus in the "Human Sacrifice" sub-section, I should possibly include one of the "barbarous customs" accounts there?Arildnordby (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guiding principle I chose for the "Regional/Other studies" section in this draft was partially geographic, but mainly distinctiveness of cases or iconic representations. That meant I had to split asunder the geographical surveys I had previously, because those had become repetitive in case type, and also jumping. Thus, reference to Zulus was previously in Africa section, but is now in Main Uses, under military punishments, and Morroccan rebellion punishment is contained within a note there. Egypt is represented with the Thevenot acount, upon which I rely heavily in "methods". Under European colonialists, the Dutch and Portuguese are credited with a couple of examples. India and the Kingdom of Kandy, both hotspots of impalement have been effectively shunted into the memory hole, because they were just "normal" treason/highway robbery cases, adequately represented elsewhere, I think. But, it is kind of difficult to find the appropriate balance on these issues...Arildnordby (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: You have not formally closed the previous peer review. And PR rules require that you wait 14 days before resubmitting an article for review after closure. We can waive that, but please close the first review (follow the instructions on the WP:PR page). Brianboulton (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the oldpeerreview|archive=1-template on the talk page. My view says that I received a peer review, but that that is now archived. But, I was rather surprised to see that the first Impalement Peer Review still showed up at the peer reviews, but thought the reason for that was that I was the nominator, while others would see it as closed. Evidently, I have made a mistake here, and I don't understand how I should close, other than using that template. I will make a try.Arildnordby (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I forgot one of the two steps in closure process; now I believ it is properly closed?Arildnordby (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan Civil War edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for PR because I would like the article to run as FAC. This is the first peer review of the article.

Thanks, Eng.Bandara (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dana Boomer

At this point, the article needs quite a bit of work before it would do well at FAC. The referencing, while a good start, is the main thing that needs to be improved. There are also scattered MOS and other issues. Specific thoughts:

  • Throughout the article, there are many paragraphs and partial paragraphs that are missing references. This is the main area that needs to be focused on before a FAC.
  • Remember that the FAC requirement is high quality reliable sources, not just reliable sources. There are numerous high quality books that have been written on the conflict - these should be used in place of semi-reliable or non-reliable sources such as Wikileaks.
  • There are 13 dead links in the article, see this tool.
  • Reference formatting needs to be improved and standardized. Web references need publishers and access dates, as well as authors and publication dates if available.
  • The Combat after 18 May 2009 section should be rewritten as prose, rather than a bullet point list.
  • There is a mix of British and American English used in the article - one should be chose and the article standardized.

During the course of significant referencing work, there are often major changes to prose, structure, existing references, etc. Due to this, I have not thoroughly read through the prose, or checked all of the referencing for reliability, formatting, etc. Once the referencing has been improved, WP:GAN is often a good first step before FAC, to get additional eyes on the article. If you have any questions, please ask - I've added this review to my watchlist. Dana boomer (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: I largely concur with Dana's assessment, and would agree that GAN would be a good first step. You'll also need to address the maintenance tags currently on the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leg before wicket edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC but I'm not too sure about it. It's rather a technical article and I wonder how accessible it is to the general reader. Does it make sense, or does it need to be simplified further. If so, is it possible to do so and keep it at the required level of comprehensiveness and prose? And is the prose too dry and technical? It's rather different is this one, so any suggestions (even if that suggestion is never to go anywhere FAC with something like this!) gratefully received.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492 edit

Images

  1. File:Leg before wicket.jpg is fine
  2. File:Cricket - Wickets.svg looks okay, but seems difficult to follow. Perhaps having no text would be helpful.
  3. File:Ranji 1897 page 215 Shrewsbury playing back.jpg - When did Caldwell die (if available?); if he died after 1943 the image would not be PD in the source country
  4. File:Bob Wyatt Cigarette Card.jpg looks fine
Having alt text might be a good idea.
You shouldn't force sizes. Using "upright" will make an image smaller, but still allow them to scale.
I'm afraid that svg file is beyond my technical capabilities, and I would have no idea how to remove the text. Added alt text to the last image. A little bit of OR reveals that Caldwell died in 1915, so we're fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Prose

  • the effects it has upon how cricket is played - Feels awkward, perhaps avoid "how cricket is played"?
  • Is adjudged the right word here?
  • Yes; for some reason, it is never "judged". Or maybe just in the books I read! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I followed the first paragraph of Definition fairly well, until the last sentence. "no ball" may require a little extrapolation
  • Hmm, tricky that one. It's pretty straightforward for cricketers. Does it read any better now? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "off stump"?
  • swinging through the air - Huh? Like, rocking, or ?
  • Added a link and reworded a little to clarify. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link may be enough, because moving ... well, the ball is always moving after being thrown. Moving forward, at least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the ball strikes the batsman without pitching, - For a person more familiar with baseball than cricket, "Pitching" has the connotation of "throwing" (c.e. "pitcher") instead of what you seem to mean (hitting the pitch). A link to the glossary, perhaps?
  • OK, I've added a link. Also, as we had the two cricket meanings of pitch in the same sentence, I've taken a bit out of this and created a note to explain "pitch in line". Does this work, or is it better in the main text?
  • Is all-caps LBW more standard, or is lowercase lbw?
  • There is no real standard, but I've gone for lowercase. The one uppercase was given in that form in the quote, but for consistency, I've changed it to lower case. Is this change ok from an MOS viewpoint? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so, as we have to keep the English variant as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • trouble often arose - Such as? Any riots?
  • Yes! The source is vague, but I think I could root one out if you really wanted. However, I realised that I'd slightly got this wrong and have reworded it a little as this trouble was not exclusively the concern of touring teams, but could happen in any situation. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping ahead...

  • Can barely understand the first paragraph of Trends and studies... a lot of specific terminology there.
  • Could you be more specific? As a cricketer, it looks fine! I can't see the wood for the trees! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest one is "receive the benefit of lbw decisions", for me at least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One umpire in many Test - missing a word?
  • Thanks. I'll owe you big time for this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • does not include a leg before wicket rule. - You've already used lbw above, do you need to spell it out again?
  • Cricket bat should be linked on the first use (which would be the first section)
  • (batsman on strike) - Strike being? For Americans, strike has some distinctly baseball meanings...
Tried "batsman receiving the ball". Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still missing alt text
  • Which image? I make it that they all have alt text (and so does the tool on this page). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geeze I'm blind. I'm so used to seeing the alt text before captions. Scratch that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criticism [of lbw laws] was heightened by the increased quality and reliability of cricket pitches which made batting easier, led to higher scores and created a perceived imbalance in the game. Pad-play, according to commentators, was another factor which was unfair towards bowlers. - Second sentence seems redundant to me, but others may disagree.
  • one county representative - Who?
  • I could name him, but his name doesn't mean anything even to me, and I'm a bit of an obsessive. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth including in hidden text (just in case his name means something to someone)
  • OK, did this, and for the prominent cricketers below. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a batsman shall be out if with any part of his person, being in the straight line from wicket to wicket, he stop a ball which in the opinion of the umpire would have hit the wicket." - Feels like you're missing an "s" at "stop".
  • No, it's a quote and the language is slightly archaic. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the lack of an s is in the original? Might be worth noting in hidden text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • several prominent cricketers - Such as?
  • Again, I'm not sure the names would mean much. I sort-of know two of three mentioned in the source; they were prominent at the time but pretty meaningless now. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • with any part of his person he stops the ball, -> with any part of his person [the batsman] stops the ball,
  • This trend was replicated in international cricket, - Not anymore? That question goes for most of this paragraph.
  • Bodyline - caps? Also, might need explaining.
  • Opinion is divided on caps, but it is common in many sources. I'm reluctant to begin an explanation of another convoluted cricket phenomenon here as it is only incidentally relevant. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... I was thinking that we should be standard with the bodyline article, which uses a lowercase b.
  • I've had this little debate before! My feeling is that the article is wrong; many (but not all) of the sources, including the "standard work" use Bodyline. There is some argument over whether this is correct of not. I can change it if it is a problem, but I'm of the capital B brigade! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • padding up using pads, - Repetition
  • leg stump, - ?
  • but in 1937 the experimental law became part of the Laws of Cricket. - relation with the Australians in the first paragraph?
  • Australians in which paragraph? (If this refers to the Australian reluctance to bring in the law, the change in the laws superseded their hesitance). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's it. Do any of the sources support you saying it directly? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is pretty much all the sources give. The Australians didn't like it, but it became law. No further comment, and nothing which explicitly says "tough!'. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the prevalent and unpopular tactic which involved off spin and inswing bowlers aiming at leg stump with fielders concentrated on the leg side. - This will be very difficult to follow for non-cricket fans.
  • Hmmm. No easy way to explain this one without a long technical commentary, but it is kind of important. Not sure, let me ponder. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than alter the lbw law to combat the problem, the MCC changed the laws to reduce the number of fielders allowed on the leg side. - How does/did this affect lbw?
  • It doesn't except that the obvious solution was to change the law, but the MCC instead chose to mess around with rules for field placings. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No shot - not quite clear what this is from the title, not explained anywhere in the article.
  • I can't quite lever it in to the right place, so changed the wording to "no stroke" which is taken directly from a wording of the laws. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, a batsman would be lbw - Why "now"? "Under this new law", perhaps?
  • for running the international game, - game or games?
  • Game singular in this sense: a synonym for international cricket. It's a bit journalese, so I've reworded to "running international cricket". Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • increased the trend - sounds odd
  • Not quite sure what you mean by effectiveness here. I suspect I'm statisticked out, though. Not much else out there on analysis. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking the third umpire and the DRS system. Do they stop cricketers from using pad-play? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not as yet. I'd imagine it will happen soon, and I could probably do some ugly OR on it, but not for this article. Everything about DRS is basically just the gut feeling of commentators and journalists. No statistical analysis yet; at least, not that I have seen. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Big, big thank you for this. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. Sorry if some of my questions are unclear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments edit

Brianboulton comments: I will wait until Crisco has finished before I weigh in, but I'd just like to say something about the opening paragraph. I said in our earlier talkpage discussion that I thought you had oversimplified your basic explanation of lbw. I think, now, you may have overcomplicated the matter. I had something in mind such as:

"Leg before wicket, or lbw, is one of the ways in which a batsman can be dismissed in the sport of cricket. The basis of the law is that, following an appeal by the fielding side, the umpire will rule a batsman out lbw if the ball would have struck the wicket but was intercepted by any part of the batsman except his bat. However, the decision will be subject to a number of playing circumstances, as a result of which the lbw law is widely misunderstood by many of the general public."

I will return later. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adopted this wording now. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine: the final wording may need a little more tweaking, as this was my first attempt, but the principle is right. Brianboulton (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've tweaked it again, maybe not for the last time. As Crisco appears to have finished, I'll give the article some review time now. Comments to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go

– and slim pickings it is, too, from a pleasingly well-presented article. I've done about two-thirds, the rest will follow tomorrow:

Definition
  • Perhaps add a note clarifying that the MCC was (and still is, I think), the accepted framer and arbiter of the laws of cricket.
  • I'm not sure how helpful the diagram is to the uninitiated. It doesn't really have enough detail on it to help a relatively uninitiated reader (my daughter, for example) to decipher the accompanying text which is necessarily complex. I am not at all sure how to make the diagram more helpful, but it may be worth some thought.
  • I'm seeing if it is possible to remove the writing for a start. I think we need something, but am not quite sure a) what the something should be or b) how to go about it (it's way, way beyond my technical capabilities). As a last resort, I'll remove the image. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the formula: "According to David Fraser..." is appropriate here, since what he writes is a fact rather than an opinion. I would go for: "In his book (give title), David Law writes that..." etc
  • The final two sentences are connected, and should be separated by a semicolon rather than a full stop.
Controversy and attempted reform
  • "At the Special General Meeting..." → "At a Special General Meeting..."
  • "the proposed new law was trialled" - that is American English. BritEng would be "tried out"
  • I'd never even thought of that before. A shame, as it kind of works. I've gone for "tried": does that work? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alteration to the law
  • "Fred Root also criticised the tactic of padding up, and the number of batsmen who refused to play shots..." Not quite right. Perhaps: ...and the increasing extent to which batsmen were reusing to play shots..."
  • Second paragraph: reference to "rules" - should this be "laws"?
  • "Between 1929 and 1933, the county authorities introduced an experiment...", No, they introduced it in 1929 and presumably withdrew it in 1933. Suggest replace "introduced" with "conducted".
  • Is it possible to say whether this experimental period produce any significant difference in the proportion of lbw dismissals? Likewise, did the 1935 change increase the number of lbws?
  • The "l. b. w." format may be how the Times printed it, but it looks ridiculous. Do we have to follow suit?
  • Good question. I asked Crisco above, and he seems to think that we do. But I'm inclined to read the MOS as suggesting it would be fine. So, I've changed it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rest to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My remaining comments:
Playing no stroke
  • "owing to more difficult and unpredictable pitches which made batting much harder". This begs the question: why did pitches become more difficult and unpredictable at this time? I think it might have been something to do with changes in the laws relating to covering of wickets, but that's just a hunch.
  • For some reason, the quality of pitches just plummeted in the 50s. A look at the first class averages compared to, say, the 30s or 90s is interesting. I suspect it was deliberate for "result" wickets, but I may be wrong. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is quite difficult to follow; the general reader will struggle to perceive the differences between the 1969–70 wording and that adopted in 1972. Would it be possible to emphasise this difference by appropriate use of, say, italics? The other thing is that I would leave out the unnecessary detail that the 1980 revision was the fifth such, and that a further unrelated revision took place in 2000.
  • I've tried to point out the differences a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Effects of technology
  • "This trend is replicated in international cricket": I rather though the trend began in international cricket (because of the use of technology), and was replicated lower down.
  • Perhaps, but I have a slight synthesis problem here. The article by Miller exclusively looks at the increasing number of lbws in county cricket, and he talks about a trend. The international comment comes from a source which does not have an analysis. Saying that the county trend replicated the Test trend is reaching a bit given the sources. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph has three mentions of "technology" and other redundant words. I suggest: "However, the use of on-field technology has proved controversial; some critics regard it as more reliable than human judgement, while others believe that the umpire is better placed to make the decision"
  • On DRS, is it worth mentioning that India has thus far rejected its use?
  • I'm inclined to say not; that would be more for the DRS article. I'm not sure it impacts enough on lbw. But let me ponder... Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trends and studies
  • "Between 1920 and 2010, the percentage of batsmen dismissed lbw almost doubled." This point is deducible from the figures just given - is it necessary to repeat the point?
  • "less likely to be out lbw when batting and more dismiss batsmen lbw when bowling". A word or two missing here. Also, does this business about umpires favouring captains really represent a trend, i.e. a movement from one state to another? From the figures you quote, 'twas ever thus, perhaps because captains report on umpires' performances after matches.
  • Fixed wording. I cut the figures and left the "favoured captains" info. It's not a trend, but I think it's worth including. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more I read this section, the faster my head began to spin. It seems that studies have discerned so many trends, counter-trends, trends-within-rends etc that no clear picture emerges. I wonder if it is possible to simplify these facts?
  • Yes, you should see the actual studies. I once studied statistics (the mathematical, not cricket, variety), and reading these reminded me why I've avoided them ever since. I've simplified a little bit, but I think there are some important points there, and I'm not sure they can be simplified without being misrepresented. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, though, I believe you have dealt well with a difficult and technical subject. Only in a few places did I find myself scratching my head a bit. On the question of the pitch diagram, if you can outline for me what changes you would like to make to the wording, and what additional symbols etc you wish to include, I will see if I can locate an image-literate editor who may be able to help. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. On the image, I think the best bet may be to remove all the wording altogether, and leave it blank. But I've just had a response at the image lab: they did that and now I'll see what else they can do for me! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: one final thing: could you date the Badminton Library image? It looks 1880-ish. (Otherwise our American friends may think that's what present-day cricketers look like). Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha! Done. Another cricket editor says that he is put off reading this one because each time he looks at the article he can't believe that the chap played no shot to a ball like that. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 comments edit

Giants2008 comments –

  • Definition: In "for example, a batman struck on the head could be lbw", is "batman" supposed to be "batsman" or is this just word variation?
  • Playing no stroke: "the revised wording became an official part of the Laws. The Laws...". Minor, but it would be good to avoid having this repetition from the end of one sentence to the start of another.
  • Trends and studies: "A study in 2011 by Douglas Miller shows that In English County Cricket". Two words ("In" and "Cricket") are overcapitalized here. You could argue that "County" shouldn't be capitalized either; it isn't in a later usage.
  • Not sure if this is necessary or not, but it would be nice to have a source for reference 1. I can't imagine that a cricket writer would have a hard time sourcing something that appears to be a basic concept.
  • Note 2: Is a hyphen missing in "left hand"?
  • Note 3: There's an excess space before the period.
  • Page numbers are missing from ref 27.
  • In ref 53, The Guardian (a print publication) should be italicized.
  • In this case, it is not a print publication, it was published on the Guardian blog. In this case, I don't think italics are needed, but I could be wrong. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see publication information for the Crouch book in the bibliography.
  • OK, I'd love to make an excuse or blame someone else, but can't. Perhaps someone can explain to me why I put Crouch when the author is Ringrose? Sorted now. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also should be moved from the bottom of the article to before the notes. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, not sure we need it at all as both articles are linked within this. But moved for now. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I feel the article is good enough for GA class, I just need the PR team and others to review it. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Comments on prose only.

General comments:

  • Seven of the outbound links don't work.[4]
  • Too much POV.
  • Inconsistent capitalisation or style, FA Cup, FA cup, F.A. cup, etc.
  • Links to league tables each month all seem to be pointed at the same url which doesn't provide the information.
  • Consistent mis-use of commas, which is detrimental to the readability of the article.
  • Some instances of American English, not appropriate for a British topic.

Comments by section follow:

Lead section
  • the first sentence of the second paragraph doesn't make sense. Relative pronoun: "who embarked" instead of gerund form would help here. Parallel use of "with" in the next sentence is awkward, better to substitute for a different word.
  Removed Have taken out embarked alltogether. Govvy (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead para 3, one sentence runs to six lines. Think about where you take a breath while reading it.
  Done Have reworked this section. I hope it's better now. Govvy (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pre-season para starts with a 5-line sentence. This should be broken into three or four separate sentences.
  • Throughout the article there are inappropriate uses of commas when full stops should be used.
  • "permanently semi-injured" looks like POV to me.
  • "defense" is an American English term used in a British English article.
  • "2000–01 Season" shouldn't be capitalised.
  • "first friendly loss in five years" needs a supporting citation.
  • "put daylight between the two teams" doesn't look like the right kind of language for this article. Could you reword it?
August
  • "Tottenham began the 2009–10 season with their first home start in five years against Liverpool" is ambiguous, suggest "Tottenham began the 2009–10 season against Liverpool with their first home start in five years" and provide a citation for this.
  • "center stage" American English.
  • "tap in" should be hyphenated.
  • "to miss a number of weeks in the season" should be "of the season".
  • "confirmation was made of the signing of Croatian Niko Kranjčar from Portsmouth for a bargain £2.5 million." except the source says "about £2 million" and "bargain" is POV, change this.
  • "Walker was a free agent", had been.
  • "season long loan" should be hyphenated.
  • "young Adam Smith join Wycombe" should indicate past tense.
September
  • "Champions" needn't be capitalised
  • "Spurs strolled their way to victory with a 5–0 victory, Tottenham had the better of the game" It seems to be redundant to say Tottenham had the better of the game if you've already stated they won 5–0.
October
  • "slick football", "squirmed over the line", "with a mountain to climb" are all unsuitable, see WP:IDIOM.
November
  • "drew first blood" should be changed.
December
  • "clawed a goal back", should be changed.
  • "champions league" should be capitalised.
January
  • inconsistent use of Window/window. It's not a proper noun so it should not be capitalised.
  • "joined the club on loan from his parent club AS Monaco on a loan deal" needless repetition of "loan". Consider rewording.
  • "The only other outright leaving in January" I think you mean "departure"?
  • "The loans continues thirteen days later" should be in the past tense.
  • "relegation battling Portsmouth" should be hyphenated.
  • "Tottenham scored early with Peter Crouch scoring" repetition of "score", consider rephrasing.
February
  • "Tottenham, then, travelled" no commas here.
  • "fourth Champions League place" this is ambiguous. I think you mean fourth place in the (Premier) League, which is the fourth qualifying position for the Champions League.
March
  • "The first-half played out on level pegging", "Stoke clawed their way back into the game", these are further examples of WP:IDIOM.
  • "a fine strike from ex-Tottenham Hotspur player Bobby Zamora" POV.
  • "Spurs rung the changes" the past of "ring" is "rang".
April
  • "on the back of 5 straight league victories" use "five". Also needs a citation for "the first time this had happened since April 2007".
  • "stabbing home for close range" two things with this, firstly it's somewhat POV but also should be "from" not "for".
  • "Substitute Peter Crouch" not part of his identity, "substitute" is the correct version here.
  • "Following this was the FA cup semi-final at Wembley." unnecessary cleft sentence, better to use "The FA Cup semi-final at Wembley followed."
  • "Peter Crouch had a goal wrongly ruled out in the second half of extra time" massive POV here, the reference says that the referee adjudged that there had been a foul. Read the match report and try to put it in a non-POV manner.
  • "last minute penalty" should be hyphenated.
  • "F.A. Cup" write this consistently, FA Cup.
  • "amazing fashion", "wonder volley", "miraculous saves", not very objective terms.
  • "Nani chip" - not sure? a Nani chip? Nani's chip? A chipped shot from Nani?
May
  • "1st day of the month" first.
  • "a game which could have possibly decided the fate of the final place" could have possibly? How about "had the potential to decide…"

That's all from me. Thanks, C679 12:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theodora Cormontan edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's off to good start and meets as many of the relevant guidelines as I could find, but... I'm sure there are things I've missed and some extra looking from other wikipedians can only help imrpove it. The reward (or the penalty, I suppose, depending on your point of view) is that this topic is off the beaten track and I've had to cast a pretty wide net to find (what I hope are) suitable citations. I would like to get it to some sort of finished status by the end of the month, if possible.

Any and alll feedback welcome!

Thanks, Dictioneer (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have started to read this, and will shortly add comments. Unfortunately, at present this review is not linked to the article's talkpage, as the correct template was not used. I'm not sure whether I can fix this, but I will try and get someone to do it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First batch of comments edit

I have had no success in finding any more information on this lady from British sources. I have asked User:Tim riley, who has British Library membership, to nose around, but for the time being I am reviewing the article as it stands.

Lead
  • Lead should have maximum 4 paragraphs per MOS. You could easily combine two of the existing ones.
  • Bearing in mind that the lead is providing a concise overview or summary of the main article, there is perhaps a bit too much detail in the lead text at present. Here are some suggestions of detail that could be removed from the lead:
  • "at age 22"
  • "who had been promoted to a senior Lutheran church position"
  • "including Caroline Schytte Jensen's highly regarded Katharina Månsdotters vaggvisa fôr konung Erik XIV (after the poem by Zachris Topelius)"
  • No need to elaborate on the fire and bank failure. Thus: "as a result of a fire that destroyed the family home, and a major bank failure".
  • all while" → "while"
  • "as she and her sister moved between small towns in southern Minnesota."
  • "After the death of one brother, in 1913, her household went onto the county relief rolls. After the death of the other brother". Suggest: "In 1917, after the deaths of her two brothers, Cormontan and her sister..." etc
  • "by a Professor of Music"

Apart from these excisions there are a few more prose tweaks necessary. For example, in each new paragraph the subject should be introduced by name, not pronoun. Rearrange the phrasing so that successive paragraphs don't begin with "Cormontan". Avoid "ca." in the caption, and say "circa" or better still, "in about".

Early life
  • The last two sentences need to be cited to a source.
  • "In 1863 she moved to Copenhagen to study music." Is it possible to be a bit more specific, e.g. where did she study, under whom etc? Did she go to the Royal Danish Academy of Music or its precursor?
Music library and publishing business
  • No need to repeat "in 1865" as this information has just been given.
  • No need for parentheses around the explanatory information
  • Year ranges, e.g. 1875–1879 need to be separated by dashes, not hyphens
  • There is no justification for presenting a two-point list in bullet-point format. It needs to be redrafted in straight prose.
  • The observation that "Backer Grøndahl would go on to become one the most celebrated European pianists of the 19th century" needs to be cited to a reliable source. It is advisable to stand slightly aside from paeans of praise of this kind, in favour of something like: "Backer Grøndahl was regarded by critics such as XYZ and ABC as one of the most accomplished pianists of the 19th century".
Emigration
  • Keep section title short
  • delete "in order" (verbose)
  • "his other children, all of whom had previously emigrated" is a bit confusing. Better say: "to join those of his children who had previously emigrated." (I'm not too happy with that, either, so some thought required).
  • The ages are irrelevant, but can the sister be named?
  • There is uncited information in this section
Train accident and injury
  • Not worth a section on its own; suggest incorporate it with "Emigration"
Residences in the US
  • Again, this is not worth a section. It's mostly trivial information – I don't see any relevance in "Cormontan's older brother, C. G. V., was trained as a pharmacist and opened the Franklin Drug Store with his brother Edvard". There may be a place in the article for this residential information, but I'm not sure it is here, and further thought needs to be given.
Lawsuit
  • This is not a controversy and shouldn't be indicated as such. The information follows directly on from the earlier "Train accident" section, and should be placed there.
  • Suggest remove "vigorously", "a substantial amount of money at that time", "very substantial"
  • I'm not sure the word "verdict" is correct in this context. Why not just "awarded her $5,000"?
  • "also ordering the railroad to pay all of her legal expenses" → "The railroad was also ordered to pay her legal expenses".

That is as far as I have got at the moment. I will add comments on the remaining sections later - maybe tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, I've implemented the suggestions you've made. I'll check back here for any updates you have, or your British Library guy. Thanks, Dictioneer (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

I have made a few fixes to the earlier sections, and added some "citation needed" tags where necessary. In doing so I may have covered some of Nikki's points listed below. I think I will wait for you to deal with Nikki's points before I resume the review, otherwise things may get a little complicated for you! Please ping me again when you think you're ready for me to resume. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

You've said you're hoping to head for FAC, so expect these to be nitpicky!

  • Immediately using state abbreviations assumes US-aware reader - better to spell out, at least on first occurrence
  • Always use endashes for ranges
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Don't use alt texts that are redundant to captions - either write more descriptive alts, or omit them
  • Suggest formatting reflist in two columns
  • File:Theodora_Cormontan_library.png would probably be PD-ineligible
  • File:Ungdommens_Ven_p_106_1892.jpg: licensing tag is redlink, source should be "scanned from original" or similar, should use original rather than upload date, should mention original author (and if it isn't Cormontan, should include date of death to verify the life+70), and scanning a work does not give you copyright so your release is unnecessary
  • File:Theodora_Cormontan_Publication.png is also probably PD-ineligible/PD-text
  • "In 1886, Cormontan was forced (there was a major bank failure, and her family's residence burned to the ground) to sell her music business" - could this be rephrased to avoid the large parenthetical?
  • Possible to provide conversions for dollars to modern amounts?
  • "forcing her to give up voice recitals" - to this point we haven't mentioned that she sang
  • "19th century musical culture" - should be 19th-century
  • "specialized in the her own works"?
  • Schytte-Jensen or Schytte Jensen?
  • Is Dedekam worth a redlink?
  • "the highly regarded Katharina Månsdotters vaggvisa fôr konung Erik XIV" - suggest including a brief descriptor of this work (is it a song? a hymn? etc)
  • Don't include apostrophes in decades
  • Should link George Bernard Shaw
  • "Sweden, Denmark. Germany and Russia" - punctuation. And why not Norway?
  • If "Ungdommens Ven" is italicized in article text, it should be in caption also
  • Should hymnal title be italicized?
  • Should link Red Cross and Farmer's Institute
  • There appears to be some overlap between various sections - train accident in both Emigration and Musical career, first paragraph of Changes with several other sections, etc
  • Suggest splitting Legacy into separate section
  • Link Packard organ, county relief (does this mean Social Assistance?)
  • Are the Norwegian Lutheran Church of America and the United Norwegian Lutheran Church the same group?
  • "the Cormontan household consisted of the four siblings" - CGV, Eivinda, Theodora, who was the fourth?
  • "they lived with her her brother"?
  • "they lived with her her brother (a pharmacist), and brother-in-law (a doctor)" - confused. You mention two women, Theodora and Eivinda, both of whom are unmarried. In-law suggests a married sister, who is never mentioned. Also, what happened to the in-law?
  • Link Hans Christian Andersen
  • "2 Norwegian composers" - use "two"
  • Album titles should be italicized
  • "May, 2011" -> "May 2011"
  • The Jorgensens got the music written in America from Schmidt's granddaughter, but where'd they get the earlier material? Did Cormontan bring it with her when she emigrated?
  • Some formatting inconsistencies in references. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to above comments edit

Nikkimaria, I believe I've done all the ones that could be done, but I assume some responses to your suggestions are in order, based on what I've seen in other reviews. So, I'll take the comments above and add my responses, where appropriate.

Comments from Nikkimaria You've said you're hoping to head for FAC, so expect these to be nitpicky!

  • Immediately using state abbreviations assumes US-aware reader - better to spell out, at least on first occurrence

done

  • Always use endashes for ranges

done

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

done

  • Don't use alt texts that are redundant to captions - either write more descriptive alts, or omit them

done

  • Suggest formatting reflist in two columns

done

  • File:Theodora_Cormontan_library.png would probably be PD-ineligible

over 70 years? See below.

  • File:Ungdommens_Ven_p_106_1892.jpg: licensing tag is redlink, source should be "scanned from original" or similar, should use original rather than upload date, should mention original author (and if it isn't Cormontan, should include date of death to verify the life+70), and scanning a work does not give you copyright so your release is unnecessary

Done

  • File:Theodora_Cormontan_Publication.png is also probably PD-ineligible/PD-text

I've tried to redo most of the licensing stuff, but I'm not sure I've got it exactly right. For clarification, ALL the images used are at least 120 years old, and 3 of them are from originals in the archive in Norway. The author of the copyrighted book acknowledges these are public domain images, and asks simply that the archive be listed as the source of the original. If I need to reword the description on the wikimedia pages, just let me know what is appropriate to state for these circumstances.

  • "In 1886, Cormontan was forced (there was a major bank failure, and her family's residence burned to the ground) to sell her music business" - could this be rephrased to avoid the large parenthetical?

Combined with suggestions from Brianboulton, this is reworded as: In 1886, as a result of a major bank failure and a fire that destroyed the family home, Cormontan was forced to sell her music business and emigrate with her father and sister to the United States, where she continued her musical career.

  • Possible to provide conversions for dollars to modern amounts?

Difficult to do for any year before 1914 (that's how far back the US consumer price index goes). I previously had “substantial amount of money for the time,” but Brianboulton had suggested cutting the phrase due to the difficulty in documenting it plus its general vagueness.

  • "forcing her to give up voice recitals" - to this point we haven't mentioned that she sang

adjusted early paragraph to add that fact

  • "19th century musical culture" - should be 19th-century

done

  • "specialized in the her own works"?

reworded

  • Schytte-Jensen or Schytte Jensen?

Schytte Jensen, fixed

  • Is Dedekam worth a redlink?

I've redlinked Dedekam, but if you think Cormontan is tough to research, there's not much on Dedekam online even in Norwegian (mainly that her father was the mayor). Can an article make FA status with a redlink?

Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the highly regarded Katharina Månsdotters vaggvisa fôr konung Erik XIV" - suggest including a brief descriptor of this work (is it a song? a hymn? etc)

rephrased as: ...music set to the poem by ...

  • Don't include apostrophes in decades

done

  • Should link George Bernard Shaw

done

  • "Sweden, Denmark. Germany and Russia" - punctuation. And why not Norway?

added Norway

Check punctuation still. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Ungdommens Ven" is italicized in article text, it should be in caption also

done

  • Should hymnal title be italicized?

done

  • Should link Red Cross and Farmer's Institute

done

  • There appears to be some overlap between various sections - train accident in both Emigration and Musical career, first paragraph of Changes with several other sections, etc

Have edited, hopefully for the better.

Suggest removing sentence beginning "She ceased giving" in Emigration, and Changes still overlaps quite a bit. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest splitting Legacy into separate section

done

  • Link Packard organ, county relief (does this mean Social Assistance?)

Done for county relief. there doesn't appear to be an article for the Packard Organ company, and I doubt it's worth a redlink, unless there's an active wikigroup working on organ companies.

  • Are the Norwegian Lutheran Church of America and the United Norwegian Lutheran Church the same group?

No, the first thing Norgwegian-Americans did after setting up a church was to split off from whatever synod they had affiliated with and form their own synod, my favorite being the “Anti-Missourian Brotherhood.” :) Then they would all merge like crazy a couple decades later due to the pressures of assimilation, fading of Norwegian language, etc.

  • "the Cormontan household consisted of the four siblings" - CGV, Eivinda, Theodora, who was the fourth?

Hans. I'd had his death in earlier, but cut it at the suggestion of Brianboulton.

  • "they lived with her her brother"?

See below

  • "they lived with her her brother (a pharmacist), and brother-in-law (a doctor)" - confused. You mention two women, Theodora and Eivinda, both of whom are unmarried. In-law suggests a married sister, who is never mentioned. Also, what happened to the in-law?

Good catch! I had it messed up. The brother-in-law was also a pharmacist (in small towns often referred to as doctor) in Sacred Heart, and the sister was Maria, the youngest. Have reworded the text and included the relevant (though slightly confusing) citation.

  • Link Hans Christian Andersen

done

  • "2 Norwegian composers" - use "two"

done

  • Album titles should be italicized

done

  • "May, 2011" -> "May 2011"

done

  • The Jorgensens got the music written in America from Schmidt's granddaughter, but where'd they get the earlier material? Did Cormontan bring it with her when she emigrated?

Yes, she brought all of her hand-written compositions and copies of her published pieces. I mention that in the last sentence before the Legacy section. I can re-reference it if you think it's appropriate.

  • Some formatting inconsistencies in references. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've had another run through and tidied up the references. If you see any remaining problems, just let me know the reference #s and I'll patch them as well. Dictioneer (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton further comments: The article is looking in better shape now, but there are some outstanding concerns:

  • The information in the "Musical career in Minnesota" section is too thin to warrant a separate main section, and is partly repetitive. I think this section should be absoebed into the "Emigration to the United States" section, which could be renamed "Career in the United States".

Done

  • I notice that although early in the article you refer to Cormontan as "composing music", you don't at that stage give any indication of the type of music she composed. We have to wait until the "Dispute" and "Legacy" sections to find out the sort of music she wrote. Some description of her range of composing activities should be given in the "Music library and publishing business" section, which I believe should be renamed "Early career".

I think you must mean the section below the table-of-contents, as I mention that she is a composer of classical songs in the opening sentence. Or you may want something more specific than classical songs. I'm going with my first interpretation for now and have updated the later sections and added 'piano and voice' to the first section.

  • The chronology is still confusing. For example, having seen Cormontan into a retirement home in 1917, at the end of the United States section, we find a later section, "Changes in family fortunes, retirement", which first takes us back to 1865 and ends with second account of Cormontan's retirement. This is all very confusing for the reader. In a biographical article it is important to maintain a general chronology, and to avoid repetition of events.

The original impulse was to list the other towns she had lived in, finishing in Northern Iowa. I'm not sure it's especially important, so I've deleted that paragraph. If you think it's better, I'll simply delete the move to Iowa in 1917 and keep the small towns. I've also moved the 1890s performance paragraph up, which I think helps. The main difficulty here is that the Synod dispute overlaps her US career, 1890-1911 (the last year she copyrighted a composition), but I think the dispute needs to stand as its own section. Let me know if the changes I've made to address your concern need further work.

  • There is no justification for upsizing the sheet music images, and this is against WP image policy. You should return them to normal thumb representation.

I will be happy to fix this, however my level of familiarity with image processing is small. I think I have only one sheet-music image, and I assume you mean it's too large. I will re-upload it at a lower resolution, but I assume I need to keep it high-enough resolution that you can see the dedication to Rev. Haugan, at least if you click through. Let me know if this addresses your concern. 64.80.128.4 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There still seems to be some looseness in the citations, with uncited information still appearing at paragraph ends. My general rule is that every paragraph should contain at least one citation, and every paragraph should end with a citation. Sometimes this is just a question of careful drafting.

Have tried to improve this along with the chronology. 64.80.128.4 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC) No news from the BL. I hope these comments are helpful Brianboulton (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, I have uploaded the resized image, so I think I've incorporated all your suggested changes. When you get a chance, have a look and let me know if I've missed anything. Also, I see that I forgot to login before posting the above. Rest assured it's me! :) Dictioneer (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I had a look at your changes and now understand the policy: high-resolution file upload, use thumb tag in wikipedia articles. Thanks, Dictioneer (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ek Tha Tiger/archive1

Sair Tjerita Siti Akbari edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to try and bring this to featured article status and was wondering how well it reads and how easy it is to follow for people who aren't subject matter experts. I've incorporated every source I could find, but the entire field is terribly underresearched.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro: An interesting article, and I followed most of it pretty well. Obviously I can't speak for comprehensiveness! Anything I'm not clear on, I've listed below. There are a few prose issues, many of which are nit-picks, and I think the plot section sells it a little short. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "However, Siti Akbari has remained one of the better known syairs…": Could this just be "remains one of the…"?

Plot:

  • "Two years later, after Abdul Aidid dies, Abdul Mulan goes on an extended sea voyage, leaving his wife behind": Should this be Abdul Moelan?
  • The plot section seems a little lop-sided. There is quite a lot about Siti Akbari's journeys, but her capture of a country is dismissed in less than a sentence. Maybe this is a reflection of the work, but it reads… well, oddly.
  • I'll try and look at Koster again, but I've been hunting for a copy of this poem for about 3 months now and have yet to find it (otherwise it would be on Commons by now)
  • "When he tries to capture Siti Akbari so that Siti Bida Undara will accept him as her husband": How will doing so achieve this?
  • Removed as it would end up growing a bit too big. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unbeknownst": I never like this. Why not "unknown". Or dost thou speaketh so deliberately?
  • Done, although I verily doth enjoy the language. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "silat" is linked, but may be better explained within the text as well.
  • "Killing them, she takes their clothes and cuts her hair, passing as a man": Again, this is lumpy. "Passing" as a man suggests fooling someone; while this is true, at this point surely she was just "disguising herself as a man"? Also, I'm not sure that "Killing them" links to the disguise part of the sentence. What about reworking the two sentences: "When a group of seven men accost and attempt to rape her, she kills them. Taking their clothes and cutting her hair, she disguises herself as a man."
  • "Calling herself Bahara, after arriving in Barbam she stops a war between two pretenders by killing one and giving his head to the other": A bit much here, too, with an odd link between the phrases and a little too much going on. Maybe add the name part to the previous sentence, "disguising herself as a man called Bahara". Then begin next sentence with "after".
  • I'm not sure of the value of linking "cousin marriage" or "repudiate", but I wonder about "pretenders". The general meaning is to be a pretender to a throne. Is this the meaning in this case? If so, perhaps it should be made clear why they were pretenders, to what they were pretenders, and what they proposed to do.
  • Around this point, I get a little lost as a lot happens quickly. What kingdom does Hamid Lauda give to Bahara. Why do we switch between Siti Akbari and Bahari without any real reason?
  • "This pretender, Hamid Lauda, rewards Bahara with the kingdom and his sister Siti Abian as a wife.": This seems rather abrupt. What kingdom? "and his sister as a wife" seems rather clunky (presumably to avoid gender confusion by using he/she, but maybe rephrasing "as a wife" to "in marriage"?)
  • The lead says "after the Sultan of Hindustan takes over her nation", but this section does not explicitly state so. Also the lead says that she wants to "reestablish her royal husband's power" (should this be "her husband's royal power"?) but the plot section does not say that this is her outcome or intention.
  • Tried to clarify more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll ready Koster's synopsis again later, but I need to get some RL work done first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Style

  • "partially limited": Why "partially"? "slightly" may work better if that is the meaning.
  • "Koster notes basic structural similarities, as well as the syair serving to increase awareness of the local customs and value systems": Similarities between Siti Akbari and the poems/romances, or similarities between the romances and poems which limited him? We also have "the syair serving to" (noun verbing), and is Koster still noting this? Also, not too sure what we mean by "the syair serving to increase awareness of the local customs and value systems". What local customs? Local to where?
  • "Lie did deviate greatly from the established traditions": Why not just "Lie deviated greatly…"
  • "monorhymic quatrains": We have two linked terms next to each other, which looks like one long link.
    • Delinked Quatrains as it is the more common term of the two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with each couplet consisting of two lines": with noun verbing… Better to have a new sentence: "Each couplet consists of two lines and each line consists of …"
  • "The end of each line in a quatrain rhymes.": Another slightly uncomfortable construction: maybe "Each line ends in …" Also can we comment on the rhyme pattern? If we have rhyming couplets, we could cut this sentence completely, and just add "rhyming" to couplets in the previous sentence.
  • "Koster suggests that most of these lines are complete syntactic units": This would seem to be a matter of fact rather than interpretation. Do we need to attributed to Koster? Or maybe "notes" instead of "suggests"?
  • "Siti Akbari differs from contemporary works in that it introduced": Perhaps "in introducing"
  • "despite being royalty and holy men": Would "although" work better than "despite being"?
  • "Tio described the effects of the work as more towards speech than song.": How can an effect be towards something? This would work if we cut "the effects of", and maybe "akin" than towards.

Themes

  • "He finds this a representation of the heteroglossia": He finds this? Maybe "describes this as"
  • "As Lie would later go on to write a grammar of Batavian Malay": Maybe "As Lie later wrote"
  • "Benitez finds the poem to show": Finds again, and "finds to show" is ungrammatical.
  • "Zaini-Lajoubert sees the story as promoting": Sees as promoting is also ungrammatical.
  • "She notes that they are not all of the same opinion": After the preceding sentence, "she" is ambiguous.
  • "the trader Safi Oedin refuses to live in accordance with the local customs while he is in a foreign land": Should this be included in the plot section as well?
    • He's in the plot section already, but adding too much about the event would make the plot even more lopsided. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ultimately, however, she finds that Siti Akbari conveys that women should be faithful to their husbands.": "conveys that women should be" does not really work unless "the message" follows "conveys".

Reception and legacy

  • "It later proved to be Lie's most popular work,[23][24] seeing the most reprints out of any of his publications.": Later is unnecessary (it can't be earlier proved) and I'm not a fan of using "see" in this sense. The work did not see anything.
  • "The first, was in 1913 by Hoa Siang In Kiok, while the second reprinting was in 1922 by Kho Tjeng Bie": "and" or a semi-colon would be better than "while" here.
  • "Both were of these new printings consisted of single volume": Missing word? Or is "were" a mistake?
  • "and Tio writes that they contained numerous inaccuracies": Again, not a matter of interpretation, so do we need to attribute this? If there is any doubt, fair enough, but maybe reword as "and, according to Tio, contained numerous inaccuracies".
    • I could remove the "according to Tio", but I'm hedging as I haven't been able to get my hands on any of the original printings. It doesn't seem to have been printed again after 1922. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Dutch colonial government's efforts to use Balai Pustaka to counteract Chinese Malay literature in "low" Malay": Perhaps expand on the background to this a little?
    • He goes in more detail in his dissertation; I'll try to flesh it out (maybe a full paragraph) later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lie would go on to publish another four novels": Perhaps just "went on".

Criticism:

  • "The literary scholar Monique Zaini-Lajoubert writes that it was translated as Siti Rapiah by Roorda van Eijsinga, while the documentarian C. Hooykaas suggested that the Lie's inspiration had come from a version of Abdul Malik held in the Royal Batavian Society of Arts and Sciences Library in Batavia": Mixed tenses here with "writes" and "suggested".
  • "According Tio, Coolsma's hurried handwriting was unclear; as such, Lie copied the story for him and kept the original.": I'm not seeing the relevance of this. I think it needs spelling out.
    • Expanded a bit
  • "The writer Kwee Tek See followed with another polemic.": Followed what? About what?
  • "Later critics would criticise Lie's other works": Critics…criticise, and a redundant "would".
  • A few more dates in this section would be useful to get a sense of when this was. And presumably, even if the work was a copy, the earlier sections are not invalidated? i.e. it was still hugely important and influential, that no-one cared if it was a copy, and the earlier work was obscure. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely wasn't invalidated, as you can see by Suryadinata's quote above. However, there were some who found fault with Lie's entire oeuvre. Added a year. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've gotten the plot as best as the sources allow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes looking good. One point arising: "Benitez considers the poem to forefront...": For this to work, it needs to be "Benitez considers that the poems forefronts..." (although I've never known forefront to be used as a verb; I'd prefer "brings to the forefront" or "highlights") Sarastro1 (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Dwaipayan
  • "Adapted from a Sundanese translation of the 1846 poem Sjair Abdul Maluk by Raja Ali Haji...". You mean Raja Ali Haji wrote a poem, which was translated in Sudanese, and then Lie Kim Hok used that Sundanese translation as a base to create Sair Tjerita Siti Akbari ? If so, what is the name of the Sundanese translation?
  • "a call for a unified language". Unified language of where (geographically)?
  • Sjair Abdul Muluk or Maluk? Both spelings have been used in the lead.
  • the film adaptation was in which language?
  • Not pertinent for the lede, and I don't think it's really worth mentioning here. We have an article on the film, and they can click through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...dies while imprisoned in Barbari". Where is Barbari? Is it fictional?
  • It's a plot section. Even if the name were real (haven't found any verification, although considering some of the names were changed it is not entirely plausible), they would not be accurate representations of real places. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...who trains her in silat (traditional martial arts) and free her husband" You mean train her in free her husband?
  • "and allows the warrior to take his sister, Siti Abian, in marriage". You mean Siti Akbari, disguised s a man, gets Siti Abian as bride?
  • Barmbam versus Barbam? Both spellings are there.
  • "pandji romances" Wikilink or explain?
  • Romances about the prince Pandji. We don't have an article yet, so I've linked to his article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "representative of the cycle of oral law". What is oral law?--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Law passed from mouth to mouth, unwritten. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt
I have very few comments. The prose seemed quite effective. Similar caveats to Sarastro1.
Lede
  • "to expand upon the genre, although it maintains several of the hallmarks of the genre" I'd lose one genre or the other
Plot
  • "Siti Akbari, daughter of the sultan" which?
  • "and allows the warrior" who?
  • Changed to Bahara, in quotation marks. If Akbari were recognisable as a woman I doubt Hamid Lauda would have given her his sister. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent in capitalising "sultan".
Style
  • "were given the traits of persons one could find in the colonial capital at Batavia" Real people or character types?
  • I'll give it another read in a day or two to be sure I haven't skipped over stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review! Hope you enjoyed the read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Arsonal: I took a first reading pass at it (except the plot) to scope out the coverage, so these are some preliminary comments. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 10:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should Syair Abdul Muluk be written in the perfected spelling, or was it originally titled that way? You also use Sjair Abdul Muluk in some places.
  • Good catch, I've put them all in the old spelling system, based on this.
  • Given that the information about the adapted work is in the first paragraph of the lead, I assumed it to be an important point and expected it to be mentioned in the Background and writing section, which it was not. Perhaps the Criticism section should be merged into it or split up into the other existing sections as the analysis appears to be more than simple criticism. Based on my next observations, you might have created this section by moving around text from other sections
  • Zaini-Lajoubert, whose name first appeared in the Themes section, did not have her first name and relevant occupation mentioned until the Criticism section.
  • The criticism section used to be titled influences, which was below Themes. This was probably missed in the GA review too. Tried rearranging again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two persons with the surname Tio mentioned in this article, so the use of Tio in the last section is ambiguous.

List of songs recorded by Rachel Stevens edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to nominate it to become a Featured List in the near future. I believe that another pair of eyes would greatly benefit the lead. Thanks — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Hill edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm going to be submitting this article for FA, so please review accordingly. Thanks! Wadewitz (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: Do my eyes deceive me? Apparently not - this will be a pleasure! Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(PS: as a starter you could fix the dablink on John Long)

Fixed! :) And your eyes do not deceive you! This is a really different kind of article for me, though, so I will need lots of help! Wadewitz (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I'm delighted that you're writing articles again, and it's interesting that you've chosen a new subject area. I want to give this article a thorough review, so I'm doing it in stages. Here is the first half:

General points
  • What is the rationale for italicising the names of climbs?
    • That seems to be the convention in the literature. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe, but is it in accordance with MOS? Brianboulton (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know if the MOS has a rule about this. I looked around and didn't see anything. The climbing articles on Wikipedia are pretty undeveloped, so the MOS probably reflects that. In my opinion, this is like italicizing the title of a book - it is that ubiquitous. Wadewitz (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, no big deal, but some FAC nitpicker may raise it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the direct quotes seem a little long (e.g. "Climbing career", first paragraph)
    • I've paraphrased some of the quotes. I've left others, for a variety of reasons, mostly stemming from the fact that many of the sources are interviews and I want to make sure that readers understand that the information is direct. Many of the quotes I kept are about more charged issues, such as gender, or emotional issues, like motivations for climbing. Wadewitz (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend myself towards paraphrase whenever possible, and have a habit of putting any direct quote longer than about 30 words into a quote box, which I know some people don't like. We have different ways of doing things. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A non-neutral tone creeps in at times, suggestive of a tribute rather than a factual encyclopedia article. Maybe cut down on a few adjectives?
    • Perhaps you could suggest places where the adjectives should be cut? I was looking over the article, but the places where it might seem overdone are actually true - she was the best or first, etc. She really is a phenomenal climber. Those are the facts! :) I made a real effort to find sources that were critical of her or her climbing, but there aren't that many, honestly. Wadewitz (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was more a general impression I had after first reading the article. I didn't make a detailed list, though I remember specifically mentioning "masterful" somewhere. I also picked up "impressive", and thought "great tension" should be just "tension". But these are basically issues for you to decide; I do feel, however, that if strong descriptive terms are used, the text needs to be clear that they are from a source. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • The descriptions of Hill as "both one of the best female climbers in the world and one of the best climbers of all time" are cited in the lead; surely these citations belong in the main body of the article?
    • I cited them because in the past people have asked for citations for those claims wherever they appeared. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the convention is not to cite the same material more than once, and to cite in the main text rather than the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are generalized statements about her as a climber that seem like perfect lede material and I guess my experience has always been that people ask for citations, so I'm going to leave them for the moment. I'd rather take them out later than have to search for them again! Wadewitz (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing wrong with making the statements in the lead, but as far as citations go, the guideline in WP:WHYCITE reads: "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." I know this isn't wholly prescriptive, but it does summarise current practice, and there doesn't seem to be a convincing reason for not following it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to this day" and "currently" are inspecific points in time. Something along the lines of "As of 2013..." is necessary.
Childhod
  • I imagine that a "light pole" is what we here call a "lamp post"; perhaps the term "street light" would cover both idioms? Incidentally, I find it hard to work out what is included in the range "everything from trees to light poles".
  • "Being able to "break down complex movements into their constituent parts" and "perform strenuous and complicated routines with control" as well as "remain[ing] calm under pressure and harness her adrenaline so as to enhance her performance" gave Hill an significant edge in climbing". This rather cumbersome sentence is the second in succession to end with "in climbing"; also, I wonder if the rather clunky quotes are really necessary? The point that her gymnastic skills assisted her climbing has already been made.
Introduction to climbing
  • In the first fairly short paragraph there is rather too much repetition of "climbing/climbers/climbed"
    • Hm. yeah. The problem is that there just isn't another word and to replace "climbers" with something else less specific would alter the meaning. I'll see if I can do something, but every time I've returned to this problem it has remained. Wadewitz (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Couple of suggestions: "For Hill, this activity became an escape..." and "...their romance flourished; with him she climbed her first 5.11 and first big wall." That gets rid of two repetitions. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph (towards end): the words "For example" occur for the first of quite a few times in the article. I suggest you check out how many of these are needed; they read a little repetitively. Also, "female only" needs to be "female-only" in its adjectival form
  • "without hanging on the rope or rely on equipment to skip difficult sections" - needs "relying"
  • "his masterful promotion" - beware the weasel. Also "help ... helping" in the same sentence doesn't read well
    • "masterful" is supported by source. Changed second "help" to "encourage". Wadewitz (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that's the one. It is not clear that the description comes from the source. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hill and Long spent the winter of 1981 in Las Vegas, Nevada climbing during the day and working nights": perhaps clarify what work they did?
    • No details on what they did are available. Wadewitz (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They offered her a free flight to New York and finding she liked the Shawangunks, she decided to stay." Too telescopic; needs a bit more text. Why was she offered a free flight? What was her purpose for going to New York? How come she found a mountain range? Suggest some expansion/rewriting in this paragraph.
  • "After moving to New York, Hill also attended..." Delete "also"
Climbing career
  • I discovered from the link that 5.12 refers to the Yosemite decimal system (having just used a link to find out what "free climb" meant). I suggest a bit more explanation in the text to reduce readers' reliance on links, e.g. "She became the first person to free climb the Ophir Broke in Ophir, Colorado, the hardest route ever climbed by a woman at that time, ranked 5.12d for difficulty in the Yosemite decimal system."
    • See my comment/question at the end of the review about the jargon in the article. Wadewitz (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In fact" is journalistic rather than encyclopedic.
  • Is there any useful link for "crack climb"?
    • Ha! Someone created a stub today! How fortuitous! Wadewitz (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hill's partner at the time, John Long..." Long already identified in previous section.
  • To which of the two (Yellow Crack or Vandals) does the description "the most difficult route on the East Coast" apply?
Competitive career
  • "Hill felt an affinity for French culture and climbing immediately" → "Hill felt an immediate affinity for French culture and climbing".
  • she found it "interesting" to climb with "other strong women"... Overuse of quote marks - these are commonplace words
    • I want to leave in the "other strong women" part - it may be an overused phrase, but she used it specifically to describe her motivation, so I think it is important. Replaced "interesting" with "stimulating". Wadewitz (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sport climbing" should be linked at first mention
  • The nature of the "World Cup" competition should be explained
    • The competition changed rules every year, particularly at the beginning, so I've added some general comments. Wadewitz (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 1990, Hill set another landmark by becoming the first woman to redpoint a consensus 5.14..." Too jargonistic for the general reader, I think
    • See comment/question at the end of the review. Wadewitz (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

The Nose

  • Punc required in first sentence, preferably a comma after "circuit"
  • I'm a bit puzzled by the logic of "together with her partner Brooke Sandahl, she became the first person..." Can you be the "first person" when you do something with a partner? Wouldn't it be truer to say "she and her partner Brooke Sandahl became the first persons..."?
    • In climbing, yes you can. In fact, Brooke did not free climb the entire route - only Lynn did. Wadewitz (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a problem with long verbatim quotes, in this case of around 240 words, which could raise issues of copyright. Apart from that, long quotations of this kind tend to detract from the required neutral tone by emphasising a personal, emotional element.
    • No copyright concerns here, as the original piece is much longer. Moreover, I find paraphrasing a passage like this to be much more problematic because I find is slightly deceptive to translate the personal, emotional tone into an impersonal, non-emotional tone. That would not reflect the source. Moreover, climbing is a very personal sport and these kinds of descriptions are what fill the literature, so including them reflects what is published about this event. Wadewitz (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I have said, I take a different view about long quotes. There are other guidelines in WP:QUOTE which tend to disparage long quotes and the overuse of quotations in articles, the main argument being that over-reliance on source text damages neutrality. On the copyright issue, WP:QUOTE gives an example: "In one extreme [emphasis added] case, Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 400 quoted words from a 500-page book were ruled to be infringement". I believe this issue needs further consideration, maybe by way of a second opinion? Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chronology: before the quote, the successful climbs are recorded. After the quote we go back to a failed attempt that preceded these, before further discussion of the successful clims It would be helpful if the content was rearranged to reflect the chronology
  • "free the nose": surely as an informal expression this should be in quotes? Also, "nose" should have a capital, and per your earlier reasoning should be italicizes.
    • I've removed this formulation as it is just confusing to the lay reader. Wadewitz (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "downplayed": do you mean "underestimated"? That would make better sense in the context.
    • "underestimated" is from the source and I originally had that in quotes. GA reviewer asked for a paraphrased. I have reinstated "underestimated". :) Wadewitz (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She ran out of chalk..." I may be dumb, but why did she need chalk?
    • Using chalk when you climb gives you added friction on the rock. Wadewitz (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10PM → 10pm
  • "a fact which cements her Free Nose ascents as two of the most impressive achievements in climbing history." Such a judgement has to be specifically attributed, to counter the otherwise non-neutral tone.
    • Added a reference. Wadewitz (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It needs attribution as well as a reference: "A fact which, according to xxxx, cements her..." Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is one of my issues with Wikipedia writing. This is basically a universal opinion in the climbing world. This isn't the view of just one person, a minority of people, or even a fraction of the climbing community. To represent it as such really changes the nature of the claim. Wadewitz (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World traveller

  • It would be helpful to know how long Hill spent in Kyrgyzstan, also when she embarked on travels to the other places you list and whether these took place over a period of years. Were these further travels with the North Face team or independently?
    • I don't know any of the details about how long these trips were or when they happened. All of the sources just say she visited these places. And, yes, I think she visited them as part of the North Face team, but the sources themselves are not entirely clear. Wadewitz (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender politics

  • Every paragraph in the section begins with "Hill..."
  • What is "bouldering"? Also, the opening phrasing: "Hill repeatedly tells a story..." is somewhat magaziney. The sentence needs reworking anyway, with "and ... and ... and".
    • Linked. Revised. I think it is important that she tells this story a lot - it is clearly important to her. Wadewitz (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • First sentence, second paragraph: Too long, with "arguing..." followed by "saying...". I suggest: "...climb the same routes: 'I think...'"
  • What was Hill implying when she said "since most women aren't climbing at the same level as the top men, it's necessary to design a route that's a little easier for women"? This seems contrary to everything else she's said, and surely undermines the point of the story in the first paragraph, and also confirms the "sexist" comment in the next paragraph ("...male climbers who believed particular routes were impossible for female climbers..." etc)
    • She wanted to get more women in the sport and since women had less experience, they generally couldn't do the harder routes. It isn't necessarily contradictory, but I think it is important to show her range of views, even if they are contradictory. (And I don't think it confirms the sexist comment - it was true that fewer women could do the hardest routes at that time (for a variety of reasons), but not that it was impossible for them.) Wadewitz (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tomboy" doesn't need to be in quotes
    • I'm going to leave it in quotes because it is very specific word that she chooses to use. Wadewitz (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very long quote from Long that occupies most of the last paragraph should be reduced and paraphrased
    • I think that this quote is a great example of how she was viewed by many male climbers - they didn't see her as a great climber, necessarily. And she had to do something really phenomenal to gain their respect. She had to do more than a man would. I'm going to leave this for now. Wadewitz (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media

  • Um, from 1980 to 1984 (i.e. 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984) is five years in a row, not four
    • Hm. That's from the source, so it is probably seasons (80-81, 81-82, 82-83, 83-84). Wadewitz (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She proposed a boycott to the other female competitors and ended up negotiating a deal with the producer that the prize money would be raised the next year and she could compete again." Some untidy prose there: "ended up", two ands, and "she could compete again" - had they banned her?
    • Fixed up. I'm not quite sure how to revised the "again" to suggest she hadn't been banned - I didn't realize that implication was there. Suggestions? Wadewitz (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest a slight rearrangement: end the first paragraph at "into a man's world", and include the following two sentences with the very short paragraph, to make a slightly longer paragraph
    • The inequity in the paragraph length may be undesirable, but the paragraphs are divided by topic - TV, film, books, and sponsorships. Wadewitz (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Hill's autobiography is a listed sources, do we need the publisher details in the text?
    • That's the literary critic in me - yes we do! Wadewitz (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "standpoint" is actually one word. If it appears as two words in the source, it's a mistake and should be denoted by [sic]
  • "currently" - see earlier note.

Personal life

  • Stronger punc than comma required after "Russ Haffa" if "however" follows.
  • I nthink there's a guideline somewhere that children should not be named if they are not notable in their own right
  • I'm not sure that the last sentence is covered by "personal life"
    • I'm just not sure where to put that material about the climbing camps. Can you suggest a good place? Wadewitz (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That concludes my review. I'm sorry if it seems to be mainly nitpicking, but I'm not well enough informed on the subject material to give a meaningful content review. The article looks comprehensive, and is engaging enough; it requires some polishing, a little care with overall tone, and as mentioned, some attention to overlong direct quotations. I've not looked at the sources, but knowing you I'd be surprised if there were problems here. As I am not watching individual peer reviews, perhaps you would ping me if you have any queries with any of my comments. As I said at the beginning, this is a most welcome return to the fray. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was incredibly helpful - thank you! As usual, I appreciate your meticulousness!
  • It was a pleasure - quite like old times, when I did the Antarctic and you did Jane Austen. I won't do the strikes, as it is clear that you have dealt with my points; there is no obligation on you to agree with my preferences, and we are bound to disagree on some matters. I look forward to seeing this article at FAC - if you can bear the hassle, that is (though I am sure you will be welcomed there). Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question One concern I've had with this article since the beginning of writing it is how to make the jargon of rock climbing clear to lay readers. The terms used in this article are elementary rock climbing terms. Anyone climbing for a few months would have been exposed to them, so they are like "molecule" or "planet" or "sonnet", not words we would typically define in other articles. However, Wikipedia's climbing articles are poorly developed, so the links aren't too helpful, but I can't be responsible for ALL of the climbing articles! Also, I feel that stopping to explain basic terms (free climbing, redpoint, etc.) would really interrupt the flow of the writing. Please do let me know what you think. I'm really torn, because I want the article to be accessible, but I also don't want it to end up sounding like a vocabulary lesson. Wadewitz (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • On this issue, it is inevitable that articles on special subjects will incorporate to an extent the special languaage (or "jargon") of the subject. You are right in saying you can't keep stopping to explain terms to the uninititated; where appropriate you use links (often imperfect), a modicum of explanation when links aren't available, and you rely on your reader's intelligence to pick up meanings from context. As it stands, this article is pretty accessible. I, who know nothing about climbing or its vocabulary, found only two or three instances where I think further elucidation would be useful, so I don't think this is a major issue here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few very minor comment.

  • The infobox says "Highest grade" of 5.14a. Should clarify that's a redpoint, and maybe add highest onsight as well.
    • It is not clear to me how the infobox works. The redpoint info is in the "known for" section. Please edit the box to be more precise. I'm not sure how the infobox for climbers works - I looked around and they seem very inconsistent. Wadewitz (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Inconsistency describes all climbing articles. But since this is the best climbing bio, I'm sure in future people will look to it for guidance. I tweaked the template a bit. See what you think. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For instance, she had resisted hang-dogging regarding it, like many climbers, as cheating, but after experimenting with it during her ascent of Vandals, she found it a useful way to learn challenging climbs." 5 commas in one sentence may be proper grammar, I don't know, but it read choppy.
  • "There was even a "Great Debate" in 1986 at the American Alpine Club at which a panel of all-star participants (of which Hill was one) were invited to discuss the merits of the two different styles, especially rappel-bolted climbing." Possible to rearrange sentence to avoid parenthetical comment (which should be avoided).
  • Moab should probably be expanded to at least Moab, Utah. Unsure if country is needed.

Great job. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wadewitz (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford City Glass Company edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review for two reasons. First, I would like to eventually submit it for Good Article or Featured Article. Second, it may need to be split into two articles. The Hartford City Glass Company existed from 1890 until the Fall of 1899, when it was purchased by a glass trust. The plant continued to operate until 1929 as plant number 3 of the glass trust. Currently, the article covers 1890 through 1929. I could split it into Hartford City Glass Company (covering 1890-1899), and American Window Glass plant number 3 (covering 1899-1929)—but it would seem odd for a Wikipedia article to be about one factory in a glass trust that owned 50 to 80 companies/factories. Factory number 3 was the USA's largest window glass plant west of Pennsylvania, and the third largest in the country.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Doing... — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 21:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article. It looks like I still have a lot of work to do. A couple of general questions about the changes made by the bot. First, I thought the "pages" in the cite book template used in Cited Works was for the total number of pages in the book, not a specific page in the book. The reference section specifies the specific page (or pages) in the Cited Works. Should I delete the "pages"/"page" in Cited Works entirely, is it OK as is now, or should it be pages? Second, I believe a reviewer once made me remove web access dates for books, even if I linked to them using Google Books. Is it best to use access dates for every link to the web? Also, the footnotes under References may refer to more than one page in the book, but the web link in the Cited Works section can only link to one of the pages. Is that OK?
No problem, others have done the same for me. Hope I wasn't too critical. I'm kind of a nut case when it comes to passive voice. It makes it so much harder to understand something in my opinion.
I was surprised by the bot changes to the "pages" parameter as well. I believe that parameter refers to the single page in the document that contains the information used for the citation. Check the template documentation itself for confirmation on usage. I'd keep the page= parameter.
I've never heard of the practice of not using accessdate= for book references. I don't know why that would be, and I don't recall seeing that in the WP Manual of Style. If you're ever unsure about the validity of anyone's comments—including mine!—please refer to the MOS.
Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) so it's easier to track. You also might consider placing a check mark  Y adjacent to items as you complete them, or  N if you choose to ignore that input. It'll help you track what you've done.
BTW, I don't think there's enough info to justify two articles at this time. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will address all of your comments, and I appreciate them! I work full time, have a 80 minute commute each way, and it is tournament time—so it may take while, but it will be done. TwoScars (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Generally a well-written article except given your obvious expertise, you've failed to explain some basic information and provide enough context for the non-initiated. It includes a nice selection of illustrations.

  • The initial heading "Indiana Gas Boom" doesn't immediately give the context of the energy boom to the article topic. How about choosing a more relevant heading text, like "Cheap energy draws manufacturers" or "Manufacturers drawn to Indiana". Even better, start by describing the notability of the plant in its size and the large French-speaking Belgian population it attracted, and then make the connection to the ready presence of natural gas in the region.
 YChanged header to Manufacturers drawn to Indiana. Edited text in Hartford City subsection, and mentioned its population growth. TwoScars (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images vary in size and dimension, negatively affecting the visual look of the article. How about placing some of the odd-sized images like the stained-glass windows on the left side? And resizing the stained-glass image and the Hartford City Glass Co drawing so they are scaled the same?
I will work on that last, after changes are made to the text. One of the challenges are the different types of screens. My widescreen laptop and my square-screened PC space the images differently. Sometimes what looks good on one screen looks terrible on the other.
The default size of images are affected by your Special:Preferences (user > preferences > appearance tab) for "Image size limit" and "Thumbnail size".— btphelps (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 YMade the larger images smaller, and added two more images. TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better and more headings
  • Add more sub-heads to make the content more accessible to readers.
 YSix sub-headings added. TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Break up the existing sections with 2 or more descriptive subheads.
 YDone for two sections. TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make the existing headings more descriptive.
 YChanged "Plant number 3" to "American Window Glass", and changed changed "Gas Boom" to "Manufacturers drawn to Indiana".
  • "Plant number 3" is really about the Lubbers blowing machine and the company's competitive position and it's profits. The heading isn't descriptive of the content. I prefer verbs in my headings, though some editors I've interacted with feel verbs aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. I believe in this instance common sense dictates giving the reader info they need to make sense of the content.
 YChanged "Plant number 3" to "American Window Glass", and added two sub-sections including one named Lubbers machine. Also added image of one of Lubbers' patents. TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reorganize the info about Heagany's background in chronological sequence leading to the founding of the company.
 Y Done. TwoScars (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With a capacity of 30 pots..." What's a "pot" and what's a "tank"? The concept of a pot is central to the plant's capacity in either pots or tanks, but you explain a central concept only partially in Note 5.
 YAdded "Each pot, located inside the furnace, contained the batch of ingredients to be melted into molten glass. The glass blower and his crew would have a workstation adjacent to a pot." to main text. Notes 4 and 5 discuss pots and tanks. TwoScars (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eliminate duplicate content: "Summer shutdowns at glass factories were normal because the extreme heat caused by glassmaking, combined with warm summer temperatures, could make working conditions almost unbearable. Since the worst working conditions were in the summer months, shutdowns for maintenance (or for manipulation of inventories) generally occurred during the hottest days of the summer."
 YFixed. TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use the {{inflation}} template to show a current-day value for the payroll figure of "$45,000 per month." This will give readers more context as to the value of the payroll, as in "or $1,526,000 in today's dollars"
 Y Done for payroll and both expansions. TwoScars (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid passive tense, as in this instance: "The summer shutdown for 1895 was during July and August." Instead, try, "Management shut the plant down during July and August 1985 for its summer break."
 YFixed this instance. TwoScars (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use the {{convert}} template to convert units of measure for non-U.S. readers, for example, "2 million square feet", "covered 25 acres", and "85 feet long, 18 feet wide, and 6 feet deep".
 YDone. TwoScars (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid weak verbs, as in "The first step of the process involved the creation of ..." Instead, try "In the first step, the glass-blower created..."
  • Clarify: "over one third of the city's population was dependent upon Hartford City Glass..." Dependent on it for what? Glass?
 YInserted the word "financially" in front of the word dependent. TwoScars (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Population: You mention this three times in one context or another, but the reader never learns how big Hartford City is. "Assuming each worker had a family of 5, over one third of the city's population..." Is this 200 or 2000 people? Give some context. What was Hartford's population at the time?
 Y Hartford City's population now discussed in Hartford City subsection. TwoScars (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid wordiness:
  • "Since the religion of choice for most Belgians was Catholicism, it is no coincidence that the city's Catholic church remained on the south side." Try, "Most Belgians were Catholic and they built the city's largest Catholic church near their homes on the city's south side."
 Y Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The company also had a technological advantage. American Window Glass plants used a machine, known as the Lubbers blowing machine, although it was not immediately utilized at all plants." Try, "Some American Window Glass plants had a technological advantage over their competition. They used the Lubbers blowing machine ... [add the advantage the machine offered here]."
 Y Added a section on the Lubbers machine. Also added an image of one of Lubbers' patents, with link to Google patents. TwoScars (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid using commas before "and" unless there are two or more clauses, as in this instance: "...was a native of France, and was..."
  • Provide a bit more context to concepts like "One tank required 4 flattening ovens and a cutting room". You give the dimension of a tank, but not of the related elements. Does this mean the plant needed a lot more space -- are these ovens and flattening rooms big? Do they impact employment or energy use?
  • "... ownership was not satisfied with the concessions requested of the city"... this is awkwardly phrased. Concessions requested by management, or concessions requested by the city? Are you referring to contractual requirements or things one party was asking of the other?
 YReworded text. Many companies in the area were "enticed" to move by cash, free land, and free natural gas. Unfortunately, some companies would ask for more "freebies" later on.
  • "During the first half of 1899, work proceeded to organize a glass trust ..." Work at this plant? By whom? Your use of passive tense here is confusing. "The plan was for the trust..." Whose plan? What was the advantage that would encourage this plant's owners to join the trust?
 YReworded all three paragraphs in the Acquisition section.
  • You devote a whole paragraph to an unfulfilled rumor: "During the spring of 1900, rumors circulated..." Why? If it's so important, tell why.
  • You repeat this fact three times: "...third-largest window glass plant in the United States".
Will try to reword that. The top three plants upgraded a lot, sometimes the Hartford City plant was 1 or 2—but usually 3.
Then say that, for example, "The plant was for the next 30 years either the first, second or third-largest window glass plant in the U.S." — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You repeat this fact twice: "natural gas as a fuel source..."
 Y Fixed. Natural gas is very important. It is the only reason the glass factories in the region existed. However, it is now mentioned as a fuel source only once for the Hartford City Glass plant (Infrastructure section) and once for the Kokomo plant (Organization and management section). The word fuel is mentioned 3 times: in Manufacturers drawn to Indiana, in Organization and management (Kokomo plant discussion), and in Infrastructure (HC plant). TwoScars (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give readers the opportunity to read about related info. Use more internal wikilinks to subjects like:
  • Give more context to your notes. They assume the reader knows the subject, as in:
  • "Dale lists 7 glass factories ..." Who's Dale? You might say, "In the 1902 Hartford city directory, George Dale..."
 Y Fixed—A 1902 Hartford City directory lists.... TwoScars (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paquette discusses ..." Who's Paquette? Your Note 2 doesn't explain why the info is relevant or useful.
 Y Addressed—For more detail on 1880s glassmaking, see Appendix A in Jack Paquette's Blowpipes book. Paquette, a former Vice President of Owens–Illinois Glass Company, has written at least 3 books on the glass industry. TwoScars (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 33, 34, and 54 contain parenthetical notes, e.g., "(column on far left)". This direction isn't helpful since there's no link to the reference. I'd leave it out.
Will comment these out. I thought it would help anyone that wanted to find the newspaper article. In the 1890s, some of the small town newspapers would print a little "blurb" without any heading. TwoScars (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 YCommented those out instead of removing—in case a reviewer has trouble finding the newspaper article. TwoScars (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mix Notes and References in a confusing manner. References 17, 18, 21, 47, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 63, and 69 all contain text that could be a note. I'm not sure about the purpose of the extended excerpts. Are they to add credibility or context to the references without links? If so, there's no consistency, because many other un-linked references aren't accompanied by extended excerpts.
Will comment the quotes out and integrate into text where helpful. TwoScars (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 YQuotes commented out (it helps me and reviewers to keep as comments). Added to text if useful. TwoScars (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In summary:

  • In an encyclopedia article using "formal writing, active voice is preferred." The article would benefit overall by using active voice throughout.
  • Avoid writing as if the reader understands the topic.
  • If Notes or excerpts in references add to the readers' context, integrate the content into the article body. Don't make the reader hunt for pertinent info or try to figure out how it relates to the topic. Make the connections between pieces of relevant information seamless and easy to find.
  • Omit needless words.

— btphelps (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Porto in international club football edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because even though I think I have brought it to a good standard, I beleive there is always something that can be improved or errors that can be fixed and which my biased eyes can no longer detect.

Unlike similar articles, such as Liverpool F.C. in European football, I decided to name this article with a broader but more integrative title, since – unlike Liverpool – Porto have actually won titles of a more worldwide nature, thus not restricted to the European space and football. I raised this naming question at the WikiProject Football forum but no decision was reached, so I decided to make the move. I appreciate if reviewers can also discuss on this.

Thanks, Parutakupiu (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'll do a quick pass in sections, and then a final run through hopefully!

  • 3 dab links, Fernando Gomes, poker and ... (can't see the third....!)
    • Fernando Gomes was linked twice, that's why it picked three. Fixed one, unlinked the second, and reworded the third.
  • " two times" -> twice and "one time" -> "once".
    • Changed
  • " the 1956–57 season" which season? Is this the Portuguese season? Maybe link appropriately.
    • Changed to "in 1956".
  • You mention many but link only one cup in the lead.
    • Linked cup years.
  • "The tournament's expansion..." potentially confusing as the last "tournament" you mentioned was the Portuguese league.
    • Clarified.
  • "bowed out " colloquial, not encyclopedic language.
    • Reworded.
  • "pitted them against" similarly.
    • Reworded.
  • "qualified to the" -> "qualified for the". Check this throughout.
    • Fixed every instance.
  • "returned to the Fairs Cup" is used in the final sentence of two consecutive paragraphs, a bit repetitive.
    • Rephrased both instances.
  • "they were unable to go past the second round" get past.
    • Fixed.
  • "and the only time Porto eliminated the Spanish" ->"and the only time Porto has eliminated the Spanish"
    • Added "have" instead as it appears to be more common to use the plural form.
  • "(pictured)." should be in italics.
    • Italicized.
  • "was not fortunate" not encyclopedic.
    • Changed the wording.
  • "The 1983 Portuguese Cup final was lost to " -> "Porto lost the 1983..."
    • Reverted the subject.
  • "steered by" -> "managed by".
    • Changed.
  • " international growth and affirmation of Porto" I don't really know what this means.
    • Changed to "growth of the club's international curriculum". Is it ok, this way?
  • "Welsh cup runners-up" surely a link for the Welsh Cup exists (and I expect it's a capital C for cup there?).
    • You're right. Fixed.
  • Is "surprisingly" a quote? If so it should be in quotes, if not, it's a little unencylopedic.
    • Removed POV element.
  • Skipping on a bit, you'll need to link everything that can be linked in sortable tables (as you don't know which is going to be first when it's resorted).
    • Done.
  • Also, check your references - accessdates should be in a consistent format, publication dates should be in a consistent format.
    • Will work on that.
  • What makes "http://www.footballzz.co.uk" a reliable source?
    • Well, I don't think I can find a compeling argument... I'll see if I can replace with better sources. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I suspected, I cannot find a reliable online source with those data. There was another one, europeancuphistory.com, but I think it's not more reliable that footballzz.com and in fact the domain is currently in a "black list", so it couldn't be used anyway. I guess I'll be removing the table soon. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments II

  • "Juary scored all goals" -> perhaps "scored all Porto's goals" or "scored a hat-trick" (suitably linked).
    • Rephrased.
  • For some of the more obscure clubs, like Rabat Ajax, perhaps add some context like "Maltese club Rabat Ajax"?
    • Added reference to country of origin.
  • " the lead on the 25th minute" this should be "in" the whatever minute. Check throughout.
    • All checked and fixed.
  • " and to his place came" -> "and was replaced by".
  • " Porto got the opportunity to dispute the 1987 European " -> "Porto contested the 1987..."
  • " under a snowstorm" -> "in a snowstorm"
    • Changed the above three points.
  • "which nearly cancelled the match[50] –," move the ref per MOS:REF.
    • Rephrased to eliminate the dashes.
  • "roll inside" -> "roll into the goal".
    • Changed.
  • "Porto had a bump-free start, beating comfortably" tabloid writing I'm afraid.
    • I agree. Changed to a more neutral and encyclopedic style.
  • " an important one-goal draw in Munich, Porto were beaten at home by 2–0" -> "a 1–1 draw in Munich, Porto were beaten at home 2–0."
    • Changed.
  • "the late 90s, " -> "the late 1990s, "
    • Done.
  • I would expand PSV for their whole name.
    • Added full name.
  • Link Werder Bremen. And by Milan, do you mean AC Milan?
    • Added link to Werder Bremen. "Milan" is the short form of AC Milan; the other Milano team is better known as "Inter" or "Internazionale".
  • "but as Porto's 88th minute equaliser appeared to take the decision into extra-time, the Germans scored the winner one minute later" -> "but despite Porto's 88th minute equaliser, the Germans qualified after scoring the winning goal a minute later." (or something like that.)
    • Replaced word by word.
  • "they were stopped in the" not "stopped" but perhaps "defeated" or "beaten".
    • Changed.
  • "Porto hired a young Portuguese manager who had led an unfancied Leiria to an all-time league high fifth place – José Mourinho." again, reads like a newspaper, perhaps "Porto hired XX-year-old Portuguese manager Jose Mourinho who had led Leiria to their best ever league finish...."?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments III

  • "secure a third place" no need for "a".
  • "and a spot in the" -> "and qualification for the".
  • " cruised past " not really encyclopedic.
  • "a non-compromising away loss" not sure this odd phrase is even needed, perhaps suffering only a single defeat.... or similar?
  • "Porto saw themselves" would prefer "Porto went behind" or something more "active" than just "seeing themselves...", do you get what I'm trying to say?!
  • "Their opponents would be Celtic" why not just "were Celtic"?
  • "a scorching Andalusian heat" a little journalistic. Perhaps you could find a source for the actual temperature?
  • "he scored the 2–2," this doesn't make sense, and we don't know who "he" is here.
  • "fired past Celtic's keeper and two others defenders to net the winner" bit newspaper again.
  • "to conclude a treble-winning season." this sentence appears to be unreferenced.
  • " qualified to the" for the.
  • " Scholes put" Paul Scholes.
  • "eliminating convincingly the" -> "convincingly eliminating"
  • "On the other side was" -> The other finalists were... (also, be careful, you flick between singular and plural when referring to clubs, need to be consistent).
  • I'm not convinced that a 3-0 defeat could be considered "crushing".
  • " to kill any French hopes" journalistic.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Changed every instance of non-encyclopedic writing style, and added the required references. Once again, thanks for the thorough review! Parutakupiu (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments IV

  • "Post-Mourinho hangover" not keen, again a bit like a newspaper.
How about if I switch "hangover" with "transition"? Can't think of anything better... Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " players to bigger European" not sure how you quantify (or cite) "bigger" here?
Changed to "players to clubs from prominent European leagues". Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To succeed Mourinho, Porto signed Luigi Delneri but the Italian was sacked before overseeing an official match" is this referenced?
Reference added. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " lost their second UEFA Super Cup" no need to link "lost their second" here.
Rephrased that part. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Duff" -> "Damien Duff" - when referring to these English players (and probably most European players) the first time, use their full names.
Corrected. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The defending champions ended nonetheless their campaign in the..." perhaps something like "Nevertheless the defending champions were knocked out in the ...."
Changed as suggested. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "secured qualification to the 2005–06 UEFA Champions League group stage" if their league form was weak, how did the secure this qualification?
That season the Portuguese league had the possibility of qualifying directly their top two teams to the group stage, and the third to the qualifying round. Do you think it's important to add this explanation for this specific season? Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the club snatched " don't like "snatched", sounds tabloidy.
Replaced with "signed". Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bendtner -> Niklas Bendtner.... (see above).
Corrected. Will check other instances. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Betting in a young and inexperienced coach payed dividends" If you really want this, it should be "Betting on a young and inexperienced coach paid dividends..." but that reads journalistic to me, you need to state the facts, they didn't "bet" on him, you may be able to "quote" this though if you have a suitable source?
Yeah, I don't have, so I'll change to a more encyclopedic style. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Porto's performance was more contrived" odd thing to say, or at least, odd for me to read it in this context. Do you mean more "contained"? "less effusive"? I'm not sure what you're saying.
That's what I meant, "contained"... as in "less spectacular". Thanks for reminding me of the word. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a lonely goal" -> "a single goal".
  • "ended his link with Porto" ->" left Porto..."
  • "who agreed to become the new head coach" -> new Porto head coach.
Changed the three above. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The team disappointed " disappointed who? Or do you mean they just got knocked out early? Perhaps write more encyclopedic here and stick to the facts.
Wow, I really exagerated with the journalistic tone, didn't I? Changed. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Goals in favour" normally just referred to as "Goals for".
Changed. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't have a GD column in every table?
No. Only the "by country" table had that in the source (which you've challenged, by the way). But I can add to the others. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GD columns have been added. Parutakupiu (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GD column in the table you do have it in doesn't sort correctly.
Yes, I didn't fix it because I'll probably have to remove it since the reliability of its sole source has been challenged by you and I couldn't find an alternative. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it is sorting well now, after a few dashes were replaced by minus signs. Parutakupiu (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why shouldn't the "Round" column sort?
Should the last round reached by a team be a sortable item? How to sort them: alphabetically or by progression level? It gets tricky with older tournaments, with rounds that were in time replaced or supplemented by others... Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "finals" section, you have "Super Cup (1st leg)" but no second leg?
It is there, but only after the 1987 IC. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check references meet WP:DASH, i.e. don't use hyphens in date ranges or score lines etc.
Will do so. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphens are now replaced by en-dashes where appropriate. Parutakupiu (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julianne Moore edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've given this article a complete overhaul, and it would be great if someone could read through it and provide feedback. I suppose my goal for the article is FAC, so if the review could be made with those high criteria in mind, that would be ideal. I've tried to make it an interesting read, not just IMDb in prose form, and hope you'll enjoy. Thanks! --Lobo (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Cassianto

I think the article is in fantastic shape and is certainly not far off FA worthy. My comments below are extra-critical, and may seem obvious, but I have tried to assume absolute ignorance on modern day Hollywood, so we garner the best out of the article's current form. Please treat the below as minor observations only and feel free to discuss any you may not agree on.

Lead Section

  • From 1985 to 1988, she was a regular on the soap opera As the World Turns... Would one not appear in a soap opera as opposed to on a soap opera?

Early life

  • "The family lived in multiple locations, including Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Panama, Nebraska, Alaska, New York, and Virginia..." -- links to all except New York for those who are not sure of their geographical location from one another. By doing this, it would help to illustrate just how far the Moores travelled during Julianne's early life.
    • Done, but I've also linked NY for consistency. I think it would look a bit weird if it was the only one without a link. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't see it from that point of view. Agreed, but beware, others may consider New York to be overlinking somewhat. -- CassiantoTalk 22:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moving regularly made her an insecure child..." -- Redundant use of "regularly". If not, did some moves make her insecure and others didn't? Also, if we decide to keep this, we might need some punctuation so as to establish if it was "Moving regularly that made her insecure" or "Moving made her regularly insecure."
    • It's meant to have the former meaning (and agreed that it would be horrible English if it was the latter!) Tweaked to "The frequent relocating made her an insecure child...", how's that? --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early roles

  • "The intensive work provided an important learning experience for the actress, who looks back on the job fondly." -- Not sure about this. Do we need to be reminded that she is an actress?
    • This was a result of me trying to avoid having "Moore" used so much, heh, but changed. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who looks back on the job fondly"; for some reason I am expecting a quote after this.
    • The source summarises the fact the she looks back fondly without a direct quote, but I added what she says about gaining confidence. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The year 1990 also saw Moore's cinematic debut," --Suggest-- "The same year, Moore made her cinematic debut"
    • Done (although, is it definitely clear enough, seeing at it is just mentioned that "the group spent four years..."? That's why I initially wrote it as I did, to take the reader back to 1990). --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see, to be honest I missed that hence my comment. I think the briefness of "the group spent four years", still leaves the reader thinking of 1990 (or at least it did me). Others, may think different (or if you prefer you could change it back, I won't object). -- CassiantoTalk 22:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her next film role did not come until 1992, but increased her visibility" -- Does visibility mean popularity? Would visibility be the right word to use?
    • I don't think it would be accurate to say it increased her popularity. I'm trying to say that far more people saw her work and became aware of her. I can see how "visibility" is a strange word choice though, can you think of anything that would work better? --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I think visibility is the wrong word. How about..."Her next film role did not come until 1992, but with it came an increase in audience recognition"? or "Her next film role did not come until 1992, but increased her recognition among audiences" ? or "Her next film role did not come until 1992, but brought her to wider attention among her audiences"?
        • I've gone with "but introduced her to a wide audience." --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rise to prominence

  • "Her following film, Nine Months (1995), was crucial in establishing her as a leading lady in Hollywood." -- I would use actress rather than lady. Leading lady would work when describing her relationship with a particular actor or director.
    • I think it is used pretty standardly to mean "an actress who plays leading roles". The problem with writing "leading actress" is that it could suggest she was one of the main, most popular Hollywood actresses, which wouldn't be accurate at this point. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The romantic comedy, directed by Chris Columbus and co-starring Hugh Grant, was poorly reviewed but a box office success. It remains one of her highest grossing films." -- I'm not a fan of short stubby sentences. Could we combine the two?--suggest--"The romantic comedy, directed by Chris Columbus and co-starring Hugh Grant, was poorly reviewed but a box office success and remains one of her highest grossing films".
  • "...the sequel to his 1993 blockbuster Jurassic Park." -- Do we need to be reminded of this?
    • I feel like we should always write as if the reader knows absolutely nothing about the subject, so I think this is appropriate. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes you're right to say this, however the sequel has "Jurassic Park" within the title. I don't think any confusion would come of this (I would bet my mortgage on most hearing of Jurrassic Park). Leave for now, lets see what others think. -- CassiantoTalk 22:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
International recognition
  • "In between these two releases, Moore was also seen in A Map of the World, supporting Sigourney Weaver." -- End of paragraphs should finish with a cite.
    • Will do this tomorrow. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've ref'd this to IMDb. I know it is blacklisted on here, but I genuinely think its the best source in the world for filmographies! I will always argue that it is a great source to use for certain information. --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you that its filmography is excellent, however I'm sure you know that it is user generated and thus will be deemed unreliable for the bods at FAC. May I suggest this or this as more reliable alternatives. -- CassiantoTalk 00:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tried to find her filmography on the BFI site before but couldn't find it! Thanks, I've used that for the Map of the World sentence. I'm not sure what to do about the last sentence of para 1, early roles, because BFI and NYT both give different years for the three TV films than IMDb does. I personally think IMDb is more likely to be accurate. I guess I'll just leave it ref'd to IMDb for now, and argue for its inclusion at FAC, but if they really want it changed then I can just alter the ref and dates at that point. --Lobo (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cool. I did look on BFI and AFI but nothing!
  • "Hannibal was another blockbuster release for Moore..." -- as far as I can see, this is not the first mention of "blockbuster" and so should not be linked. However, this would depend on how we resolve the next door but one up comment in this review as "blockbuster" is mentioned there for the first time.
    • Good catch, linked it at first mention instead. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


2003–2009

  • The first image may need staggering to the other side, but I have never really understood this rule, so I won't insist on it.
    • Since she is "facing" to the right, I think the image needs to be on the left. I could move it down a paragraph? --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I think this would then interfere with the next image. Like I say, I don't see the issue with this rule so I won't lose sleep over it. I had to mention it to be MOS compliant. -- CassiantoTalk 22:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The year following Moore's success in Far From Heaven and The Hours did not see any new releases from the actress. She returned to cinema screens in 2004." -- Two things; firstly, I had an unnecessary pause when I had to scroll back up to remind myself when the two films you mention were made. I think mentioning the year wouldn't hurt here. Secondly, I feel the two sentances could be combined. --suggest-- "Moore did not see any new releases in 2003, instead returning the following year in **film**".
    • Forgot to mark this as done yesterday. --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Laws of Attraction pitted her opposite Pierce Brosnan in a courtroom-based romantic comedy, which was also panned by critics." -- presuming of course that Marie and Bruce was also panned by critics. Or; "There was no success in her first two ventures of the year: The first, Marie and Bruce, a dark comedy co-starring Matthew Broderick, failed to find an audience; this was followed by Laws of Attraction, which pitted her opposite Pierce Brosnan in a courtroom-based romantic comedy, but was also panned by critics."
    • From what I gather, Marie and Bruce didn't even get a proper release, but I can't find a reliable source that says this outright. But because it wasn't released, critics didn't even get a chance to slate it. So I can't write that Laws "also" received bad reviews. Anyway, I've had a go at reworking this bit. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, ok. Yes I suspected this was the case. -- CassiantoTalk 22:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ben Brantley of The New York Times was unenthusiastic about the production, and described Moore as miscast." -- Did Brantley actually say she was miscast? If so, suggest a quote?
    • Yes, he says it directly. He goes into a fairly elaborate explanation for why, I don't think there is a succinct quote that would be appropriate...As a reader though, did you feel like you needed an explanation for why? I could add a summary. But then, his view on Moore is actually given in the "Roles and reception" section, so we may get repetition... --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, thanks. I think giving a similar summary here would be repetitive (or the latter summary would be repetitive) depends how you look at it. If the explanation is that elaborate, then maybe we could afford a very brief extension on why he though she was miscast, without actually repeating what is stated in the later section. -- CassiantoTalk 00:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added something to this, but I don't feel like it's great. Could you take a look? If you think you could improve it, please do. --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moore later confessed that she found Broadway performing difficult ..." -- --suggest-- "Moore later confessed that she found performing on Broadway difficult ..."

2010s

  • "Moore also returned to As the World Turns, making a cameo appearance as Frannie Hughes when the show was cancelled in 2010." -- This reads like she accepted and played the role when she knew of the shows cancellation. I suspect its not so suggest..."Moore also returned to As the World Turns, making a cameo appearance as Frannie Hughes, but the show was cancelled shortly after in 2010."
    • Actually, that is exactly what happened. She decided to return to the show when it was cancelled as a tribute. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...eventually garnering an Oscar nomination for Best Picture." -- when?
    • I'm worried that adding .."at the following year's Academy Awards", or something, would sound redundant? --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you are right. I read it again and it would be redundant. -- CassiantoTalk 00:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moore received her sixth Golden Globe Award nomination and a second BAFTA nomination for Best Actress." -- For The Kids Are Alright presumably?
  • "For the first time in her career, Moore received a Golden Globe, a Primetime Emmy, and a SAG Award." -- Do you mean this was the first time she received all three at once or individually? May need clarifying slightly.
    • Yeah it was the first time she received any of these awards. I'm aware that it is a bit ambiguous but can't think of a solution - any ideas? --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have deliberated for over half an hour on this, but can see no alternative. -- CassiantoTalk 00:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ha, well thanks for trying! --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moore has five upcoming projects; The English Teacher, which she stars in with Greg Kinnear, is set for a spring 2013 release. The fantasy-adventure film The Seventh Son is also set for an October release " -- I wouldn't predict this just yet. This could be liable to change as is so often the case.
    • Hmm, even if it is sourced and made clear that it isn't definite? (The English Teacher actually does have a definite date now, fixed that). I will make sure they're all kept up to date. I think it's interesting for readers to know her upcoming projects, and think it would be a shame to remove them (and I'm pretty sure users would constantly come along and add them anyway!) --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I foresee no problems with it if you keep up to date with these. I agree it is important for upcoming projects to be listed, its just the vague dates I have a problem with e.g; April 2013, October 2013...etc. Saying 2013 is ok, but narrowing it down further to the month without a reliable source, would be borderline crystal. -- CassiantoTalk 00:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sources used are reliable, (Empire (magazine) actually uses The Hollywood Reporter for its film news) so I feel like it's okay to give these currently projected release dates. --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and roles

  • "She appears in both low-budget independent films and large-scale Hollywood productions,[29] which Moore enjoys for the variety." --suggest-- She enjoys the variety of appearing in both low-budget independent films and large-scale Hollywood productions.

Writing *Do we have any critical comments of Freckleface Strawberry the Musical, or how well it did on stage and at the box-office?

    • I'll look into this tomorrow. --Lobo (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay I added a review, and found some other useful info as well. --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

  • "She is a pro-choice activist, and sits on the board of advocates for Planned Parenthood."[22][12] -- Watch for the ref order.

Selected filmography

  • I'm not a great fan of bulleted lists, especially when we have already discussed the majority of them in the narrative, so I see this section as a bit redundant. See current FA's, picked at random and of a similar vein, that do not use bulleted lists: Maggie Gyllenhaal; Kirsten Dunst; Angelina Jolie; Reese Witherspoon; Diane Keaton; Judy Garland etc...
    • See, I actually really like this method. Her full filmography table is huge, and many of the roles were small/forgotten, so I'd prefer not to have the whole thing. But I think it would be a shame to leave it completely blank. The reality is that many readers won't bother with the main text, and I think one of the main things people go to actor pages for is to be told their most notable roles. This quickly points people to her main films. To be honest, I'd like to see all actor pages have this system! I really think it's useful. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't be convinced on this one I'm afraid. I understand that this is a personal preference (wouldn't it be a boring place if we all agreed on the same things). In terms of keeping it or removing it, my advice would be to leave it for now and see what future reviewers think at FAC. Also, the section also appears to be completely unreferenced, a sure thing to be mentioned at GAC and more so at FAC. The films wont need to be referenced singularly unless you want to (I would), so one ref for all should suffice. If you want to use one reference for all, you would need to format it like this with a note out of the table at the bottom. -- CassiantoTalk 00:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There currently is a note at the bottom, explaining the basis for the selection with two references. I think the only alternative to removing the list (since the full filmography is so big) would be a blank section, and I can't really see how that is preferable. On music articles, it's pretty standard to have a discography section that links to a main discography article and then lists the artist's albums with simple bullet points. This is kind of like the "actor" version of that, in my eyes. --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cool, I made an adjustment or two to this. As a possible alternative to the uglyness of a bulleted list, could I tempt you with this?. If this doesn't appeal don't worry about saying so I won't be offended. -- CassiantoTalk 00:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay that's a fair compromise, I've added the table (with some tweaks to the genres). --Lobo (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations

  • I'm not a genius with tables, but the key is to make sure they sort correctly. SchroCat is the best to ask. Much to his annoyance, I always plead ignorance on the technical stuff when we co-nom on lists :-)
    • I've checked it, and I'm pretty sure it sorts nicely. But then I guess I don't know the highest standard of sortability! I will try and get someone to check it out. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can recommend RexxS who is a genius on wiki technical stuff such as tables. He is extremely helpful, friendly and accomodating. Also, SchroCat knows his stuff. Looking at the table in the edit screen, it doesn't quite look right. Cue shameless plug *ahem*... Check this format and compare would be my best advice. -- CassiantoTalk 00:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've tweaked the sort on the titles, as "The", "And", "A" and "An" are supposed to be non-sortable. This should be OK for an FA, although if you get someone hot on accessibility reviewing they will pull you up on it. Have a look at the Sellers one above, for accessibility you're supposed to flag up what the columns are and where each row begins. This helps the accessibility software "explain" tables. FLs are very hot on it - as they should be - but FAs are more interested in the article overall and the prose, rather than tables, so sometimes they slip through. - SchroCat (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for doing that. I pretty sure the standard you've left it at would (or should) be fine for FAC - the technical stuff is obviously far more important for FLs. --Lobo (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through the references later, but will be checking for formatting issues (if any) only. -- CassiantoTalk .

Thank you so much for the review, it was a big help, and I'm delighted that you were impressed with the page. Thanks again for your time, it really is appreciated. --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure. I will complete the final strikes when your done. Ping me when your on top of it :-) -- CassiantoTalk 00:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a spin through this shortly, but RL is getting in the way at the moment, so it won't be until the mid or end of next week, if you can wait that long. If others come in before that, then feel free to close without my comments and I'll definately chip in at FAC too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely wait, no rush at all. If you're able to make some comments that would be great, thanks! --Lobo (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff. A very quick skim shows it to be in pretty good shape as it is, but I haven't really read it properly yet. The only thing that sticks out is that in the lead (and at least one other place) you refer to Far From Heaven: this should be Far from Heaven with a lower case f. I've printed a copy off and I'll work through it while I'm away. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed all the mentions to "Far from Heaven" (apart from the titles of references which don't use this format - is that okay?) --Lobo (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is, as far as I'm concerned. - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Overall a very nicely written and well-balanced article which gives the reader a very good overview of Moore, both professionally and privately. As far as Wiki ratings, this is very close to an FA and I'd be happy to support it when it gets there, given one or two minor tweaks. Nothing I say here is binding, but FA reviews may think differently and hold back a support based on any of the below:

General

  • There are a couple of swaps between theater and theatre. I'm sure you're on top of the differing uses, but it's worth a quick look over to make sure you're using the right variant in the right place.
    • Caught one instance of "theater", thanks. --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a nbsp before the ellipses, as this ensures any line breaks will happen in the right place (see WP:ELLIPSES)
  • You will need to make sure you are consistent with ~ise and ~ize: I saw one organisation in there (which gladdened my heart as an Englishman, but will make the Americans wince!)
    • Ha, fixed that "organisation" slip. Everything else seems sufficiently Americanized.--Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "after studying theatre". Is this how the colonials really mangle English phrase this? It may well be, in which case that's fine.
    • Since her degree was called "Theatre" I think this is okay? I'm absolutely fine with you tweaking it though; please do if you really dislike the phrasing. --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely balanced summary of the rest of the article otherwise.

Early life

  • "The frequent relocating made her an insecure child,[2] and she struggled to establish friendships,[5] but Moore has remarked": I'd probably tweak slightly to move Moore to earlier in the sentence, rather than "her", and possibly split the sentence: "The frequent relocating made Moore an insecure child,[2] and she struggled to establish friendships.[5] She later remarked that…" Not sure which is best. Cass, do you have a view on this too?
    • I think I mention this above. I wasn't sure if it was the moving regularly that made her insecure" or "Moving made her regularly insecure. Lobo points out above that she became insecure by the frequent moving as opposed to the regularity of her insecure feelings. I concur with SchroCat that "The frequent relocating made Moore an insecure child, and she struggled to establish friendships. She later remarked that…" would be better. -- CassiantoTalk 13:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm happy to split the sentence into two (and have), but since "Moore" is used right near the end of the previous sentence, I don't think it's a good idea to replace the "her" at this point. --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International recognition

  • I'm not sure about the title here. A number of her earlier films were "international" (Nine Months, with Grant, was a hit in the UK, as was Lost World. Perhaps "Increasing recognition"?
    • The title was selected because at this stage she starts getting awards and nominations around the world (BAFTA, Venice, Berlin). I can see your point though; she was already famous internationally. I've changed it to "Widespread recognition" for now, but may change it again if I think of something better. This period is when she gets a bunch of awards and nominations, including all her Oscar noms (which is why I wanted it all to be one section, despite the length). I'd say it's when she really gets her reputation as one of the finest working actresses, as well. It would be good if the section heading indicates that. Any ideas? --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film was not a hit at the time of release but has since become a cult classic.[42]": I don't know why, but it just seems a little wrong. Perhaps "but subsequently became a cult classic" may read better?
  • "Moore received her second Academy Award nomination for the role, her first for Best Actress, as well as nominations at the British Academy". The sub-clause doesn't sit well there (for me, at least, but I've read it too many times now!) maybe dashes would be better? "nomination for the role—her first for Best Actress—as well…"?

2003-2009

  • The title should probably be "2003-09", in line with the MOS.
    • It does look like this is in the MOS, although I'm sure I've seen many articles that give the full year for the end range! Anyway, changed. --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2010s

  • "Tim Robey of The Telegraph": is there a reason you've piped The Daily Telegraph to remove "Daily"?
    • Well the article itself just says "The Telegraph", since the website covers both the Daily and Sunday papers, but our WP pages are separate. It's a tricky one. I could pipelink it to Telegraph Media Group instead? --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

I've only taken a skim through these, as I find reading them en masse just too daunting for my poor brain to cope with, but the the following suggested themselves.

  • Ditto the above comment about The Daily Telegraph
  • ImdB. I know Cass has already mentioned this, and I know someone is bound to pick this up at FA. Although it does have its uses, it does have flaws and if you can find an alternative source then it would be much better.
    • I guess I'm being a rebel, haha, and trying to change the attitude that IMDb is a completely no-go area. I would never use it as a reference for biographical details, but for filmographies and film awards it is the best resource in the world. I really can't see why it isn't allowed for these facts—to be honest, I feel like it is people just blindly following the MOS. But nothing in history ever would have changed if people always did what they were told! ;-) I know the issue will be raised at FAC, and I guess I will change any of the refs I can, but when—for instance—I want to reference all the nominations she received for a role, it is so much easier to give the one ref to the IMDb page rather than link to each individual organisation. The reader can verify it straight away. --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNs 77 and 92 will have to be re-done. Variety shifted a number of pages around recently and neither of those links now work. Somewhat brilliantly the Variety search page still shows the links to the old pages, rather than the new location...
    • Yep, I'm aware of these dead links. It's very annoying. They're both really useful reviews, so I'm kind of hanging on until 1) Variety puts them up again (the links currently say they are re-adding reviews in "the coming weeks"), or until they appear on the WaybackMachine, since they say: "When a site is crawled, there is usually at least a 6-month lag, and sometimes as much as a 24-month lag, between the date that web pages are crawled and when they appear in the Wayback Machine." Who knows, they could appear on there at any day. --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All in all a very, very good article. If you don't agree with anything I've said here, just ignore it (or tell me which piece of the MOS I've misread!) What is more important is not that things necessarily get changed, but that you put the text though a logical process and decide you were right in the first place: at least the best version will out in the end! I'll keep an eye on this to answer any questions you may have, but please ping me when you go to FAC and I'll certainly chip in there too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for reading through it and for the compliments. As I said to Cass, I really do appreciate it. There definitely aren't any other bits that read a bit awkwardly, or lack flow? I've been worried that it's a bit stilted at times, but it's tricky with an article like this. I'll try my luck at FAC once I've had a run-through of the sources and boring things like that (and once, hopefully, those Variety reviews are available again). Thanks so much for your time and encouragement, --Lobo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maughan Library edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to improve the article to GA. I'm relatively inexperienced so any general and stylistic comment are much appreciated. One specific question is whether it would be best to merge Domus Conversorum?

Many thanks, Trillig (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria
  • My vote would be no to the merge
  • A general copy-edit would be helpful in improving this article's quality - I'm seeing a few grammatical errors
  • Does the library have any electronic holdings of note?
  • Suggest including a sentence for each of the special collections outlining what it holds
  • Suggest including further information on services
  • Suggest including usage statistics, if known - number of patrons, number of items borrowed per year, etc
  • Generally don't link things in See also already linked in the article
  • Check consistency between shortened citations and full bibliographic record - for example FN13 says Dewe was published in 2009, while the bibliographic entry says 2008. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bolton edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it as a Featured Article candidate, but am not sure how close it is to the required standard. Any feedback towards that aim would be helpful!

Thanks, Johnnaylor (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you had made a substantial number of edits, or asked those who have, rather than this drive-by request. J3Mrs (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)All t[reply]
My intention was to get some feedback and then start making as many edits as might be required to reach the standard, but am unfamiliar with wikipedia protocol. I do appreciate the substantial number of edits you have made to the article and apologise for not consulting you first. Johnnaylor (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it needs quite a bit of work. Since getting it to GA, I've added bits and bobs but updating to the 2011 census is the most obvious. Probably something on post-industrial regeneration and geography is a bit thin. J3Mrs (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Doing... – writing some extended comments right now, will have them up later today. Runfellow (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, Part 1

I'm sure you've already seen WP:FA Criteria, but I'd recommend checking out Category:FA-Class WikiProject Cities articles or Category:FA-Class UK geography articles to see a few related articles that are already featured. I'm guessing you're using articles like Ashton-under-Lyne as a base. But really the process here at PR should be a bit more helpful than just saying how far or close it is to FA status. The process is really more of a general one to push the article up a notch no matter where it is in terms of development. Although I'm more familiar with articles for U.S. cities, here are a few notes:

Lead
  • According to WP:LEADCITE, general information in the lead section need not be cited, especially if it's something like "Bolton is a town in Greater Manchester, in the North West of England." I doubt anyone would challenge that, and thus the citation here isn't really necessary.
  • Not sure about the phrase "Bolton has had notable success in sport;" There are two aspects to this: famous athletes who are from the city and teams that play in the city. It's hard to explain, but I don't consider these the same kind of "success".
  • Very generally speaking, as per WP:LEAD, the lead section should cover the major aspects of the subject, which usually means there should be some mention of at least every top-level subject. Here, there are a number of subjects not mentioned in the lead, such as religion, demography (with the exception of the population count), economy, transport, education, etc. There need not be an entire sentence devoted to each one, but you'll want at least a mention of every major topic.
History
  • I'd change "for many thousands of years evidenced by a" to "for many thousands of years, as evidenced by a"
  Done
  • "It is claimed" - by whom? The nearest source links to the Bolton parish church site. Dunno if that'll work as a source.
  • "and after 1100 Roger de Meresheys" probably needs clarification with the syntax, something like "and after 1100, Roger de Meresheys owned the land" or something to that effect.
  Done
  • "The church in Bolton" - Which one? Also, the rest of the sentence has some rather awkward syntax. I admit I don't know about a few of these concepts, but perhaps the sentence can be broken down a bit.
  • "The town was given a charter" - This is me being a bit picky, but I'm a big proponent of active sentences over passive. Rather than "The town was given a charter... by King Henry III of England" it could be "King Henry III of England gave the town a charter..."
  • Should "King" be included in that wikilink for Henry III?
The linked page does not contain the word King in its title so the wikilink is correct. Johnnaylor (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "dating from 1251" is an awkward introjection to the rest of the sentence.
  • It's very difficult to get a streamlined narrative out of history. The information here, although chronologically sound, is rather haphazard in that narrative, and the structure suffers as a result. Paragraphs especially are pretty much randomly broken up.
    • That said, I'm thinking the Toponymy section could be integrated into the later part of the history, in this case.
  • I'm curious: It says "Bolton supported Parliament..." Was it the townsfolk who supported Parliament, or the landowners? Maybe some other leader?
It was the townsfolk, I've added this in. Johnnaylor (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a link somewhere in the ECW section for the Bolton Massacre. I know it's in the lead, but here's a good place for a link in the article body.
  Done
  • "Industry" sounds like a very general subheading, one that could easily be confused with a top heading. I recommend changing it to something like "Industrial conversion" or "change" or something to that effect.
  • There's a bit of a gap here in history: Where's everything from the English Civil War to the early 20th century?
  • The last three subsections here should probably be restructured. It's good information, but it jumps around quite a bit, and is divided by subject, rather than period, as the other subsections are.
Governance and Geography
  • No major complaints regarding the governance section. The last sentence probably needs to be integrated somewhere within the section, rather than being its own small paragraph at the bottom.
  • The geography section could probably be expanded greatly. Things to consider including:
    • Coordinates
    • Bodies of water
    • Size of area in sqkm
    • Wikilinks to some of the geological formations you've mentioned.
    • Climate and long-term weather information, including major disasters, if applicable
  • I don't think that's where the Areas and Suburbs of Bolton template should go, but you may want to get a second opinion.
Demography
  • Any new data on this? 2001 seems a long way off.
There was a census in 2011, however the data has only been released down to Borough level, not down to urban subdivision level which is what the currently displayed numbers show. This more detailed data is not due to be released until later this year or early next year. Johnnaylor (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first reference here seems oddly placed. It's next to the source, rather than next to the claim where it should be.
  • Rather than say something like "it should be noted", you could just note it and skip that phrase.

Will finish up in part 2 of comments later. Runfellow (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Boxofficeindia.com.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/March_2013&oldid=552960709"