Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/March 2014

< 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.

E.W. Hornung

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Wee Willie Hornung is largely forgotten as an author now, apart from the hugely popular character of A.J. Raffles, who still lives on through film, television and reprints of the novels. His output was much wider than his criminal antihero: his work covered wider and deeper subjects than that however. Although he was a great lover of cricket, he wasn't a terribly good player, mostly because of a delicate constitution. This has undergone a complete re-write recently and a trip to FLC will hopefully follow. Many thanks for any thoughts, criticisms and suggestions. - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Tim riley

edit

First pass, for spelling only.

  • "with pre-Raphelite looks" – in a quote so I didn't like to change, but I imagine Lycett wrote "pre-Raphaelite"
  • "Eugéne Presbrey" – acute accent? A grave is usual for Eugène
  • "The Return of A.J.Raffles" – No gap between initials and surname?
  • "Productions's" – is the apostrophe-ess wanted?

More tomorrow on the content etc. – Tim riley (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First half of comments on text, to end of biography section:

  • Lead
    • I'll do this last, when I've read the main text
  • Early life: 1866–86
    • "life-long" – one word, according to the OED
    • "despite rather limited skills at the game" – I think I might scrub the "rather".
    • "In addition to teaching he also spent time" – simultaneously or in between?
  • Return to England: 1886–98
  • Introducing Raffles: 1898–1914
    • "who Rowland considers to be" – "whom Rowland considers to be" or "who Rowland considers is"
  • First World War and aftermath
    • "He continued to work" – I might make this "Hornung continued to work" and make the "Hornung" later in the sentence "he"

Looking good. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding batch:

  • Style and technique
    • "Oliver Edwards" – perhaps link to William Haley (Edwards being the pen name under which he reviewed books) Sorry: ignore. Not in Haley's article, so a bit mystifying for readers if we linked to it.
    • "His obituarist" – ambiguous – could be Edwards or Hornung. Suggest "The obituarist".
    • "Jeremy Lewis sees a …" – Jeremy Lewis sees as a …?
    • "Oliver Edwards, writing in The Times" – you've already told us this
  • Major themes
    • "something Contemporary Authors states shows…" – reads a bit awkwardly. Perhaps "which, Contemporary Authors states, shows…"
    • "protagonist of The Crime Doctor used" – elsewhere you use the present tense, which I think is the general convention, as in "Raffles … steals a gold cup" shortly after this.
    • "Amongst these is Peccavi" – stand well clear: Riley chestnut coming in over the wicket at 90 mph: what has "amongst" got that "among" hasn't other than two unnecessary letters? And perhaps (just a thought) add a footnote explaining that "Peccavi" is Latin for "I have sinned"?
    • "lives his life try to atone" – not sure if there's a missing "to" or a superfluous "try" here
    • "Old Offenders and a few Old Scores" – "few" really not capped?
    • "permeated into his stories" – not sure I'd use a preposition after "permeated", but what do I know?
    • "his best-known character, Raffles" – a bit late at this point to tell us that R is his best-known character
  • Lead
    • "the characters were either based on his friends Oscar Wilde and his lover, Lord Alfred Douglas, or on Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson" – (i) if this is substantiated in the main text I missed it, and (ii) who says so? And tangentially "Bosie Douglas" in note f feels subtly wrong. I think he was either "Bosie" tout court or "Lord Alfred Douglas"
      • It was at footnote H (and acredited in text and citation to Rowland), but I've brounght it into the body now as it's a point of some interest (second paragraph of the "Introducing Raffles" section). - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "where he helped man a YMCA canteen" – neutral language where convenient, so perhaps "run" rather than "man"?
    • "the latter of which" – I don't think you need the last two words.

That's my lot. Mere quibbles. It's a fine article, well proportioned and carefully balanced. I look forward to meeting it again chez FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks! Your always-thoughtful and pertinent comments are a great help, and the article is much stronger than it was before. All done, with the occasional comment above. - SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: either here or at FAC may I suggest you invite views on whether Dr Johnson needs [Samuel] in square brackets? I see why you've done it, but I'm in two minds about it. Just a thought. Tim riley (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you think that just a link would be sufficient? - SchroCat (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think so, but then I'm a great fan of Dr J. Others may find the bracketed name useful. Might be worth canvassing opinion. Tim riley (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images by Crisco

edit
  • Yep. Two production companies, Hyclass Producing Co. and L. Lawrence Weber Photodrama Corp., both US.
  • poet and author. He was most famous for writing the A.J. Raffles series of stories about a gentleman thief in late 19th-century London, but was a prolific author. - Perhaps "poet and author best known for writing the A.J. Raffles series, about a gentleman thief in late 19th-century London." or something similar. Avoid repetition of author
  • From a Hungarian background, Hornung was educated at Uppingham School - this really doesn't feel connected, at all, and certainly not enough to be a single sentence
  • He published two collections of war poetry during the war, and then, afterwards, one further poetry volume and account of his time spent in France, - any way to avoid "poetry -- poetry"?
  • during some of the later years of one of its notable headmasters, Edward Thring. - I think either this needs to be merged with the footnote, or the footnote text brought into the article. Also, "notable"? Feels unnecessary
  • shortly before the death of his father in November - is nine months "shortly"?
  • As with his first novel, Hornung again used Australia as a backdrop in Tiny Luttrell, - This almost feels as if it is a continuation of the failed boxing story.
  • The fictional character Stingaree proved to be a prototype of a character Hornung used in a series of six short stories published in 1898 in Cassell's Magazine, A.J. Raffles, who was modelled on George Cecil Ives, a Cambridge-educated criminologist and talented cricketer who, like Raffles, was a resident of the Albany. - May need simplification
  • (and former school fag) - Raffles' fag?
  • One of the less delightful traditions of the British public school system (and thankfully one that had vanished before my time!) I've lined the term as I'm not sure it's once that can be easily explained within this article. - SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The play was first performed at the Princess Theatre, New York, on 27 October 1903 with Kyrle Bellew as Raffles, and ran for 168 performances. - Did Hornung go to the States as well?
  • "probably" - scare quotes really necessary
  • that turned into influenza and pneumonia - Spanish Influenza?
  • a Dr. Johnson - ?
  • with Raffles transformed from a gentleman thief to a tough adventurer. - before his death in the Boer War, right?
  • Watson also considers the point, - Considering you also have Dr. Watson, would the full name of the critic/scholar be worth repeating?
  • Throughout the Raffles stories patriotism runs as a theme in several stories - Redundant
  • Cricket was one of Hornung's lifelong passions, and he was delighted to become a member of the Marylebone Cricket Club in 1907. - How good was his performance, if he played? (I dare say Sarastro1 may be of help with this question) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

edit

On the "Life" sections only, at this stage. I have taken against Hornung. He looks very much like my old maths master, a sadistic old bastard if ever there was one, but I'll try not to let the likeness influence my review

I can cover the likeness if it helps...? - SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • I wonder if "known professionally as E.W. Hornung" is really necessary? It's pretty much the same name.
  • "the characters were either based on his friends Oscar Wilde and his lover, Lord Alfred Douglas, or on Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson." Perhaps the text will clarify this, but are you sure about the "either"? The respective pairs are disparate – I imagine that Hornung took characteristics from both pairs, and if so this sentence needs modifying: "based partly on his friends Oscar Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas, and also on..." etc
  • The dedication of the first Raffles book to Conan Doyle is hardly leadworthy.
  • "He published two collections of war poetry during the war" – first "war" redundant
  • "...afterwards, one further volume of verse and account of his time spent in France" – not quite right; an account, perhaps?
  • You seem to have added a year to his life – he died in 1921 not 1922.
Early life
  • Beware two "and" conjunctions in one sentence ("his health worsened and he left Uppingham and travelled to Australia")
  • Rather than relying overly on links which take the reader away from the article, you should briefly say where the "Riverina" is, and also what The Bulletin was.
Return to England
  • "From his relatively prosperous position, John's coal and iron business had gone through hard times and he was in acute poverty by the time of his death." Something not right about this construction. Perhaps: "From a position of relative prosperity, John's ..." etc. I'm a bit worried, too, about "acute poverty", which implies destitution rather thn straitened circumstances.
  • "In 1891 he..." → "In 1891 Hornung..."
  • "Hornung also knew Doyle's sister..." The "also" is unjustified, as is "at some point" at the end of the sentence. Besides which, this sentence and its successor belong with the next paragraph rather than as a tailpiece to this one.
  • Why were relations between Hornung and Doyle "sometimes strained"? When did this occur?
  • "The couple had a son..." Without wishing to be facetious, the couple you have just mentioned is Hornung and Doyle. A nice trick if you can do it, as Kenneth Horne might have said.
  • "on a subject of boxing during the Regency". Should be "the" subject. I also suggest you link "boxing". What was the fate of this boxing play?
  • To what does "both figures" in the final quote refer? I see only a reference to "an Oxford-educated, Australian gentleman thief".
Introducing Raffles: 1898–1914
  • Too mush irrelevant detail in the first paragraph. For example, the visit to Rome and meetings with Wells and Gissing seem entirely inconsequential.
  • You need to say what, and where, "the Albany" is
  • You also need to explain "Bosie": not all your readers will connect him with Lord Alfred Douglas
  • Can you check the wording of the Spectator quote that begins "stern moarlists..."? It reads like gobbledegook.
  • Now reworked to read: that "stern moralists" would consider the book's premise "as a new, ingenious, artistic, but most reprehensible application of the crude principles involved in the old-fashioned hero-worship of Jack Sheppard and Dick Turpin". - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What were Dead Men Don't Tell Tales and Peccavi? Novels?
First World War and aftermath
  • "He edited a privately-issued collection of Oscar's letters home under the title Trusty and Well Beloved, released in 1916, and at some stage he joined an anti-aircraft unit." Unrelated facts should not be conjoined in a single sentence
  • Given that there is apparently a full-length biography, I'm a little surprised by the vagueness of some of the dating, e.g. "at some stage" and "In either 1916 or 1917..." Is it not possible to be more precise
  • Unfortunately not. Much of the vagueness is an echo of the biography, and Rowland comments on how annoying the lack of primary sources was. I've covered this in Note C, but if there's a better way of flagging this up to readers I'd be delighted to do it. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the age of 51" should be moved to near the beginning of the sentence.
  • Link arras
  • Mentioning the friendship with Belloc doesn't seem to have any point
Death and legacy
  • "I don't think health is "troubled", though one can be troubled by it. Perhaps "troublesome", or "problematic"
  • "A further series was written in 1950..." – passive voice.
  • "...with 14 of them published..." "them" needs defining. Also perhaps confirm that all the post-1950 stories were written by Perowne
  • "Hornung's stories" → "Hornung's original stories", perhaps?
  • (aside) "House Peters" is about the stupidest name I've ever encountered, even for an actor
  • "...although he was not accompanied by Manders, but by Bride, played by Michael French" No relevance to this article whatever.

I'll do what's left in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rest
Style and technique
  • "According to Cox..." This is the second mention of Cox in the text, but she was not identified in the earlier mention. You do identify her, but in a footnote; I think this description also needs to occur on first mention in the text. Most readers don't read footnotes.
  • No comma after "although Edwards"
  • Literary tenses: I see that Cox, Watson, and Lewis are quoted in the present tense, the others in the past. I don't know what your cut-off date is – there's not much between Watson (1971) and Edwards (1966). Personally, I prefer to use the past tense only when quoting really ancient sources, e.g. Doyle and the Times obituarist. After all, most of the others are propbably still alive (not Orwell, though). It's a point to consider.
  • "Contemporary Authors states..." Magazines do not "state", although their literary critics do. (this occurs more than once)
Major themes
  • You should place a colon after "three categories of Raffles stories", and delete the word "including".
  • "a "palpably tainted rearguard action on behalf of the puritan values which had bestowed middle-class identity in the past" – am I alone in not having any idea what this means? Ah, these academics...
  • "Gariepy agrees...": as he was writing several years before Rance, this should perhaps read: "Gariepy makes the same point..."
  • "When the Second Boer War starts in the fictional timeframe of the stories, covered in "The Knees of the Gods", Raffles volunteers for service after changing his name and hair colour..." This is rather clumsily expressed. Suggest simplify to: "In "The Knees of the Gods", Raffles volunteers for service in the Second Boer War, changing his name and hair colour" etc (Note that the Boer War should be linked)
  • As I recall, Raffles played cricket for the "Gentlemen of England", which in cricket parlance is not the same as being "an England cricketer"
  • "Raffles draws the comparison between law-breaking and cricket, 'crime is reckoned as another and better sport' ". First, a colon not a comma should follow "cricket". But I am puzzled as to how the quotation represents a "comparison" between law-breaking and cricket.
  • Penultimate paragraph: "Valentine agrees..." – who or what is he agreeing with? A real person (Valentine) cannot "agree" with fictional characters.
  • "Watson widens the idea of cricket to sport..." I don't know what this means, and it seems unnecessary. Why not just say: "Watson examines Raffles's actions within the broader context of sportsmanship, with Raffles acting within his own moral code "of what is 'done' and 'not done'". I would break the sentence here.
  • The "Themes" section is rather untidiy presented, with opposite images that squeeze the print and a quotebox for good measure. I don't think all these distractions are necessary, and I advise you to lose one of the images (the book cover is the less interesting).

OK, done now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fantastic stuff, as always, and thank you very much for the excellent review. I've covered all your points (I think), but will examine the article further over the next few days. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Dr.

edit
I'll take a look at this tomorrow... Gosh what sort of school did you go to Brian LOL, teachers who wouldn't let you have a harmless Christine Keeler Appreciation Society and a psycho maths teacher! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "where he helped run a YMCA canteen and library" -no need to mention YMCA again
  • South of France -capital not needed.
  • "Much of Hornung's work has been forgotten over time, although his Raffles stories continued in popularity, not least on screen, with John Barrymore, Ronald Colman and David Niven all playing the role on film and with Nigel Havers and Anthony Valentine in television adaptations." That's a bit of a mouthful, I'd say "Although much of Hornung's work has fallen into obscurity, his Raffles stories continued to be popular, and have formed numerous film and television adaptations". I don't think you really need to mention all of those actors playing a character in the lead, it would be different if it was the article on Raffles but this is a biography.
  • "Above all there are two threads that run through a sizeable proportion of his books: Australia and cricket, the latter was also a lifelong passion." -punctuation is a bit awkward here, how about "A lifelong cricket enthusiast, the sport and the Australian backdrop form an integral part of many of his works".♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • Is well-liked preferred or well liked?
  • "In addition to teaching, he also spent time working in remote sheep stations in the outback[4] and contributing material to the weekly magazine The Bulletin; he also began writing what was to become his first novel." -repetition of also, I think you can remove in first instance.
Return

"They were married on 27 September 1893, although Doyle was not at the wedding and relations between the two writers were sometimes strained." -a bit vague.

  • "Like Hornung's first novel, Tiny Luttrell had Australia as a backdrop and also used the plot device of an Australian woman in a culturally alien environment;" -shouldn't there be a full stop here rather than a semi colon?
Introducing Raffles

You use the semi colon a bit too much in the opening paragraph I think which affects the flow a little and again at "In the final story of the collection, "The Knees of the Gods", Raffles and Manders enlist in the army to fight in the Second Boer War; the story closes with Manders wounded and Raffles killed.[45] The critics again complained about the criminal aspect; The Spectator declared "this sort of book presents crime in a form too entertaining and attractive to be moral" " This is semi colon abuse Schrod :-] ! Can you reword one of them slightly and remove one of them?

  • "produced a third series of short Raffles stories in A Thief in the Night, in which Manders relates some of his and Raffles's earlier adventures." -Nothing on critical reception?
  • The story concerned the attempts of a scientist's attempts - can you attempt to remove attempts, thanks in advance for your attempt!
WWI
  • "Hornung decided to ensure " -awkward, "was adamant that some good would come of it" maybe.
  • Link Amiens?

Great article, in fact it reads like one of Tim's with the exception of a few extra semi colons ;;;-]♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Now archived: many thanks to all who took part. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Mamoru Takagi

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Hi, thanks for reviewing this page! 1. This is my first article, and I'd like general feedback on the form and content. 2. There are few Wikipedia articles on Martial Artists, and I have not seen a consistent format. Any suggestions on a good example? 3. Any suggestions on content to specifically include or exclude on the biography of a martial artist? 3. I think that the "Notable Students" section is helpful to establishing a lineage of martial arts teaching, even though not all students listed may meet the notability guidelines. Thoughts?

Thanks, Joe Shuri (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Hi. I see that this is your first article. There are some useful hints about writing WP articles to be found on the WP:DEV page - have you consulted this?

There are quite a few WP articles on martial arts (mainly judo and sumo) which have reached "Good Article" standard. Here are some that you might find useful:

These will give you some idea of the work necessary to bring your article up to a good standard. At present, your article is rather sketchy and largely unsourced. You need to do further research, to identify sources that will enable you to amplify the content. It might be worthwhile to find out who has been recently active in writing articles in this area and see if any are prepared to offer help. Or why not contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts? You could leave a message on the project's talk page, asking for help.

I hope you find these suggestions useful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure the subject meets notability requirements himself much less the students mentioned but so far so good with supplying references. It would be helpful to have more (as mentioned above) especially those that demonstrate notability. Please pay attention to the Manual of Style at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts - the few edits I have done to the page were to reflect that. I concur with the above that you might want to specifically ask for help the martial art project talk page. Usually a request for Peer review comes after the article has had some time to be accepted and develop but of course there is no rule about timing.

Also the above examples are probably not the best since their notability is well above your subject - I would suggest Robert Mustard (martial artist) for someone more comparable.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Penn State Nittany Lions football team

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article, my pet project during the Penn State season, recently passed GA, and my long-term goal if for it to achieve FA status, and perhaps even be TFA someday, however lacking much experience with the FA process, I was hoping for some input on what it needs to get there. Thank you in advance.

Thanks, Go Phightins! 19:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EricEnfermero

edit

Hi Go Phightins! I noticed that this had not drawn any comments yet. Keeping in mind that I have less FA experience than you and that I've never participated in PR before, here are some things I see. Obviously a great deal of research and time went into this article. As I see it, jargon is one of the big challenges for these articles at GA and FA - how to make the article read well for both the sports fan and the non-fan.

Lead

  • "in wake of the Penn State..." - "in the wake of" should be more common usage
  • "ultimately true freshman Christian..." - ultimately appears a few times in the article and I think it can usually be left out
  • "injuries could decimate the team, while surprise performances could lift them to success" - This is probably true of any team. You might mention that a specific expert had concerns about the durability of the offensive line, quarterbacks, etc.
  • "In non-conference play..." - maybe change to "Penn State opened the season with two non-conference wins..."
  • "Despite the team never being ranked..." - for the non-fan, maybe a wikilink to the 2013 Div I FBS rankings entry.
  • I think conference awards (Receiver of the Year, Freshman of the Year) should use caps.
  • may be simpler to leave out "scholar athlete"
  • can condense the next to last sentence - "A few weeks later, O'Brien accepted..."

Recruiting

  • Can the position key be moved up a bit, as you begin using the acronyms in the previous section?
  • I would consider breaking up the long first sentence under Recruits.

Preseason buildup

  • It looks like the first paragraph is one sentence. The quote doesn't fit into the structure of the sentence. One approach: "Penn State finished with an 8–4 win-loss record in 2012. USA Today's Paul Myerberg said that..."
  • There is a vague reference to many college football experts in that paragraph.

Game Notes - Aug. 31

  • "In the lead up to the game" - I think this can be left out. I would start a new sentence at "however".
  • "After pulling within 6" - this may be a little informal.

Sept. 7

  • period after Kyle Carter
  • "Instead, the Lions wanted..." - take out instead
  • "pushing a 42-yard field goal attempt wide right" - may be difficult for the non-fan

Sept. 14

  • "As this was Penn State's..." - multiple clauses that begin with "as" - might help to break up into shorter sentences
  • "pinned UCF deep" - what about "After Penn State punted the ball deep into UCF territory, the Knights marched..."
  • "THUD" tackling - I know that at least one ref uses caps, but I think they are unnecessary here.
  • "Speculation exists that..." - seems vague.

Sept. 21

  • "In 2012, Archer rushed for" - the verb tenses are inconsistent in that sentence.
  • "not exactly 'dazzled'" - would go with a more formal/neutral phrase unless that's a quote from someone.
  • Check for more caps issues for player awards.
  • After the first mention, you can refer to Hackenberg and others by last name.
  • "Not surprisingly due to the rain" - maybe "The passing game faltered under the rainy conditions..." - avoids editorializing.

Sept. 28

  • I would clarify/source "perhaps the biggest of the season."

Oct. 5

  • "once again, as they had in 2012..." - they came in 2-2 again? or they were struggling defensively in the first four games again?
  • Not sure about indenting the O'Brien quote at the end.

Oct. 12

  • New sentence after series. I'm not sure of the significance of hometown paper being in quotes.
  • This section seems a little more detailed than the other game summaries, but it may just be that this was such as long game.
  • There are instances where you say the team capitalized, took advantage, wasted no time, etc. - may be best to just describe the drives objectively. These phrases are common in sports coverage, but I think you might run into resistance at FA that they may be unencyclopedic. This is something that could be evaluated throughout the article.
  • "The four overtimes was..." - The four-overtime game was the longest...

Oct. 19

  • focused (or forms of the word) - appears several times in the section. "instead focusing on conditioning" may be best left out.
  • some repetitive word usage - tandem, citing, noting
  • "Keys to the game..." - inconsistent verb tenses in this sentence

Nov. 2

  • "Coming of a shellacking..." - change to coming off, or omit since you've covered the previous week's game
  • Who concurred with Hull specifically?
  • "Sam Ficken uncharacteristically" - can leave out uncharacteristically because of what you say after that.
  • The quote near the end makes the sentence sound a little odd.

Nov. 9

  • "running game supposedly led by Bill Belton" - clarify, WP:WTW
  • "however an illegal block in the back on Jesse James" - this comes up a few times in the article. Generally a however should go at the beginning or the end of a sentence rather than the middle. Sometimes "but" would be a simpler word for some of these.
  • "There was no scoring in the third quarter..." - overly long sentence

Nov. 16

  • "Though expected to beat an overmatched Purdue squad..." - overly long sentence
  • receiving corps - might go with wide receivers instead
  • "Purdue's coach Darrell Hazell..." - long sentence
  • "including one Penn State who joked" - missing word, probably player

Nov. 23

  • "According to York Daily Record..." - I think we're missing a period in this sentence.
  • "Offensively, Penn State's passing game was plagued by dropped passes..." - seems redundant

Nov. 30

  • "same aforementioned preview" - can get rid of either same or aforementioned, or maybe both
  • Seems like a lot of sports lingo in this section, like between the tackles and bubble screen. Wikilinks to some of these may help, as will either more explanation or maybe less detail.
  • "In the game, Penn State sent its seniors off..." - this seems redundant to the previous paragraph.

Post-season

  • "McWhorter, who was 63-years old..." - no hyphen
  • Pennsylvania-native - same thing
  • "in the ensuing days" - two uses of this phrase in close proximity


Again, good job! I think the success of the article will depend largely on controlling the use of jargon and any assertions that seem non-neutral. Clearly, a great deal of work has gone into this one and it's something that you can already be proud of. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 22:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All specific concerns addressed, I believe. Thanks Eric for your thorough review! Go Phightins! 22:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak

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 have made a lot of changes to address feedback at its original FAC. I am hoping for some criticism to guide me toward FAC2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim Text much more intelligible to a non-American

  • I'm still confused whether it's inning or innings, they seem to be used interchangeably
An "inning" is singular, "innings" is more than 1. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been going back and forth on this. I moved the page and am now apt to move it back. The streak describes 59 consecutive scoreless innings. I.e., this is a consecutive scoreless innings streak article. However, I guess when I moved the page to innings I was thinking about Cal Ripken's consecutive games streak, which I think is correctly referred to in plural. However, without the word consecutive for some reason, I am not so sure it should be plural. I think you might talk about Dimaggio's consecutive hits streak, but Dimaggio's hit streak. In fact, I think it is common to say a Player X's ##-game hit streak, in the singular. Maybe I should move the page back to inning. Feedback welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might have another look if I get time

Comments from Figureskatingfan

edit

As per Tony's request, I will PR this article. My initial impressions are the same as they've been for many sports articles: too much sports terminology and concepts that outsiders won't understand. Although I know very little about baseball, sometimes having an uninvolved non-expert is beneficial, since I'm able to look at it with fresh eyes and see things that someone close to the topic often can't. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by. I am still a bit bewildered by the responses to this article. I would never go to Theory of relativity and tell the editor to only use terms everyone understands because this is a general encyclopedia. I don't really understand why sports are any different.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, but I don't know how to respond, Tony. While it's true that I don't work on science articles, I've had plenty of reviewers in my literature articles tell me to define a term and make it more accessible to non-experts and to a general audience. Take what you can and leave the rest, as they say; it's up to you to decide what feedback to use, of course. There are many more problems with this article than just how the terms are used, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude

You still haven't fixed the "up" problem; do you mean "broken up on July 24"? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not perfect, but I think that what you've done is acceptable. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following his August 14 outing in which he exited after two innings (his shortest outing since June 8, 1985) trailing the Giants 8–2, he pitched complete games on August 19 (a shutout) and August 24. Please explain what you mean by "exited", "outing", and "trailing", and "shutout". The first phrase may be an incomplete phrase.
  • ...Leary also had a share of another shutout. Again, please explain.
  • 3rd paragraph: make sure that you include Drysdale's full name the first time you mention him in the article's body.
  • I don't think you need to include the dates, and the info about Johnson's streak should be earlier, although if you do that you'd need to restructure the entire paragraph. This is what I'd do with it: "Previously, Walter Johnson of the 1913 Washington Senators had held the record, for 55 2⁄3 innings, and included two relief appearances, which gave him a fractional total. In 1968, Don Drysdale, also of the Dodgers, surpassed Johnson by posting 58 innings in six consecutive nine-inning shutouts between May and June. Drysdale's streak ended with four scoreless innings in a 5-3 victory over Philadelphia on June 8, 1968."

Streak

  • You begin the 1st 2 sentences with "the streak", plus the 2nd sentence is too long and wordy. How about doing this: "It began on August 30 against the Expos, after seven-time All-Star Tim Raines scored with two outs in the 5th inning, and ended on April 5 against the Cincinnati Reds, when Baseball Hall of Famer Barry Larkin scored, with two outs, in the first inning."
I must admit, yours is better than mine! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "during" appears 17 times in this article. I suggest going through and re-wording, for variety sake. Many times you can just remove the phrase "during the streak", since that's the subject of the article, anyway.
  • During the streak, Hershiser caused opposing teams to leave 30 runners on base, which was five fewer than Drysdale had, according to the Chicago Tribune. Please clarify what you mean by leaving runners on base. What does the "according to" modify; when you put it at the end like this, it seems like it only modifies the final phrase.
  • Next sentence: it sounds like you have two different and conflicting reports. I have an idea how to handle this, but I need the previous issue addressed first.
"Than D had" is informal, and I can now make my suggestion. How about: "During the streak, according to the Chicago Tribune, Hershiser caused opposing teams to leave 30 runners on base; Drysdale, in his streak, left 35. However, USA Today reported that Hershiser left 36 runners on base." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next 2 sentences are unclear. Did H not throw a sinker during the streak? Is there any way you can briefly explain how he used the splint-finger fastball as a sinker?
Okay, I think that this language is necessary. Thanks for answering my question, even though it totally went over my head! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st sentence, 2nd paragraph: "Heralded" is a peacock term. I'm not sure you need to make a distinction between the national and local press, especially since one of the national outlets is The L.A. Times. What does "Cy Young challenger" mean?
  • Final sentence, 2nd paragraph: The information about H's son feels out of place here. I wonder if you should put it earlier, in the "Prelude" section, to give the streak context. Perhaps you can say that H's thoughts were primarily on his son during most of the time period.
My reasoning is that it's background to what was happening. I'd think that putting what was going on in H's personal life was important, but I'll accept your choice. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the difference between "the pennant race" and "the division title"?
    • This difference came into being in 1969 when expansion caused the National League and American League to each split into East and West divisions. Once upon a time winning a pennant meant winning either the National or American League regular season championship, which meant a trip to the world series. Teams would fly pennants on their flag poles to signify their championships. So the regular season was a race to win a pennant. Now team compete to win divisions or wild card playoff berths to compete in the post season for the American and National League titles. Let me know what you want me to do on this sentence, given that pennant race is now linked in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, necessary language, so we'll just leave it as is. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping here so I can make sure I don't lose any work again. Yes, it's already happened. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sept. 5 - Why was Perranoski dismayed?

Sept. 10

Sept. 14

  • Although Drysdale's record was being mentioned after he reached 31 consecutive innings... "Was being mentioned": use of the past possessive is incorrect here; omit the word "being".
  • Orel and wife Jamie, scheduled induced labor for the following day. This is the first time you talk about the birth of H's child in the daily sections. I wonder if you should mention that H was about to be a father earlier, in the prelude. Was this his first child? Was it a difficult pregnancy? Why did they induce labor? Also, the use of the comma is incorrect here.
    • This is common for baseball starting pitchers who work every 5th or 6th day for 6 or 7 months of the year. When a birth is in season they often induce labor sometime after 8 and a half months on an offday when the team is playing at home. The first day after a start gives the pitcher 3 or 4 days when he is often excused to spend most of his time with his wife and newborn. None of this is going to be in sources. BTW, I don't think it needs to be earlier. It is an event that happened between this sections start and the next.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. This is fine with me. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sept. 19

  • Houston's most dangerous threats occurred on Dodger errors:... Please clarify, and use more formal language.
  • Then a Griffin error on a Glenn Davis ground ball put Hershiser's streak in peril. Please re-state; again, too informal.
  • The game marked Hershiser's sixth shutout of the season (fourth consecutive), making him the first Dodger since Drysdale in 1968 to record four consecutive. I think you need to move the parenthetical. Plus, the sentence is incomplete: "four consecutive" what? How about: "The game marked Hershiser's sixth (and fourth) consecutive shutout of the season, making him the first Dodger since Drysdale in 1968 to record four consecutive shutouts."
  • This shutout was wedged between Dodger shutouts by John Tudor with relief from Alejandro Pena on September 18 and Tim Belcher on September 20. Please clarify and make more formal. What does "wedged between" mean? Explain what you mean by "with relief from ...Pena". This sentence makes it seem like Tudor did both shutouts. If he did, you don't need to change anything; if he didn't, I have suggestions to make after you clarify.
The problem with its current wording is that it sounds like Pena relieved Belcher, too. How about: "John Tudor posted one on September 18 with relief from Alejandro Pena; Tim Belcher pitched a shutout on September 20." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop here. The prose seems to improve in these dates sections. I'll try and look at more in the next couple of days. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and work on some more later today. Tony, I appreciate your patience; I can hear your sighs of frustration and exasperation through my computer screen. ("Ah, why do I have to deal with someone who's so ignorant about baseball!") ;) I know, 'cause I go through the same thing with my Sesame Street articles. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sept. 23

  • 1st sentence, 1st paragraph: Didn't you know? Starting a sentence with a "so" is a "no-no"! ;) I'd like this to be a little more formal, but I need to know some things before I can make a suggestion. What was the customary length of rest between games? Why is H pitching on this day connected with "the rest of the staff"? Wouldn't the other team members play anyway?
    • A pitching rotation involves 5 pitchers. A season is 162 games played over the course of 182 days (including a 3-day all-star break leaving 179 days). Thus over the course of the 26 week schedule teams randomly get a total of 17 days off (almost always Mondays or Thursdays, but since interleague play arose I am not sure if this is always the case anymore) plus the all-star break. These days are sometimes swallowed up by makeup games for rainouts. Let's assume there are no doubleheaders scheduled and no rainouts. A rotation (schedule of pitchers) typically involves the 1-4 positions in the rotation having priority and the 5 position sometimes being given equal standing. In the case where the 5th spot in the rotation gets equal standing (almost never the case) all pitchers get 32 or 33 starts as each position starts in turn every 5th game on a rotating basis. More typically, a rotation will try to get the 1-4 spots extra starts so that they get about 36 starts and the 5th spot gets about 18 starts. The rotation pitches on days in order 1-4 and if there was no rest day in between the starts for the 1st position, the 5th spot starts but if there was a rest day between the starts for the 1st position the 5th guy gives up his start. The 1-4 starters pitch every 5th day.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Between September 23 and October 3 (assuming Hershiser is the #1 pitcher, known as the ace). A normal schedule would have him pitch on the 23rd, 28th and 3rd. If he did not start until the 24th and the playoff started on the 3rd, there would not be enough time for the full rest. Of course this all became moot when, the playoffs were eventually scheduled to start on the 4th.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tried to edit this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game marked Hershiser's eighth consecutive complete game and fifteenth of the season and Hershiser's fifth consecutive complete game shutout stretched his consecutive scoreless inning streak to 49. Incomplete sentence. All you need to do to fix it is to insert a comma and the word "which" after "shutout".
  • Here's my ignorance showing again: could you explain the significance of the asterisk?
    • In baseball (and often other sports), saying a record bears an asterisk, means that you broke the record under special circumstances that were likely easier conditions. The most famous asterisk was when Roger Maris hit 61 home runs during a 162-game season, breaking Babe Ruth's record of 60 home runs during a 154-game season. To a researcher like a wikipedian, saying something bears an asterisk, might be tantamount to saying it requires a footnote.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • With this shutout, Hershiser moved into third on the all-time consecutive scoreless innings list behind Johnson and Drysdale, passing Carl Hubbell and G. Harris "Doc" White who each had streaks of 45 innings on the newly redefined record's list as well as Bob Gibson who had a streak of 47 before the record was redefined. Way too long. How about: "Hershiser's September 23 shutout moved him to third place on the all-time consecutive scoreless innings list, behind Johnson and Drysdale. He also passed Carl Hubbell and G. Harris "Doc" White, who each had streaks of 45 innings on the newly redefined record's list, and Bob Gibson, who had a streak of 47 before the record was redefined."
  • Hershiser joined Drysdale in 1968 and White in 1904 as the only pitchers to throw five consecutive shutouts. This makes it sound like H joined them in those years, and I know that's not what you mean. How about: "Hershiser also became one of three pitchers to throw five consecutive shutouts, joining Drysdale, who did it in 1968 and White, who did it in 1904."
  • His 23 wins were the most by a Dodger since Sandy Koufax had won 27 in 1966. Won 27 what? I know, it's obvious, but we need to be clear. How about: "His 23 wins were the most by a Dodger since Sandy Koufax won 27 games in 1966."
  • Start of 3rd paragraph: I think these sentences are a little wordy. I don't think that you need to say that most sources agree, because you go about stating how they don't. You could remove that sentence and just say, "During the third inning of the September 23 game, according to articles written by ESPN and in the Los Angeles Times, after Jose Uribe..."
  • How did Butler interfere with Griffin?
    • Do we really want to claim to know the details of how he interfered with Griffin if we are not even sure whether he in fact interfered with Griffin or Sax? I don't think any more belongs in the article. However, if he interfered with Griffin, it was by sliding out of the basepath. A typical 4-6-3 double play would involve a shortstop passing over the bag to the 2nd base side and throwing after he passes the bag. Butler would have had to slide toward the shortstop rather than the bag.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by "contemporaneous sources"?
  • Last sentence, 3rd paragraph: Please clarify. Correct "source", and identify Wendelstedt and Dietz.
  • 4th paragraph, 1st sentence: What does retired the side in order mean?

Sept. 28

Oct. 4

Okay, I need to stop here. I may have more time tomorrow; if not, perhaps into early next week. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 5

Comparisons

  • I was thinking that much of the content here is repetitive, since you mentioned some of it previously, but I think that it's important enough to keep.
  • Because Hershiser did not pitch beyond the first 10 innings of his September 28 start—the game lasted 16 innings—Drysdale maintained the record for consecutive shutouts (6). I don't like starting sentence with a conjunction, so I suggest that you change it so that it's more formal. How about: "Drysdale maintained the record for consecutive shutouts (6) because Hershiser did not pitch beyond the first 10 innings of his September 28 start due to the fact that it lasted 16 innings."

Aftermath

Whew, I think I'm finished now. Thanks for your patience, both with how long it's taken me and for your willingness to take my criticism. I'm not going to review your sources, since I think focusing on the prose is enough, but I do have a question. Some of your statements are supported by several sources, sometimes up to five or six. Is that necessary? I always say that if you can support your statement with just one good source (or at the most, 2 or 3), that's enough. I also recommend that you have at least one other editor take another look at your prose, perhaps someone with more sports knowledge, and that you ask someone to look at your sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

List of UK Caving fatalities

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 present it as a candidate for a featured list in the future.

Thanks, Langcliffe (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You need to move the title to "List of US caving facilities" Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the capitalisation of "Caving" rather than to the words "UK" and "fatalities", thank you. You're absolutely right, and I'll set up a REDIRECT. Langcliffe (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now moved the page to one with appropriate capitalisation as suggested - I hope that the Peer Review process can cope! Langcliffe (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, new to this, so for what it's worth. First, the lead paragraph has too much detail information, yet at the same time lacks other pertinent information. I'd leave the opening paragraph, and move the rest to the body of the article, under the "List" section. But then the lead section, I feel should have a discussion of the different types of deaths which are included in the totals (e.g. falls, asphyxiation, drowning, etc.); it should also note any organizations (if any) that track these type of statistics; it might also include a line or two regarding deaths prior to "the modern era". Second, if you do move those 3 paragraphs from the lead section, each might be expanded and footnoted. Especially footnoted, even if you don't move them. Third, the tables are well set up and organized. However, I would go through them and remove all the bad page links (I could be wrong about this, but if there isn't a page, it shouldn't be formatted as if it did). I definitely like the sortable tables, and very well researched, the citations among the tables are very well done. I would also remove the bad page links outside of the tables. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your considered and helpful reply. I agree with almost all your points and will action them as soon as possible. On the points with which I have some difficulty:
  1. Unfortunately, there are no organisations which track these deaths.
  2. Whilst I will move much of the lead section to the List section as you suggest, I am not so sure about the necessity for referencing the points as they simply pick out interesting snippets from the list which are fully referenced within the list.
  3. I can fully understand your point about not dabbing the locations for which there are no articles. I did it in this way as many of the locations will, in the fullness of time, have their own article but it will be difficult to maintain the list to match such changes. One could also say that the list is over-dabbed, as some caves are dabbed several times, but I did it this way as it could be difficult for the reader to find the appropriate dab for the entry he is interested in.
Thank you again. Langcliffe (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, my comments regarding citations and dabbing were only due to my understanding of the MOS guidelines on those two issues. From an aesthetic standpoint, the first time a fact is mentioned is the best place to put a citation. Then, you could reiterate that citation in the actual table for clarity. I also understand your point about dabbing, but if and when a person creates a page regarding the currently vacant subject, they might not name it what you named it in your article. I think the only way to alleviate this issue is to do a periodic review of the current events which have no individual pages. Hopefully, if other authors do write about the individual events, they will see that there is a page listing all of them, and link to it (that's what I try to do, anyway). Onel5969 (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Peel

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a little earlier than planned, as a couple of other articles have been held up, so I'm afraid it's another Yorkshire cricketer. Peel is a quite interesting, though, as he is most famous for something that he probably never did. The story goes that in his last game for Yorkshire, he turned up drunk and urinated on the pitch. That is unlikely, but he was a heavy drinker whose career came to an unpleasant end. That aside, he was one of the best cricketers of his time. This is aimed at FAC, but I'm a bit worried that the middle section drags and becomes a list of statistics. Comments on this, or any other prose/comprehensibility issues would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Tim riley

edit

First batch. More to come:

More follows soonest. Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding batch:

  • Australian tour of 1894–95
    • "After having five teeth extracted, Peel played a leading role in the first Test" – this reads rather mystifyingly. If his good performance was in stoic disregard of the recent extractions, I think we want something on the lines of "Despite having five teeth extracted [x hours] before, Peel played…" On the other hand if he had previously been impeded by toothache and the extractions helped, then you might say so.
  • Later life
  • Notes
  • Capitalisation/italicisation of titles of publications: you are inconsistent: e.g. you have "the Sporting Life" but "The Cricket Quarterly", and in your notes you have "The Times" but in the references it's "The Times". Being an old fossil I prefer the latter, though I know The Guardian now calls itself "the Guardian". Consistency desirable, whichever form you favour.
    • I think I've sorted that, but often get confused whether publications actually have "the" in their title or not. Now, only The Times should, and I just removed the other "the"s. (I hope that makes sense to you, because I'm not sure it does to me!) Sarastro1 (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I can't say I found the article bogged down by statistics as you fear it might be. The only place where I had a brief moment of figure fatigue was in the Australia 1894/5 section, but even there I can't see how you could trim much without losing important and relevant information. In any case, I think most people who read the main text (rather than just the lead) will be cricket buffs, who notoriously lap statistics up. And you intersperse the stats with marvellous human touches. I particularly like the gravely demure way you explain for the benefit of those not from these islands that "pissed at the wicket" does not necessarily mean widdled on the popping crease but could just be drunk in charge of a cricket bat. – Tim riley (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Sarastro1 (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Giants

edit
  • First em dash in the second paragraph has a space afterwords that needs removal.
  • We don't need two George Hirst links in the lead.
  • Yorkshire cricketer: "allowed Peel to make his made his first-class debut for Yorkshire against Surrey on 10 July." Drop "made his" – or "his made" if you prefer. Same difference.
  • Home Test matches: Wisden Cricketer of the Year should be italicised.

Thanks for these catches! Sarastro1 (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

edit
  • playing 20 Test matches in which he took 101 wickets. - could be read as him having taken a century a match. May need to rework
  • he played a Test in England for the first time. - implies he played a Test elsewhere before that. Not sure if that's your intention.
  • Watch for repetition of words based on "bowl"
  • As a player, Peel was very popular and admirers often entertained him socially; he became well known for liking to drink. In the match won by England after following-on, Peel was drunk on the morning of the match, and had to be sobered up. In 1897, he was suspended by Yorkshire for drunkenness during a match. Although it is unclear what happened—Peel himself suggested he slipped when fielding, but Hirst remembered many years later that he came on the field drunk and when asked to leave, bowled a ball in the wrong direction—he never played for the county again. A widely circulated story suggests that Peel urinated on the pitch before being sent away, but many historians consider this to be unlikely; the story seems to have originated in 1968, and may be the result of a misunderstanding by the person who reported it. - Although I love this story, I wonder if it's not UNDUE in the lede.
  • Many cricket followers will have heard of Peel purely because of the "pissed at the wicket" thing; it is really the only thing he is still remembered for, so I don't think its UNDUE. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more family information available?
  • Peel played ... Peel played
  • the English winter - I think it's recommended to avoid all season words in the text... not sure if my recollection is correct
  • You are right, but ... There is no easy way to avoid this. It is a fairly common cricket term (reversed in the southern hemisphere, obviously) and particularly in those days, there was no regular "cricket season" where months could easily be given. To avoid convolutions, I prefer "winter" here, as long as the hemisphere is specified. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't mentioned the Gentlemen yet, so for the uninitiated reader "English teams that toured Australia at this time were not composed exclusively of the best cricketers in England. ... The 1884–85 English team, like most earlier tours, contained only professional cricketers" may sound contradictory
  • The Gentlemen/Players thing wouldn't affect this. Some pretty crap amateurs toured as well, and many better professionals were either not invited or chose not to tour. Peel would have by no means have been first choice, hence his lack of selection in England. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peel's performance in 1888 resulted in his selection the following spring as one of Wisden's "Six Great Bowlers"; this was the first time Wisden had made the award which in later years became the prestigious Wisden Cricketer of the Year. - Spring (seasons again), and this is not quite being named Wisden Cricketer of the Year as in the lede.
  • failing to reach fifty in an innings for the first time in an English season since he made his debut. - I'm not following this very well
  • Overlinking: County Championship, Archie MacLaren,
  • Images:
  • This has come up before with images from this source. There is a convoluted explanation that I came up with last time, and I've added it to the image page at Commons. Basically, there are two possible copyright holders, and they both died within the correct time period. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • without hitting a single four - Pardon?
  • Is the accusation of throwing necessary here?
  • His performances had made him famous - not sure of the relationship between this sentence and the preceding ones
  • At the time, Hawke believed these events cost Yorkshire the County Championship, but the team had only two more games to play in that season's competition, and it was mathematically impossible for them to win. - is this still from Peel?
  • "North" against the "South" - notable?
  • Link A J Webbe?
  • four children, one of whom was killed in the First World War. His wife - may be misinterpreted as the son's wife
  • On a pitch affected by rain, batsmen found him very difficult to bat against, - any way to avoid "bat - bat"?
  • Briggs bowled Australia out on a rain-damaged pitch but this was England's only victory as Australia won the series 2–1 - I don't see Briggs mentioned before this, and no link
  • Any more about Peel the batsman?
  • According to the historian David Frith, and following : not really related to his technique, now, is it?

Comments from Cliftonian

edit

Lead

  • I would expand "left-arm spinner" to "left-arm spin bowler"
  • "among their leading batsmen. In 1888," I would break the second paragraph, which is quite long, here. Start the new third paragraph "In 1888, Peel played ..."
  • "followed-on" are we 100% sure this should this have a hyphen in it? I would suspect that "follow-on" should have a hyphen when it is a noun, while the verb form "follow on" should not (e.g. "Team A expected to follow on, but Team B chose not to enforce the follow-on"). Indeed, looking at the follow-on page, this appears to be the case. What is the proper usage here?
  • "he also became the first player to record four successive Test "ducks" (an innings in which a batsman fails to score) in 1894–95" Does this mean he was out for a duck four times in a row, or that four batsmen got out for a duck in a row while he was bowling? Both cases would be rather special, but of course for rather different reasons
  • "after following-on" again, see above
  • You use the word "drunk" and extensions four times in the lead, including three times in three lines; suggest you add some variation (inebriated or intoxicated perhaps)
  • "He died, aged 84, in 1941." I would rephrase to "He died in 1941 at the age of 84." but this is just personal preference

Infobox

  • I would date the picture ("Bobby Peel in 1897")
  • Shouldn't his national side be "England" rather than "English"?
  • You don't need to wl Australia cricket team twice in the infobox

Yorkshire cricketer

  • Maybe say Morley is near Leeds (most people don't know where it is; yes many of those reading this will be familiar with Yorkshire but we should not make this assumption)
  • Colts is the youth team, right?
  • "left-arm spinner" again, see above; I would recommend left-arm spin bowler on first usage
  • Was his first-class debut against Surrey in Yorkshire or away from home?

Test debut

  • Looks good to me

Sacking of Peate

  • Great photograph! Really adds to the atmosphere of the piece.
  • "Hawke may have felt able to act as he knew that Peel was available as a replacement" I would attribute this assertion to the source
  • "match winning" shouldn't this have a hyphen?
  • "Although various matches were played by both teams ..." This long sentence has two semicolons; I advise splitting it up

Home Test matches

  • "for the Gentlemen against the Players, he took six for 34" I thought he played for the Players?
  • "The fielding was poor, and Peel had" I would replace the ", and" with a semicolon here
  • "Holmes questioned" perhaps "Holmes pondered"
  • What are the "representative matches" that caused him to miss Yorkshire matches?
  • "He played in the first Test at Lord's and took six wickets in the game" Perhaps just "He took six wickets in the first Test, at Lord's"
  • "for their counties. Andrew Stoddart was withdrawn" I would replace the full stop with an emdash and expand; "for their counties—Andrew Stoddart, for example, was withdrawn"
  • You don't need to say again that it was from the England team that the players were being withdrawn
  • "Middlesex-Yorkshire" should be an endash rather than a hyphen
  • "was rained off completely" I'm not sure "completely" is necessary, removing it does not change the meaning in my view
  • "Ted Wainwright took more wickets he did" word missing

Australian tour of 1894–95

  • Expand "Stoddart" in the caption to his full name
  • Both paragraphs here are very long, I would recommend splitting them into four
  • "Peel was successful in the opening first-class matches of the tour..." long sentence with two semi-colons, recommend breaking up
  • "drunk heavily" shouldn't this be "drank heavily"?
  • "sticky" the quotation marks here should not be inside the wikilink
  • Love the variations on the quote—I laughed after imagining all the phonetic Yorkshire versions in my head, then seeing it written in "the Queen's English" at the bottom
  • Again see the query above regarding the four successive ducks—it seems we are talking about him being out for a duck four times in a row, but the wording seems to imply this is a great achievement Peel would have been proud of ("a feat unequalled until 1936"). I would try to make clearer, only delicately of course, that this is a bad thing

Final seasons

  • I think this first paragraph is long, recommend splitting
  • "of his achievement" I would prefer "of this achievement"

I will come back to finish later; great work overall and I look forward to reading the rest —Cliftonian (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissal by Yorkshire

  • I would wikilink Lord Hawke in the caption
  • "and took eight for 53, and eleven wickets in the match, against Kent." This last comma would be better after "wickets"
  • "Then against Lancashire, he suffered an injury and missed around a month of cricket." Perhaps "He then suffered an injury in a match against Lancashire that caused him to miss around a month of cricket."
  • "Anthony Woodhouse in his history of Yorkshire County Cricket Club," I would put a comma after "Woodhouse"
  • "who was present at the match" Why not just "who was at the match"
  • "Hirst was having breakfast when Peel came in drunk" I would preface this "According to this account," to make clear that this is the start of a new version of the story.
  • "and according to Hirst, bowled a ball in the wrong direction" either put a comma before "according" or take out the one after Hirst
  • "After falling asleep in the hotel, he was advised by Hirst to apologise to Lord Hawke. He refused, claiming that he was indispensable to the team and would be recalled." Perhaps merge these "... to Lord Hawke, but refused, claiming ..."
  • Did signing for Accrington mean he couldn't play for Yorkshire anymore? (as it's in Lancashire?)
  • "[Lord Hawke] put his arm around me and escorted me off the field and out of Yorkshire cricket. What a gentlemen” typo at the end here, not to mention the weird quotation marks
  • “either very gracious, or exceedingly sarcastic.” weird quotation marks

Later life

  • "the first for the "North" against the "South" and once for the Players against the Gentlemen, although he did little with bat or ball." perhaps "first for the "North" against the "South" and then for the Players against the Gentlemen, but did little with bat or ball."
  • "Pearson suggests that the at Peel's signing showed the clubs that big-name signings could benefit the clubs" word missing here and a bit repetitive; suggest reworking
  • Perhaps make clear for foreigners that a white rose is symbolic of Yorkshire

Technique and personality

  • All looks good. I would however put an inline cite next to where we say he was apparently not a considerate husband, as this is likely to be challenged.

Notes, References, Bibliography

  • See no problems

Looks like a solid FA to me and I fully expect to be supporting it as such in the near future. Well done on this—a really good and enjoyable read, even for a non-Yorkshireman like myself. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your sharp eye, comments and kind words. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure of course —Cliftonian (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

edit

In view of the weight of comments that you have received from the worthy reviewers above, I think I'll wait for the FAC (not that I shall have much to say there). I've made a couple of minor prose changes, and I've got a couple more small issues with the lead:

  • I don't think the statement "In 1888, Peel played a Test match in England for the first time" is necessary. It doesn't go anywhere; he'd already played against Australia, so this was not his debut
  • OK, but that point is not apparent in the lead. The sentence looks misplaced, sandwiched between his "double" feat of 1896 and his matchwinning performance of 1894–95. You could rearrange the text a little, e.g. "He had already played for England, touring Australia with two professional teams, although he did not play a Test in England until 1888. He had also appeared in the prestigious Gentlemen v Players matches." Or something similar. Brianboulton (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stole your wording! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't necessary in the lead both to link "duck" and explain what it is. Personally I would simplify this sentence to "...in 1894–95 he became the first player who failed to score in four successive Test innings" – but I'll leave that to you.

Please notify me as soon as you nominate this at FAC, as I shall probably be away from WP for about 10 days from 8 March. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4Minute

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 to see how the article can be improved. I have added sources to support every statement made in the article, but I was wondering what should be added to the article to bring it up to GA or even FA status. Since this article is about a K-pop group, it's difficult to see what should be added to the article to improve it

Thanks, KJ click here 08:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prosperosity comments

edit
Hi, I'm having a couple of issues with the prose and the style it's been written in. If you look at featured level articles, such as Kate Bush (actually, the Chinese musicians with featured articles like Jay Chou and S.H.E might be very helpful), there are different sections detailing their impact, musical style (and who generally creates their music), who were they influenced by and if they influenced anyone, why they became popular, their impact in the musical industry, how critics received their music, etc. At the moment, a lot of the prose in the article is written like this:
On May 23rd, 4minute released this.
On June 23rd, 4minute performed here.
The 2013 and 2014 sections especially have this issue, since they're just sentences and not paragraphs. As I understand it, 4minute members have done some acting roles and presented TV shows, so a section detailing this and how their acting was received would be good for the article. The endorsement section should probably be written in prose as well, especially if 4minute are widely associated with a specific product they've promoted (e.g. Mika Nakashima and Kate cosmetics, Britney Spears with her perfume line, etc). I would recommend merging some sections together (like how Hit Your Heart and Diamond have been). Volume Up and Name Is 4minute are similar enough releases that they probably should have a merged section.
4minute's music is also popular in other countries like Taiwan, so adding more information about their impact outside of Korea would be beneficial. There's a lot about their activities in Japan, but not about how they were received (once again it's just 'released this, released that'). 4minute debuted quite in the recent Korean wave in Japan, which is pretty notable, but the article doesn't mention this at all. Mentioning how they dealt with the Japanese language should also be in here (I can't remember how well they can speak it, but I know some members of Girls Generation, Big Bang, 2NE1, etc are much more fluent in Japanese (or English) than their bandmates.) A lot of their Japanese music was produced by Korean producers (like First, Ready Go and Love Tension), which is pretty rare unless it's a translated Korean song, so I'd like to see something about that in their musical style section.
I'd also like to see some more information on their training period. How did the band come into existence? Since it seems to be based around Hyuna after she left the Wonder Girls, it would be quite unorthodox compared with other groups. Interviews that flesh out that period (and the members' own opinions of 4minute) might be good for finding out information like that.
I would also recommend any sources that might disappear to be archived at webcitation.org or web.archive.org.
Good luck! --Prosperosity (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asmir Begović

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 key areas for improvement to be identified before sending it to GA. Thanks, C679 21:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits Street

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is an article about a controversial television documentary series that has recently aired in the UK. I've listed if for peer review because I'd like to know how best to take it forward. I've put a lot of work into it over the past few weeks and believe it has potential as a future GA, but would appreciate some feedback on things such as whether more is needed, if it is fair and balanced, and so on. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Tyler

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 want to know how far away the article is from Good Article status. I have been working on the article for years and want to get cracking on neatening up the flaws. If you look back over a few years you'll see its transformation. Feedback on how you find the article (particularly in the 1970s to 80s section, which I have been working on the most) would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Bonnietylersave (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a renomination, 4 February 2014

Okay, I'll give it a go. 1. Lead Section.

First, I don't know if I'd categorize her as a "philanthropist". She does do charitable work, but there is a difference between that and "philanthropy". Second, the second paragraph needs copy edit work (e.g. the sentence about the Brit awards is clumsy). Same with the third paragraph (e.g. commas missing between album and album titles). Fourth paragraph, her voice "is", not "as" a result. Also, although the WP article is "list of best-selling singles...", I think you might want to revise that to something along the lines, "among the best selling singles of all time, and then link to the page for reference.

2. Early life.

First paragraph. First, I think you should consider renaming it simply "Early life", as it reads now it is confusing. Second, the second sentence is awkward ("brought up... growing up"). Third, Motown is misspelled. Also, Tina Turner wasn't a solo act during Tyler's formative year (part of a duo, Ike & Tina Turner). Fourth, last sentence in the first paragraph is very awkward. One other note, you don't mention her birthdate in this paragraph, which is unusual for biographies.
Second paragraph. Fist, in the first paragraph you refer to her as Hopkins, but here as Tyler, without explaining the name change. Had she chosen her stage name prior to her Aunt entering her in the contest, if so, why, when, and why did she chose the name? Second, the entire paragraph needs copy/edit work. Third, goes back to the first point, and after finishing the paragraph, I now don't know if she changed her name to Tyler, and then to Davis. If this is the first name change, you should edit the first sentence to refer to her as Hopkins, and now in the last sentence you should refer to the two name changes, making sure to indicate that one would be in the future.
Third paragraph. First, the first sentence is incredibly awkward. Second sentence, drop the "In" which begins it, and it should be "finishing" fourth out of seven. The fifth sentence is awkward and confusing, you might want to break it up into two sentences to make it more clear. The sixth sentence should read "...months later she was signed to a contract by RCA Records". The seventh sentence is awkward as written, should read something like, "...it was recommended she change her stage name".

3. Career

First, you might consider moving the last two paragraphs from the above section into this section, creating a new opening sub-section called, "Early Years" (or something like that). Those paragraphs are about the Genesis of her career, so you might consider it. Second, the first sentence is a bit awkward and redundant (songwriting and producing team which became her songwriters and producers?). Third, you should simply say her first recording was "My, My... Fourth, the next sentence is awkward.
Okay, I'm going to stop here. On the whole, the entire article needs to have copy edit work done on it. It seems to be written in a casual conversational style and vernacular as well. It also has some peacock language in it. The GOCE is having a drive next month, and I'd be happy to nominate for C/E work, if you'd like. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Cobain

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 to improve the article before nominating it for good article status. I'd be thankful for any feedback

Thanks, Littlecarmen (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ktr101
  • There are a few external links that redirect their paths, although that would be more of a cosmetic suggestion at this point.
  • All of the images should have "|alt=..." in them, so that they can be viewed by users who are unable to see the images.
  • Every "Citation needed" template should be addressed, as well as all of the other hidden category issues at the bottom of the page.
  • There are multiple instances of statements without a citation after them, and these need to be cited, otherwise we do not know where the statement came from. Additionally, all maintenance templates should be addressed, and then removed. If you cannot find a citation for something, then you'll have to remove it.
  • The lead could be expanded more so that it matches the length of the text, although it shouldn't be more than two paragraphs longer.
  • I would focus on improving the citations and the above issues for now, as I will let someone else check your prose, as I do not feel all that confident in making sweeping suggestions at this point in time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Littlecarmen, I started reviewing this article a month ago if you haven't seen so already. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Falstaff (opera)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Verdi's last opera, a glorious comedy, has an interesting history. After a triumphant premiere the work fell into neglect, but is nowadays a firm fixture in the repertory all round the world. Two editors, Viva-Verdi and Tim riley, have made substantial additions to the article in the past twelve months, and we have combined our new material into what we think is a coherent whole. We have FAC in mind, and would be glad of comments from colleagues on prose, balance, structure, images and pretty much anything. – Tim riley (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

edit

I'm a little stressed for time this weekend, so just a few comments to get you going, as it were. I will try to give it more detailed attention next week.

  • Lead: I don't think that at the moment the lead fully summarises the article. There ought to be a line summarising what the opera is basically about; giving the Shakespeare plays on which it is based won't help everyone. Also, the composition history isn't mentioned in the lead, nor, apart from the critics' comment about a lack of melody, is the musical style.
  • Conception: The one-line paragraph "The secret was kept for the following eighteen months" is somewhat novelettish, definitely not encyclopedic. I recommend you lose it.
  • Uncited statements:
  • "...things went fairly smoothly in January 1893 up to the premiere performance on 9 February, after which the composer, in traditional fashion, stayed in Milan until the night of the third performance".
  • Musical score details
  • Could the inline quotes be differentiated from the text more clearly? I occasionally found it hard to identify what was quote and what was text.
  • I noticed some inconsistencies in page range formatting, e.g. 113–130 v. 714–15 etc

This is just a bit of surface-scratching for the moment. I will return to it as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed comments:

Conception
  • "dozens of passages from Henry IV" seems a bit loose. Literally dozens? Or merely "numerous"?
  • "Verdi received the draft libretto a few weeks later" – no date reference given for "a few weeks later"
  • "He had earlier set an adaptation of Macbeth (1847) and had considered King Lear as a subject..." – and of course Otello, which you have linked to Shakespeare in the lead but not in the text.
  • Paragraphs should not begin "But..."
  • Give year for 10 July
Composition

More to come Brianboulton (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All good stuff. Looking forward to more when you're ready. Tim riley (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just making a comment on the last bit, Casa Ricordi might be a better link. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing: Not a lot more, in truth. A highly readable article, not overburdened with technical or exclusive prose.

Composition
  • "Verdi and Strepponi" – who was Strepponi?
Premieres
  • "encouraged the composer to agree to go to" is clumsy - suggest delete "to agree". Also, "on 14 April" rather than "of"
  • I think I would probably promote poor old Umberto (assassinated, I believe) in the list of the grandees, e.g. "together with King Umberto I and other major royal and political figures of the day."
  • "...the autograph is essentially a reliable source, augmented by contemporary Ricordi editions for the few passages that Verdi omitted to amend in his own score." This passage left me scratching my head – it does not in my eyes point to a definitive score. And the wording "omitted to amend" is most curious, as though this was some dereliction on his part.
    Well, it was a dereliction really. He kept tinkering with the vocal and orchestral parts (and Ricordi tried to keep up with his changes) but he didn't always remember to amend his manuscript full score. Perhaps we need to say so in as many words. I'll ponder.
  • "made his own translation, with the help of a Parisian poet" – so not quite his own, then?
Renascence
Roles table
  • The "Falstaff" link should be extended to the full name of the character
    • As suggested by Guillaume Tell below, I've removed the links from the characters' names, as they aren't really helpful in the context of the opera rather than Shakespeare's original. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Music
  • Second paragraph is approx 80% quotation. I think it would be preferable to increase the paraphrase.
  • Verdi's statement that "I am not writing a comic opera" seems at odds with what is written in the "Conception" section.
    • If I spoke Italian, other than menu and wine list Italian, and had access to Verdi's original words I might be more confident in guessing, as I tentatively do, that "comic" here means "buffo", as opposed to "comedy" in the sense of the Bard's comedies such as As You Like It. I'll ponder this point. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General point: the format of placing the "Roles" table and the synopsis after the compositional and performance history, rather than before it, is at odds with the style of other opera articles taken to FAC – those that I've been concerned with, anyway. Is there a rationale for this?

Viva-Verdi and I are between a rock and a hard cliché here. The WP opera project customarily puts the sections in the order we have followed here, and we are loth to flout that convention. On the other hand, from earlier discussions I think it is true to say that Viva-Verdi and I agree that the order followed in the existing opera FAs is more sensible. (Some of our discussions were over lunch in London, so that I have the pleasure of quoting Viva-Verdi viva voce.) I think it might be best to await other comments here and (God willing) at FAC, and follow the consensus, which I hope will be of the Boultonian persuasion. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've not done a sources check, but that can await the FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these, Brian. All grist to the mill. Silence from me, above, indicates assent. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

from Smerus

edit

Excellent article which I greatly enjoyed, congratulations. I really have nothing worth saying; only two points occurred to me, neither of which are germane to the topic. One: was Verdi perhaps being sarky to Boito about him wasting time which could have been used to complete Nerone?...when Boito had already been tinkering with it for ten years or so.... Two: I didn't know that Benjamin Lumley, who had orginally commissioned the Tempest libretto in a vain attempt to lure Mendelssohn to grand opera, had offered it to Verdi. He eventually gave it to Halévy, whose version turned out to be a gigantic flop.....still, as they say, tutta la vita è burla.....Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both of those! Delightful sidelong glances. I had no idea about the gestation of Nerone (though I bet my co-conspirator Viva-Verdi did). The Lumley point is ad rem and I'll follow it up. Tim riley (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cg2p0B0u8m

edit

These are my comments:

  • should the fact that it is an Italian opera be mentioned in the lead?
  • Under 'Conception' "He had earlier set operatic adaptations of..." Why not give the dates of the suggested projects? Or maybe this phrase might be linked with the bit about the Tempest in the first sentence of this section.
    • Dates - good idea. Will do.
  • I think it would be useful to mention somewhere that there were many portrayals of the story in opera before Verdi and one survives on the fringe of the repertoire up to today. Grove Opera lists them in the Shakespeare article. At the time of the premiere audiences were familiar with the Nicolai; maybe this is why the opera did not catch on in German centres (and Roger Parker discusses aspects of this in the Glyndebourne book I mention below)
    • Excellent point. I'll follow this up.
  • 2nd para of premiere - original company = original cast ?
  • 3rd para of premiere - Gossett disagrees = Gossett disagreed
    • There is a strange custom that a statement in a book, however old the book and however dead the author, is referred to in the present tense, as with "Hepokoski considers" earlier in that same para. Tim riley (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 'Neglect' (and also in the lead) I feel that too much emphasis is put on this. Clearly there were fewer performances, but I had a quick look at Loewenberg and it was still being premiered through the 90s and beyond. The Opéra-Comique revived it in 1901-2 and Kaminski mentions Toscanini visits to Buenos Aires. "After the initial excitement, audiences quickly diminished. Operagoers were nonplussed by the absence of big traditional arias and choruses." just needs toning down (nonplussed?). There is also some story I've seen that Ricordi insisted on people taking Manon Lescaut as well as Falstaff if they wanted to perform the latter. Likewise in the Resascence section is concentrating on the big names and big houses accurate - (there are interesting things among early pirate recordings in your discography ref 50) ?
  • I think you are a Beecham fan, so I will be careful... but his comment is a bit of a 'rent-a-quote'. Sorry Sir Thomas, Falstaff is not Don Carlos, Aida or a Shakespearian tragedy, it is a rumbustious comedy. Broad and impressive tunes would be a bit difficult to squeeze however much the public might want them.
  • I had a feeling that Giulini was considered to be quite an important interpreter of Falstaff (put in the lead instead of Bernstein) - yes you do mention him
  • I am not an expert on referencing but are the two 'Osbornes' sufficiently separated in the referencing system?
  • If you can access the Glyndebourne programme book from 2009 there is an excellent article by Russ McDonald 'Shakespeare Transposed' from a literary viewpoint which has useful things in it "multiplicity transmuted into music" (it may possibly be the same as your DVD notes...)
  • Overall, of course it is very good which is why I didn't have that many comments!

I hope this rambling is helpful? Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful indeed – warm thanks! Tim riley (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From 4meter4

edit

Great work on the article. I made a few minor copy editing changes to the article. I have only two suggestion to make. First, in the Conception section. I found this long sentence a little awkward to read: "Verdi still had doubts, and on the next day sent another letter to Boito expressing his concerns, which related to "the large number of years in my age", his health (which he admits to being good), his ability to complete the project: "if I were not to finish the music?", and stating that this would all be a waste of the younger man's time and be a distraction for the librettist in composing his own new opera (which became Nerone)." My personal preference would be to break it up somehow.

Second, I think the perfomance history in the Renascence section should be expanded to include some more notable productions post 1941 to the present. 4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these points. I'll certainly redraw the long sentence. Happy to flesh out the postwar prods a bit, but would be grateful for any pointers that come to your mind. Tim riley (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One that comes to mind is the Robert Carsen's new production set during the 1950s which premiered at the Royal Opera in London and then came to the Met, La Scala, and the Canadian Opera Company. (see [1], and [2]) I would also suggest looking at what DVD recordings their are as a possible guide for inclusion.4meter4 (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

edit

Don't be fooled by the name, I profess no great operatic knowledge. Having said that, this is a splendid, easy read. I may have missed some things in my ignorance, but I could only find two very minor points:

  • ”but owned and frequently re-read Shakespeare's plays in Italian translations by Carlo Rusconi and Giulio Carcano, which he kept by his bedside, where they have remained since his death.”: Assuming that this isn’t a typo, and that his bedside still exists (presumably in a museum-type affair), could we elaborate just a touch so that it isn’t so jarring?
  • ”In a gloomy mood, Falstaff curses the sorry state of the world. Some mulled wine soon improves his mood.”: mood…mood

Otherwise, I think this one should have no problems at FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GuillaumeTell

edit

I haven't read very much of the article so far (hoping to do more tomorrow and/or over the weekend), but what struck me immediately was the roles table. When I first looked, there was a blue link for Mistress Quickly - but no mention there of the opera except in the small print at the bottom. Now there is a blue link for Sir John Falstaff with a rather similar look - except that there are screeds of stuff about real people/characters/etc who don't relate to the opera. In fact, just about all of the characters listed appear in The Merry Wives, so why aren't they all blue-linked in some way? Personally, I'd delink anything in the roles table and perhaps add a short paragraph relating the people in the table to the MWW and perhaps vice versa if necessary. --GuillaumeTell 22:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point—thank you. I've delinked as suggested. I could run up a brief pen picture of the characters, raiding the various sources. I don't think, if memory serves, any other operatic FAs have such a section. I think the excellent synopsis (not my work, so I can say that) covers this. Tim riley (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Dr.

edit

Coming tomorrow..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "When Karajan was in a position to do so he added Falstaff to the repertoire of his opera company at Aachen in 1941,[49] and he remained" repetition of he, I think you can remove he in the second instance.
  • Even on Safari which uses the standard small wiki text the "Poster for original cast performance, Trieste, 1894" pushes out the header for Neglect which is against MOS guidelines I believe. You might want to place a {-} break after that section to avoid it happening on different screen.

Looks in great shape, seems most issues have already been addressed by the myriad of comments here!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, Doc. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GabeMc

edit
Lead
  • "The work, described by its creators as a commedia lirica, premiered on 9 February 1893 at La Scala, Milan."
Will the casual reader understand the meaning of commedia lirica? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand it. I've added a footnote explaining why the literal translation is to be regarded with caution. Tim riley (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Falstaff, written when Verdi was approaching the age of eighty, was the last of his twenty-eight operas, and was only his second comedy. It was his third work based on a Shakespeare play, following Macbeth and Otello."
Consider: "Verdi wrote Falstaff, which was the last of his twenty-eight operas, as he was approaching the age of eighty. It was his second comedy, and his third work based on a Shakespeare play, following Macbeth and Otello", or similar.
Better. Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the initial performances in Italy, other European countries and the US the work was neglected until the conductor Arturo Toscanini insisted on its revival at La Scala and the Metropolitan Opera in New York."
I think you need a comma after US.
Done.
  • "Some felt that the piece suffered from a lack of the full-blooded melodies of the best of Verdi's previous operas, a view strongly contradicted by Toscanini."
Comma splice? It seems there is a comma separating two independent clauses. Consider: "Although some felt that the piece suffered from a lack of the full-blooded melodies of the best of Verdi's previous operas, Toscanini strongly contradicted this view", or similar. Also "full-blooded melodies" strikes me as an unencyclopedic phrase.
I think the construction is all right, but I take your point about "full-blooded". Shall ponder. We need to convey somehow that in earlier works Verdi was, so to speak, painting in oils with bold strokes but in Falstaff is much subtler and delicate. Tim riley (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among those most closely associated with the title role have been Victor Maurel (the first Falstaff), Mariano Stabile, Giuseppe Valdengo, Tito Gobbi, Geraint Evans and Bryn Terfel."
Consider: "Several actors are closely associated with the title role, including Victor Maurel (the first Falstaff), Mariano Stabile, Giuseppe Valdengo, Tito Gobbi, Geraint Evans and Bryn Terfel", or similar.
Yes, good. Done.
Conception
  • "Verdi liked it, but replied that 'to deal with it properly you need a Rossini or a Donizetti.'"
Its my understanding that one ought not introduce a direct quote with a subordinating conjunction.
So I was taught when a schoolboy, I admit. Sometimes the flow of the prose justifies breaking the rule, I think, but in truth this is not one of those times. Shall amend. Tim riley (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1850 he considered"
At the start of this paragraph you used a comma after the introductory phrase, which is optional as long as the article is consistent.
This is always tricky. American editors have no problem: to them a comma is mandatory. Englishmen have to make their own calls. I put one in where I think it will help the reader and leave it out where I think it won't. I can't do consistency over this, alas. Tim riley (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For a comic subject Verdi considered"
Again, this introductory phrase need not be set-off with commas, but in other places you do set them off.
  • "Verdi still had doubts, and on the next day sent another letter to Boito expressing his concerns, which related to "the large number of years in my age", his health (which he admits to being good), his ability to complete the project: "if I were not to finish the music?", and stating that this would all be a waste of the younger man's time and be a distraction for the librettist in composing his own new opera (which became Nerone)."
This sentence is quite wordy, IMO. Consider splitting it into two.
I've changed this in response to an earlier editor's comment to the same effect. Tim riley (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yet, as his biographer Mary Jane Phillips-Matz notes, 'Verdi could not hide his delight at the idea of writing another opera'."
This might be a matter of taste, but it seems wrong to start this sentence with the adverb yet.
Better than "nonetheless", "nevertheless" or similar, though, I think. Tim riley (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The secret was kept for the following eighteen months."
I always avoid using one-sentence paragraphs, particularly at the end of a section, as it gives the impression that something is missing.
Removed. Tim riley (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1889, Verdi had been an opera composer for more than fifty years."
Consider: "By 1889, Verdi had been composing operas for more than fifty years", or similar.
  • "In his tragic operas Verdi introduced moments of comedy in, for instance, Un ballo in maschera and La forza del destino."
Consider: "Verdi introduced moments of comedy in his tragic operas, including Un ballo in maschera and La forza del destino", or similar.
Better. Tim riley (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1850 he considered but finally rejected a suggestion of writing an operatic version of Shakespeare's The Tempest for Covent Garden."
Consider: "In 1850, he considered writing an operatic version of Shakespeare's The Tempest for Covent Garden, but ultimately rejected the idea", or similar.
Yes, an improvement. Tim riley (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the success of Otello in 1887 he commented, 'After having relentlessly massacred so many heroes and heroines, I have at last the right to laugh a little.'"
Other may disagree, but IMO you need a citation to follow each and every quote.
I entirely concur. Shall attend to this. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boito was doubly pleased with The Merry Wives as a plot."
Consider combining this paragraph with the preceding one and swapping out this use of Boito with a pronoun.
Having added a sentence to the preceding paragraph since you wrote your comment I have rather sabotaged this suggestion. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at a time when his interest had been piqued by reading Shakespeare's play (and several others):"
Consider dropping: "(and several others)", as it seems a bit off-topic.
Yes.
  • "The composer did not speak English, but owned and frequently re-read Shakespeare's plays in Italian translations by Carlo Rusconi and Giulio Carcano, which he kept by his bedside, where they have remained since his death."
Since the sentence mentions his reading of Shakespeare's plays in Italian, consider: "The composer could not read English", or similar.
Logical, but the jingle of read/re-read within a few words is not ideal. Tim riley (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Verdi still had doubts, and on the next day sent another letter to Boito expressing his concerns, which related to 'the large number of years in my age', his health (which he admits to being good), his ability to complete the project: 'if I were not to finish the music?', and stating that this would all be a waste of the younger man's time and be a distraction for the librettist in composing his own new opera (which became Nerone)."
This is a bit wordy. Consider splitting this into two sentences.
Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 10 July, he wrote again"
Omit again.
OK. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Composition
  • ""That act has the devil on its back; and when you touch it, it burns" Boito complained."
Even if accurate to the OS, there ought not be a coordinating conjunction following a semi-colon. The principle of minimal change and MOS:QUOTE support this type of typographical adaptation.
Ah, well I go into battle under the flag of H W Fowler on this point. He held that it was a superstition to believe one can't begin a sentence with a conjunction, and so do I, and a fortiori a clause after a semicolon. It's pistols at dawn on this point, definitely. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boito was overjoyed, and Verdi reported that he was still working on the opera but the two men did not meet again until October or November."
Fix this run-on by adding a comma before but.
Now I look at it, it's rather an odd sentence even with a comma. The bits of the sentence don't seem to belong together. Shall ponder. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eventually Maurel became compliant enough to be cast."
Consider: "Maurel eventually became compliant enough and Verdi cast him as Falstaff", ""Maurel eventually became compliant enough to be cast", or "Eventually, Maurel became compliant enough to be cast", or similar.
Yes. The last, I think. Will do Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boito's original sketch is. lost, but surviving correspondence shows that the finished opera was not greatly different from his first thoughts."
There's a minor tense issue here.
Yes, I think the present tense at the second mention will do very well. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He wrote to Boito in August 1889 telling him that he was writing a fugue: 'Yes, Sir! A fugue ... and a buffa fugue', which 'could probably be fitted in'."
Although convenient, you shouldn't introduce a direct quote with a subordinating conjunction.
I like to think of this usage as what Fowler called a "Sturdy Indefensible", that is, something that doesn't stand up to strict analysis but is established practice. You are, of course, absolutely correct, but in truth I think the prose flows better this way. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but does it flow better that way because its the only way to phrase it, or because its a convenient way? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was sorry, nonetheless, to see the loss of Falstaff's second humiliation, where he is obliged to dress up as the Wise Woman of Brentford to escape from Ford"
The pronoun seems to refer to Verdi. Consider: "where the character is obliged to dress up", or similar.
How about "see the loss of Falstaff's second humiliation, dressed up as the Wise Woman ..."? Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does that put two Falstaffs in close proximity? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine, and shorter. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Verdi, like Boito, was anxious to do justice to Shakespeare"
Consider: "Verdi and Boito were anxious to do justice to Shakespeare, Verdi explained", or similar. Also, "to do justice to" is jarring and it should be smoothened, IMO.
Have you any thoughts on another way of saying "do justice to"? I'm scratching my head a bit. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consider: "Verdi and Boito were anxious to successfully adapt Shakespeare for opera, Verdi explained", or similar. It loses a little bit of the meaning, or the meaning is made more subtle, but "to do justice to" roughly equals "to successfully adapt", IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So it does, and that is just what they were anxious to do. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By early 1891 he was declaring that"
There is some inconsistency with the use of commas after introductory phrases, as in the preceding paragraph you write: "In November, Boito took the completed first act to Verdi at Santa'Agata" and the article body starts with "By 1889, Verdi had been an opera composer for more than fifty years."
You're right. Probably the result of combining the prose of an adopted American (Viva-Verdi) and a stay-at-home Englishman (me). I think before FAC we'd better go through the whole article removing all commas and then reinserting only the ones that are strictly necessary. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By early 1891 he was declaring that he could not finish the work that year, but in May he expressed some small optimism, which by mid-June, had turned into"
1) Comma use after introductory phrases. 2) Excessive use of the passive voice. Instead of "he was declaring that" consider: "he declared that". 3) Omit the comma in: "which by mid-June, had turned into".
Agree on the punctuation; not so sure about the phrasing. Shall ponder. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boito was overjoyed, and Verdi reported that he was still working on the opera but the two men did not meet again until October or November."
Consider moving the comma that now follows overjoyed to before but.
Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Then the Verdis were in Genoa for the winter where they were both ill, and two months of work were lost."
Consider: "The Verdis then travelled to Genoa, where they stayed for a winter during which they both became ill, losing two months of work."
Not keen on that: it reads as though both Mr and Mrs Verdi were doing the work. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but at first the singer sought contractual terms unacceptable to Verdi"
Consider: "but at first the singer sought contractual terms that were unacceptable to Verdi".
Will do. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "things went fairly smoothly in January 1893"
fairly is an excess modifier.
Not needed, I concur. Removed. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Premieres
  • "After Verdi and Strepponi left Milan on 2 March"
While I often catch myself overusing had, it seems to me that left should be in the perfect past.
OK done. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 4 February 1895"
I believe this full date needs comma after the year.
Over my dead body. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section seems to eschew use of a comma after introductory phrases, whereas elsewhere in the article they are used; make consistent.
  • "The first performance of Falstaff was at La Scala in Milan on 9 February 1893."
Consider: "Falstaff premiered at La Scala in Milan on 9 February 1893", or similar.
Not keen on "premiere" as an intransitive verb. Not familiar in British usage. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tickets for the first night were thirty times the usual price"
Consider: "Tickets prices for the first night reached thirty times the usual price", or similar.
The shorter version seems better to me. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics from all over Europe were present, together with royalty, aristocracy and leading figures from the arts."
It seems a bit odd to mention critics before royalty, aristocracy and leading figures from the arts. Consider: "Royalty, aristocracy and leading figures from the arts joined critics from all over Europe at the performance", or similar.
I suppose it was putting the cognoscenti before the Establishment, but I don't mind re-ordering. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The performance was a huge success; numbers were encored, and at the end the applause for Verdi and the cast lasted an hour."
Do multiple sources agree on the amount of time that the encore lasted, because an hour seems a bit dubious—I've seen 10-15 minutes of applause at the end of shows that seemed like an eternity.
Pretty solidly backed up by the sources. He had to take more than thirty curtain calls, which at two minutes each time to get the curtain up, give him time to bow, and then get the curtain down again seems about right from the arithmetical point of view. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For some of these he altered his manuscript, but for others musicologists have had to rely on the numerous full and piano scores put out by his publisher, Ricordi."
Maybe its just me, but this seems a bit confused.
I'll ponder and clarify if possible. When he made a change to the orchestral or vocal parts during rehearsals or later he usually amended his own manuscript score, but sometimes forgot. His publishers were vigilant and did what they could to incorporate all his running changes in the published version, but in the circumstances it is not surprising that the published scores don't always match the manuscript score.
  • "Ricordi attempted to keep up with the changes, issuing new edition after new edition"
"issuing new edition after new edition" is redundant; consider: "issuing several new editions", or similar.
  • "the orchestral and piano scores were often mutually contradictory."
What does mutually contradictory mean?
That one contradicted the other and vice versa.
Neglect
  • "He was appointed musical director of La Scala in 1898, and programmed Falstaff from the start of his tenure."
There is a comma separating the two verbs in a compound predicate.
Redrawn
Renascence
  • "who were was among his répétiteurs at Salzburg. "
  • "Leonard Bernstein conducted the work at the Met and the Vienna State Opera, and on record."
Consider: "Leonard Bernstein conducted the work at the Met, the Vienna State Opera and on record."
The prepositions are clearer in the existing version I think.
Act I
  • "To Ford's disapproval, Fenton is in love with Nannetta. Finding a moment to be alone, Fenton and Nannetta exchange lovers' banter."
It might be better to avoid naming then renaming Fenton and Nannetta in such close proximity. Consider: "To Ford's disapproval, Fenton is in love with Nannetta, and the pair exchange lovers' banter during a private moment together", or similar.
  • "In these two identical letters, Falstaff professes his love for each of the women, although it is really their husbands' money that he covets."
Unless contained in quoted material, I avoid using really as an unencyclopedic substitute for in actuality. Consider: "Although Falstaff professes his love for each of the women in these two identical letters, he is primarily interested in their husbands' money", or similar unless this changes the meaning that I'm missing.
  • "They are furious about them and in conjunction with Mistress Quickly and Nannetta Ford, resolve to punish the knight."
Except for a mention in Roles, I'm not sure that its clear here that Falstaff is a knight or that he is fat. It might be good to add a touch more background to this section, but maybe I'm just unfamiliar with the conventions.
All Act I comments dealt with. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Act II
  • "Engraving by Ettore Tito of act 2, scene 2, from the original production."
The first line of the image caption is an incomplete sentence, which I think is fine as long as it doesn't end with a terminal punctuation. Maybe the following sentence demands it; I'm not sure. Also, "Ford and the servants creeps towards Fenton and Nannetta", maybe its a matter of Engvar, but should creeps be plural here?
  • "They think that they will at last catch Falstaff with Alice, but instead find Fenton, who is ordered by Ford to leave."
1) "They think that they" is jarring; smoothen this out. 2) I think "ordered by Ford" contains a squinting modifier; consider: "whom Ford orders to leave", or similar.
  • "the women declare that that will not happen."
While this is technically correct I wonder it its not unnecessarily jarring to many readers.
  • "Mistress Quickly announces Falstaff's arrival, Mistress Ford has a large hamper and a screen placed in readiness."
Comma splice.
All Act II comments dealt with. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Act III
  • "Nannetta will be disguised as Queen of the Fairies, Caius will wear a monk's costume"
Comma splice.
That's all right as the second of three on the list, with an "and" before the third.
Music
  • "There are orchestral bits which are just as funny to listen to as the comic instrumental bits"
This non-restrictive phrase should have a preceding comma.
I am loth to alter a quote, and i.m.o. it's a defining phrase in any case (i.e. there are bits that are funny as opposed to bits that are not.)
  • "and Die Meistersinger which is an outstanding Wagnerian opera."
Ibid.
I'll check the source. I'm pretty certain this a translation from Toscanini's original Italian, and so a little silent help with the punctuation is justifiable.
  • "In critical analyses of the opera the extent to which Falstaff is a "Shakespearian" opera has often been debated."
This seems fragmented; smoothen it out.
Yes. Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... In progressCompleted. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have devoted much care to these very detailed comments and I am enormously grateful. I look forward to more when you have time and inclination. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that a few of my suggestions rang true. I'll continue my review shortly. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few? A few?. A lot. More please. Tim riley (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
Sorry to be late to the ball. A noble effort. I'm working somewhat slowly on this, here are a few initial comments and I'll move forward from there:
Lede
  • "round the world". This troubles me slightly, would not "around the world" be better. I have no great objections to informalities but I don't see what's to be gained from it.
Conception
  • Can a date be assigned to Rossini's comment? I also notice you use "said", back to back. At least one should be changed. Some reviewers don't like the word to be used instead of "stated" or synonym.
    • Changed one "said" to "commented". I haven't seen a date for Rossini's remark. It was quoted in the memoirs of the sculptor Giovanni Dupré in 1879. Verdi saw the remark when Ricordis published excerpts from Dupré's book in their house magazine later in 1879. He got v. huffy about it and Ricordi had to soothe him. Tim riley (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "privately worked", perhaps make it clearer Verdi was not told.
  • "many earlier composers had" strike "earlier" as redundant.
  • "The house is now a museum, and the volumes remain there." This brief journey to the present should perhaps be made into a footnote.
  • Did Boito work from the English, or from an Italian translation if so whose?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these points. I look forward to more in due course, but I'm conscious of your poor arm and I don't want you to hurry with further comments. There is no rush whatever. Tim riley (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but if I don't do all of these I will get hopelessly behind, and thanks for your good wishes. I am able to type without difficulty, and my doctor assured me I will be able to play the piano, assuming breaking one's arm grants one the ability. Onward with the few remaining:
  • Resuming
Is there space someplace for a brief introduction to who Falstaff is, what plays he appears in (or his death referred to in), and that The Merry Wives of Windsor was (if I recall correctly) written because of the popularity of the character in Henry IV. A paragraph, perhaps.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very good idea. I've written a paragraph on this. It runs to more than 200 words, and so I have put it in the footnotes. Tim riley (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Composition
  • "and when you touch it, it burns" Boito complained" drawing your attention here for the need of possible punctuation after "burns".
  • "Eventually Maurel became compliant enough to be cast." Since we do not know that Maurel's demands were actually unreasonable, rather than regarded as such by Verdi, perhaps simply note the two men reached an agreement.
  • "but that he retained control over every aspect of the production." Shouldn't the verb be "would retain control"?
  • I understand you want to finish with the quote. However, the lead-in is very long. Perhaps shorten "describes various aspects of how he portrayed the characters Nannetta and Fenton in his libretto" to "describes his portrayal of Nannetta and Fenton"
Premieres
  • "Tickets for the first night were thirty times the usual price." From the box office or from touts?
  • "The first performance abroad was in Vienna, on 21 May 1893." You had two paragraphs earlier listed "Trieste" before Vienna in the list of places they took the opera too. At that time, Trieste was part of the Austria-Hungary Empire.
Music
  • I'm not fully understanding the Meistersinger bit. Do you mean in writing a comedy? Because Verdi had certainly written Aida since Meistersinger debuted. Can you clarify? And does this late style include Otello? If so, that should probably be alluded to.
Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Wehwalt, for your suggestions. Some distinct improvements made as a result. Tim riley (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this remarkably thorough peer review. Now closing. Tim riley (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've recently expanded this page to comply with WP:MEDMOS, and significantly expanded the content and references. I feel it's a bit too complicated for the average reader, particularly 'Diagnosis' and 'Treatment'. I would appreciate input and changes from those who feel they can reduce the complexity of the page, along with any other changes you feel are important.

Thanks, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll give it a go. Not in the medical field, so am only going to comment as an average reader looking for information. Since I'm not conversant in the field, I will have to assume that you are, and know what you're writing about. I'm completely unfamiliar with 90% of the terms you use.
Lead section.
First, there are no citations as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, not that you need many, but I could see 2 or 3 in the last 2 paragraphs.
You might want to add a sentence regarding Epidemiology.
Okay, this could just be my ignorance, but in the second sentence in the last paragraph, while the other items listed seem to refer to procedures/treatment, the clause, "raised blood levels of IgE and eosinophils" seems to relate to symptoms. Might want to reword (or, as I said, could simply be my ignorance)
Other than that, very well written. Easy to read, even to those not familiar with medical terminology.
Signs and Symptoms. Pretty perfect. No issues.
Pathophysiology. Very well written, so I'm going to be very picky.
First sentence, you might want to give a comparison, to help those not that conversant with the topic.
Second paragraph, second sentence. Might restructure it to say, "These include both immune factors (such as atopy or immunogenic HLA-restricted phenotypes),[9][10] and genetic factors..." It's just a matter of style, but usually I see the "as well as" at the end of a list longer than 2 items. It's not wrong, just style.
In the third sentence, does it "permit" or "result" in germination?
regarding reducing the complexity, it the entire section you only parenthetically explain one term, Necrosis. If this article is directed at physicians or clinicians, than I'm sure it's fine, but if you want to decrease the complexity, you might lead with common terms and put the more technical terms in parentheses.
Diagnosis
The first sentence needs expansion and explanation. Is the medical community leaning one way or another? Is it evenly split among all the different alternatives? Are the different methods discussed ALL the methods? Or only the most accepted?
In the first sentence under blood tests, you need a comma after ABPA in the parenthetical expression.
Treatment
First sentence, diseases needs to be plural, since in the example at the end of the sentence you reference two.
In the second paragraph, second sentence, I feel a "therefore" clause is warranted after your "however" comment about the studies regarding steroids.
The third paragraph: the sentence regarding itraconazole outweighing the risks of prednisone doesn't seem to make sense. Is it better than prednisone since there are fewer risks, fewer potential side-effects? (or again, is this just my ignorance on the subject)?
Fourth paragraph, the use of two "whilsts" is somewhat redundant. Might rephrase the end of the sentence to "during corticosteroid treatment", or something like that.
On the whole, other than being unfamiliar with the technical terms, this section read very well, and was easy to follow.
Epidemiology
I would expand this section, if possible to discuss any possible reasons for the disparity in the condition in different parts of the world. Is it simply based on population?
On the whole, it's very well referenced and well organized. Anyway, that's my two cents. Hope it helps somewhat. Onel5969 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivi Adamou

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 been working on it for several months. I've added a lot text and almost all the article is written (or at least re-written) by me. I have tried to find as many sources as possible. I just want to see if it's going okay and what I need to improve.

Thanks, Dimitris  talk 18:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice of Greece

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 if the article needs any improvement on anything. I've added (almost) all the text in it.

Thanks, Dimitris  talk 18:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble (Natalia Kills album)

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 has relatively recently passed its GAN and I think I could make this article an FA. Also, the first peer review had no comments whatsoever.

Thank you in advance, prism △ 20:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upton, Merseyside

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 given the article a major re-edit and expansion, over the last few days. The page is now longer than the one for nearby Birkenhead, which is a much larger place. Thanks, EP111 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article now looks like a GA article, or at least a B-class page. I'd put it up for GA review. Thewiseapple 21:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucknow

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've tried to correct all the points mentioned by the GA review. all citations are mended. Some more information are added, paragraphs are checked etc. However, if there is still some ground to cover, i'll be very happy to know it. So i'm sending this article for PR.

Thanks, Wikiboy2364 (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto V

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 bring it to FA Class. I would like to make sure that the coverage is broad, the content is organised and the prose is engaging. This article makes use of a number of supplemental non-free media and I'd like to make sure their usages are appropriate.

Thanks, CR4ZE (t) 11:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nicereddy

  • I think the screenshots add a lot to the article, but their low quality degrades their ability to properly give the reader any sense of the "improvements over Grand Theft Auto IV" which are mentioned throughout the article. I realize this is a limitation imposed by free-use rationale, but if the screenshots could be made higher resolution given the reasoning that the graphical fidelity is highly relevant to the game and its influence on video game culture and technology I think that could be a great improvement.
  • There are occasional usages of vague terms referring to different people or groups of people. For example, in the lead section the following is written: "Its depiction of violent themes, including Trevor's use of torture, and treatment of women polarised commentators, with some labelling the game as inherently misogynistic.". The use of "some" and "commentators" with reference to the group(s) of people who labelled the game as "inherently misogynsitic" is vague, as it makes no mention of specific peoples which it refers to.
  • Also in the lead, "To innovate the core structure of its predecessors..." sounds very odd to me. Perhaps "innovate on the core structure" or something similar? Minor nitpick, but I wasn't sure how to improve it myself.
  • Perhaps this is a Wikipedia style rule I'm unaware of, but the lead section completely lacks any references whatsoever. This may simply be my own ignorance, but if it isn't against any rules I'd suggest adding references?
  • In "Reception", I think the following line could be improved: "GameRankings rates its as the second-best PlayStation 3 and third-best Xbox 360 game of all time.". This immediately begs the question of what games are ahead of it on PS3 and Xbox 360 respectively, but that remains unanswered.
  • Any reason why the lead section fails to include the abbreviation "GTA V"? Defense of the Ancients, for example makes mention of its acronym "DOTA" in the first sentence of the article. I think most others would agree that "GTA V" is a pretty universally recognized acronym for the game's title, with many of the articles used as references throughout the article referring to it as such.

Overall a fantastic article! Really well-done, kudos to all the editors involved. --Nicereddy (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

Not bad. I would only say that I think Reception's too long, and the screenshots may be fine as they are (unless you've already changed them). Tezero (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response from CR4ZE

Thank you both for the comments. Nicereddy, I assume you're referring to File:Grand Theft Auto V development.jpg. I think with regards to that image, the elements that I am trying to exemplify it look okay enough at that resolution. But it maybe isn't the best choice; I will see if I can find a better replacement and not compress it down to much. File:Grand Theft Auto V Los Santos.jpg has a similar problem, so I will try to find another replacement for that. According to WP:LEADCITE, we don't specifically need citations in the lead if the statements are revisited in the body with citations. So for example, the fourth paragraph makes a lot of big calls about the game's anticipation and sales performance, but we haven't cited there because it's already cited reliably in the body. Makes leads look less cluttered. The "GTA V" abbreviation isn't totally necessary, because we've used the full unabridged title throughout the article with zero instances of "GTA V". The abbreviation is so straight-forward it doesn't matter which we use, but in your Dota example there's uneven usage of both. I'd rather just have the full "Grand Theft Auto V" title used consistently throughout the entire article. Typing "GTA V" into the search bar brings the user to the page anyway. I'll work on your other points, because I fully agree with all of them.

  • As a note, some articles are considered to need citations in the intro. Generally they're required for controversial points or unexpected statistics, e.g. a video game selling 10+ million copies and being the best-selling on its console, or basically everything in Feminism. Tezero (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero, I agree that the Reception section has grown to be a little overwhelming, but I'm not sure which bits are best to cut out. I was thinking of culling down that last paragraph significantly and merging it into the first, because it's really just a collection of quotes about how fantastic the game is. The penultimate paragraph is important because it reveals the story/characters issue which was the only resounding complaint about the game. What would be your suggestions for cut-downs? CR4ZE (t) 10:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry; didn't see this. As for Reception, I don't think any whole paragraph should be cut; rather, each should be trimmed to reduce redundancies. In the second paragraph, for example, the phrase "the character switching element" is repeated several times in similarly structured sentences. Since Bertz's, Bramwell's, and Edge's opinions on the subject are basically the same, you could combine them into one sentence. Tezero (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everybody for your comments. I am closing the peer review. CR4ZE (t) 05:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Philipp

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 want to take it to military history A-class. I think the article covers the biography in all major areas. For those reviewers who might be asking for a detailed table listening all his claims, I have to say that none of my sources give this level of detail.

Thanks, MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Plath

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 have substantially improved it since I first created it in 2012 and, despite its relatively short length, I think it has potential to be a decent article. I’d like to have other editors' feedback about any ways I could improve this article, and opinions on the current article quality. Note that this is my first peer review request.

Thanks, Philpill691 (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gambrinus

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 hear ideas for ways to improve its value and interest for readers, and to hear objective criticism about shortcomings to overcome in order to make it a GA.

Thanks, Ringbang (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Being a beer drinker myself, definitely a worthy article. Here are my notes:
  • Lead section. I'd move the citations in the first paragraph to the end, since they include the information in the second sentence as well. Some of the language in the second paragraph is awkward (look at 2nd and 3rd sentences). Other than those, I think the lead section fits perfectly with the MOS description.
  • First sentence in the Origin Section, I would change to show it is the creation of the myth, Gambrinus, as it reads now, it appears you are speaking of an historical figure.
  • In the Brabant section, does his dukedom encompass more than Brussels? I'm new to this, so I am not sure of the standard regarding including non-English verbiage in an English article: should this be translated into English? Or have both the original and a translation? Since you refer to it as an example in the preceding sentence, I think it is important for us non-bilingual folks to understand what the poem is saying. After the poem, your use of "however" ties the two sentences together, but I think you need to expand it slightly to explain the use of "however" (I think I can infer why, but it would be better to be a bit more specific). Also, after the colon, you capitalize a word, which should be lower case.
  • In the Fearless section, a small thing, but I'd put a comma after "Duke of Burgundy", which would clearly differentiate the clauses. The first paragraph has no citations, and I would be hesitant on using the peacock word, "powerful", unless you include a reference which justifies that word. I like your synthesis of the referenced material in the third paragraph (very good in fact). I might edit the 2nd paragraph, pare it down to a single line, and include it somewhere in the body of the current 3rd paragraph. I think you've over-dabbed a bit in the section. Per MOS guidelines, I think you only need to link the first reference to the County of Flanders. I'd move the citation for Chifflet to the end of the paragraph. You need a citation for the information in the last paragraph.
  • In the Gambrivius section, not sure you need the "See also" reference. I think if you simply provide a link in the first sentence on "mythical Germanic king" that would suffice. It would be one thing if the cited article had major information on Gambrinus, but it doesn't. The first sentence needs editing, my suggestion would be: Gambrivius, who learned brewing from gods. I actually think you need to re-work that entire first paragraph, it's a bit wordy, and somewhat redundant. In the 3rd paragraph is Gambrinus the wife or husband of Osiris? Also, in this whole section, since we're dealing with Aventinus' book, shouldn't all the referents be to Gambrivius, rather than Gambrinus, except where you are making a comparison? After the poem (which I loved), the second paragraph asserts that assertion "was" contested. Is it still contested, or has the dispute been resolved? The third paragraph has the use of the word "fraudster", but the citation doesn't support this term. I'd either delete the term, or provide a supporting citation. The same with the term "glorious" in the next paragraph, another peacock word without citation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Clarity#Peacock_terms).
  • I find no issues with the Etymology section. My only thought would be, since you have an entire section on the subject, you might edit out the etymological references in the other subsections, as they might be considered redundant.
  • On the Cambrinus section, I would move it prior to the Etymology section. Just seems to make more sense there. The synopsis of the story, seems a bit long and convoluted, but for the life of me, I can't see any cuts/edits I'd make. One small issue I have is with the Cambrinus sub-section, while obvious, I think you need a statement tying this into Gambrinus.
  • The Brand section needs nothing, other than a page needed for the illustration.
Overall, I like the structure you've chosen, leading into sections on each of the potential historical referents, then into etymology, etc. On a purely aesthetic note, imho, I think that captions for the illustrations should be centered. But that's simply a personal preference. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Rivers

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… She may be ready to become featured. Thanks, Theparties (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs to be expanded to properly summarize the article. Hekerui (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Bonnietylersave

  • The lead could me 'meated' out a little. Without making it look like advertising or promotion, might be nice to add coverage of what Joan's been doing recently (with the Joan & Melissa show and her online show, for example. Maybe the DVD she released? I'm familiar with her work, just now how significant it was, so I'll leave you to judge what the most significant parts of her career are in recent years). It also needs to, as Hekerui said, summarize the article.
  • References: I think based on references, the article probably isn't quite ready for FA status, but by all means gear your guns to aim for a GA status for the time being.
    • Actual cite formatting doesn't seem to be an issue, but some of the "retrieved" dates are in different formats. For example, one says "Retrieved July 6, 2013" and another "2011-11-25." It'd look neater to have them all written out in the same way.
    • Another nit-picking thing - based on scanning up and down the article, there's not a lot of references, only 54. Perhaps a bit OCD, but as I read over GA and FA articles, they usually have at least over 100 as long as there is enough reference resources online about the concerned subject.
  • Section: "2000–present": There are a few un-sourced sentences that you might need to go over, such as
  • When her TV shows are mentioned, or stage performances, etc, it'd be a good idea to add some critical reaction to end off the sections.
  • Personal life: Not 'fan cruft' at all, relevant, non-trivial topics only. Definitely a strength!
  • Awards and nominations: definitely needs references (this might be part of what'll stack up the number of references in the article). Sourcing the Theater work, Television work and Films sections might also be required. Also - it might be nice to find some more bullet points for the 'Honors' sub-section.
  • The images used seem fine - no copyright issues.

Hope I was of help. Any questions or anything, come to me. I'd love to oversee the article's development. Bonnietylersave (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 Comments
  • You mention the death of her older sister, were there other siblings?
  • The language used needs to be cleaned, there are several sentences where the only referent is "she" or "her", making the paragraph clumsy reading.
  • Did she get B.A.'s in both English Lit and Anthropology? Or is there a B.A. in English Lit & Anthropology? The placement of the citation makes this awkward.
  • When did she attend Barnard? You might say something like ...1950 and 1952 before transferring to Barnard College where she graduate in 1954...
  • What advertising agency. You mention the names of both her other places of employment.
  • If known, it might be interesting to say WHY she selected Joan Rivers as her stage name.
  • Early Career
  • When you are speaking about a specific show, I think you need to be more specific about the date (e.g. Driftwood... what month and year), as opposed to when you are speaking about the numerous comedy clubs, which a date range is more appropriate.
  • page links... a little overlinked, for example you've already linked New York City in the Early life section, and here you mis-link to the state of NY link.
  • The second paragraph is very uneven, some of the sentences are awkwardly worded, and other sentences give the paragraph a short and choppy feel.
  • That Show with Joan Rivers is a title, needs to be formatted as such.
  • The last line of the second paragraph seems out of place chronologically.
  • The last paragraph needs only slight editing regarding style. The only main issue I have is that you need to mention that her comedy act was the opening to those musical acts. As it reads now, one might think that she was also a musical performer (she wasn't was she?)
  • 1980s-1990s
  • The opening sentence is awkward.
  • In the second paragraph, you say, "also in 1984", but you've made no reference to 1984 prior to that.
  • I think you might break out the two controversies (Marino and The Late show), and put them both at the end. That way, this section reads as a summary of her career, and then speaks to the two controversies. You need a citation regarding Carson saying that he learned about the show from Fox, also, if known, you might want to add that it was the way he found out about it, and not her actually getting a show, which caused the rift.
  • The sentence regarding Fox firing her and her husband needs to be re-written. You might reorganize it, something like "When Fox wanted to fire her husband, Rivers challenged them, resulting in Fox terminating them both".
  • There's a dead page link to The Joan Rivers Show, which needs to be removed as per the MOS on linking: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking
  • John Davidson (entertainer) should be page linked
  • In the last paragraph, there needs to be a comma before Sally Marr. Also, the last sentence in the paragraph, while factually correct, reads very awkwardly due to the two different titles for the awards she won.
  • On the whole, this section needs a few more references (e.g. regarding Rivers being influenced by the "dirty comedy" of Bruce; and the 2008 interview with Connolly, among others)
  • 2000-Present
  • I'm sorry, but this section is simply a mess. Some of that has to do with the nature of Rivers' resume itself, with lots of small short stints. This section needs a ton of work and a ton of additional citations. You've gotten the chronology down, for the most part, but there times when it is out of joint (for example you go from 2009 to 2010 to 2011 and 2012, then jump back to 2011, then to 2010 before going back to 2012.
  • Personal Life
  • You might want to say that Rivers second marriage "lasted until Rosenberg committed suicide..."
  • The discussion of Melissa and her son is a bit awkward due to pronoun usage. To make it clearer, you might want to say, "Rivers has one grandson, Cooper..." (from the previous sentence, we know Rivers only has one child, so obviously Melissa is the mother)
  • Filmography.
  • The tables are very well done. There are empty page links in the Fun City entry which need to be removed.
  • References
  • As Bonnietylersave stated, you need to standardize the dates in the citations.
  • The reference to Sochen does not seem to be in the correct format.

Hope this helps. Good luck with it.Onel5969 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MTR

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 need feedback on what could be considered as remotely wrong with this article; also because the quality has to be kept up due to its FA status.

Thanks, Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 10:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jc86035. I'm just off for a wikibreak, but here's my two cents:
lead
Initial proposal
  • Are refs 6 & 10 large enough to need page numbers?
  • Two paras don't end in an inline reference

Modified Initial System

  • I see only two references, again paras don't end in an inline reference
Line extensions
  • Under referenced (only to ref 12)
Airport connection
  • references
  • the in-town check-ins offers a more convenient and time-saving routine; a free shuttle bus service transports travellers from these stations to their respective hotels as well.? I'm not sure about the phrasing of this.
  • Again WP:PERCENT
Tseung Kwan O Line
  • The tried-and-true cross-platform interchange arrangement is repeated here. Opinion? Ref?
West Rail Line
  • Refs?
Interchange stations
  • Only one reference. Note 1 also needs a reference
Ma On Shan Line
  • Unreferenced section
Disneyland extension
  • The3.5–kilometre needs a convert template; this will sort out the unneeded ndash
  • the carriages were changed from the existing M-Train rolling stock to match the recreational and adventurous nature of the 3.5-minute journey ? please expand on the recreational and adventurous nature
Lok Ma Chau Spur Line
  • Empty section
Privatisation and merger
  • refs for the first two and last two paragraphs
Tseung Kwan O Spur Line
  • Empty section
Infrastructure/Network
Control Centres/Depots/MTR bus
  • All unreferenced sections; consider Control centres
Station facilities, amenities and services
  • I did a source check on this paragraph; it has one 2009 source (up-to-date?), and I'm not seeing anything the reference with backs up the text to .. disabled friendly; this statement alone is an opinion that needs a 3rd party ref
In-station and on-train announcements
  • unreferenced section
Public toilet installation concerns
  • This could be condensed
In-station commerce and journals
  • unreferenced section
Future expansions
  • Other people disagree, but I think this should be called something like Planned expansions, as we have no reliable sources for the future
Rolling stock
  • what does p/h/d mean?
  • One of the cars only carry luggages ?
  • There is a name column in the table, but the headings in the sections below are different (e.g. Metro Cammell EMU(DC) and M Stock)
  • Flags in the table (I'll check this)
  • Adtranz-CAF EMU, CNR EMU, SP1900/1950 EMU and Metro Cammell EMU(AC) are unreferenced
Fares and tickets
  • Second para on ticket prices needs a reference (and also a date)
  • Final para needs a reference
Octopus cards
  • references
Tourist pass
  • Unreferenced section

Skipped a few sections here

references
  • refs 34, 36, 37, 39, 48, 49 are raw urls and need formatting with titles etc. 48/49 are youtube videos and don't appear reliable sources. Other sources need dates and publishers

Cippi of Melqart

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 time a fresh set of eyes have a look at it! I did try to give this article the attention it deserves, (it is after all the Phoenician Rosetta Stone!), and I tried to write as clearly, neutrally and concisely as possible. It was particularly hard to highlight the controversies surrounding these artifacts - lack of clear provenance, wrongly attributed location of discovery, etc. - as well as the obvious problem of finding proper sources regarding Maltese history. As I have been doing some light work on other articles on Maltese history, I would like to see some sort of feedback on the quality of the article.

From the peer-reviewer I would like to hear some suggestions about the structure of the article (particularly the sections), and if possible, some ideas regarding the rendering of the Phoenician symbols: Another user, Thanatos, has spent an incredible amount of time working hard on improving the appearance of the Phoenician phrasing (as well as a vast number of admirable edits on the whole fabric of the article!) We know that this is an established problem with Phoenician Unicode characters, but I would personally like to hear a fresh take on it. (Our attempts and the 'scientific method' adopted to check different encoding/renderings can be found on the article's Talk page.)

Thanks a lot, reuv T 19:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
My thanks to Bill william compton, as I modeled this page after List of awards and nominations received by The Vampire Diaries which was promoted to WP:FL quality in January 2013.

Looking for feedback to help further along the quality improvement process.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications: User talk:Cirt, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libertarianism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes, Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. — Cirt (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added notifications: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative Views, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science. — Cirt (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]
More notifications: Talk:List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes, Talk:Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Las Vegas, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nevada, Talk:Teller (magician), Talk:Penn Jillette, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Circus, Talk:Penn & Teller. — Cirt (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Further notifications: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. — Cirt (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Comments from RexxS

edit

Comments on accessibility:

  • All images benefit from good alt text and it should not be omitted. Because a screen reader will read out the caption after the alt text, it can become annoying if the alt text is the same as the caption. For example in the lead image, you could use alt=Penn & Teller: Bullshit! and shorten the caption to Text logo for the series without losing (or duplicating) information for any visitor whether they can see the image or not. I'm not sure of the purpose of the other two images, so it's difficult to suggest an alt text and caption for them.
  • The infobox is a table, so following WP:DTT will help to make it accessible. The award names should be row headers, but at present are marked up as dictionary definitions using the ; wikimarkup, which is completely wrong for any non-visual user agent. Scopes for both column and row headers helps navigation for screen readers. There are at least eight colours used in the infobox - simpler colour schemes are more legible for people with less than perfect vision.
  • There's a liberal use of small text scattered throughout. Some of it at 11px is just at the limit of what I can comfortably read and other readers will have to zoom their browsers to cope with it. Unless there's a good reason, text is best left at normal size as viewers will have made any necessary adjustments to read that. It's having to keep changing zoom just to read one line that causes annoyance. Table captions in particular ought to be normal size.

Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for these comments, I'll go through them and respond back here. — Cirt (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I was a bit confused at some of these comments, as I modeled this page after List of awards and nominations received by The Vampire Diaries which was promoted to WP:FL quality in January 2013. I made the changes for the infobox with regards to captions and alt text, and trimmed the other images, per above recommendations by RexxS. As for the rest, I've asked RexxS for help with the coding of the various tables. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately List of awards and nominations received by The Vampire Diaries also suffers from the same problems that your article did. Hopefully in future editors will use this article as a model instead. On second thoughts, I'll fix the Vampire Diaries list. --RexxS (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your helpful modifications, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! I'm certain that this list meets our standards for accessibility. When you take it to FLC, please ping me and I'll confirm that at the nomination. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, — Cirt (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mucho Macho Man

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 in the near future. I particularly welcome the input of non-horse racing people who can spot unfamiliar jargon that I may need to wikilink or clarify. I also will appreciate all prose and style suggestions and anything else. I previously brought Oxbow (horse) to a successful FA, and other editors have taken race horse articles such as Go Man Go to FA and TFA, should anyone want to compare this article to another horse racing article. Thanks, Montanabw(talk) 20:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes turfsoul a high-quality reliable source?
    Well, it's more of a literary blog see here, It's in to avoid OR as to the weird Seabiscuit connections, one of three sources that noticed all that stuff... I could probably verify each from better sources, but not sure when I'd be crossing the line to WP:SYNTH if I was the one to demonstrate the connections... ? Thoughts?--MTBW
    My first thought is that that about page gives me less confidence in the source, not more, sorry. I would take out the last sentence of that paragraph rather than include this source, if those are the options available and assuming no better source makes the connections. Agree that it'd be heading towards synth if you were the one to make them. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Yeah, you are probably right, though it is the damnedest thing, isn't it? Montanabw(talk) 22:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a "win and you're in" preparatory race" - not clear where "in" is, and this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article
    In - to the Breeders' Cup without paying an entry fee; I'll double-check sources - Follow up: Fixed that, is it better now? --MTBW
    Better, although I would suggest rewording the last bit about the fees to make it absolutely clear which race is being paid for (and possibly who's paying, if you think that's relevant). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's mentioned down in the 2013 season section, which I expanded a bit, but tossed "win and you're in" from the lede, just to keep it simpler. --MTBW
  • The bit about Ritvo's heart transplant seems out of place as written, IMO
  • Got any ideas how to do it better? It's kind of a big deal; all the weird serendipity surrounding her and the horse. --MTBW
  • The paragraph prior says that horse and trainer each survived life-threatening circumstances, first the horse, then her... would be weird to put it later, particularly when the relevant paragraph has the trainer switch in the middle. I think I'll take my chances with the current location unless I can figure out a better way to do it. --MTBW
  • Last paragraph of Background is mostly past tense, but it would seem that some of what is mentioned would still be applicable now?
  • Feel free to copyedit; always a tension between being current and the reality that if one doesn't stay on top of things the article is still in present tense three years later... --MTBW
  • It's good, but when he retires we have to ping it to make is all past tense then, I suspect they will retire him after the 2014 Breeders' Cup in November if all goes according to plan. --MTBW
  • Do we have an article describing glued-on horseshoes?
  • We don't, it's a cool idea - the problem is most of the sources about the technology are done by the people who sell them. example search. Thoughts? I found another article that provided more detail on the shoes, added some more info--MTBW
  • Assuming we don't have an article on World's Best Racehorse Rankings, it might be worthwhile to briefly explain where that number comes from and what it means.
    Ah we do, I linked it, it is the same as World Thoroughbred Rankings, changed name. @Tigerboy1966:: any additional advice here? FIXED? --MTBW
  • Racing stats table is showing up in tiny text on my screen; if there's no way to either scroll it or split it, I would really suggest taking out the "owner" column at the least
    Yeah, I made the text smaller on purpose because the table was eating the article; it's wide for my screen too, but I don't yet have a better solution. The format is pretty common across the horse racing articles, I hate to move out owner, as though his ownership has been pretty consistent, that's not always true of other race horses. Maybe @Froggerlaura: has some formatting ideas? I made a couple of the other columns a little narrower--MTBW Follow up: Fixed thanks to RexxS. --MTBW
  • Why is Mr. Prospector both bolded and starred in the pedigree? If it's just because of doubling, one would probably suffice. And what is (Family 4-r)? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Standard on wikiproject horse racing to bold the inbreeding lines -- see most of the other articles with pedigrees. Not sure about asterisks? (WP Horse racing folks? Help) I think someone told me that it was because people with screen readers can't detect the bolding, not sure. I added a link to the Thoroughbred family stuff, those who care about pedigrees care about the historic mare families. --MTBW

@Nikkimaria: are the fixes we are making to the chart working for you, and can you pop by with replies to my questions above? Let me know if I've addressed your other concerns. Done again, I think. Montanabw(talk) 20:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

 
MMM is kind of like Shaq!
  • "Due to his size, the growing colt sometimes also got in his own way during his early races as a three-year-old, twice stepping on his own feet and tearing off a horseshoe in a race." I really don't like that sentence. First of all, why also? Secondly, presumably he's now even bigger than he was then, but apparently doesn't step on his feet anymore? Thirdly, why the repetition of "races ... race", as we're only describing events that took place during a race? And fourthly, I'm not sure if there are two or three events being described: did he twice step on his own feet, on each occasion tearing off a shoe, did he twice step on his own feet and on one occasion tear off a shoe, or did he twice step on his feet and on a third occasion tear off a shoe?
  • Feel free to copyedit or suggest ideas; I agree that's awkward... Basically, imagine a big, gangly teenaged kid who likes to play basketball but keeps tripping over his own feet when he's 16 or 17, but by the time he's 25 he's grown into himself, filled out, and even if taller than when he was 17 is now a well-coordinated champion athlete and doesn't trip over himself any more. (human example, right - LOL) Like humans, young horses can be real klutzes when they are in a growth spurt, and because the horse grew to be so tall, he had more than his fair share of trouble. Down in the three-year-old season section, I explain it in more detail; he tore off a shoe in two different races, in both cases, he basically stepped on the heel of one of his front horseshoes with a hind foot, tearing off the shoe (and one time, a chunk of his hoof with it. Horses, having four legs, often have growth issues where first their front end grows faster than their back end, then their back end catches up but proceeds to grow faster than their front end, etc... and he must have been in a growth stage where his butt was growing faster than his front end, so he'd over-reach when he burst out of the starting gate. In the same section, I note what his trainer said, that by the end of the 2011 year, "his shoulders caught up with his behind." --MTBW
    It's never occurred to me before that a four-legged animal might have different growth spurts front and back. Maybe a note to explain that? Eric Corbett 23:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. Wonderful idea. Problem is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR -- This is one of those "most horse people know this, but finding a WP:RS to explain it? (not a bad idea, though) Being a horse person, I am quite sure that this was part of what was going on with him, but am sure someone at FAC will say, "yeah, but can you PROVE that this is why MMM had a problem with tearing off his shoes?"
    Ah, I see what you mean. Eric Corbett 01:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Throughout most of his racing career, Mucho Macho Man has been owned in full or in a majority share ...". That reads very strangely to me. How can something be owned "in a majority share"?
  • I'm open to how to say that better and not paraphrase the source. Horses can be owned in shares, legal syndication, where many people buy ownership shares of a horse, is common. The Rios sold "a majority share" (who knows if 51% or 99%, no one says) to Dream Team One. Then Reeves bought a 70% interest in MMM from Dream Team One (don't know if Rios still had a share or not), then Reeves eventually bought out Dream Team One entirely to be 100% owners. Somewhere along the line, the Reeves' sold the Sivos a teeny-tiny share (some interview I saw said 1% but I can't find it now...), but Sivo never shows up as an owner, maybe because they have an interest in the business, not the horse (yes, it's confusing, I'm confused too) and then a few weeks ago, Stronach bought an "undisclosed" share in the horse. But basically, the Reeves call the shots and have done so since they first got involved. --MTBW
  • "... was shipped early to Santa Anita Park to prepare for the Classic". Presumably that's the Breeders Cup Classic?
  • Right, wasn't sure if I was saying "Breeders' Cup Classic" too many times...? --MTBW
  • "In February 2014, anticipating a future career as a breeding stallion, Reeves also reached an agreement with Frank Stronach ...". So Reeves was anticipating a future career as a breeding stallion? Aren't there laws against that sort of thing?
    LOL! Fixed! --MTBW
  • "... Reeves also reached an agreement with Frank Stronach to purchase an undisclosed share in the horse". What's that also doing there?
  • I have no idea, it snuck in there when I wasn't paying attention. Too bleary-eyed from staring at the article too long. Feel free to tweak. If the nuance is changed too much, I can further discuss or refine... ? --MTBW
  • "In 2014, he returned to race for one more year, with the goal of returning to the Breeders' Cup, with a decisive win in the Sunshine Millions Classic." I really dislike with as a linking word, and particularly when it's doubled up like this. Returning to the Breeders Cup obviously wasn't the horse's goal anyway, but it's unclear what the relationship is between that goal and winning the Sunshine Millions Classic.
  • Bleech. You are right. Bleary-eyed again. Basically, the idea is that the horse will be racing (if past history is any indication) every six to eight weeks from the Sunshine Millions until the Breeders' Cup (in November), one race building on another -- pretty much like any human athlete, each competition honing them for the Big One at the end of the season. --MTBW

Eric Corbett 18:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, answers above. I'll try to do some copyediting to fix this, but am at the point where I don't have very fresh eyes, so all suggestions are welcomed! Montanabw(talk) 22:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SFGMary

Not done--still looking Why was he placed first with Tim Ritvo and then with his wife? I'd explain that. It raises a question in my mind. Ah you do later on. Ok.

  • Is it a problem in how it is worded, could I improve that any? --MTBW

What's a Grade 1 win? I'd explain that to non racing people. And Grade 3 later on.

  • I wikilinked it to graded stakes race - I think, but maybe need to do in a different spot or for each different word? --MTBW

In the following, what are these connections? His owners??? His connections next entered him in the Santa Anita Handicap on March 8. In choosing to return to California,

  • Owners/trainer combo, basically. I wikilinked it to the Glossary of North American horse racing terms the first time I used the word (I think) does that help -- or did I not wikilink it at all? --MTBW

Maybe mention the term forging. It is present in W. under conformation and some breeds.

  • In reference to how he kept grabbing his front shoes with his back feet? Hmmm. Interesting idea. The problem is that the conformation article doesn't explain what it is, either. We probably need to do an article on it or add explanation to Glossary of equestrian terms or something... the other problem is WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH which could argue that if we can't find an article to say he was forging, then we can't say it either - :-P --MTBW

What is this? Highly capitalized i.e. Big purse? Why is there an apostrophe in it? "Big 'Cap"

  • Nickname for the Santa Anita Handicap, I was just trying not to keep saying "Santa Anita Handicap" too many times and got into sportswriter prose; open to rewording or something if it isn't working! --MTBW

Cite "impost" w/in Wikipedia.

  • WIll link to wiktionary. wikt:impost. does that work? --MTBBW

So where is he now? Did I miss that?

  • RIght this second, he is probably back in Florida prepping for his next race, whatever it will be. He is still actively racing, so this article isn't "done" yet in that sense; my goal for FAC is to possibly have it run at TFA on 2014 Breeders' Cup day this November. Maybe --MTBW

Grammar and wording need improvement. Grammar is incorrect here: 

but he remained in training with the same team and racing under Reeves' colors.

I'd say "raced under Reeves' colors" or take out and.

  • FIXED. Please feel free to make other small tweaks if you'd like to do so. --MTBW

SFGMary (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi all, thanks for the constructive and helpful remarks. I think I will go ahead and put this article up for FAC shortly. Any minor glitches I haven't yet addressed will undoubtably be caught by the FAC reviewers. Montanabw(talk) 22:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomical terms of motion

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having had some good experiences with PR in the past, would like to request a PR review for this article, and how ready it is for a GA nomination. I know there are some existing problems (eg incompletely sourced), so I would particularly value commentary on the article's readability and content. That said, any and all comments are welcome! Thanks, LT910001 (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ping to CFCF, who has recently been involved in editing this article with me.

Comments from Chris Howard

edit

I have now read through your article and, contrary to my initial intentions, prefer to give you feedback here on your discussion page rather than there. First of all, I wish to express my respect for picking up such an extensive and nontrivial subject to bring it to GA. I have only a few thoughts as feedback for the moment.

  • One is that the expression "medial and abduction stage" is not necessarily understandable to the general reader:
    •   Done reworded
  • in particular the term "abduction" is not explained, and in fact the link "Abduction" in this article's section "Abduction and adduction" currently redirects to a deleted article and then after a second or so automatically redirects further to a not-so-helpful Wiktionary page.
  • It would be good if this were solved differently (for example, redirecting Abduction to List of abductors of the human body that has a concise definition of the term); similarly for "Adduction" which might preferably redirect to List of adductors of the human body). * Secondly, I was wondering whether you would want to include information on anatomical motion of the eyes (see Eye muscles), but of course that is quie an extensive subject on its own. I hope these two rather informal suggestions/thoughts may help you move further. Regards --Chris Howard (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CF

edit
I've looked over the article a little but, but I don't feel I can conduct a review as I was part of the creation. But as a suggestion maybe the following could be merged:

--CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also found Human positions, don't know what to do with that one. It isn't of very high quality. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should move the planes articles, and the majority of content on Anatomical terms of location, to a new article, Anatomical planes. It feels very strange tacked on to the end of Anatomical terms of location. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ColonelHenry

edit

Before you consider a GA nomination, I would first post a note on the Wikipedia talk:Good articles and WikiProject Good Articles talk page, or seek the opinion of some GA and FL regulars like Khazar2, Dr. Blofeld, Neelix, etc., for their assessment of whether this is a GA-candidate, since I have a nagging feeling that some GA regulars might consider this article more appropriate for Featured List candidates per the GA criteria and WP:SAL.

I compared this to its sister article List of movements of the human body, List of English words containing Q not followed by U, List of terms for administrative divisions, List of names for the biblical nameless, List of movements that dispute the legitimacy of a reigning monarch and about 20 other "terms" lists/articles within a wide range of other similarly-scoped glossaries. More often than not, they were considered lists.

More to come--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Will attempt for FL nomination per your and Eric Corbett's thoughts. --LT910001 (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ping to ColonelHenry. I've tried hard to get this article looking better. Almost everything is now sourced. What are your thoughts on FL? Would be very happy to accept any feedback (point by point or in general) if you have time. --LT910001 (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eric Corbett

edit
  • The referencing is all over the place, inconsistent and missing many details. I'm not a great fan of the {{rp}} style, but it sits very uneasily with the {{sfn}} template anyway. I've done a bit of tidying up in that area, but there's lots more to do.
  • Images such as File:Gray442.png clearly have labels, but they're far too small to read. A key would be be better.
  • As for GAN, I think Colonel Henry could well be right about this article being considered a list and therefore more suitable for FLC than GAN. Eric Corbett 21:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your extensive copyedits, I recognise the references are quite inconsistent, but we're getting there. --LT910001 (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enid Blyton

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Enid Blyton has become rather controversial over the last fifty years or so, banned from the BBC, accused of sexism, racism and goodness knows what else. Yet as a kid I loved reading her books, and Dr Blofeld and I felt she deserved a better article than the one she had. We want to make the article the best it can be, hence this request for a peer review. Eric Corbett 21:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some general comments
At the moment, I think the article needs an overall copyedit to tighten it up, get it more organized, and make the prose overall read in a more active fashion. Much of it reads like a Garrison Keillor monologue about Lake Wobegon, with a lyrical flow that circles around like eddies in a stream, meandering here and there, but ultimately a bit soporific in effect. It's an interesting article, but there were parts where I had trouble focusing. Then, once in a while, out pops some random sentence or concept that seems out of context, like a boat on that lazy stream hitting a sandbar! She's certainly a fascinating individual. I can tell a bit too easily that this article has two lead editors, and I suggest that each of you do a copyedit run over the work that was primarily done by the other (if you haven't already) to smooth out the style. Montanabw(talk) 04:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Lede: Lede is meandering, yet simultaneously a bit incomplete; I'd suggest a copyedit to tighten the prose of what's there, and pace it closer to the order of the material in the article. it's a bit heavy on listing her works, perhaps chop some of that detail and then add in a bit more biographical material from the article body, such as her rather complex personal life and struggle with Alzheimer's, early years, charitable pursuits, etc... more of a summary of actual content. But maybe wait to edit it until you shore up the other sections.

I think the lead will have to be rewritten somewhat as the form of the article stabilises. Eric Corbett 16:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2) Early life and education: I would definitely make this section have a bit more active voice. I'm a fan of a few more commas and breaking up some run-on sentences (yes, I'm a Yank, but...) I sort of feel this section sort of wanders around too much. I would note that the line beginning the last paragraph, "By late 1916 Blyton had virtually ceased contact with her family." would actually fit better up in the first paragraph, it's abrupt and jarring where it is at; I realize you have a more or less chronological flow to that section, but not 100% and her difficult relationship with her family is best consolidated together. Overall content itself is solid, but I'd work on the prose.

3) Writing career sections: The bit about her educational texts possibly needs to be its own paragraph with a bit of an introduction, it is an abrupt transition and doesn't have a lot of context. As you move into the commercial success section, it starts to become a bit of a wall of text that begins to be a bit of a challenge to get through. You might want to consider (just an idea) blending the selected works section into this section of the article, thus putting the link to the bibliography earlier in the article and making the film and TV adaptations section stand alone.

4) The writing technique section is fascinating, by the way. Also a bit more tightly written, flows better than the sections before it. Maybe here expand a little on her characters,

There might be more to say about the autobiographical nature of George, and maybe what's already in the article about her could be incorporated in the Writing technique section. I'll ponder on that. Eric Corbett 16:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5) Personal life: I'm often in a quandary about these sections, I tend to favor a more chronological organization that works in the personal with the professional, or putting the material early on (though I have articles myself that are organized just as yours is here) In this article, you may need to show the interplay between the two, at least as far as her first marriage goes. Not a moral issue, but I was reading the writing career section and thinking something was missing here and there.

6) Charitable works: Maria Dicken is the person the Dicken medal is named after - anything in that to expand here? I'd like a little more info on the clubs and such, this section reads a bit as if it is something everyone already knows about, which may be true in the UK, but not the US. Also may want to wikilink "Paddling pool" - that's a UK-ism, I presume the same as a US wading pool?

7) Critical backlash - did ANYONE like her books? I'd suggest renaming this to "Critical reception" or something similar and maybe move some of the material about her popularity from the legacy section into this one. Also might want to kill the subheadings and make this section have more of a chronological flow. Just a thought. I would split the modern revisions section into its own level two header; it's somewhat distinguishable from the reviews section - just me, but I find it kind of appalling that her books are being rewritten beyond recognition for modern readers, I wonder how Lemony Snicket sells in the UK ... toning down the worst excesses is one thing, but the name-changing and such seems over the top - that article linked at your talk discusses some of the criticism and backlash against the rewrites, may be worth adding.

Maybe the rewrites, the film and television material could be worked into a new section on the posthumous development of her work and life story, just an organizational idea.

Overall, I'm intrigued by this writer (I am put in mind of The Happy Hollisters book series here in the US), It's a worthy FAC once it gets a new coat of paint and you go through the attic to clean out the cobwebs and consolidate all the boxes into better organized ones.

More later. I've kind of thrown you a lot of food for thought here; but I think if you can give it a look with fresh eyes, what I'm saying might make sense. Hope this has been helpful Montanabw(talk) 04:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much food for thought there indeed, thanks very much. Eric Corbett 06:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I enjoyed reading the article this morning. I never knew there was so much to say about the woman. I read a lot of Blyton's books in the late 1950s, but by the early 1960s I preferred Batman and Superman. My first impression is that the flow of the article would benefit from a little rearranging. We first encounter her daughter, Gillian, before reading about her marriage - and she is linked on her second occurrence. Would the "Personal life" section not be better placed under "Biography"? Questions arose in my mind that were not answered until much later in the article, which I found a little frustrating. Some specific points:

  • "...and the themes of her books, particularly Noddy." This sounds odd, Noddy is a character not a book or a theme.
  • "...which had already been banned by the BBC since the 1930s" needs expanding a little, because the BBC is not a library or a publisher as such. Should it say banned from being broadcasted on the radio or such like?
  • I think this needs to be in another sentence "... her father, whom she adored." Perhaps in this sentence "She was devastated when her father left the family to live with another woman."
  • This sounds odd "She was not so keen on all the academic work" does it mean "academic subjects"?
  • Here "but decided that she was best suited to being a writer", I'm not sure whether it should be "becoming" not "being".
  • "Blyton was baptised at Elm Road Baptist Church" but "at Woodbridge Congregational Church Blyton met teacher Ida Hunt" - did she change her religious denomination? (V. minor point)
  • What are "useful articles for children"?
  • Here "Blyton made her first contribution to The Morning Post and earned £1095.10s.2d for her work in that year." Did all this money come from The Morning Post?
  • "In 1927 Blyton bought a typewriter.." seems an odd fact to add unless some mention of handwritten manuscripts goes before it.
  • Here "Matthew Grenby, author of Children's Literature, states that..." states, stated always sound pompous and the usage is a particular problem on Wikipedia.
  • No mention of the war.
    I'm not sure what Blyton was doing during the war other than continuing to write as usual. I'll have a look around. Eric Corbett 16:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what "easy reading" is.
    Something that can be easily read, no big words or long sentences and such like. I thought it was a fairly common term? Eric Corbett 16:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blyton published her last book in the Noddy Library series" - Noddy Library?
  • This is a the end of the article "Helena Bonham Carter played the title role", but there is a long quote from her further up. The duplication of information is probably necessary but made my think, you have already told me this.

More generally, I can hear at least two voices on reading this, some homogenization of style might be needed. Thanks for a engaging read and a solidly researched contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham, and you're right about the need to homogenize the voices. Eric Corbett 13:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Montana and Graham for your input here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492
edit
  • Owing to RL obligations I may take a few days to go through this article. Perhaps surprisingly, I don't think I've read any of her work. Perhaps this can be blamed on me being a Canadian born twenty years after her death, but then I read the works of Dahl regularly...
  • Very general issue: watch for Proseline. There are many, many paragraphs which begin "in (year)", which makes for very repetitive reading.
  • Enid Mary Blyton (11 August 1897 – 28 November 1968) was an English children's writer whose books have been among the world's bestsellers for children since the 1930s, selling more than 600 million copies. - watch for repetition (children, sell in this instance)
  • Noddy character, The Famous Five, and The Secret Seven series. - is "Noddy character" more correct than "character, Noddy" in BrE? Also, perhaps find a way to make it clearer that The Famous Five and The Secret Seven are both series. For instance, "her character Noddy and her series The Famous Five and The Secret Seven."
  • Blyton's first book, Child Whispers, a 24-page collection of poems, was published in 1922, and she occasionally used the pseudonym Mary Pollock after marrying Major Hugh Alexander Pollock in 1924. - this doesn't really go well with the first paragraph. I'd move it south a bit.
  • which the BBC had refused to broadcast since the 1930s because of their perceived lack of literary merit. - double check: 1930s is correct?
    It is indeed. Blyton first submitted her work to the BBC in 1936. Eric Corbett 15:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • but they have nevertheless continued to be bestsellers since her death in 1968. - somewhat repeats information from the first paragraph
  • The section #Early life and education does not show up in the lede.
  • Are the addresses necessary?
    I don't think they are, no. Eric Corbett 04:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In November 1897 Blyton almost died from whooping cough, but was nursed back to health by her father, whom she adored. - collocating the two feels as if you are implying a cause and effect relationship. I'd move "whom she adored" to the next sentence
  • He also passed on his interest in gardening, art, music, literature and the theatre to his daughter, - is "to his daughter" necessary? I mean, the article is about her, and if one "passes s.t. on" in this context, it definitely goes to the child from the parent
  • She was devastated when her father left the family to live with another woman. - may be read as the mother being devastated; consider rephrasing
  • In 1912 the family moved to 14 Elm Road in Beckenham. - I've added a CN tag, but to be honest I don't think this is really needed. I mean, it's in the same town and everything
    I agree, so I've deleted it. Eric Corbett 16:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • with its haunted room, - worth including "reportedly"?
  • Blyton's father taught her to play the piano, which she mastered well enough for him to believe that she might follow in his sister's footsteps and become a professional musician. - not sure the chronology works well here; last we heard of the father, he had left for another woman. This may be misunderstood as meaning that he had returned.
  • On the Popular Fallacy that to the Pure All Things are Pure - short story/poem? If so, shouldn't this be in quotes? See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#When_not_to_use_italics
  • ancient Greece, ancient Rome and other myths. - text appears to be saying that ancient Greece and Rome are both myths
    Hopefully fixed now. Eric Corbett 04:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blyton's magazine was renamed Enid Blyton's Sunny Stories - don't think you've said that the magazine was owned by Blyton
  • The Secret Island (five books) and The Circus Series - Is no italics correct?
    I think so. My understanding is that the names of series aren't italicised. Eric Corbett 16:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blyton broke one of her strict rules by accepting a publisher's advance - what rules? Not mentioned anywhere
  • I've read the #Biography section, and to be honest it feels quite naked without the #Personal life and #Charitable work to flesh it out. A biography is, in my opinion, the sum of all of these parts, rather than just various repetitions of "She published this in year". I mean, you mention she used her married name Pollock, but don't mention who she married or when she married until several sections later. #Death and legacy could simply be #Legacy, with the #Death worked into the biography section. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Crisco, yet more food for thought. Eric Corbett 15:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Old Thatch" - with or without quotes for house names?
  • Peterswood - why the italics?
  • In 1934 Blyton and Pollock took a holiday at Seaview House on the Isle of Wight but she suffered a miscarriage before becoming pregnant with Imogen and giving birth in October the following year. - second half of this sentence is redundant to the preceding sentence
  • Trocadero plc - is plc necessary here? I mean, it's like Inc., being part of a company name, right? Ltd. is also rarely used in running prose on Wikipedia, last I checked
  • In 2012 The Famous Five was adapted for the German film Fünf Freunde, directed by Mike Marzuk. - would work best merged with another paragraph
    Agreed and done. Eric Corbett 01:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar gender issues surface in Five Have a Wonderful Time, in which Anne says "I don't expect boys to tidy up and cook and do things like that but George ought to because she's a girl". - needs a cite, as this is going into interpretation — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The edition I've just read has Anne saying something rather different, but that may be another one of the revisionist editions. I've removed that quote for now pending access to an earlier edition, but it's not really necessary to make the point anyway. Eric Corbett 04:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. Eric Corbett 01:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

edit
  • My attention went first to the attractive infobox. The award seems not mentioned in the body.
  • "bestsellers for children since the 1930s, selling" - can the repetition be avoided? Sales first, content later?
  • "enormously popular" sounds like an enormously popular phrase.
  • "her Noddy character, The Famous Five, and The Secret Seven series" - for people who don't know that Famous Five is a series, that information comes late (but perhaps the people don't exist).
  • "Blyton's work became increasingly controversial among literary critics, teachers and parents from the 1950s onwards" - can we have the time sooner?
  • "but they have nevertheless continued to be bestsellers since her death in 1968" - not before? Perhaps "even after her death"?
"Continued to be bestsellers" I think clearly asserts that they were already bestsellers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several adaptations of her books for stage, screen and television have been made" - seems to belong earlier in chronology.

Early life

  • I removed one "born" and confess that I would like to meet her parents first, then siblings, then street address.
  • "In November 1897 Blyton almost died" - she is a baby, and there are several Blytons, - could we say Enid, until she grows up a bit?
  • "Enid's mother, who showed little interest in her pursuits. She was devastated when her father left the family to live with another woman." - only on second reading I knew who "her" and "she" was.
  • I would place the baptism right after birth, - not after her parents' funerals.
She was 13 when she was baptized, doesn't make much sense from a chronological point of view. I'm not sure it's even relevant information to the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got to the heading Later works and wonder if I should continue to render titles italic? - later, anyway, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SchroCat

edit

Just one question for now, but I hope to review more completely soon.

  • Is enidblytonsociety.co.uk a reliable source? Is this an official organisation supported by the Blyton estate, or just a fan site?

- SchroCat (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Eric Corbett 23:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Society Organiser and researcher for the website is Tony Summerfield. Tony is probably the world's greatest expert on the author. " says the article on it..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Findlay (Musician)

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 why not

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too little information to really make any meaningful comment. Only thing I can say is "expand". More sources are needed to establish notability. Myspace might count as a blog or as a reliable source. Not sure. Just find more sources for now. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is inappropriate at this stage. Do the work, develop the article into something reviewable, then seek comment. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of Celtic F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I know this article has it's flaws, but I'd like an independent view of it and advice on how to improve it.

Thanks, ShugSty (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

edit

Just saw this - a few thoughts....

  • I'd remove "has a long and illustrious history" - let the facts speak for themselves.
  • Remove choppy paras - there are some in the first section.
  • Remove the see also

List of Wagon Train episodes

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 Wagon Train was a long-running and highly acclaimed television series. Thus I think it warrants a good episode list. Since it ran for eight years and racked up a total of 284 episodes the list is quite long; too long, in my opinion, to include a plot summary for each episode. That should be left for pages devoted to the series' individual seasons. However, that's something to contemplate at a later date. In the meantime, what can I do to improve this page and make it worthy for FLC status?

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cutthroat trout

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Rainbow trout should complete its FAC soon. Lessons learned there have been applied here.

Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review is closed. Thanks to all who contributed.
 
Trout knowledge

Comments by Montanabw

edit

Starting review, will add to remarks as I go, may take a couple days. Montanabw(talk) 17:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Overall, do a copyedit run-through, or have someone else do so; the article has quite a few complex, run-on sentences. Try to kill some commas and replace them with periods or semicolons and do a little rewording. Once I have finished this PR, I may do a small run myself if you are OK with that.
Lead and infobox
  1. Caption of lead image "Coastal cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki clarki, the type subspecies" is awkward.
  2. No good photo for the lead image? May want to go a-hunting. (If what's in taxonomy chart is as good as it gets, I see the problem...)
  3. Second paragraph of lead starts with a pretty complex run-on sentence. May want to break that into a couple sentences.
  4. "native to the alluvial or freestone streams " Is "freestone" another word for alluvial, or is freestone a different kind of stream? Rephrase to clarify. (I've never heard of a "freestone" stream, FWIW).
    Alluvial is a geology term, freestone is colloquial (but very common) term used to describie rivers, especially in angling literature. Freestone streams result from alluvial activity. (See this layman's explanation of Freestone streams: [3])--Mike Cline (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Familiar with alluvial, but lived in Montana all my life and been married to a fly fisherman for 30+ years, never heard "freestone" before, but then, I haven't read a lot of the literature. Maybe just rephrase to avoid the ambiguity of the "or" in that sentence. Follow up: Reviewing your source, it appears that the reason I am unfamiliar with that term is because a "freestone" river is what most of us in western and central Montana simply think of as a "river." LOL! Still, a minor rephrase, or maybe create freestone river as a quick article to explain what it is. --MTBW
  5. Debating if collapsing the subspecies section of the infobox is a good idea. Your call, not sure, literally just debating. You didn't list the subspecies in the rainbow trout infobox, just in the chart. I LIKE the subspecies being in the infobox, but it does make it a bit long.
  6. "Cutthroat trout are raised in hatcheries to restore ..." May want to rephrase reads like all cutthroats raised in hatcheries, worth noting if also wild populations
    I am not sure where you are going with this comment. I don't know how you'd weave "wild populations" into a thought about the purpose of hatchery cutthroats.
    Wording "Cutthroat trout are raised in hatcheries" sounds like the ONLY way they are raised... so needs a rephrase. Actually, wild population sources aren't really mentioned in the article much at all that I can see, you might want to tweak that. Be worth a sentence or two on the issue of where they are propagating in the wild versus where they are in a put and take fishery versus planting to restore populations. Found a few sources I popped in below that may help to expand on the genetic purity questions also.--MTBW
    Coming back to this. How are cutthroat trout "raised" other than in hatcheries? Wild fish are not raised. They hatch, live or die, then die. I agree with emphasizing where they have been introduced. "wild population sources aren't really mentioned in the article". I am not sure what a wild population source is. Source of what and for what? Wild fish for ???? The range section identifies the native range of the entire species. Does that need more detail? --Mike Cline (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I use the "wild" definition common among fisherman; a wild trout is one that was not born and/or raised in a hatchery. Noting, of course, that not all native trout are wild and not all wild trout are native species (i.e. in Montana, a wild brown trout can exist, as well as a hatchery-raised native cutthroat). For the cutthroat, it's important to mention due to their status as a species of concern - where do they reproduce naturally, where do they reproduce naturally in their historic range, where have they been introduced outside their historic range, where have they been restored via hatchery stocking within their historic range and so on... am I making sense here? Montanabw(talk) 00:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without trying to sound obnoxious, not really, because the issue isn’t being addressed very well. First the issue as I see it, is this sentence: Cutthroat trout are raised in hatcheries to restore native populations, as well as stock non-native lake environments to support angling. The entire section on “Artificial propagation” supports the sentence and the section is well sourced. With the possible exception of Washington, I know of no regular stocking of cutthroat trout into riverine environments to support put and take fishing. We know for certain in Montana that no trout of any species has been stocked in riverine environments to support fishing since 1977, thus unless a fish is an escapee from a hatchery or illegally introduced, it is a wild fish. These thoughts a wild trout is one that was not born and/or raised in a hatchery. Noting, of course, that not all native trout are wild and not all wild trout are native species (i.e. in Montana, a wild brown trout can exist, as well as a hatchery-raised native cutthroat). begs the question, Yes, but so what. There are two sections “Life cycle” and “Habitat” that discuss the behavior of cutthroat trout—spawning, etc. These are wild fish. Do we need to say “wild fish” which would imply that there are non-wild fish that behave differently in those same environments which is not the case. This comment: For the cutthroat, it's important to mention due to their status as a species of concern - where do they reproduce naturally, where do they reproduce naturally in their historic range, where have they been introduced outside their historic range, where have they been restored via hatchery stocking within their historic range and so on leaves me with a couple of questions. One, the “Cutthroat trout” as species is neither threatened or of special concern and is generally considered secure in most of its range. Three subspecies are threatened (ESA) in their native range (the only place they exist). Yes the Westslope is a Montana species of special concern, but this article is about Oncorhynchus clarki not each individual subspecies which has its own article. Interesting however, that the Westslope, with the exception of a small remnant population in Alberta, is concerned “assumed secure” in Canada. I don’t know what the presumptive state status is in other U.S. states.

As for identifying the range, I think the US range map does just that for both native historic and introduced range. Since this is about Oncorhynchus clarki, not individual subspecies, my concern is what level of detail do you think is appropriate on ranges for the entire species. Just as matter of interest, in Montana, the Westslope O. c. lewisi occurs in 3,179 named rivers and streams. These would all be wild trout. They occur in 667 lakes (most native, not introduced), the great majority which appear to have self-sustaining wild populations (no idea what the genetic purity is here as it depended on what else (Yellowstone cutt or rainbow) has been introduced into the same waters. For the Yellowstone cutthroat, it is 298 rivers and streams and 462 lakes (there has been and continues to be a lot of stocking of hatchery raised Yellowstone cutts into lakes, even with wild populations. I can't imagine what these stream and lake numbers would be like for each state (US) and province (Canada) in the cutthroat's range. If you want to add content that addresses these things, please do it, but remember this is not an article about the Westslope, it is an article about the entire Cutthroat species. Off to bed, 4AM wakeup on East coast going home in the morning. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the problem how you worded the lead. It sounds like "because they are threatened, the ONLY place they are raised is in hatcheries" That is the main issue. To fix that, maybe throw some of your above stats in (if needed) and for the lead, try something this: "Cutthroat trout naturally propagate in most riverine environments, but are also raised in hatcheries to restore native populations, as well as stock non-native lake environments to support angling."--MTBW
  1. Was "type species" one of the phrases coming out of the FAC? Odd wording and wiki article on type is unclear ... would "taxon" be more accurate? Why is Coastal Cutthroat "the" type subspecies? (May need to explain the concept-briefly- and why it matters) --and still need to explain what a type species is and why we non-scientists should care... the wikilinked article is useless to explain whatever it is. --MTBW
  2. For FAC, they may want the lead to be a little bit longer, but I'd wait to expand until rest of PR stuff done.
Body
  1. I'd expand the "Angling" section a bit if you can. It's only four sentences long and the second sentence is kind of a run-on doozy - might want to break those clauses up into sentences and expand a bit on each location or concept. For example, WHY is the Lahontan fishery "unique."
    Would you consider this unique? [4]  ??
    SCOMN! (Snorted coffee out my nose!) And WTF? Are they sitting on ladders? Shallow lake? Still, what's unique about the fishery itself? The sentence sort of reads like a travel brochure. My suggestion would be to break it up, I'll do an example below (so as not to screw up the numbering here)
  2. Taxonomy section: First paragraph just kind of awkward overall, do a copyedit.
  3. Would be fun to note c. lewisi was named after Lewis; you mention the species named after Clark, so nice to give a nod to the other - if there was any particular reason Lewis gets the westslope nod, especially if due to his own efforts (as Clark did in describing the fish generally), that would be fun to note also.
    The naming of lewisi is explained in the Westslope cutthroat trout article. Although Lewis and Clark described the trout in their journals, they did not do so as taxonomists and thus did not name the subspecies. George Suckley described lewisi in 1856, purportedly because clarki (1836) was already taken. As this is an article about the overall cutthroat trout group, too much detail on any one subspecies isn't warranted.
    True enough, and the taxonomic history of trout is enough to make my head explode. I wonder if someone might ask, though... hmm. Do we know why Clark got the nod first --MTBW
    Because Richardson said so! Here's the first hand description in 1836 [86.] 15.SALMO CLARKII. (Richardson.) Clarke's Salmon. [Dr. Gairdner does not mention the Indian name of this trout, which was caught in the Katpootl, a small tributary of the Columbia, on its right bank. I have therefore named it as a tribute to the memory of Captain Clarke, who notices it in the narrative prepared by him of the proceedings of the Expedition to the Pacific, of which he and Captain Lewis had a joint command, as a dark variety of Salmon­ trout (see p. 163). In colour this species resembles the mykiss of Kamchatka, and there is no very material discrepancy in the number of rays in the fins. Vide Arct. Zool., Intr., p. cxxvi.-R.]
    Heh. and because I guess he credits Clark's journals over those of Lewis! I'm going to do a bit of digging, the L&C angle is often good for reader interest. I still think you could consider adding a short sentence or clause noting o.c.lewisi named later, after Lewis, originally applied to both Yellowstone and Westslope, then split. Will cover both the major Montana subspecies that way.
  4. ..." They were the first trout ..." Maybe clarify they were the "first trout of the Americas..." (Europe has trout, after all, don't want to imply otherwise)
    Qualified with New World trout
    New World mildly un-PC, prefer "the Americas" or something similar. But won't make a federal case out of it. --MTBW
  5. What year did John Richardson do his thing?
    1836 added it to the sentence
  6. ..."species that migrated up the Columbia and Snake river basins" Any evidence or theories of how the natural population crossed the continental divide and got into the Yellowstone, Platte, Pecos, & other east of the divide rivers?
    Lots of theories. Does Lake Missoula et al. ring a bell. The Rockies as we know them today were much different back when the Oncoryhnchus species were evolving. Simply put, the trout we know today evolved in isolation as glacial lakes receded.
    If you can source it, add that. Maybe 2 sentences or so. It's interesting and fills in a blank. Additional comment: That still doesn't explain how they got EAST of the divide, though; Glacial Lake Missoula drained to the Pacific... ? --MTBW
    If you haven't seen this: [5] it is imformative.
    tl;dw, I've seen geology films on TV also. My point is summarized here. Lake Missoula flowed west. I'm OK with the points you make below about the Lake Yellowstone theory. My point is that the article discusses that the cutthroat is a Pacific trout, so a nod to how it got to the other side of the divide is worth noting - after all, today we have bucket biologists who do stuff like this, so at the end of the day, it is good to explain that the eastslope populations are naturally-occurring and not someone hauling fish over in a live well.--MTBW
    Happy, happy, nice addition to explain! --MTBW
  7. Subspecies chart has some inconsistent punctuation, Humbolt scientific name ended with a comma, inconsistent abbreviation and/or use of periods. Some FAC reviewer will undoubtably comment on that.
      Done
  8. No sources in chart for Bonneville cutthroat trout. All other entries have something cited, somewhere in the row.
      Done

Will expand list as I go. All for now, more to come. Montanabw(talk) 17:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Angling section suggestion: Reword something along these lines - obviously, don't feel you have to follow my structure or pay the least amount of attention to my warped sense of humor, this is just an idea: Montanabw(talk) 00:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cutthroat trout are prized as a gamefish. Their propensity to feed on aquatic and terrestrial insects make them an ideal and popular quarry for the fly angler,[58] and thus cutthroat fishing is popular throughout their ranges: The Yellowstone cutthroat trout fishery in Yellowstone National Park is special and cool for reasons that include yada, yada, yada, in spite of too may damn tourists, blah, blah, blah...[47][54][55][56] The small stream fisheries of the westslope cutthroat are cool because of yada, yada, yada, popular with local residents and a draw for people who read Outside Magazine. The Lahontan cutthroat trout fishery in Pyramid Lake Nevada is particularly unique because of yada, yada, yada and the weird ladder thing. Saltwater angling (probably not with flies, though?) for sea-run cutthroat occurs on the Pacific coast and is particularly well-known in places such as X, Y and Z.[57] The all-tackle world record is a 41 lb (19 kg) cutthroat caught in Pyramid Lake in December 1925.[24] (Any other records of note?)

  • Will work on this. But this: "Saltwater angling (probably not with flies, though?) for sea-run cutthroat" is a question best answered with pictures. [6]. Also, note the name of further reading entry #4. Fly fishing for cutts along the beaches of the Puget Sound is a blast. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • May want to emphasize that as an, um, angle. (pun intended) I suspect that when most people think of salt water fishing, they usually think of people going out in boats with huge tackle and bait; not beach fishing (unless hanging a worm off a dock) and not fly fishing. That sounds like fun indeed - those flies look like a minnow imitation or something...? --MTBW
Sources:

Just found this stuff, you may be interested if you haven't used it already, mea culpa if any of these are already in footnotes, haven't gotten into that analysis yet:

Lewis and Clark connection
  • http://lewis-clark.org/content/content-article.asp?ArticleID=1911 Hmmm. Quotes Lewis. Richardson notwithstanding, Lewis first described the fish, according to this. ,s> Also posits a theory on how cutthroats got east of the divide -- will probably need additional sourcing, but: "Some biologists believe it may have migrated across the Continental Divide at a point such as Isa Lake in Yellowstone National Park, which drains into both sides of the Divide."
  • The Isa Lake idea is so much bunk and completely unsupported in any scientific literature I can find. Both the Firehole River and Lewis River drainages (the two rivers that flow from Isa Lake) were fishless as of 1870 above their major falls. Where did the fish go? Never happened. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two Ocean Pass is supportable for the movement of Yellowstone cutts from the Snake river to the Yellowstone drainage. In fact, geologic evidence points to Yellowstone lake once draining into the Snake before it drains into the Yellowstone river. But the Two Ocean Pass idea doesn't explain the Westslope which occurs on both sides of the divide and is thought to have evolved from the Yellowstone cutt. Very complicated. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps point me to the complicated part, should be some way to say "multiple theories exist for the existence of cutthroat trout east of the Continental divide, the most likely being X or Y." I'm a fan of educating the reader and encouraging interest in digging further. Basically, if you have a source or sources that discusses it at all, let's peek at them. See my comment above about bucket biologists. --MTBW
  • The complicated part is trying to explain the hows and whys that the "divide" as we know it today didn't exist at the time cutthroat and rainbow subspecies began their evolutionary path to where they are today. Even though they are considered Pacific trouts, there are populations that became isolated in different basins millions of years ago (and thus evolved into something different) before the "divide" as we know it today existed. Describing historic native ranges has nothing to do with "bucket biology". The populations of rainbows and cutthroats that live in drainages of the Atlantic basin and Arctic basin are still Pacific trouts, they just got isolated through some series of geologic/climatic events into drainages that eventually went to the Arctic or Atlantic. I'll see if I can find something that can be generalized around this. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if I've read this once, I've read it a hundred times and it still doesn't explain how the Westslope cutthroat got isolated in the upper Missouri (east of the divide) and the upper Columbia (west of the divide). The two ocean pass concept is well documented for the Yellowstone cutt, but it doesn't answer the question for the Westslope. If the Westslope originated from Oncorhynchus parents that migrated up the Columbia basin, the question is how did they get into the upper Missouri basin? --Mike Cline (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be known so it's best to avoid even mentioning it. If I had to guess it would simply be that genetically identical populations that are also separated geographically from each other must have only become so separated in very recent history...in this case it may only be a few hundred years.--MONGO 17:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly you could weasel, given that there are theories out there, maybe something like, "although a number of theories have been proposed as to how they got east, including fee, fi, fo and fum, science to date has yet to provide a definitive answer... Or not. I see the problem. Has anyone done a DNA study of the fish to figure out how old the genome is??? Montanabw(talk) 00:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


(At Great Falls area) "Goodrich had caught half a douzen very fine trout and a number of both species of the white fish. these trout are from sixteen to twenty three inches in length, precisely resemble our mountain or speckled trout in form and the position of their fins, but the specks on these are of a deep black instead of the red or goald colour of those common to the U. States. these are furnished long sharp teeth on the pallet and tongue and have generally a small dash of red on each side behind the front ventral fins; the flesh is of a pale yellowish red, or when in good order, of a rose red....my fare is really sumptuous this evening; buffaloe's humps, tongues and marrowbones, fine trout parched meal pepper and salt, and a good appetite; the last is not considered the least of the luxuries." He apparently also had luck on August 19, 1805: "The trout are the same which I first met with at the falls of the Missouri, they are larger than the speckled trout of our mountains and equally as well flavored." March 14, 1806 (cribbing from Clark's entry the previous day): " The mountain or speckled trout are found in the waters of the Columbia within the mountains. they are the same of those found in the upper part of the Missouri, but are not so abundant in the Columbia as on that river."

  • Clark gets around to mentioning cutthroats on March 12, 1806: "Besides the fish of this Coast and river already mentioned we have met with the following Species. viz. the Whale, Porpus, Skaite, flounder, Salmon, red-carr, two Specis of Salmon trout, mountain or Speckled trout," then on March 13: "The Speckled or Mountain Trout are found in the waters of the Columbia within the Rocky mountains. they are the Same of those found in the upper part of the Missouri, but are not So abundent in the Columbian Waters as in that river. The bottle nose is also found on the waters of the Columbia within the mountains."

Do with all of the above as you see fit. Montanabw(talk) 02:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on overall tone: It is important that this article strike a balance between accessibility to the masses and technical tone; too scientific and it is going to have style issues. Clearly accuracy is critical, but so is readability. Right now, it tilts a bit toward excess technical language in places where common vernacular will also work. Easily fixable once the details are sorted. Montanabw(talk) 18:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, but always a challenge as the scientists don't like the colloquial, the laymen don't understand the science and attempts to craft compromises generally result in inaccuracies on both sides of the equations. Will work on it.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinks often help a lot, if there are concepts or phrases not linked that have articles, throwing them in is useful. I run across the technical language issue with the horse articles on a regular basis, laypeople not understanding the terminology, but saying things like "a stallion is a boy horse" just sounds phenomenally ridiculous. I'd say get the information right, then maybe all of us peer reviewers can take a look at the final text. Montanabw(talk) 00:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed that the Phylo map next to the subspecies chart looks kind of awk. Might want to move it. Not sure where, though maybe if you collapse the subspecies in the infobox, it won't be so much of a problem. (I may fiddle with that, just revert if you don't like it). Montanabw(talk) 20:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subspecies list collapsed in taxobox

Re removal of Artisan fishing link. This is WP's weak article on subsistence fishing. Subsistence fishing is not limited to "sea-fishing". Even if it was, it would apply here as the cutthroat trout subsistence fishery in SE Alaska is probably accomplished along beaches and coastal estuaries. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MONGO

edit
  • The taxobox illustration is not rendering, least not on my system...it needs to be replaced.
  • Are we talking about the Cutthroat trout (2) drawing?? Odd since it is used on 15 different pages.
  • When I posted the comment yes, it was not rendering at that time. Perhaps it was my system...but since it was not rendering on my desktop OR my smartphone at that time, I wanted to mention it.--MONGO 15:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we expand on angling some?
  • Expanded some
  • In the section Pyramid Lake Lahontan cuttrout trout, can we convert the inline url to a cited reference..."U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began rearing these fish in the http://www.fws.gov/lahontannfhc/lnfh.html Lahontan National Fish Hatchery"...needs to be adjusted.
  • Done
  • In the section Sea-run cutthroat fishing along the Pacific coast, please convert the url to Federal Subsistence Management Program to a cited reference.
  • Done
  • Consistently: We need to be careful about how we refer to the various fish and spelling. Just general musings follow as I plan on addressing them myself.
    • Except at the beginning of a sentence, cutthroat trout should not be capitalized....but also noticing that the general term is used without "trout"....as just plain cutthroat. So I'll look and see if it's best to write it as cutthroat trout, cutthroat or cutthroats when discussing the general fish at the species level...
    • Lake trout needs to be capitalized to distinguish it from fish that merely live in a lake, so any species, when we are using common names instead of Latin ones, even if not at the beginning of a sentence, should capitalize the first name as in Lake trout.--MONGO 17:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe but even I am confused by the issue with lake trout...as to whether it is the species or merely a trout that is a resident of a lake. We also should probably see what they say about writing just cutthroat or if we need to add the word trout after that.--MONGO 03:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just using cutthroats or cutthroat with "trout" would be colloquial and instances of that have been removed at FAC. However, the common name convention is what it is. When is comes to lake trout, the convention of only linking things once hurts us here. I think I can solve by including the binomial everything its used. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All instances of cutthroat absent trout have been changed to cutthroat trout. The binomial for lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) has been added to the first instance of lake trout in the sections. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the section titled Subspecies, it says cutthroat trout evolved over two last two million years but under the section titled Range, it says the various subspecies may have crossed the Continental Divide between 3 to 5 million years ago....so we'll need to get these dates straightened out.
  • I am sure the 2 million year evolution was from legacy text. I'll see what I can do to clarify. There's actually two events here that are difficult to explain with any conciseness. 1) Event 1: Ancestors of today's cutthroat trout migrated inland up the Columbia river basin (3-5 million years ago) 2)Event two, after isolation in various basins, cutthroats evolved into the forms and subspecies we find today. Whether 2 million years is the right timeframe? I'll have to check. But the migration inland took place before the subsequent isolation and evolution of today's forms so these two timeframes are not the same. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Done I've rewritten both sections for a bit more consistency. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made one pass over so far and will do another yet...more thoughts after that
  • Under lifecycle...please add if possible how old they are before they spawn, how many years they live...if possible, how many eggs are laid and how many of this species survive to adulthood might be good additions.
Will work on it. In a recent change taxonomic >> toxonomic. Toxonomic is not right, taxonomic is. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How odd...I don't remember even typing an o where the a was but my edit indicates I did...weird.--MONGO 22:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Done

More comments from Montanabw

edit
  • I may just go in there and do a mild copyedit with hidden text on anything I find that is beyond a mild copyedit to address. I think you've pretty much knocked off the big chunks of my concerns, or at least intend to. Feel free torevert anything not helpful, though the intent will be to help... also feel free to toss any hidden text once read or addressed. Montanabw(talk) 02:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Given that you are using the (excellent, IMHO) source http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/laketrout2.pdf in several locations, but it's long and the sourced material may be on different pages, you may want to consider doing page citations and creating a "Sources" or "bibliography" section under the notes for the general work. I am guessing we may find a few other sources that are multi-page and would benefit from pinpoint citations. (See what Wehwalt and I did on Homer Davenport as an example where we cited to several books.)
  Done Think I got this stuff sorted out with page reference and some new sources.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Tjioeng Wanara

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 bring this through FAC and was looking for some input on writing and accessibility (i.e. is there enough context for the average reader?).

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

It looks pretty good, considering there are limited sources. I don't see any issues with accessibility.

Lede
  • "who must reclaim the throne " possibly HIS throne would be stronger. I'd also move the clause containing "of the same name" to the end of the sentence.
  • "that Poerbatjaraka" perhaps precede his name with "noted scholar"
Plot
  • "It is 1255 Saka" I suspect a full stop is missing but I can't say for sure.
  • There was a comma, but that sentence has been reworked to avoid the drama from Drama dari Krakatau
  • "as such" would "thus" work better?
Production
  • "second film, and the second film" can this be handled better?
Release
  • If you are going to say reviews were mixed, you probably should not give two positive reviews and none negative.
That's all I have, good job. On images, is there an illustration from the legend that would be suitable and could be placed in the plot section?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

edit

As usual I've made a few minor tweaks here and there: feel free to rv what you don’t like/disagree with.

Plot

  • "beloved to his people" or beloved by his people"?
  • "The minister Aria Kebonan, however, wants power for himself, and influences the king into surrendering the crown to him." I'd lose the "however": it doesn't add understanding. May also be worth considering "persuades" instead of influences?

Production

  • "served as historical adviser": possibly "served as the historical adviser"?

As usual, a very nice read covering all the relevant points! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

edit
  • "The second production by Star Film, Tjioeng Wanara was released on 18 August 1941 and advertised heavily," sounds a bit clunky. How about "The second production by Star Film, Tjioeng Wanara was heavily advertised and released on 18 August 1941"?
  • How's this?
  • "JB Kristanto's Katalog Film Indonesia records the film..." -- Film →Film. Any chance of avoiding the slight repeat here?
  • How's this?
  • "Waldy had made his film debut in 1940's Zoebaida for Oriental Film Company, later joining Star for Pah Wongso; Joenara and Arief had made their screen debut in the latter film. Djoenaedi and Sukran made their feature film debut in Tjioeng Wanara." -- could these debuts be reduced?
  • How's this?
  • "The film was based on a Sundanese legend of the same name..." – I know for people we start a new para with their name. Should this work for a film too?
  • "The premiere of Tjioeng Wanara was to a packed theatre." →"The premiere of Tjioeng Wanara was shown to a packed theatre."
  • "An anonymous review in the Soerabaijasch Handelsblad was positive, considering the film successful in its adaptation of the legend" -- Not sure the "considering" works here. "An anonymous review in the Soerabaijasch Handelsblad was positive and considered the film to be successful in its adaptation of the legend" would be better IMO.
  • Added "to be".

Comments from Sarastro

edit
  • ”The second production by Star Film, Tjioeng Wanara was released on 18 August 1941 and advertised heavily, emphasising the fact that the scholar Poerbatjaraka had served as the historical adviser and that the film was based on Balai Pustaka's version of the legend”: I think there is a touch too much going on here. I would have the “second film” part in another sentence; maybe the end of the previous one. Also, maybe “and was advertised heavily in [the press? billboards?]” as “and advertised heavily” could be read as meaning that it featured a lot of adverts.
  • I've split the sentence.
  • ”It received mixed reviews, but premiered to commercial success”: Would it not chronologically be the other way around?
  • ”Permana Dikoesoemah warns Aria Kebonan to always respect him and to not bother his wife”: While split infinitives are not the end of the world for some people, I generally prefer not to split wherever possible if doing so does not mangle the sentence.
  • ”…then abdicates to meditate before ultimately ascending to a higher plane of existence”: And the third infinitive in the sentence may be overload, particularly with another “to” following.
  • ”Tjioeng Wanara was directed and produced by Jo Eng Sek for Star Film, the second production by both Jo and the company, following Pah Wongso Pendekar Boediman in 1940.”: Would “and was” work better after “Star Film” here?
  • ”By June 1941 production was almost complete.”: I suppose it’s too much to hope that we know when it was actually complete?
  • ”The film was based on a Sundanese legend of the same name, retold by MA Salamoen in a Balai Pustaka-published edition which was then adapted by Rd Ariffien;”: Can we date the retelling?
  • ”as such, a review in the Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad found that little remained of the original tale except for the characters' names.”: Does this refer to the published or the film edition?
  • ”Balai Pustaka”: Would it be worth a sentence or two to explain what this was for the reader? (To save the need to follow links?)

No problems otherwise. To be honest, this one does feel a little light; but knowing your incredible research, I believe this means that there is nothing else out there. I only wonder could any of the background be expanded, for example on the cast? But again, if the sources are exhausted, so be it. With these qualifications, I see no problems for FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for reviewing! As we've noted elsewhere, documentation on this period is really lacking. I've yet to find any information on Joenara's life before Pah Wongso (except for where she was born), and Waldy doesn't have much either. I haven't found information on the others, sadly. Overall, however, this is still considerably more detailed than what was available before. When writing his book, Biran doesn't appear to have had access to the Dutch newspapers. He doesn't have much on this film (as can be seen from the referencing). Neither he nor Kristanto include a plot summary, likely assuming that readers can look elsewhere for the legend (which brings up the issue of the legend not necessarily having the same plot points as the film... just check out different versions of the Hua Mulan legend to see my point: Disney had a very different take than Starlight International). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1st Grande Prêmio Cinema Brasil

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 want to nominate it to FL. I've molded it after 1st Academy Awards and 1st Magritte Awards, and I think it reached a good quality by now. However, I'm not so confident about my prose/grammar. Also, I'm doubt to mention: that all films produced between November 1, 1998 and October 30, 1999 are allowed to compete ([7]), the cost of the ceremony ([8]), and how the choose of the best ones were done. The two former only because I don't know if it's that useful, and the latter because there is a little divergence between several sources... All sources agree that a group of 24 people choose the winners of 11 categories, but for the 6 remaining categories the numbers vary from 287 ([9], [10]), 295 ([11]), 300 ([12], [13]), and 400 ([14], [15]). I would say I'm more inclinated to use 287 as the information is from latest news, while the other numbers are from news before the event. Last, there are only sources in Portuguese and I don't know if it's a problem...

Thanks, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Cal Ripken Jr./archive1

List of Millennium characters

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 (again) because it's the first list of its type I've worked on to this level; it's a list composed of prose entries rather than tables or the like. My main concerns are the prose (which I may seek to address down the line with a GOCE copy-edit) and the lead, which I do feel is lacking but can't quite figure out just what should go in there. The list itself is as comprehensive as it's likely to ever be, as the series itself hasn't seen much depth of coverage, and the one-man focus has meant that most characters were left out where the buses don't run as regards third-party coverage. Any suggestions at all that can be offered would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! GRAPPLE X 20:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukiyo-e

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is an article about the genre of Japanese prints and paintings. I'm hoping to nominate this article as a Featured Article candidate sometime this year, and would like to get some more eyes on it. Any help or feedback would be appreciated—in particular, I'd like some feedback on the choice of images (there are at least hundreds of thousands to choose from), and my admittedly poor description of ukiyo-e's relation to traditional Japanese aesthetics. The text will appear to be a mix of American and British spellings—that's because I've been obnoxious enough to poison it with Canadian spelling.

Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pretty good, & very close to, if not at, FA standard. I have only skimmed through so far. The images chosen for the Western art influenced are all landscapes, and very direct borrowings, and the text does not explain how the borrowing worked in artistic terms. [This short book "The_Great_Wave_The_Influence_of_Japanese_Woodcuts_on_French_Prints" from the MMA is fully available online as a PDF, and good on that, though indeed only concerned with French Prints (Cassatt counting as French) by painters - Manet, Degas, Cassatt, Bonnard, Vuillard, T-L & Gauguin. Even the chronology at the beginning gives useful material.

Not much on how they were (as opposed to are now) collected and displayed, and how expensive they were, and profitable for the artists. Or did the publishers make all the money? Wasn't there a big slump in the ukiyo-e market in the later 19th century? I've read of early examples reaching the West used as packing material. I've added two basic links that seemed to be missing - Japonism/e and Woodblock printing in Japan, both to large articles that one would have thought pretty central to the subject. Please check the Japanese art category tree for others. Probably "ukiyo-e's relation to traditional Japanese aesthetics" is not too well covered, nor what was very traditional subject matter from painting (bird and flower) and what fairly new (actors?). Did artists come to be trained just for prints, or did they continue to have a training in painting?

The style & expression could be improved in places: "Degas, Monet,[93] Mary Cassatt, and Toulouse-Lautrec were amongst the artists taken in by Japonism .... " (my bold) is ambiguous!

I'll try to read through fully & comment again. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking a look at this.
    • Thanks for the link to The Great Wave The Influence of Japanese Woodcuts on French Prints—I've downloaded it and will do what I can with it.
    • I've reworded "taken in" to "associated with".
    • I preferred "Japonism" to "Japonisme" because I have a thing about keeping English articles English—there's a note: "Burty coined the term le Japonisme in French in 1872".
    • Woodblock printing in Japan was linked as a {{main}} article in the "Print production" section
    • The "packing material" meme seems to get around, but I have yet to come across it in a book that's actually about ukiyo-e. Personally, I doubt it.
      • Here it is, in The Great Wave—apparently Hokusai's Manga had indeed been used as packing material by Félix Bracquemond's printer, and Monet may have found some prints later in Holland that were used as "wrapping paper". The prints had already been circulating for at least a half-century before then in Europe (including Paris), so while the story's "true", it's not an origin story. I'm not sure if I should include these anecdotes, or leave them to the Japonism article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Costs would have been different throughout the 200-year period—economic conditions changed, as did printing practices: almost exclusively monochrome prints in the first century or so, to the nishiki-e prints of the latter; different print sizes; different techniques (mica, embossing, burnishing, type of wood carved (cherry wood apparently came later), etc) ... and then when you mix in things like inflation and the constantly changing economic conditions, I think a "typical" price (or price range) would be, at the very least, a moving target.
    • I haven't come across a lot on how profitable they were for the artists—apparently they worked on commission (I'll have to check again). Hiroshige made "about twice the wages of a day labourer", but apparently made less than other popular artists (poor negotiating skills?)
    • In the "style" section it's briefly mentioned that "Many ukiyo-e artists received training from teachers of the Kanō and other painterly schools." Not all artists painted, but it appears most of them did (including later ones like Hokusai and Hiroshige).

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World War I reparations

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi, I have been working on updating this article and getting it into shape to eventually put it through a GA review. The complete article is not yet finished. For the moment, I am looking for a review of only sections 1-3 (the 'Background', 'Reaction of the ex-Central Powers', and the 'Evolution of reparations' sections). All comments, suggestions, ideas, for proposed areas of improvement are welcome.

Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • For what it's worth, I think you'll have no problem getting it to GA as-is. You have a reference problem on one of them, and personally I'd recommend using the Template:sfn style which makes life so much easier and avoids errors like this. In sections 1-3 you have some problems with overlinking (Belgium particularly). Personally, I think the article could do with more pictures, but obviously that's just cosmetic. Brigade Piron (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I will attempt to address the over-link issue in the coming days and will address the ref issue momentarily. I am not familiar with the sfn way of doing refs so it may be a while before I get around to addressing that issue, but I will. As for photos, it is something I have attempted to work on but there is lack of relevant photos on the subject.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramones (album)

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 recently failed its second FAC. I believe with a thorough copy-edit of the entire article, it should be ready for nomination again. I have fixed everything mentioned in the FAC, except the unspecific comments, which is why I am listing it for peer review. I seriously hope this can be done soon, and as thoroughly and specifically as possible. By the way, I have peer reviewed the following articles: List of Russian inventors, Jessica Simpson discography, So Yesterday, Christina Aguilera, Hit 'Em Up, When Love Takes Over, and Nadia Ali

Anyways, thanks a bunch!!! CrowzRSA 22:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

edit

Learned how to play every song on this album. Took me all of twenty-nine minutes ;) Still one of my favourites.

Lead
edit
  • "the debut studio album": since they didn't have a live or other type of album before this one, this is overspecification—just go with "album"
  • Fixed
  • "by the American punk rock band the Ramones": you could drop the "the"; and personally I'd just label them "rock" at this point
  • Fixed, but I did not simply put rock because the album and band are both known to be pioneers of punk rock.
  • "Craig Leon to produce for the Ramones": not "produce the Ramones"?
  • Fixed
  • "to record their first album": maybe just "the album"?
  • Fixed
  • "with a four-track rendition of the devices": I don't understand what this means
  • Fixed
  • "The album was completed after Leon added overdubbing and doubling, which were both more advanced methods of production.": I get the feeling this sentence could be tightened up with a rewrite
  • Rewritten
  • "featured the four members": "features"—it has never ceased to feature them
  • Fixed
  • "Despite the record company's paying only $125 for the front photo, the artwork has become one of the most imitated album covers of all time.": I don't like the "Despite"—whether or not it became iconic is irrelevant to the price paid
  • Fixed
  • "which failed to include backing vocalist Mickey Leigh": well, they couldn't have included a person. "identify"? "credit"?
  • Fixed
  • "promoted with two singles, but they both failed to chart": don't like this "but"—most singles fail to chart.
  • Fixed
  • "based in the United States, but two were booked in Britain.": don't like this "but" either—nothing's being contrasted. Replacing with "and", or rewriting, would be better
  • Fixed, but you may want to check it out
  • "The album's lyrical themes center around violence, male prostitution, drug use, and Nazism": I'm one of those pricks who gets worked up over "center around"...other than that, the wording makes it seem like each of these themes reappears through the album. Did any song other than "53rd and 3rd" deal with male prostitution? Maybe something like: "Violence, drug use, relationship issues, humor, and Nazism were prominent in the album's lyrics." The thing is, the relationship stuff and humor were all over the album, but it's remembered for the violence, drug use, and Nazi imagery.
  • Fixed
  • "the band's most recognizable songs": or "recognized"?
  • Fixed
  • "tracks are noticeably uptempo": of course it's noticeable—that's why you're noting it. Drop "noticeably"
  • Fixed
  • "with many songs clocking at well over 160 beats per minute": "clocking" may be a bit informal for an encyclopaedia article
  • I used "measuring" instead of "clocking"
  • "Ramones also contains a cover of": "also" is superfluous; you mght want to link [[Cover version|cover]]
  • Removed and linked
  • "Ramones was deemed influential by many critics": "was deemed"? At the time? Influence happens after the fact. I'd rewrite he whole sentence, and have contemporary reviews precede later critical assessment
  • Rewrote, may want to see if it reads okay now.

I may or may not return to look through the rest of the article.

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you so much for the review on the lead, I'll probably be able to attend to it later today. If you do return to further review the article, much of the comments at FAC were focused on the "Reception" section as well as the "Lyrics and compositions" section. Nonetheless, thank you! CrowzRSA 16:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon

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 has failed GAN twice and I'm trying to get it to be a featured article in the future. I've done a lot of work on it and I'm not done yet!

Thanks, Newyorkadam (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber
Err - trying to balance feedback I give to any/all core contest entrants - but one very quick observation....there is no history section.....you really need to research that as it is a big hole. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not doing the core contest for bacon, I forgot to remove that :P And I've been working on a history section in my sandbox. -Newyorkadam (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
A majority of pigs in the United States are raised .... - "The majority.....though even better to have a percentage here really
Also be good to get some figures from outside US.....
Many sentences are short and paras are choppy. Combine some sentences and short paras
@Casliber: Where do you see the short/choppy paragraphs? And thanks for the comments :D -Newyorkadam (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
Comments from Tim riley
  • Links
    • Inconsistent: why link to turkey but not to chicken etc?
    • You should cut the WP:OVERLINKs to well-known places such as the United States, United Kingdom, China etc.
    • Remove duplicate links: I noticed "full breakfast", "bacon explosion", "chicken fried bacon", "heart disease", "cured", "smoked", "vegetarian bacon", "fad" and "YouTube" linked twice, and there may be others.
  • Lead
    • There are no fewer than ten citations in the lead. This seems excessive. A lead should summarise the content of the main text, and in general the citations belong in the latter, except for direct quotes or controversial statements. See MOS:LEAD#Citations for guidance. There should be nothing in the lead that is not mentioned in the main text: "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" (MOS:LEAD introduction). Here the lead has a lot of such material, such as the etymology, the USDA and trichinosis/Trichinella.
    • Moving some of the above from the lead to the main section will help you reduce the length of the lead to the recommended size: see MOS:LEAD#Length
  • General
    • The thrust of the article is very American-centred. For example, under "Production", only America is considered; the same applies at "Reception"; and at "Bacon fat" the surreal idea that British cooks use lard in gravy or salad dressing (or have even heard of cornbread) is surely not borne out by the quoted sources.

Interesting article, and has potential for GA if these points are addressed. Tim riley (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Tim! I've fixed some now and will continue to work on it :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
Please ping me if you want any further comments in due course. It will be a pleasure. Tim riley (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest dams in China

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 elevate it to FL status. I 'spun' this list off of List of dams and reservoirs in China which did not succeed as an FL candidate due to a lack of scope. The scope is now a list of the tallest dams within China, who has many of the world's tallest dams. Thank you for taking the time to provide comments.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drakengard 2

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 have done extensive work on the article and intend to bring it forward in the future as GA candidate. What else needs to be done here, and how can what is currently there be refined?

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero:

  • Reception should be reorganized to go issue-by-issue rather than reviewer-by-reviewer. The reason for this preference among video game GAs and FAs is that there may be tons of reviews, so it may be arbitrary to give WP:Undue weight to featured ones. However, there will typically only be a few major points of praise or criticism. For Drakengard 2, it looks like reviewers were unimpressed with the graphics' low innovation, found the gameplay repetitive, and gave mixed comments to the story and aesthetics.
  • Also, from the looks of the scores, it should just be "mixed" reviews rather than "mixed to negative". The only score shown that falls below 50% (or an equivalent) is 1UP's.
  • Less weightily, it's "1UP", not "1Up".
  • I feel like Gameplay is a little short. You could go into more detail about the ways in which the player's abilities and dragon are improved with EXP, for example.
  • Gameplay also needs a screenshot - or two, if the dragon and combat parts of the game are that different.
  • I don't think the article adequately explains the integration of the dragon mechanics into the overall game. Can you hop onto it during battles? If so, do you then leave the battles? If not, are the "enemies" you attack the same ones from the battles? Are there adventure elements, or is dragon flight localized to combat?
  • Decapitalize "Characters" in "Setting and Characters".
  • The intro's too short and doesn't go into the Plot, Development, or Reception at all. Tezero (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done most of that, I think. There's still some fine tuning to do most likely, and I'm planning references and clean-up for the plot section. It's still a way from GA I think, but it's getting there. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gabriel Yuji:

  • instead of "called ... in Japan", I think it's better "known as ... in Japan"
  • knight is an example of WP:OVERLINK of a everyday word; and Cavia is linked twice in the lead
  • the article is opened with "is an action role-playing game developed by Cavia" and again is said "It was developed by Cavia" in the second paragraph; the sentences "with the previous game's producer and character designer returning to their respective roles" and "Multiple staff members from the previous game, including producer Takamasa Shiba and character designer Kimihiko Fujisaka, returned." are also repeated information
  • "The game received strong sales" doesn't seem an encyclopedic tone; sincerely, I don't know a better way to re-write it, so I only suggest you to remove it and keep only "The game has sold over 206,000 copies in Japan by the end of 2005"; Maybe you can add in the reception section that it was considered a "hit" by Ubisoft akin the way Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars mentions Capcom was satisfied with the sales number; I think it will be more neutral since it's declaration of a primary source
  • I would write "Western reviews praised the story, but gave mixed opinion about the graphics and widely criticized the gameplay." rather than "Western reviews were mixed to positive, with many praising the story, but being more mixed about the graphics and widely criticizing the gameplay." Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think. I hope it looks better. Thanks everyone for the helpful comments. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imogen Holst

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Imogen Holst was the busiest of busy bees in the British classical music world for decades. She did just about everything: she composed, conducted, danced, played the piano, taught, wrote lots of books, started orchestras and choirs, ran festivals... and so on, and so on. Unlike her famous dad, she never reached the heights as a composer, and gets little attention in this department, though the value of her overall contribution to musical life in Britain is widely acknowledged. One problem I had with this article is what to call her: "Holst" would cause confusion with her father who is frequently mentioned, and in any event surely has a prior claim to be "Holst". To keep calling her "Imogen Holst" would be tediously repetitive. So I have done what I did with Cosima Wagner, and referred to Imogen throughout by her first name. I will welcome any alternative suggestion for dealing with the name issue, along with any other ideas for the improvement and polish of this not very long article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

edit

First batch – to the end of the Dartington section

  • What a perfect photo of Imogen! So nice, so devoid of malice, so naïve even. A rare spirit faithfully caught.
  • As discussed elsewhere (user talk page) I think you have made the right choice in referring to her as "Imogen" throughout. She has to be Imogen in the early part, where Gustav is still alive, and changing her to "Holst" after 1934 would be to change gear with a loud grinding noise and might briefly have your readers unsure if you are talking about her or her father. The Cosima precedent is a good one.
  • Childhood and education
    • "Richmond, a riverside town to the west of London" – was it really a separate town in 1907, rather than a suburb of London? (Not a rhetorical question: I genuinely don't know, which is why I ask.)
    • I think it is safe to say that in 1907, Richmond was sufficiently detached from the metropolis not to be considered a suburb. But many suburbs consider themselves as "towns", anyway. I don't think the point is contentious. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Isobel, née Harrison" – as far as I can remember, "née" is usually italicised.
  • Schooling
    • You catch the schoolgirl slang beautifully, without overdoing it. One smiles – but affectionately.
    • "Ops 1, 2, 3 and 4" – I have a notion, not vouched for, that the usual plural form of "Op" is "Opp". Quite prepared to be told I'm talking rubbish.
    • "Imogen founded a folk dance society in the School." – capitalised School here, but lower case in the next sentence. The latter is better, I think.
  • Royal College of Music
    • "She began at the RCM in autumn 1926" – the MoS bids us avoid mention of seasons, for the benefit of readers in the opposite hemisphere.
    • "William H. Reed" – I think I'd pipe him to W. H. Reed, which is how he's usually referred to and how his name appears on the title pages of his two books on my shelves.
    • "the piece … was scheduled to be played" – and presumably was played.
  • EFDSS and teaching, 1931–38
    • "In 1936 she paid a visit to Hollywood, where she met her uncle (Gustav's brother), the actor Ernest Cossart." – This might be read as meaning that this was the first time she'd met him, but I imagine they met when the brothers were in England together a few years earlier.
  • War: travelling for CEMA
    • "According to Isabel's account " – Imogen's, I presume. (Incidentally, how very modern her activities seem as described here. Not in the least formal and stuffy, bless her!)
  • Dartington
    • "and was instrumental in arranging its debut at Dartington, as the "Brainin Quartet"" – I think it's wise to avoid this use of the word "instrumental" in any musical article. Safer to have her taking the lead, or some such.

I am enjoying this very much. More shortly. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to first batch: a penny has just dropped in the dusty recesses of the Riley brain – Gustav(us) didn't formally change his surname, dropping the "von", until the First World War, so presumably Imogen was officially "von Holst" when she was born. Tim riley (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing. I am, cards on the table, no fan of info-boxes except for, e.g., cricketer or politico biogs, but if one must have them they ought to contain something of some use, however little. Even boxophiles would surely allow that the content of the present box is about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike. We should fill it out or else blitz it. I know which I prefer, but I'll shut up at this point. – Tim riley (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concluding
  • Assistant to Britten
    • It gets slightly submerged here that in addition to helping Britten with his composing work, Imogen played a leading role in performances at the festival quite some time before becoming an artistic director. For instance at the opening concert of the 1953 festival Britten conducted just one piece, the omnium gatherum Variations on Sellinger’s Round and Imogen was in charge for Arne's Ode in Honour of Great Britain and "Now all the air shall ring" and Purcell's Anthem O Lord, grant the [King/] Queen a long life. And it seems to me from the Decca archives that she was chorus master of the Aldeburgh Festival Chorus. (See Stuart Philip's invaluable Decca archive – a big file, takes a while to open.)
    • I have added a line at the beginning of the "Artistic director" section, to underline Imogen's festival activities before she joined the directorate. Although she did on occasion conduct the Festival Chorus, I have seen nothing that suggests she was its chorus master; she much more frequently conducted the Purcell Singers. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artistic director
    • "At that point she again revised her career objectives" – a whiff of HR Department phrasing here. The sentence would work very well if pruned to "At that point, conscious of time passing, she determined to give priority to the final securing of her father's musical legacy, and to re-establish her credentials as a composer."
    • "Imogen was unsure that she could maintain a working relationship with Pears alone" – we are given the impression earlier that PP was a great admirer of Imogen. Do we know what her qualms were about working with him?
    • She was, as you know, smitten with Britten. She thought that Pears was disloyal, both personally (dalliances on the side) and musically – she noted that Pears took little interest in BB's work when he was not directly involved in it as a singer. But basically, the problem was that he was not Britten. I did not think to amplify this, but will do so if you think it important. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late career
    • "The year also saw the publication" – some people (not including me) get strangely exercised by the notion that years can see. I just mention it.
    • "facsimile edition of her father's works" – does this mean facsimiles of Gustav's manuscripts?
    • "she organised a special 70th birthday celebration concert" – "special" seems a touch unnecessary here.
  • Other things that occurred to me while reading:
    • Recordings: you don't mention her important work for the pioneering Lyrita label, filling in gaps in the Gustav Holst discography. For Lyrita she conducted: A Fugal Concerto, the Lyric Movement, the St Paul’s Suite, the Brook Green Suite, A Moorside Suite (Nocturne) the Double Violin Concerto, Country Song & Marching Song, the Golden Goose and Capriccio. Also, Imogen conducted a recording of Savitri for Argo in Oct and Nov 1965 with Janet Baker in the title role: perhaps worth a mention somewhere. The Lyrita and Argo recordings are detailed in Stuart Philip's archive, mentioned above.
    • I have added something relating to her Lyrita and Argo recordings of Gustav's music. Do you know who is the publisher of the Stuart Philip discography? At the moment I can't formulate a reference. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The publisher is the Arts and Humanities Research Council's Research Centre for the History and Analysis of Recorded Music, a snappy title pleasingly shortened on its website to "CHARM". As the host site is Royal Holloway College, I suppose the location is the Gothic Horror at Egham. The author is not Stuart Philip, as I said above, but Philip Stuart: very remiss of me to mangle his name. His marvellous catalogue is dated July 2009. There isn't an ISBN or OCLC number. – Tim riley (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Venus and Adonis which you mention under " Assistant to Britten" was put on at Aldeburgh in a double bill with Savitri (mentioned in the "Artistic director" section. The performances (under Mackerras before he became one of Britten's corpses) were recorded live and came out on CD in 2009. In The Musical Times Donald Mitchell was rude about both works: "Blow's Masque was musically very dull—its few inspirations were lost in acres of vacancy .... Miss Imogen Holst, who was responsible for this 'new realization ', does not seem to have uncovered a masterpiece. … Savitri does nothing to increase Holst's reputation and, along with 'Venus and Adonis', may safely be dropped from the Group's repertory. Neither piece, as I see it, serves any artistic or historical purpose whatsoever." On the other hand Peter Heyworth in The Observer gave the Holst a very favourable notice.
    • I have brought the mentions of Venus and Savitri together under one section. I honestly don't think that comments on recordings issued 50 years after the event, and 25 years after Imogen's death, have great relevance to this article so I've not included these. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worth mentioning the tribute concerts at Aldeburgh in 2007? Andrew Clements in The Guardian: "This is [Imogen] Holst's centenary year, and Aldeburgh paid its own tribute to her with a day of performances and discussions; the pair of concerts took place in the parish church, next to the graveyard in which she is buried and just a couple of hundred yards from her final home. There was a late-night programme by I Fagiolini that recreated the kind of programme Holst herself regularly conducted in the same building, pairing choral settings by Britten with English madrigals by Tompkins and Byrd, while the afternoon recital by the hugely promising Navarra Quartet included two of her own works alongside Purcell's Chacony and Schubert's great C major Quintet. As the daughter of one great British composer and the close musical confidant of another, Holst had to work hard to establish her own musical personality. If the 1963 The Fall of the Leaf, a set of three studies for solo cello on a theme from the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book, seems efficient but anonymous, the String Quintet composed two years before her death is genuinely memorable, with its ever more rarefied textures and nostalgia-laden harmony closer to the music of Gerald Finzi than anyone else. The set of variations with which the quintet ends dissolves into a series of bare solo lines, linking Holst's music to her father's; earlier Anna Dennis had sung Gustav's Four Songs for soprano and violin, exquisite studies in monody, which made the point perfectly."
    • I would very much like to include a bit of the centenary year tribute in the article, so please let me have the citation details.
    • If any of the above is of interest (not in the least miffed if it isn't) I can give you citations if wanted.

That's my lot. Ripping stuff! I couldn't in the end decide if it was Joyce Grenfell or Madame Arcati who came more often to mind, but you've done the dear old thing proud either way! – Tim riley (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enormous thanks for this comprehensive review, and for the helpful suggestions it contains. If you have any further ideas for improvements, do let me know. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

As promised, but in fact I don't have much. Quite interesting. Made a few changes hands-on, you might want to double check them.

Schooling
  • "she joined the kindergarten class at the Froebel Institute, where she spent five years" Five years in kindergarten?
  • "three instrumental pieces and some Christmas carol tunes—which she numbered as Ops 1, 2, 3 and 4" I see a mathematical problem here. Four from the opus category, less three instrumental pieces, leaves one, which clashes oddly with "some Christmas carol tunes".
  • "étude" An appropriate link or pipe perhaps.
Royal etc.
  • "EFDS" undefined
  • "was scheduled to be played at the college's end-of-year concert in July" this phrasing to my ear suggests this did not in fact take place. If it did, suggest it be phrased more definitely.
European etc.
  • The date in the section title does not match the date immediately below. It seems a bit inconsistent with same.
  • "EDFS" any relation to the "EFDS"?
Music
  • On the last point, I feel the words are necessary (I've changed it to "in her subsequent career"). Otherwise, except as noted I have adopted your suggestions. Many thanks for the review. Brianboulton (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro

edit

First set of comments from me:

  • ”tells of "compertishions, and ripping prizes, and strawberries and cream for tea””: Is it worth a [sic] here, or however we are supposed to do it on WP, to avoid some person thinking that it is a spelling mistake?
  • ”Imogen's SPGS years were generally happy and successful”: It’s probably worth giving this abbreviation on the school’s first mention
  • ”when she began to develop phlebitis in her left arm”: Could this be linked?
  • ”she played a Chopin étude and the first performance of Gustav Holst's Toccata”: Are there any links here? I think at least Chopin should be linked.
  • ”while otherwise occupying herself with EFDS activities”: We haven’t given this abbreviation yet, and it baffled me for a moment until I found what it was.
  • ”She concluded that "the Italians are a nation of singers...But music is a different language in that part of the world”: Should we not have spaces around the ellipsis?
  • ”but she produced two recorder trios–the Offley and Deddington suites, and made numerous arrangements for female voices of carols and traditional songs”: Something is off with the punctuation here as we have a dash (and I think it should be an emdash?) and a comma surrounding the names of the trios.

Up to the end of "War: travelling for CEMA".Sarastro1 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments – all dealt wth thus far. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining comments:

  • In the second paragraph of the "Assistant to Britten" section, is there any way to reduce the number of "scores"?
  • Reduced ftom 3 to 2
  • "The latter work caused ill-feelings by ignoring key figures": Whose were the ill-feelings? Could possibly be a few people.
  • Now clarified

I can find little wrong with this article, and it does its job very well. On the use of "Imogen" throughout, I can't say that I'm a huge fan of it, but I can't really see an alternative that is not convoluted, and I think you have chosen the best option here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review – all points sorted now I think. Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cliftonian

edit

Being a total Philistine I thought the only Holst was Gustav. So this should be interesting.

Lead

  • We give a pronounciation guide for "Holst" in GH's article, why not here too?
  • The name is pronounced as spelt, so I see no need for the IPA hieroglyphic. It was added recently to the Gustav article by an enthusiast for these things, but I have deleted it.
  • Why not date the photograph ("Holst in 1974" or similar)?
  • Since we don't mention the acronyms again in the lead I would take them out and only use them in the body; in the lead they are not attractive. Or are these organisations better known by their initials? Please excuse my ignorance of such things.
  • This is an excellent suggestion which I'm delighted to adopt.
  • Prose all looks very good

Childhood and education

  • This is really very good
  • Perhaps wikilink Daily Telegraph

Freelance

  • —

Dartington

  • He had in mind a music course, "the sort of thing that your father did in the old days at Morley College", comma here should be a full stop

Aldeburgh

  • "Pears, who had seen Imogen in action" oh my

Late career

  • perhaps wikilink the Queen Mum

Illness, death, tributes

  • —

Honours

  • —

Music

  • "young British women composers–" endash here should be an emdash
  • " "a real composer" ," unnecessary space here

Writings

  • "Imogen Holst also wrote numerous articles, pamphlets, essays, introductions and programme notes during the period 1935–1984." I'm sure this is true but it isn't cited.


Overall looks very, very good indeed and I enjoyed reading this, though I feel rather ill-qualified to comment too much on the content itself. I think referring to her throughout as Imogen works fine and is the best way of handling this. Certainly had we switched to calling her Holst halfway through I would have found it quite jarring as the Holst I think of when I read the name is Gustav. I hope this is helpful Brian, I'm sorry I didn't find too much to pick out but perhaps this just shows how good the article is. Keep well and have a great weekend. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, most helpful. Except as noted, I have dealt with the points that you raise. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Stfg

edit

Considering how much she did for others, it's great to see an article that does proper justice to Imogen. Thanks for advancing this, Brian. I've made a number of tweaks; please revert any you dislike. Comments:

  • Schooling para 4: "she gave a performance on the piano of a Bach Prelude and Fugue which was warmly praised by Jane Joseph" reads as if JJ praised the Prelude and Fugue rather than the performance. Perhaps instead: "she performed a Bach Prelude and Fugue on the piano, for which Jane Joseph praised her warmly, writing ..."?
  • Schooling end: can we say which Chopin étude she played? (If E major it can only be Op. 10 #3).
  • Royal College of Music: Why is "Third Orchestra" in quotes?
  • Royal College of Music para 2: "She made her first excursions abroad:" feels a bit chatty to me. Just dive in?
  • European travels, 1930–31: She concluded that "the Italians are a nation of singers ... But music is a different language in that part of the world". Presenting it like this makes it look like one connected thought embodying a contrast between nation of singers and music being a different language there. It seems strange -- is that what she meant? Otherwise it might be less confusing as She concluded that "the Italians are a nation of singers" and that "music is a different language in that part of the world". Also, the second part of this quote could be very informative about her musical thinking; did she say in what way "music is a different language" there?
  • The full quotation is: "...the Italians are a nation of singers. In the markets they sell their vegetables in impassioned cadenzas, and they encourage their hard-worked donkeys to climb uphill by crooning chromatic scale-passages to them, while down in Sicily one can often hear folk-songs in the evenings, when the doors of the cottages are open. But music is a different language in that part of the world". This indicates that the two bookend thoughts that I have presented are indeed part of a single observation, so I think the present format is OK. I don't think she intended this comment as any indication of her own musical thinking. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • War: travelling for CEMA para 3: CEMA provided little practical support; thus, according to her friend Ursula Vaughan Williams, Imogen's organisational talents "developed brilliantly". -- The link with "thus" feels strange to me. How about With little practical support from CEMA, Imogen's organisational talents, according to her friend Ursula Vaughan Williams, "developed brilliantly".?
  • Dartington para 1: "Beginning in 1943, Imogen established a one-year course, initially designed to train young women to organize amateur orchestras, and musical events in rural communities." Which is the case: (a) Imogen established a one-year course and musical events in rural communities; or (b) the course would train young women to organise amateur orchestras and musical events in rural communities? If you mean (b), the comma after "orchestras" needs to disappear.
  • Dartington para 2: "In 1943 she completed a Serenade for flute, viola and bassoon, a Suite for String Orchestra, and a choral work, Three Psalms, all of which were performed at a Wigmore Hall concert on 14 June 1943 devoted to her music." This may trip the reader up, as it can be read as all three psalms or all these works. A possibility: "... Three Psalms. All these works were performed ..."
  • Dartington para 3: "In 1948 she began work on a companion volume to her 1938 Holst biography, a critical study of her father's music." can read as if the biography is the critical study. I suspect you may mean: "In 1948 she began work on a critical study of her father's music, a companion volume to her 1938 Holst biography."

Thanks for these comments and prose tweaks. Except as noted above I have adopted your suggested amendments. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Speech Day" to WL?

edit

Why is the text "Speech Day" (late in July 1925) pipe-linked to the disambiguation page WL? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bungling on my part. I've changed the text. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Saviour (Tyumen)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I translated the article from Russian and would appreciate some comments to improve it to good article status. Tomcat (7) 14:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comments from a quick look-over. It reads like it was translated from Russian frankly, & the English is in places not comprehensible. Too many links to other articles on Russian WP, or not very appropriate English ones, like decor. What is the "Pseudorussian" architectural style? The icon illustrated at the end is in Moscow; that the Tyumen one is another version should be explained in text and caption. Acheiropoieta would be a better link - neither Moscow nor Tyumen versions have ever been near Edessa. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to create some of the articles. Changed to "neorussian style". Changed link to Acheiropoieta. Thanks. --Tomcat (7) 10:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at this article, & the one thing that stood out for me were the words "religious persecution" & the articles linked. Yes, the Soviets did brutally clamp down on the Russian Orthodox Church after they gained power, but this language is enflammatory & violates WP:NPOV. (I looked at several other articles about Russian churches, & this is the only one that uses such language; most are content to mention the eyar the structure was expropriated by the State, although Saint Andrew's Cathedral mentions clashes between militant atheists & devout parishoners.) Further, the links point to general articles like atheism & state atheism, rather than relevant articles such as Atheism in Marxism–Leninism & Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. A more careful survey of this article would probably identify other POV issues like this. -- llywrch (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
atheism at that time was radical and fundamenalistic, and the english wiki doesn't really address the topic religious persecutions in the soviet union. That issue is very deep and branchy; the claim that it was just a "quarrel" between "militant atheists & devout parishoners" is undoubtedly incorrect. Notwithstanding, I was unaware of the existence of those articles, and I will change the links accordingly. --Tomcat (7) 11:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huntington Junior College

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 improve it to Good Article status, and would like guidance from another editor experienced with education articles. I'm open to any suggestions or comments for further improvement. -- Caponer (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment - Hey Caponer, taking a quick look at this article, there are a few things that stand out as being missing compared to FA/GA-level colleges I've seen. The biggest ones are sports/athletics, other student clubs/groups, student government, and notable faculty/alumni. I'm not sure how many of the gaps are attributable to its status as a private junior college, but if I were to see this nominated at GA my instinct would be to fail it on breadth concerns. In terms of neutrality, prose, and referencing, though, very well done. There is a bit too much primary sourcing for my taste, but that shouldn't be an issue at the GA level (and again, is probably attributable to the college's size and broader recognition). Nikkimaria (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, thank you for taking the time to review this article and for your thoughtful comments and suggestions--it's greatly appreciated more than you know! Since the institution is a junior college that focuses primarily on business-related education and distance learning, it does not seem to have any sports or athletic programs. Do you have any suggestions of how to deal with this in the article? I know it's a glaring omission compared to other schools, but there isn't a source that specifically states that it doesn't have these athletic/sports programs. I'll work on trying to find notable alumni, and other notable individuals associated with the school. Because of its size, and its location, there isn't a lot of information to work with, but I will dig a little deeper in the meantime. Again, thank you for your above comments! -- Caponer (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Hovind

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Would like to get feedback on how to improve the article. Specifically these areas:

  • Is it neutral/fair
  • Does it use good sources

I would like to see this one day become at least a Good Status article, although I'm not sure if there are enough high quality reliable sources for that.

Not sure what to categorize this article as, so I went with "General". Kent Hovind is a evangelist, but the article focuses on his fringe conspiracy and scientific theories. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'Oliveira affair

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The D'Oliveira affair was a notorious event in 1968; it was technically a cricket controversy but went way beyond cricket. It involved the English Establishment having to confront apartheid, something they were very reluctant to do. Cliftonian and I have been working on this one for a while, and we are aiming at FAC. Any comment would be welcome, but particularly on POV. It is easy to drift into giving opinions on a topic like this; hopefully it is not too sensationalist either. But any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Does the lead work? Too detailed? Not enough? Does it cover enough about what Vorster was up to? Do we need the bribery? (I hate writing leads!) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments
edit
  • Some elements of the lede seem repetitive, such as no compromise being possible
  • I've reworked a little bit, but could you be more specific here? I can't quite see the wood for the trees but am conscious that there is a little work to do on the lead. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under apartheid, this became official policy. The government reasoned that black, Coloured (mixed race) and Indian players were inherently inferior and not worthy of selection, so national teams in all sports were legally required to be exclusively white. - feels like this could/should be merged
  • Any better?
  • pressurising or pressuring?
  • for two years from 1961, then again from 1964 - I'm not clear what you mean here
  • Suggest linking United Nations, Fencing, (others to follow)
  • Interior Minister P. M. K. Le Roux - Surprised he doesn't have an article. There's one in French and Afrikaans, though
  • South African Prime Minister - you've linked PM of the UK above, but not PM of SA here?
  • mixed-race sport to prevent South Africa's sporting isolation. - too much sport
  • more specifically the MCC, whom Vorster believed would determine selection policy - would or could?
  • such as the Worcestershire club secretary and the former West Indies Test player and race relations activist Learie Constantine, - So many ands...
  • He signed a contract to cover the tour for the News of the World newspaper, which drew criticism from other newspapers and shook Vorster.[123] At the time, non-whites were not allowed into South African press boxes other than "in a menial capacity"—Vorster suggested that D'Oliveira may not even be allowed on the tour as a journalist. - You have this both shaking Vorster and him being explicit about D'Oliveira not being able to be a journalist. Feels rather contradictory. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Sheppard and other MCC rebels - is "rebels" NPOV?

Comments from Tim riley

edit
  • Lead
    • In re your questions above: I too hate writing leads, and as a fellow sufferer I'm glad to say I think you've got it spot on. I always leave the lead till last when I do a review, and coming to it after reading the rest I think it rehearses all the salient points and has no superfluous matter.
    • "With the 1968–69 Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) tour of South Africa already scheduled" – I know you add a note to the main text about MCC/England, but in the lead I think your wording may perplex some people unfamiliar with the oddities of our national game. Could you perhaps move the MCC's first mention to the opening para: "whether or not the England team selectors (the MCC)…" or similar?
      • I think I may have dislocated something in my brain trying to find a way to do this! The simplest way I can find is to use the note a second time in the lead, but there is still some England/MCC confusion in the lead. But I think this is one of the very few occasions where a distinction needs to be made between "England" and the MCC team, even though the England selectors chose the latter. Aarrggh! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about simply putting "the scheduled 1968–69 tour of South Africa by Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and the England cricket team." with the footnote as well to make things clear? I think this delicately and concisely intimates that the England cricket team was subordinate to the MCC without taking up too much space explaining it. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only problem is that this suggests that they were two separate entities, when for the purposes of the tour, they were actually the same. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I thought the wording got that over quite nicely that the two were basically the same thing but not quite. The footnote certainly made clear. I really think the first sentence must mention that it is the England cricket team we are talking about. How about "the scheduled 1968–69 tour of South Africa by the England cricket team, officially representing Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)"? Or something like that —Cliftonian (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the ramifications of D'Oliveira's possible inclusion" – I love the word "ramifications", but I think a plain "consequences" would be stronger here.
    • "the MCC's reluctance to firmly tackle the problem" – I'd lose the adverb, I think. Stronger without it.
    • "amid a slump in form" – amid a slump in his form?
  • England
    • "Harold Macmillan criticised apartheid in his "Wind of Change" speech" – I'd like at least a footnote summarising what Macmillan said. I believe he got warm applause from the parliamentarians, which, if correct, must surely mean that his criticisms were wrapped up.
      • I might see if Cliftonian can do anything with this first, as he has some good stuff here. If not, I'll have a go! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry for taking a couple days, I was away. I have rephrased slightly and added a footnote here with a reference to a BBC summary that I think captures it pretty well (can easily add more if anybody thinks necessary). Macmillan actually got a pretty frosty reception. I've found a complete transcript of the speech here if any of you are interested in reading it. In a nutshell Macmillan praised South Africa's achievements and advances under white rule but made clear that rising black political ambitions had become a fact "whether we like it or not" and that Britain's attitude was that this should be accommodated and embraced rather than suppressed. While the content of the speech had been expected, it was the straightforward tone of Macmillan's admonishing speech that really shook the South Africans; they had not expected him to be so forthright. The parliamentarians listened in silence and at the end some refused to applaud. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • International sport
  • D'Oliveira
    • "Qualifying for the county team through residency" – a footnote here, too, would be helpful. I believe there used to be a county in a remote part of the North East of England who insisted that their players must be born there, but I have no notion what the rules of other counties were. Something on the lines of "Players needed to have lived x years/months/nanoseconds in the county to quality" would be useful.
  • MCC manoeuvres
  • South African plan
    • "the English selectors—or more specifically the MCC, whom Vorster believed would determine selection policy" – "who", not "whom"
  • D'Oliveira in 1968
    • "Oborne points out that, from a cricketing viewpoint, the decision to drop D'Oliveira looks odd" – "points out" implies endorsement of the statement. Better to have a neutral phrase such as "comments"
    • "to indirectly bribe D'Oliveira" – some people (of whom I am definitely not one) still cling to the old and silly superstition that splitting an infinitive is a mortal sin. I try to avoid grief by not splitting if I can avoid it, so perhaps "to bribe D'Oliveira indirectly"?
  • Selection meeting
    • "Oborne points out that, judged in cricketing terms" – another pointing out. More neutral term wanted, I'd say.
    • [passing comment] This article is making me feel old. Keith Fletcher is the second player mentioned so far whom I saw play in my youth, deadly Derek being the first.
  • Reaction
  • Cancellation
    • "Denis Howell felt the need to publicly state" – another split infinitive you could lose, to keep the fetishists happy
    • "The South African Prime Minister expressed similar sentiments elsewhere" – I stopped in my tracks here, thinking "But wasn't Vorster the Prime Minister"? Then I realised you were referring to Vorster, and I think you should just use his name here.

That's all from me. This is a first rate article, clear, neutral (I was on a sharp lookout for POV as mentioned in your preamble, above), compellingly readable – with a touch of car-crash fascination about the events – and widely sourced. I remember as a teenager feeling embarrassed for my country about this débâcle, and this fine article reminds me why. Lord deliver us from Lord's! See you at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and help here. All done but one, which I'm hoping Cliftonian can do better than me! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

edit

This is probably the most important of all cricket articles, exposing the grim truth about the despicable hierarchy that ruled the game for a century (and is by no means wholly absent in the inner counsels now, I can assure you). Congratulations on your work in excavating the story and keeping your composure while telling it. So far I have read up to and including the "MCC manoeuvres" section, and these are my comments and suggestions:

  • "surrounding the build-up to" is a bit heavy-footed. As the affair had rmifications well beyond the "build-up" phase, I'd simplify this to "relating to".
  • "With the already scheduled, the ramifications of D'Oliveira's possible inclusion were discussed by English and South African cricketing bodies as early as 1966." Suggested rearrangement (avoiding the awkwardness of "already scheduled"): "The ramifications of D'Oliveira's possible inclusion in the 1968–69 Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) tour of South Africa were discussed by English and South African cricketing bodies as early as 1966".
  • I think the second part of the second paragraph is a little overdetailed and could be shortened. Here is a suggestion:

Manoeuvring by cricketing and political figures in both countries did little to bring the matter to a head. The MCC's priority was to maintain traditional links with South Africa and have the series go ahead without incident. South Africa's Prime Minister B. J. Vorster sought to appease international opinion by publicly indicating that D'Oliveira's inclusion would be acceptable, but secretly did all he could to prevent it.

  • Tim hasn't commented, but although widely used (and possibly in some dictionaries), I believe that "underway" (one word) is a linguistic abomination (along with "onto" and "alright"). Please make it two.
    • I was going to add exactly that comment, but I checked in the OED which admits "underway", and gives citations from as far back as the 1930s. I agree with Brian wholeheartedly, nonetheless. (And about "alright", too; I'm never sure about "onto".) Tim riley (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "near-complete isolation from international cricket from 1971" – I thought it was complete. Rebel tours did not have international status.
  • No, but they were international matches and were regarded as such in SA. And the stink they caused suggests that others did so as well. It could be reworded as "complete isolation from official international cricket" if you think that would be better. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Test team ... had always been all white." There is the case of C.B. Llewellyn who played in the 1890s and 1900s. He is reported to have been of mixed race and to have been abused for this reason by some of his team-mates. On the other hand his descendents have insisted that he was white through and through. I wouldn't suggest adding to the text, but a possible footnote?
  • Oborne suggests..." You should introduce him here, at first mention.
  • "Suspension from the Olympics had a greater effect;[20] a similar campaign from within South Africa and the consequent change in international opinion resulted in South Africa being barred from the 1964 Olympics and those that followed." This is confusing – "a similar campaign" to what?
  • "Basil D'Oliveira was born in Cape Town..." Perhaps include his year of birth, so that readers can judge where he was in his career, when he approached Arlott
  • "Build-up" heading needs a hyphen
  • "The MCC decided later in 1967 to clarify that there would be no limitations imposed by Vorster's government on the players chosen for the tour." Better in active voice: "The MCC decided later in 1967 to clarify that Vorster's government would impose no limitations on the players chosen for the tour."
  • "In March 1968, having received no response from the SACA..." Clarify "no responseto Griffiths's letter from the SACA"
  • "Following this advice" - specify whose.

I will be back with more sooon. Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the gremlins have struck, and I am temporarily without any internet access whatever, at home. How long this will last is anybody's guess (hours, days, weeks?), but I can't continue with the review for the moment. I will try to keep you posted via my local library. Brianboulton (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a little later): The gremlins have surprisingly relented, so I should be OK to resume shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remaining comments
  • "he took the unusual step..." hint of the editorial voice here.
  • "...Isaacs, who offered him warm hospitality if he toured South Africa in the winter." I'm a bit confused by this. In the previous paragraph Isaacs is named as one of those behind schemes to ensure that D'Oliveira was not a member of the touring party. Was Isaacs simply being two-faced?
  • The source does not make it clear; there is a hint that Oborne thinks it was all bollocks from Isaacs, but it looks like it comes from D'Olly's biography. I can only assume that it was two-facedness, but I can't really say so outright without the source. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "posits" is one of the words ("opined" is another) that in my view should never be used more than once in a single article. Current score 4.
  • "The game began with Australia holding a 1–0 lead in the series, leaving England needing a win to draw the series." Repetition of "the series" should be avoided.
  • "Wisden reported: "In the last hour D'Oliveira began his fine effort. He hooked the short ball superbly and next day drove magnificently."[92] At the end of the first day, he had scored 23 runs." It would make sense to omit the words "and next day drove magnificently" from the quotation
  • "Cowdrey questioned him about what to expect..." That doesn't sound right; perhaps "Cowdrey advised him about what to expect, and asked how he would handle..." etc.
  • "no one" should not be hyphenated
  • "if May had found out the true state of affairs..." – probably better as "if May had been aware of the true state of affairs..."
  • Perhaps the final paragraph of the "Selection meeting" sectionshould be split at "D'Oliveira, who learned of his omission..."
  • It's within a quote, but "not to press for an answer to the MCC demand there should be..." is missing a "that" after "demand".
  • "Additionally, he had considered withdrawing from the tour on moral grounds" – suggest get rid of the unnecessary adverb
  • "reservations about becoming involved" → "reservations about involvement"
  • "...but Cartwright would not be convinced" – "convinced" sounds like the wrong verb. Why not: " but Cartwright was adamant".
  • "David Sheppard and other MCC rebels..." → "Sheppard and other MCC rebels...". In any event I find the wording here bit clumsy. Who called the SGM? Also, the mishandled selection process does not amount to a "proposal". A minor rewrite of the paragraph is advised.
  • "Williams believes that the vote suggests..." Needs to be stronger, e.g. "Williams suggests that the vote indicates..."
  • Suggest delete the "however" in second para of "Aftermath"

A very impressive article indeed. Minor polishing should ensure success at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto comments

edit

I will be reading through this over the next day or so and jot down as I go along. I fixed a few ref formatting inconsistencies, hope you don't mind. Cassiantotalk 21:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his biography of D'Oliveira..." – First mention of Basil here, but no introduction beforehand within the body. I had to skip back up to the lede to remind myself again.
  • I am tempted to say that linking "Prime Minister" is unnecessary as most would, I think, know what one is.
  • "As many players and officials had family and friends in South Africa..." – Could we get away with "in the country" as opposed to South Africa? We do speak of it in the previous sentence.
  • "However, because neither fencing nor football was closely followed in white South Africa..." We speak of two sports so would "were" work better than "was"?

I have read through and see no further problems. This is an extremely watertight article, as I would expect owing to the brilliant reviewers before me. One thing, why do we repeat ref [155] consecutively in the final paragraph? Cassiantotalk 10:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and for taking a look. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caelum

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 is quite close to FA-standard, but to be honest, the article is quite short, and I was wondering if there was anything that I was missing, or if there are other problems present.

Thanks, StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's a brief article but covers the topic reasonably well and is decent shape. Here's a few observations:

  • There's a number of instances of redundant wording: 'also', 'another'.
  • "a rather nearby"; vague
  • "that at first appeared to contain a jet but no host galaxy"; this wording is a little unclear
  • "the system will likely become a cataclysmic variable star due to the period's gradual shortening"; I think this could be explained a little better. For example, here's what it says in the paper: "The continued loss of angular momentum will shrink the Roche lobe of the M-dwarf to the point where mass transfer will start from the M-dwarf to the white dwarf through the inner Lagrangian point. RR Cae will then be a cataclysmic variable star."
  • "there is evidence for a second hypothetical substellar body"; evidence for a hypothetical body? Is this just redundancy or something else?
  • "Ridpath, Ian; Wil Tirion"; the second name is in an inconsistent format.
  • It's difficult to see in the north, so you could list the lowest northern latitude where this constellation can not be viewed.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything else to add. Hopefully these comments are of some use. Praemonitus (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Praemonitus (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cardcaptor Sakura

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 ws wondering if it is ready to be featured-class. if not, perhaps the issues could be mentioned here.

Thanks, Lucia Black (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to remove the gamespot sources for the games, WP:VG considers them unreliable (same as gamefaqs). You can probably get away with using Famitsu. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you so much for your input, i appreciate it.Lucia Black (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about adding information from this source? In paragraph about Cardcaptors it may be useful. 78.25.121.163 (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Lucia Black (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DragonZero

edit
  • Consult with Juhachi before nominating, since you are not a significant editor for this article.
  • If you do plan on nominating this, writing style has to be consistent throughout the article. Meaning you either have to retain the same writing style in the current article, or have someone else rewrite the article. This was part of 1a, but I doubt writing styles vary enough to notice.
  • Nihongo lead
  • "abbreviated as CCS" Is this an abbreviation Clamp uses?
  • First sentence introducing plot is a bit of a run-on
  • "into a 70-episode anime TV series" IIRC, numbers under hundred should be in words unless they refer to something specific like an episode number
  • "adapted into a 70-episode anime TV series by Madhouse that aired" Having "that" seems to ruin the flow
  • "Two anime films were produced by Madhouse in August 1999 and July 2000. Ten video games were produced based on the series. Kodansha published art books, picture books and film comics for the manga and anime series."
We don't need a sentence detailing every number of release and their dates do we? The flow reads like a list. There are better ways to word subsequent releases.
  • "in omnibus editions" ???
  • "Cardcaptors aired on Kids' WB, Cartoon Network, Teletoon and Nickelodeon." The English version, right?
  • "panned by critics who called the editing "ridiculous"" Source suggests only THEM considered this?
  • I don't consider the plot's prose to be at the "brilliant" level needed for FA
  • "ten-year-old fourth grader" Too much
  • "Clow Cards from the Clow Book, created and named after half-English, half-Chinese sorcerer Clow Reed." There are better ways to introduce this to a general reader. Clow Book might not even be a necessary jargon.
  • Does the brother need to be noted so soon in the first paragraph when he doesn't do anything?
  • Character intros could use encasing commas at points.
  • Second paragraph could introduce characters better, especially Yue.
  • Unncessary jargon like final judgement
  • I'm going to stop here. The rest of the plot is fluffed up with unnecessary detail. It also repeats the issues I mentioned above.
  • "In the case of Cerberus, Ohkawa wanted a mascot-type companion for Sakura, but Nekoi tried various forms, including dogs and squirrels, before designing the final version."
  • "While Ohkawa planned out Cardcaptor Sakura from beginning to end, she never talked about the plot with the other members" Can't really explain it, but the first part should be more clear.
  • "Mokona initially drew Tomoyo so it would look like she was in love with Toya, which lead to her surprise when she received the script for the chapter which reveals Tomoyo loves Sakura." I feel this needs to be expanded for clarity.
  • "The story was planned to be a "if you try your best, it'll work out" kind of story, but Ohkawa did not start out with Sakura's "It'll definitely be okay" mindset." ???
  • "Ohkawa wanted to write a story that "minorities would feel comfortable with," referring to the same-sex and taboo relationships featured in the manga." Did she do anything about it? I think this was suggesting the author included those elements in because of what she wanted.
  • "The series' main theme is expressed through Sakura, a main character designed to be open minded about different family structures and kinds of love." How was the main theme expressed through Sakura?
  • "Ohkawa addressed the relationships by explaining the reason Tomoyo and Sakura did not end up together was not because Tomoyo is a girl, but rather because Sakura did not love Tomoyo in a romantic way." Addressed what relationships?
  • The whole third paragraph, if I am right, is Jason Thompson's analysis on the main theme. This shouldn't be in production.
  • "but they made a point to not use roses." What point did they prove?
  • "Clamp wanted to incorporate transformation scenes into Cardcaptor Sakura, but because many magical girl manga have the girls wearing the same outfit, Clamp wanted Sakura to wear different costumes." Clarity. Something like "Clamp considered have Sakura transform into a magical girl. The idea was dropped for a vary of clothing instead"
  • Australia and New Zealand-> Australasia?
  • I'm going to assume a primary source can confirm they used Tokyopop's translations
  • Leading zeros in ref
  • I'm stopping at the manga section for now. The classic anime manga structure can not stand on FA anymore. I suggest removing the anime's plot in the plot section, and using a release and adaptation header style. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonZero: Trust me, i'm not so inconsiderate to nominating the article before i even consult with the bigger contributors. Also i'm not that confident in the article completely to nominate it myself so soon, if others believe they can do it faster, then by all means. I just put this on peer review so i could try to do some work on the issues that i know i can fix.
But as for the classic anime and manga structure, its really hard to do that for this particular series. afterall the only major coverage is both manga and anime.Lucia Black (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not consideration, it is in the steps of FA. I took a look, it's easy to drop that structure. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lets take it easy and seriously consider this if it really is "mandatory" for FA. After all, in the past others have pushed campaigns to change the structure of WP:ANIME regardless of it helping get to FA standards. Here in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria doesn't state anything that specific.
@DragonZero: rather get a third opinion on this or just make the FAC regardless because we have School Rumble who also has the exact same setup and no one has challenged it yet (granted some small issues are there but nothing that can't be fixed). And if it really is a glaring issue, its by no means an immediate fail to it being a FA, rather the issue will be said by a neutral editor and it can be fixed at that time, but its hard to say that the structure itself shows any glaring issues.
I'll be making all the fixes i possibly can that you mentioned, but the structure will probably be best to have a third opinion.Lucia Black (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also i know its a step in the FA process, so is GA, but we've seen editors skip it and never get rectified for it. I'm not saying its appropriate, but people have done it in the past. Still, i fully intend to follow the guidelines.Lucia Black (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not in GA actually. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GAN/I step 1. But missing the point, we should still focus on making the fixes.Lucia Black (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one of the points you've made was countered here by Juhachi: [16] not to cause issue or anything. Just noting it so that it can be recognized. I feel the way you're tackling some of the points can be expressed better. question marks aren't helping me, and some points seem a little difficult to understand what the issue is exactly.Lucia Black (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the Juhachi thing, I was referring to the lead section. I reviewed the article top to bottom in order, so the first issues would be in the lead, followed by plot, then production. My preference for listing subsequent realizes in the lead would be similar to what I put for Rozen Maiden's lead, "Rozen Maiden has spun off anthology manga and novel stories, art books, and four anime series [...] The anime adaptions resulted in several audio disc releases and three video games." DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at the lead section and simplify it. But could you modify your initial review? I think there are somethings that i dont understand.Lucia Black (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Juhachi

edit

Regarding some of the changes recently implemented, there were two things I disagreed with. One was the removal of a paragraph from the production section because it discusses what Clamp did in certain instances when developing the work: At times, Clamp even ignores the Clow Cards for several chapters..., with Clamp carefully avoiding passing judgment.... The rest of the paragraph's content is meant to supplement this, and the end of the preceding paragraph: The series' main theme is expressed through Sakura....

My other main disagreement was moving the plot down to the anime section. I believe all of the plot info as written in the article should be put in the plot section, as this is where the reader would expect to find it, so placing a paragraph of plot in the anime sub-section of the media section seems kind of out of place to me. Also, as there is no separate article for the TV series, a large amount of this article's content deals with the anime (the TV series, films, audio CDs and reception sections all deal with the anime in some way), so I don't see a problem placing the plot of the manga and anime in the same section. Also, since I just condensed the plot per the suggestion above, the section is now short enough that we can keep all the plot info in one place.--十八 11:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Quiet Night In

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's already a GA, and I'd like to see it reach FA. Hopefully, it will be a part of a good (or even featured) topic as I work on articles related to Inside No. 9. I think the topic's an interesting one- it's an episode from the new series by Pemberton and Shearsmith, of The League of Gentlemen fame. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has any views about the non-free content use in the article, they are welcome to comment here. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

edit

This isn't a theme with which I have any expertise, but I have a few pointers that might be of help. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lede, we refer to "the couple"; perhaps the meaning here could be made more explicit, i.e. a couple of children, a married couple etc.
  • Perhaps mention that Psychoville was a TV series in the introduction.
  • In the Production section, you state "offered the "ideal" format", but we should probably be clear who exact we are quoting.
  • ""A Quiet Night In", in addition to Pemberton and Shearsmith, starred" - Maybe this would be better rephrased as "In addition to Pemberton and Shearsmith, "A Quiet Night In" starred..."
  • ""part Chuckle Brothers-esque slapstick, part Tarantino-esque blood-letting"" – links to Chuckle Brothers and Quentin Tarantino ?
  • Add a reference after the quotebox referencing the complaint in the "Reception" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I've made the changes you suggested. J Milburn (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Olympians and Paralympians from Peel

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I recently created this list from scratch, drawing on a variety of different sources. Peel is a Region (formerly a county) in Ontario, Canada. I could have split things further to the individual cities and towns, but I like this level... not hyperlocal via cities, not macro via provinces.

I'm wondering how the list stacks up, whether it's at least on its way to featured list quality, what steps I might take to improve on it. Thanks, Zanimum (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: You need to amend the title, to specify what "Peel" means. There are places of that name in the UK, US and Australia, and in the Netherlands as well. You can't assume that everyone will know that it's the Canadian Peel. Brianboulton (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good point. How's in now, as List of Olympians and Paralympians from Peel, Ontario? -- Zanimum (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That should do it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- Zanimum (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any other guidance? -- Zanimum (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The lead should be an introduction to the topic, rather than an explanation of the criteria used for inclusion. The material currently in the lead, should be included as Notes at the end of the table, or in footnotes if they are only related to a few specific cases. Relevant info for the lead would be: a general description of the area included in the list, popular sports, # of Olympians, # of medals, etc.

  • For the list itself, I would recommend tables that can be sorted, rather than just bulleted lists. Possible headers could be "Name", "Olympic games" "Events" and "results".
  • I think for the list itself, you have all the material needed present in the article, but I think the formatting will need a significant amount of work before it is FL quality. Canada Hky (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Money in the Bank (2011)

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 submit it as an FAC. The article on a professional wrestling event is already a GA (a very stringent GA process I might add from an editor very familiar with professional wrestling articles). It was previously submitted as an FAC, but did not pass due to lack of activity rather than any problem of the article. I'm hoping to get more eyes on this before another FAC push.

Thanks, starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Lai Massacre

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 a lot of issues were addressed since 2005 and the editors who are interested in developing the article to the featured status can use an expert opinion. Thanks in advance, Murus (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/March_2014&oldid=1097312080"