Wikipedia:Peer review/May 2008

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.

---

Ozzie Smith

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked on it since September 2007, and need some final touches to get it up to Featured Article status. I'd appreciate any general comments and suggestions for improvements, and would specifically like help on the best way to format and present the References and Bibliography section to the reader.

Thanks, Monowi (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Thursday 1 May 2008, 01:08 UTC)

---

Aspirin

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article shows a lot of promise, but it's not even certified as a good article. While I think it could make the good article criteria as it is, I don't see any reason not to work on it more than that. What do you think this article would need to be a successful FAC? An automated peer review suggested the table of contents be shortened, and that the article be shrunk by moving some content to separate articles, but I'm not sure which sections I should do this to (if I even should). Also, some other users have said that the article is under-cited - does anyone have any recommendations as to where I could find reliable sources for this article?

Thanks, CrazyChemGuy (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems Aspirin#Adverse_effects contains heavy use of statistics from the studies cited. Would it be beneficial to reword the section to omit much of the statistical data (eg. "Patients 18 years of age or above were chosen from the United Kingdom Research Database from 2000 to 2005. Out of 4,028 cases of gastrointestinal bleeding 53% had used a combination of over the counter drugs (2007). When using a combination of antiplatelets and anticoagulents there was 1 in 8 chance of increased risk of gastric irritation" ) and reword it as simply the results of the study, in this case, something along the lines of"Aspirin has been shown to cause blood loss[ref]", like what is seen more in Paracetamol#Comparison_with_NSAIDs? CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Itub

• The "Central effects" section is repetitive. Both paragraphs say almost the same thing.
• Some duplication throughout the article, which may be excessive (I'll leave it up to the interested editors to decide). For example, Reye's syndrome is mentioned in four places: lead, contraindications, dosage, and pediatrics.
• Substantial lack of references in the section on contraindications.
• Some sections are dangerously close to the "instruction manual/medical advice" style which should be avoided. The section on gastrointestinal complaints even has some imperative phrasing: "To avoid gastrointestinal complaints take aspirin in an enteric coated form."
• Some references missing in the section about the mechanism of action, particularly regarding selective COX-2 inhibitors.
• Most of the section on interactions needs references. For example, the interaction with alcohol, mentioned twice in the article, has no source.
• The synthesis section could use a reference regarding the first step.
• Inconsistent referencing. Some places have a year in parenthesis as a reference, which may be a vestige of an earlier version of the article using Harvard style. There are also a couple of numbers in parenthesis ((42) and (43)) which may be attempts at referring again to an existing reference, and which may be wrong due to changes in the reference numbers. This should be corrected to use the <ref name="whatever" /> syntax.
• Content omission: the article has no information on production and sales figures. How many tonnes per year are made and where? What are the annual sales, or the consumption per capita?

If the article is to be shortened, perhaps on option is to summarize the mechanism of action and spin it out into its own article. The section on adverse effects is also a bit long and perhaps can be made more concise. But I'm not sure that spinning it out into adverse effects of aspirin would work (sounds almost like a POV fork...).

Hope this helps. --Itub (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Another section that could be made more concise is the history section, as there is an article about it already. Just make sure that anything that gets deleted is already included in history of aspirin. For example, I think the dispute about the early syntheses is not covered by history of aspirin. --Itub (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Another comment: some sentences seem to editorialize without any source, using statements such as "note that...". For example, "These results may be contested, however, as there is currently no accepted method of determining who resistant and who is not." (contested by whom?). "It should be pointed out, however, that this research is not complete, and there is currently no well-established medical recommendation on the use of aspirin or other NSAIDs for use in the treatment or prevention of cancer." (Who says this is not complete or well-established?). See WP:WTA for general suggestions. --Itub (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the great suggestions! I'm going to discuss splitting the mechanism of action section into it's own article on aspirin's talk page, and work on some of your other suggestions in the mean time.CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Casliber

• Ok, the lead focusses alot on indications. It should be more general - add in when isolated, and from where (willow tree link etc.) and since when it has been reularly used. Congeal indications into one paragraph.

• By 1899, Bayer had dubbed this drug Aspirin as was selling it around the world. - err, something wrong here. Something removed as sentence doesn't make sense.

The text has a lot of redundancies, but it looks promising overall. I need to sleep now but will try and trim some text down tomorrow.

(Peer review added on Thursday 1 May 2008, 01:10 UTC)

---

Johnson Creek (Willamette River)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to prepare it to be a featured article candidate. Some of the things I've been wondering about are as follows:

• Is the article missing any essential categories of things that might be said about creeks and rivers.
• Are any of the subsections too short?
• Does the prose flow nicely throughout?
• Does any section need expansion or contraction?

Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I just passed this as a Good Article. Here are some suggestions for improvement (not necessary for GA status, but hopefully useful to reach FA). I also note that the semi-automated peer review script found nothing, which is great (no MOS issues in what it checks). My suggestions are pretty nit-picky:

• Should the word "long" be included in the first sentence? Johnson Creek is a 26-mile (42 km) [long] tributary...?
• Is the linear hiking and biking trail also a rail trail since it is a former rail line?
• This may just reflect my pro-county bias, but I would note that the creek rises in Clackamas County, and also note each time it crosses a political boundary (four cities, Multnomah County), as well as relating the course to the street grid system. Someone with a low detail map, would presumably not have the street numbers, but hopefully would have the counties and cities on a map.
• I like the map of the course and major tributaries, but it is somewhat difficult to see purple Mitchell Creek against the magenta background of urban areas, and also the light green of Badger Creek against the yellow background.
• As you know, User:Kmusser makes beautiful maps of watersheds and may be able to make one of this watershed too.
• If you go for FAC, this is not required, but I would try to make a stub for the Gresham Pioneer Cemetery redlink (plus it helps expand the encyclopedia). Whoops almost missed Clatsop Butte too
• The only missing things I can think of that I usually have are: the relative area of the watershed (what % is Johnson Creek of the Willamette River drainage basin)? the relative areas of the major tributaries if known (what % of the total drainage basin is Kelley Creek?) and are there any river miles known (distance along the river from tributary mouth to the creek's mouth)? My guess is that because of the thoroughness of the rest of the article, this information is not known, but it would be helpful if known
• The lead says that the USACE lined the lower 15 miles (24 km) of Johnson Creek with rock, later it says In the 1930s, the Works Progress Administration cleared and lined with rock about 90 percent of Johnson Creek between its mouth and Southeast 158th Avenue, creating an artificial channel 6 feet (2 m) to 10 feet (3 m) deep and 25 feet (8 m) to 50 feet (15 m) wide. I would make clearer this was 15 miles long here too.

All for now, I will probably add a few more later. As noted, please ask at WP:PRV for other reviewers to look at this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A few more ideas:

• Is any more known about the sources of the pollution? Point sources or more agricultural?
• Looking at the article talk page I see there are "lost" tributaries - if reliable sources can be found, these should probably be mentioned. I have found some luck looking at old maps and comparing them to modern ones.
• I realize there will be things I have suggested for which no data is available. There are four FA creek articles, each of which has different data available, so that may offer some models for missing data. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some final ideas:

• You may want to mention the neighboring streams / watersheds (Clackamas to the south, etc.).
• How far is it from the mouth along the Wilamette River to the Columbia River? Looks like it is pretty close - probably worth a mention. Not sure if the distance to the Pacific along the Columbia is worth putting in or not.

Stop me before I suggest again ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 1 May 2008, 01:52 UTC)

---

Hugh Trumble

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am seeking feedback on MOS issues and advice on minimsing jargon to make it accessible to non-cricket enthusiasts. The article seems to me to be well referenced but a check on this would also be appreciated along with the vigorous elimination of peacock terms. The goal as always is to improve the article to Featured standard. Thanks in advance for your assistance. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Thursday 1 May 2008, 08:43 UTC)

---

Chickasaw Turnpike

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've sent this article through various roads WikiProject review processes, such as the mini-PR and A-Class review. It looks like it's on its way to passing as A-Class and has already been listed as a GA. I'd like to see some suggestions for improvement and a check for MOS compliance from Wikipedians not involved in roads next. I'd like this article to go to FA after this peer-review is done.

Thanks, —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Well, involved in roads I am not, so hopefully this third-party style review will be of some use regardless!

• I know it may sound a little pathetic but I'd add something like "...the US state of Oklahoma." in the lead so the non US folks get it straight away.
• I know you know U.S. 177 is the same as U.S. Route 177 but perhaps say "... U.S. Route 177 (U.S. 177) and that'll alleviate any possible confusion.
• Just a question really... "2,000 vehicles per day,[3] or about one per minute." - I can do the math(s) but is the one per minute in any way relevant? Wouldn't most roads experience rush hours and then little to no traffic from, say, 1am to 5am? I'm sure other road A class/FA's have this but I'm curious as to how relevant it really is.
• Avoid squashing text between the two photos of the turnpike, per WP:MOS#Images.
• "cost–benefit " looks like it's got an en-dash, it needs a hyphen.

Otherwise I can't find a great deal wrong with it! I hope my comments are of some use. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected some of these concerns. I don't think that the U.S. Route/U.S. issue is severe enough to warrant a parenthetical, considering that road signs will typically abbreviate in the same way (several road signs throughout the U.S. read "US-177" or "US 177") and I believe they're similar enough most non-U.S. people will be able to realize they're the same road. Also, on the dash issue, I was of the impression that cost–benefit was a "disjunctive" compound, as in "cost versus benefit", so an en dash was required per WP:MOSDASH. I'm not sure as to the image issue; I'll have someone with a different resolution eyeball it and attempt to fix it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 1 May 2008, 23:30 UTC)

---

1995 Japanese Grand Prix

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the FAC for this article was failed, and I would like more comments so that I can improve the article further so I can renominate it for FA. Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/1995 Japanese Grand Prix/archive2.

(Peer review added on Friday 2 May 2008, 16:49 UTC)

---

The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

Previous peer review

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

Thanks, Gary King (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/archive2.

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 03:23 UTC)

---

History of timekeeping devices

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello! This is another WP:TSQUAD collaboration. We've had some issues with the naming, and after some moving, have settled upon History of timekeeping devices. We are aiming for FA on this one, and just passed GA, but there's a lot of work to do, and any input would be helpful.

Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 03:27 UTC)

---

Sega Mega Drive

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has failed GA nomination twice now. The first was a quick-fail due to some unseen cleanup tags, and the second was a fail due to a problem with unreliable references. I have since gone through and pretty much gutted the references and added more information to reliable references (or at least ones I think are reliable). In order to prevent another GA nomination failure, I'm listing it here for peer review so I can get some feedback on the references section and the prose to make sure there is not an issue with it (I'm not sure my last reviewer looked over all of it)

Thanks in advance for your time, Red Phoenix (Talk) 21:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Additional Note: This article has now achieved GA status.

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 03:31 UTC)

---

Jain philosophy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…Jain philosophy is one of the most important area of Jainism and hence this article needs to be rated/improved from a broader perspective

Thanks, Anish (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I am reviewing the five Jainism articles at Peer Review - since there are some similarities between them, I will make some similar comments. You may want to ask for other reviewer's comments at WP:PRV to get some more feedback. I also found this to be an interesting article and hope these suggestions help improve it:

• The article needs to be copyedited - for example, the second sentence has an error Jainism is essentially a transtheistic religion of ancient Indian.[1] Either ...of ancient India.[1] or perhaps ...of ancient Indian origin.[1] works
• While the current lead is well written and a good introduction to the topic, it does not summarize the whole article. My rule of thumb is to see that each section header is at least mentioned in the lead, even if only a phrase or word. So, for example, Karma is a section, but it not in the lead. See WP:LEAD
• References come right after the punctuation and need a space following them, so "...blah.[1] Blah" See WP:CITE
• The article is fairly well sourced, but needs more references - any quote or attribution should be sourced, so Mahāpurāṇa of Ācārya Jinasena is famous for this quote -... needs a ref (where does he write this?) Also none of the Traditions subsections or Philosophers section are referenced. See WP:V
• References themselves need to follow consistent format - for example page numbers are given for some book references, but not all, or some use a number and other use p. and a number
• Per the WP:MOS, please do not repeat the title of the article in section headers, or start a header with The, so "Schools of Jain Philosophy" would just be "Schools" and "Jain Philosophers" could probably just be "Philosophers" since we already know the article is about Jainism. Also "The nature of divinity and God" could just be "Nature of divinity and God"
• Try to avoid jargon where possible or explain it - the article does a fairly good job explaining non-English terms, but there are some philosophical / religious terms that could use a breif explanatory phrase or sentence. Syādvāda is the theory of conditioned predication... what is conditioned predication? See WP:JARGON and WP:PCR
• There are a fair number of lists of principles in bold - may of these could be wikilinked, such as Ahisma

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 03:32 UTC)

---

Purvas

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…Purvas are one of the most important Scriptures of Jainism and hence this article needs to be rated/improved from a broader perspective

Thanks, Anish (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I am reviewing the five Jainism articles that were left at Peer Review - since there are some similarities between them, I will make some similar comments. You may want to ask for other reviewer's comments at WP:PRV to get some more feedback. I also found this to be an interesting article and hope these suggestions help improve it:

• This article is about an important aspect of Jainism, but does not mention "Jain" until the third sentence - the first sentence should be a breif description of the topic that gives the most important points, so I think Jain should be in there - perhaps The Purvas, translated as ancient or prior knowledge, are fourteen Jain scriptures that were preached by all Tirthankaras, and believed to encompass the entire gamut of knowledge available in this universe.?
• The lead needs to summarize the whole article. My rule of thumb is to see that each section header is at least mentioned in the lead, even if only a phrase or word. So, for example, Karma is a section, but it not in the lead. The current lead is one very long paragraph and could be split into two paragraphs or perhaps expanded to three. See WP:LEAD
• Be consistent on spelling - is it "srut-kevali" (in the lead) or "Srutakevalis" (section title)? Since this is a word many readers will not be familiar with, these different spellings are needlessly confusing.
• References come right after the punctuation and need a space following them, so "...blah.[1] Blah" See WP:CITE
• References themselves need to follow consistent format - internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. The {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates help.
• What kind of reference is Bh 20.8 in ...and eventually, the whole of Drstivada disappeared as well.(Bh 20.8)[2]?
• Duplicate references can be cited repeatedly using <ref name ="blah">ref details</ref> the first time, then the next time you want to cite that, just write <ref name ="blah"/>
• The article needs many more references - any quote or attribution should be sourced, and the whole section "Subject matter of Purvas" has zero refs (See WP:V
• Per the WP:MOS, please do not repeat the title of the article in section headers, or start a header with The, so "Loss of the Purvas" would just be "Loss" and "Subject matter of Purvas" would just be "Subject matter" since we already know the article is about Purvas. Also "The Srutakevalis" could just be "Srutakevalis" or "Srutakevali" unless they always have "The" in front of the name (not the case in the lead)
• The article needs to be copyedited
• Try to avoid jargon where possible or explain it. Provide context for the reader as well, for example the lead mentions "Drstivada" several times, but never really explains the term -See WP:JARGON and WP:PCR
• There are three lists - many of these terms and names could perhaps be wikilinked

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments:

• The first thing that I noticed were the lists. I would suggest collapsing the two short Srutakevalis lists into plain text to achieve a better layout. Such short lists, especially ones with only three items, don't need to be broken out with numbers and special spacing. A better solution for the list of 14 Purvas, on the other hand, would be to expand each of the 14 items into a separate paragraph. For example, the first one, "Utpaad Pūrva – Living (Jiv), non-living (Ajiv), and its modes (Paryäya);" is essentially meaningless to an outsider. The only clear words are "and" and "its". It might seem clear what is meant by "living" or "non-living" because these are ordinary English words, but in this context it is not clear. I see great need for expansion in this list and great possibility for improvement.
• The idea of an elephant volume of ink for the first purva, two elephant volumes for the second, four for the third, and apparently eight for the fourth, and so on, is especially effective and memorable. It would be good to give a published source for this concept, and it would be fun to see the final number in the series written out. Finetooth (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 03:34 UTC)

---

Kevala Jñāna

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…Kevala Jnana is one of the most important concept of Jainism and hence this article needs to be rated/improved from a broader perspective

Thanks, Anish (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I am reviewing the five Jainism articles that were left at Peer Review - since there are some similarities between them, I will make some similar comments. You may want to ask for other reviewer's comments at WP:PRV to get some more feedback. I also found this to be an interesting article and hope these suggestions help improve it:

• The lead needs to summarize the whole article. My rule of thumb is to see that each section header is at least mentioned in the lead, even if only a phrase or word. So, for example, Mahavira and Moksa are sections, but they are not in the lead. The current lead is one very long paragraph and could be split into two paragraphs or perhaps expanded to three. See WP:LEAD
• Define unfamiliar terms consistently - this is done nicely for "Kevala" and "Jñāna", "Tirthankaras", "Kevali", and "Moksa", but in the rest of the lead we also have "jīva", "ajīva", and "ghātiyā karmas" that are going to be unfamiliar to most readers.
• This leads into the need to avoid jargon where possible or explain it. Provide context for the reader as well - who is Mahavira? See WP:JARGON and WP:PCR
• Be consistent on spelling - is it Jain or Jaina?
• References come right after the punctuation and need a space following them, so "...blah.[1] Blah" See WP:CITE
• The article needs many more references - any quote or attribution should be sourced, and the whole section "Supreme Non-attachment or Vītarāga" has zero refs (See WP:V
• References themselves need to follow consistent format - internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. The {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates help.
• Duplicate references can be cited repeatedly using <ref name ="blah">ref details</ref> the first time, then the next time you want to cite that, just write <ref name ="blah"/>
• Per the WP:MOS, please do not repeat the title of the article in section headers so as one example "Kevala Jñāna and Moksa" would just be "Moksa" since we already know the article is about Kevala Jñāna.
• The article needs to be copyedited
• Much of the article does not read like it is written from a neutral third party point of view, for example Kevala Jñāna is one of the five major events in life of a Tirthankara and is known as Jñāna Kalyanaka and celebrated by all gods. Mahavira’s Kaivalya was celebrated by the demi-gods, who constructed the Samosarana or a grand preaching assembly for him. needs a ref and needs to be qualified, i.e. "According to this source / the beliefs of Jainism, Kevala Jñāna is one of the five major events..." etc.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 03:35 UTC)

---

Moksa (Jainism)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…Moksa is one of the most important concept of Jainism and hence this article needs to be rated/improved from a broader perspective

Thanks, Anish (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is the last of the five Jainism articles that were left at Peer Review which I have reviewed - since there are some similarities between them, I made some similar comments. You may want to ask for other reviewer's comments at WP:PRV to get some more feedback. I also found this to be an interesting article and hope these suggestions help improve it:

• I note that Moksa is a redirect to Moksha and that Moksha (disambiguation) does not list this article, but should.
• The lead needs to summarize the whole article. My rule of thumb is to see that each section header is at least mentioned in the lead, even if only a phrase or word. So, for example, Samyaktva and Human Birth are sections, but they are not in the lead. The current lead is one very long paragraph and could be split into two paragraphs or perhaps expanded to three. See WP:LEAD
• References come right after the punctuation and need a space following them, so "...blah.[1] Blah" See WP:CITE
• The article needs many more references - any quote or attribution should be sourced, and the whole section "The concept of individuality" and several others have zero refs (See WP:V
• The "Siddhasila" section is one sentence - can it be expanded or combined with another section?
• Avoid jargon where possible or explain it. Provide context for the reader as well - who or what is Umasvati? Define unfamiliar terms See WP:JARGON and WP:PCR
• Duplicate references can be cited repeatedly using <ref name ="blah">ref details</ref> the first time, then the next time you want to cite that, just write <ref name ="blah"/>
• Per the WP:MOS, please do not repeat the title of the article in section headers so as one example "Milestones towards mokṣa" could just be "Milestones" since we already know the article is about Moksa.
• The article needs to be copyedited

Here are a few points that would apply to all the Jain article I reviewed:

• A model article often helps - find a religion or philosophy FA or GA to follow for ideas, structure, style, etc.
• Make sure the references meet WP:RS

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 03:36 UTC)

---

Samsara (Jainism)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…Samsara is one of the most important concept of Jainism and hence this article needs to be rated/improved from a broader perspective

Thanks, Anish (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

I'm very much a non-expert in this field so my comments will be from the perspective of someone who wishes to learn more and understand the concepts here. Also, I'll try to pick up any manual of style issues on the way.

• I would express a bit more about the context of Jainism in the lead, the lead needs expansion anyway.
• It could also be helped by being expressed a little more scientifically - while I'm sure it's fact to a lot of people, saying "The Saṃsāra is without any beginning and the soul finds itself in bondage with its karma since the beginingless time." is a little POV. It'd be better to say something like "It is believed that..."
• Who or what is "Uttarâdhyayana Sûtra " and what makes his or its comment so relevant?
• Remove spaces between punctuation and citations, per WP:CITE.
• Saṃsāra or Samsara or Samsâra- be consistent within the article.
• Why is Three Jewels in bold?
• In general it's less encyclopaedic and more sermon-esque. It should make more of an attempt to deal with the subject objectively.
• The references are meaningless to me.

Not positive I agree, but to a non-expert, this is very hard to get a grip on. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 03:36 UTC)

---

Passive dynamics

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm seeking advice from other people on how to improve this wiki entry since it's my first contribution. I'd appreciate any advice on style or content that anybody has to offer.

Thanks, DBSpeakers (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article that needs some work to better conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Here are some suggestions to help improve it:

• The image at the bottom needs a WP:FAIR USE rationale, should just be an image (not a gallery), and should go at the top right corner per WP:MOS#Images
• The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the whole article - see WP:LEAD
• The artilce needs many more references - my rule of thumb is that every statistic, every quote, every attributed statement, and, in general, every paragraph, needs a reference. Currently whole sections and paragraphs are unreferenced (for example the History section and the two paragraphs following it). See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I would say each sentence in this paragraph needs its own reference: The original model for passive dynamics is based on human and animal leg motions. Completely actuated systems, such as the legs of the Honda Asimo robot, are not very efficient because each joint has a motor and control assembly. Human-like gaits are far more efficient because movement is sustained by the natural swing of the legs instead of motors placed at each joint.
• Some of the wording seems unencylcopedic in tone and also seems to espouse a Point of View - for example guzzle in Unlike traditional robots, which guzzle energy by using motors to control every motion... or excellent in Tad McGeer's 1990 paper "Passive Walking with Knees" provides an excellent overview on the advantages of knees for walking legs. Unless you have a citation that refers to it as an excellent overviewe, just call it a an overview or perhapos a comprehensive overvierw. Also Passive dynamics is a valuable addition... - who sayd it is a valuable addition? Cite it or use more neutral language. See WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV
• Make sure to explain or if possible avoid jargon - see WP:JARGON, and to provide context to the reader -see WP:PCR.
• Be consistent and link on the first instance of a word or phrase - so is it "specific cost of transport" (and link this) or specific cost of transport
• Use <ref>Blah</ref> tags to add references and then put <reflist> at the bottom and the refs will all show up. Again, see WP:CITE
• References go after punctuation
• I see you already know the cite templates, which work well with ref tags.
• Please don't write things like "and can be seen at the link below." Make it a reference instead - I did this as an example, but guessed at a title.
• Please give both metric and English units - {{convert}} is very useful here.

Hope this helps, you may want to ask for other reviewers' commnets ay WP:PRV Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 03:38 UTC)

---

David Owen Dodd

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed a formal review for GA status and members of the Wiki community have indicated that it is a good candidate for GA, with improvements. I would like to request that it be reviewed in the areas of completeness, correctness and writing style, and would be thankful for suggestions to improve the article so that it is well-written and broad in its coverage of the topic. Also, any suggestions for images would be appreciated; pictures of an event that happened 150 years ago are not easy to come by. Thanks, Truthanado (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Here we go, some things that would help should you go back to GA once again.

• The lead is way too short. WP:LEAD would recommend probably at least two relatively sizeable paragraphs, not just a single sentence.
• Seven subsections seems a little over the top for the main part - I'd consider merging a couple of them...
• "...attended school in the city. David attended..." - two attended makes slightly awkward reading.
• In line with the short subsections, I would also look at merging some of the short paragraphs (some are one or two sentences long only). It would also make the prose a little less choppy, there are several short sentences in a row which doesn't make elegant prose.
• Fagan's image caption is a complete sentence so could use a full stop/period.
• " David pled "Not Guilty".[6]" - Dodd pleaded not guilty.
• 4-2 should use an en-dash to separate the values, not a hyphen, per WP:DASH
• Not keen on the inline geo-co-ords. Could you make this a footnote?
• "destroyed Andrew and Lydia Dodd" - hyperbolic, stick to raw facts.

That should start you off. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The legacy section must be converted to prose, not left as a bullet point list.

Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 03:39 UTC)

---

Christmas tree cultivation

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FA and am hoping for some input on how to improve it technically. It would be nice if some folks more familiar with the topic from a professional standpoint were able to input on content. Specifically how can this be improved, through addition, or subtraction?

Input from Casliber

Hmm, horticultural? I can see the other two adjectives in the first sentence but a bit unsure about this one. If you're happy with it fine, but to me horticulture implies gardening which this isn't really. Anyway more to come...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

For optimum yield and quality, land should be flat or gently rolling and relatively free of debris and undergrowth.- to me sounds a tiny bit like a 'how-to' manual. I'd try to rephrase - the best/most suitable land for x is ...

Aphids and adelgids are the most common problems among insect pests - " Aphids and adelgids are the most common insect problems" -reduces repetition of 'pests' as long as meaning conserved

Thanks, IvoShandor (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

evergreens.. I can see why you've abbreviated to avoid the repetition of 'tree' in the sentence. I'd think conifer fits better here as it is more global. Outside of the US and Europe, most of us don't really use the word evergreen (Eucalypts are evergreen..)

If we're really getting stuck into cultivation, I didn't see a mention of pH

Summary - I began by doing some copyediting and the prose and structure are pretty good, but then I realised the article is pretty US-Centric WRT History - there is very little from the UK or Europe. Or Australia, where plenty of the things are grown too. I am now intrigued to hunt down some Australian material too. I don't know what they do in South America or South Africa either. I'll get back to you on that one.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, I appreciate you looking at this. Feel free to make any changes you want as far as copyediting stuff, I have seen this piece so many times I fear that I may have been rendered ineffective in that department for this particular article.

I also wanted to point out User:IvoShandor/Christmas tree farms work page where I have compiled what else (related) I am working on. One thing I have tried hard to avoid is using any web sites of specific tree farms as references. You'll notice a more worldly take on things linked from that page. Ideally, when I complete those articles there will be some to add and summarize in the main article.

IvoShandor (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 03:41 UTC)

---

Dragon Ball (manga)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Dragon Ball (manga)

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has improved significantly since I first viewed it, and constructive criticism for a wider range of Wikipedians would be informative and helpful.

I would like comments on the Evolution and Viz sections, as well as comments on writing style, tone and cohesion if possible, and what needs to be added to the page. Thank you!

Thanks, --- Krezos (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• I'd move the quote out of the lead and concentrate on making two solid paras per WP:LEAD.
• Not clear to a non-expert what "Weekly Shonen Jump" is - is it a tv show?
• "...Dragon Ball Z to lessen confusion..." how does it lessen confusion?
• Original run in the infobox doesn't need a space between the en-dash and the years.
• Chapter ranges should use the en-dash to separate them.
• Table at the end of the evolution section is for what purpose? Confusing.
• The evolution section needs to be revised so it's a little less in-universe. This is basically the plot and should be written at a reasonably high level for non-experts to grasp the general flow of the story.
• Why is the Viz section so named?
• And it should be converted to prose instead of bullets.
• A lot of "See also"s - I'd select only the most relevant.
• ref [2] needs a {{cite web}}.
• Is this article linked to in the template somewhere? I couldn't see the link...

That's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 03:42 UTC)

---

Philip K. Dick

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of ownership issues surrounding its improvement. I would appreciate critical views from disinterested third-parties on how to get this article up to GA and eventually FA standards. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Very interesting article. Some comments...

• "approximately 121 short stories" - reads odd - seems very precise number to be approximate!
• Why four citations for the last sentence of the lead? It's only asserting a single claim. And while we're there, you have no citations for the middle para of the lead. Some people either have nothing cited in the lead (as it should all be in the article and can be cited there) or they cite the lead entirely. This seems a little half-way house.
• Early life section reads a little choppily and needs citations.
• Same goes for the last two paragraphs of Career.
• Personal life needs to be written out as prose and needs citation.
• Android in caption doesn't need to be capitalised.
• "(cf. Kafkaesque, Orwellian)." not keen on this syntax, write as prose.
• Place citations immediately after punctuation if possible (per WP:CITE)
• Avoid in-line links like the philipkdickfans.com link.
• Why isn't the ? in androids/sheep linked into the title?
• Not overly keen on "selected works" as a level of subjectivity has gone into the selection of what goes into this section.
• "the policeman of the title--was very" strange double hyphen.
• Films section is listprose, it needs to be tightened up and made to flow more elegantly.
• External links is a linkfarm, cut it right back.

That should be a start on the road to GA. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 03:43 UTC)

---

Oxford

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how it could be improved.

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Some basic suggestions to get you going.

• Check out Navenby. It just recently made featured status and is a good model to base your editing on.
• Expand the lead, per WP:LEAD.
• You have several sections which are simply bullet lists. For GA or FA you should be looking to make this into engaging or even brilliant prose.
• Go easy on the images, on my browser, some actually overlap. Judicious use and placement so as not to go over the top should be considered.
• For some of the commercial areas, just select the major ones to discuss, no need to list every single area. Same with cinemas and theatres - this isn't an alamanac, it's an encyclopaedia so it should really contain only items of note with justification.
• More citations are needed, see Navenby for a good example of how many you'd expect in a featured article!

There's a lot you can do already but feel free to get in touch if you need more advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 03:44 UTC)

---

Tuatara

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Since the main contributor, Samsara, left a year ago, and since I recently finished Komodo dragon as a FA, I'd like to start work on Tuatara. There hasn't been much growth for a while, so I'd like to ask for suggestions on what to do. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 23:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, he edited just two months ago...that's hardly "left a year ago." breathe | inhale 15:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I misremembered. Time goes by quickly. bibliomaniac15 05:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Input from Casliber

I just started looking; the text can be tidied a bit (look at my diffs), and I will be back later. It is not looking too bad though. i would have thought a range map of NZ only was more logical than a world map with a tiny red splotch on NZ. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Need to link or explain amphicoelous.
  • I've removed it. It means concave on both ends, which is explained in the sentence.
• add imperial units as conversions (eg. lots of fahrenheit to go in) as per MOS
  • Done.

• Note. I don't have any programs or such to make a range map, so I'll have to ask someone to help me with that. bibliomaniac15 19:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Never mind, I moved the range map from the conservation section up into the taxobox. bibliomaniac15 19:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Searson's Comments

Pretty good! I've just worked my third consecutive 18-hour day, so I'll take another look tomorrow. "Living fossil" should make it into the Lead(Lede). I agree on the map, although someone might want to see both. Maybe a clearer presentation of why they are different from lizards? (I know it still confuses some folks). Great job on the refs and I like the detail you've gone into, overall. This will be a good one!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From the article: Tuatara have been referred to as living fossils.[16] This means that they have remained mostly unchanged throughout their entire history, which is approximately 220 million years.[17] However, taxonomic work[18] on Sphenodontia has shown that this group has undergone a variety of changes throughout the Mesozoic, and a recent molecular study showed that their rate of molecular evolution is faster than of any other animal so far examined.

So it doesn't really fit with the original meaning of the "living fossil" notion any more. 87.165.199.229 (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess you missed the part where I said I was tired from working 3 18-hour days and just want to act like a jerk-off. But regardless, all of that is notable and needs to be in the lede. The "living-fossil" is how most laymen will know what you're talking about. "Formerly refered to as a living-fossil" would suffice for me.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Living fossil thing mentioned in lead. bibliomaniac15 19:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Random Comments

Not sure that "lack of growth" is the problem here. There is a limited amount of literature on Tuatara, and nearly all of it in included and referenced in the article. However, there a few major ones (out of print) that haven't been used, and until then I don't think this article will be complete. Other than that, please don't bloat the article with filler just to make it longer. breathe | inhale 15:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and LOTS of the citations are not in the proper format, they are just the title of the web page. That won't fly with the FA people. I'm just not convinced that this is anywhere near ready for FA. breathe | inhale 01:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was GA'd way back in 2006. bibliomaniac15 19:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Input from anonymous stalker

Please remember to give credit to the people listed in Talk:Tuatara#Main_contributors_so_far (of whom you are one) as well as the main contributor (which you did) at every stage of the process. Neglecting to do so has previously resulted in sour grapes and failure to successfully complete a nomination.[1] The problem is that some people will always assume that the nominator is the main contributor, rather than looking at a sample of the contributions and how substantial they are.

Aside from what's been said, there are many items left on the todo list. It might be an idea to tackle those first, as well as recent suggestions on the talk page, such as a template for labelling the skull diagram (which is incompletely labelled), a potentially useful magazine article, and some quotations from elsewhere. 87.165.199.229 (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 03:47 UTC)

---

Touch Me I'm Sick

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a short and (hopefully) sweet article about the first ever grunge song. I'll be nominating this at FAC in a couple of days so I'd like as many issues ironed out before then. Not too many other editors have edited this article so I need to know if the prose, flow, MoS etc are fine. Thanks in advance.

Thanks, indopug (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Efe (talk · contribs)

• Are there informations out there why the toilet bowl used as the cover of the song?

• No clue; but it kinda fits with the them of the song actually...

• I think you need to remove the qoutation marks in the qoutation you set off the text. I mean, that blue one. --Efe (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• The quotation marks are part of the cquote default format. indopug (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I think its incorrect. --Efe (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, its necessary, because the speaker is also written within the box, and the quotes help differentiate between the what she said and the name of the speaker/ explanation etc. indopug (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that rule is obsolete but it says that quotations set off the text must not bear quotation marks. Maybe we can ask MoS with these. BTW, "Baby Boy" failed to become an FA because I re-wrote the first section and so much errors were spotted. =) --Efe (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:( indopug (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 May 2008, 23:37 UTC)

---

HMS Cardiff (D108)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'm going to nominate this article for FA, i would just like a quick peer review before hand. There are two main things I am interested in; 1. Is this article understandable to people who don't know about the Falklands & Gulf wars or warships? 2. Would you all mind taking a look at the gallery on commons and suggesting what images (and how many) you think should be in the article please.

Cheers, Ryan4314 (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/HMS Cardiff (D108)/archive2.

(Peer review added on Sunday 4 May 2008, 19:14 UTC)

---

Metroid (series)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was and is inches from FA, and then I was told Peer Review was back from the dead and I should utilize it. :) So, what separates this from FA? I have the feeling its related to prose and copyediting, so help me hack away, because that's not my strong point. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 00:49 UTC)

---

Joseph McCarthy

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has grown a lot since it was given GA status, and seems very strong. What, if anything? separates this from being Featured? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a most impressive article. I would however draw its editors' attention to a few points:

• Lead: two "froms" in second line reads awkwardly. Also, although you clarify in the main body, I think it should say here that McCarthy defeated La Follette in the Republican primary, not in the senatorial election.
• Early life: "McCarthy's judicial career was initially a controversial one". In what sense? You don't give any backing for this statement.
• Military Service:
  • Comma after Bougainville (now fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC))
  • "in his future political career". Since you haven't previously established that he intended one, I'd say this should be "in a future...."
  • "He would leave..." Why not "He left..."?
  • "..lied about.." Hmmm - I'm sure he did, but the wording sounds a trifle partisan for a neutral article. I would prefer a blander construction, e.g. "..he fabricated aspects of..."
  • "He resigned his commission in April 1945, five months before the end of the Pacific war". I'm intrigued that he was allowed to do this for apparently personal reasons. Or were there other circumstances?
  • It sounds as though the members of the communist controlled UERMW-CIO had votes in the Republican primary! I don't know how these things work, but I'd have thought they would have simply voted for the Democrat to get rid of La Follette.
• US Senate: "...for which he would be widely criticized..." By whom, & when?
• Tydings:
  • An ellipsis needs fixing near the end of section (I'll try and remember to do this myself)

Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Where did Jenner state that Tydings was guilty of a whitewash?
• Fame and notoriety:
  • Not necessary to redescribe who Tydings was
  • Later - the words "But still" are inappropriate. Just say:"McCarthy was now credited..."
  • Were there legal consequences from the Pearson assault?
• McCarthy & Truman: There should be no "who" after Marshall, otherwise the sentence is ungrammatical
• Permanent sub-committee: "..engineers even committed suicide". The even is inappropriate, sounds a bit "wow!" and breathless.
• Investigating the Army: "...reportedly changed his story.." - reported by whom?
• Public opinion: The table sits oddly in the article, particularly with no commentary attached. I think a brief commentary should be here, in the body of the article, and the table included at the end - would you consider?
• Censure:
  • Use of ellipses in 2nd count is inconsistent with earlier [...] usage
  • The final sentence of the section suggests a footnote should be added.
• Ongoing debate: "..a controversial right-wing author" is opinion, uncited.
• HUAC: Does this point really need a section of its own? It's footnote material.
• Popular culture: Does this really enhance the article? My feeling is that it doesn't. (And, with more than 8,000 words, a bit of slimming wouldn't harm)

Congratulations, however, on a very thorough and readable account. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Moni3

Good lord, I just read this article in entirety and it's very well done! Very impressive, and excellently written. I hope to see it at FA, and will support it heartily.

I have some questions, and points.

• I saw the numbers mentioned throughout, but can you provide a statement toward the end that reflected how many people were fired or otherwise lost their jobs as a result of McCarthy's tactics? Perhaps other kinds of destruction (you mentioned a suicide by someone from VOA)?
• It seems that McCarthy's drinking is mentioned in the lead, and then during his downfall, but cirrhosis sets on after many years of drinking, right? How long had he been such a heavy drinker? Was he drunk when he was bullying people giving testimony?
• I hope you will or have taken the article to WP:LOCE. I was more concerned with the overall structure and content of the article, but those folks can break it down and follow the MOS to the letter. (For example, I noticed the use of "actually" which is now a verboten word, along with "clearly" - which I did not see.)
• I did not check your references, although the article appears to be very well-referenced. I do not know the topic as well as you do, but even more than 50 years later, the topic is controversial. You may be asked during FAC to back up even more of what is stated in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 00:54 UTC)

---

Mulholland Drive (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I saw this film a couple weeks ago, became quite obsessed with it, and added more than 30k of information within a week. I'd like to know if what has been added is clear, presents a coherent article, or if there are portions that need to be expanded or better explained. This is a particular concern since the subject material is confusing, even to those who have seen the film. I appreciate your assistance. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 00:55 UTC)

---

Edwin Astley

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… If you look through the recent history, you will see that I have substantially reorganised and wikified the article. I am attempting to add as many citations as necessary to back up the article, although I seem to be coming up with the same sources for several facts (which I'm not overly keen on).

I'd very much like to have some suggesttions in what direction to take this article now - what bits still need work, what bits need cleaning up, and anything else I might have missed. The article was pretty poor before I made changes to it and I'd like to continue to improve it.

Many thanks, Howie ☎ 02:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Expand the lead. If you're looking for GA or beyond then I'd check WP:LEAD for advice on how large the intro should be.
• Date ranges need to use the en-dash, not the hyphen per WP:DASH. Done Howie ☎ 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Link composer in the lead. Done Howie ☎ 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• TV - television. Done Howie ☎ 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge the early life/personal life bits, the sections are very short and probably would work better merged. Done Howie ☎ 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• You need citations for the family sentences. Done Howie ☎ 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• the Who should be The Who. Done Howie ☎ 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Is the Geraldo you link to the one you mean? Done Howie ☎ 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Citations should be placed immediately following punctuation per WP:CITE. Done Howie ☎ 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Last sentence of career needs citation. Done Howie ☎ 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• As does first para of recordings.

That should help improve the article a little. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments and suggestions. I've been doing my best to implement them. One thing I am stuck on is how to expand the lead section. I'm not entirely sure what information I can add that would expand it, that isn't already in the rest of the article. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Howie ☎ 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 00:59 UTC)

---

M-28 (Michigan highway)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to send this over to FAC at a future date and I would like some non-roads editors' opinions.

Thanks, Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from User:GeeJo

Alrighty, non-road-expert eye at your service. Here are my initial thoughts:

• Route description: Wow that's an in-depth description. Looking over other road FAs such as Kansas Turnpike, Interstate 355, and New York State Route 174, the norm seems to be four to five paragraphs. This one has twelve.

I think some of the extra length is easily explained. M-28 is 290 miles long. NY 174 is 16.7 miles and I-355 is 32.5 miles. The Kansas Turnpike is comparable in length at 236 miles. Yes, I know the turnpike has a shorter route description, but it also has an exit list in prose format which also expands upon the route description. A lot of the information that could be included in the turnpike article is also in separate articles on the constituent highway designations of Interstate 35 in Kansas and so on. M-28's junction list is a table, and it's one single highway designation from end to end except the portion concurrent with US 41. If you have further suggestions on any pruning, I'd be welcome to hear them. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Route description: M-28 is referred to by name seven times in the first few lines, and it doesn't get much better looking farther down. Replacing some of the "M-28"s with descriptors ("the highway", etc) might improve the flow a bit.

A round of commenting in M-28's A-Class review over at WP:USRD was on grammatical structure. That reviewer wanted a stricter usage of language that shied away from pronouns and other substitutes. Your suggestion to replace some of the direct mentions of the highway's name is a welcome comment to me since I wasn't fond of some of the sentence structure that resulted in attempting to satisfy the reveiwer's comments. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Route description: There are several instances of too much detail on the areas that the road is passing. Do we need to know who owns a particular sculpture which lacks its own article? Why is the Seney National Wildlife Refuge singled out for a subsection, which then only mentions the road itself in passing?

The Seney Wildlife Refuge and the Seney Stretch in general are major landmarks in the middle of the Upper Peninsula along the highway. I tried to summarize from the SNWR article as best as I could to include information on it without putting in too much information. As for Lakenenland, it's a recent development/park that's quite unique. I admit the unique character of the place needs a photo to show it better, but too often in GAs and other reviews editors have commented that route descriptions only give a turn-by-turn description of the highway without any information on the local scenery. My aim was to try to satisfy this often-repeated desire. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Seney stretch: "though others claim it's 50 miles (80 km), only because it seems longer."[17] - relevance?

Well, without putting in OR here... I've traveled this highway hundreds of times. There's a sense of dread I experience when coming up to one of the ends of the Stretch since the next 25 miles are the perfect example of where cruise control for speed and steering could be useful. There are many blogs and other personal accounts of just how boring this section of highway is. That quotation is the best I've found from a reliable source to help illustrate this concept. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• History: Very dense, without much explanation as to why these changes were made or of their importance. Why was the M-28 formed? Why was it extended? Why was Gogebic CR 519 turned back to the county? etc.

Unfortunately most of those changes aren't well documented outside of MDOT archives. I honestly can't expect too many of the available documents to state why a change was made, since most of them, if I request them under the Freedom of Information Act and pay for the researcher to find them, are likely to be the raw changes of jurisdiction over various road sections (like CR 519 being transferred to and from the state). Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Future: Lots of very short paragraphs. Consolidate or expand them.

I'll take a look through this and see what I can do. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overall: There's a lot of data in this article, for which the author(s) are to be commended. It does fall down somewhat on readability though. You may wish to contact someone more experienced in copy editing to try to prosify some of the denser sections. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I did place a request at the League of Copy Editors after the ACR closed, but nothing's come of that yet.

(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 01:03 UTC)

---

Vocal registration

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how intelligible the article is to a lay person and other possible improvements.

Thanks, Nrswanson (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from User:GeeJo

Ok. In terms of intelligibility, it's fairly good. If your aim is simply to produce an article that people will find useful, with no major ambitions towards "climbing the ladder", you've succeeded. The following are mostly points which would help the article to conform to Wikipedia guidelines and be promoted up to Good/Featured status farther down the line:

• Opening sentence needs to be reworked to include some of the information in the second. At the moment, it reads as the equivalent of "An automobile is a car.". Accurate, but not a very good summary of the article.
• Shift references to follow punctuation.
• "no one consensus or point of view.", I'd insert "dominant" or the like into the sentence, as there are certainly points of view.
• "chest register", "head register"/"chest voice", "head voice". Neither set needs to be bolded. The voices redirect to the registers, so there's no need to link them twice.
• You establish two sets of recognised registers in the "Number" section, but only include subsections for one of these two sets. If you are wedded to having subsections for each of the registers, perhaps summarise chest/head as well?
• The sections on each of the registers is a tad brief. I'd aim for another paragraph or two in each.

That said, good luck with the article! :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 01:06 UTC)

---

Self-aligned gate

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to have it achieve the status of "good article".

Thanks, Blewis87 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Expand the lead a little - see WP:LEAD for guidance.
• What's a MOSFET? Explain it a little before just using the acronym. The article needs to appeal to non-experts.
• Avoid spaces before citations per WP:CITE.
• Headings need to comply with WP:HEAD so See Also should be See also.
• Image caption "A Standard MOSFET" - standard doesn't need capitalising. Also, what relevance does this image have to the article? It's not clear to me.
• "seventies" 1970s.
• "The gate regions would sometimes fail to overlap the source and drain. This results in a non-working MOSFET" merge these sentences.
• "Innovations that made Self-Aligned Gate Technology possible" doesn't need to be bold and is overcapitalised.
• "Without these innovations, self-aligned gates would not have been possible." that's already pretty clear from the introduction to this part of the article.
• History section needs further citation and some work on the prose. Right now it's just a load of patent numbers, dates, authors, and article titles.
• "The importance of self-aligned gates comes in the process used to make them." what does this mean?
• Avoid lists of process steps - try writing out as prose.
• Number ranges use en-dash, not hyphen, to separate, per WP:DASH.
• See also section should be bullet pointed.
• Clean room image is used and mentioned in the caption but not in the article.

That's a start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 01:09 UTC)

---

Ty Cobb

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because before I nominate it for featured article status, I would like to see if any other improvements can be made to the article.

Thanks, Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 00:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Move [2][3] to the end of that sentence.
• Clear off the [unreliable source?] tags.
• "as of 2007," - it's almost midway through 2008 now...
• See WP:HEAD for headings, so "The early years" should be "Early years".
• Just gut instinct but for an article of this length, I'd say WP:LEAD would recommend a more comprehensive lead.
• Instead of continually referring to him as Ty, it should be Cobb as an encyclopaedia would treat it.
• "major league at-bat," - a bit too jargon for FA.
• Cobb signs.. caption is a fragment so no need for a full stop.
• Consider, also, WP:MOS#Images on the size of this image - just thumb should really be used. Check the other images too - portrait images should use upright as well.
• "Although rookie hazing was customary," okay, so I'm British but I've got no idea what this means at all.
• Year ranges should use en-dash, not hyphens.
• "In one notable 1907 game, Cobb reached first, stole second, stole third, and then stole home on consecutive attempts (He did this twice more in his career)" the parenthesised sentence is clumsy, punctuation/syntax incorrect.
• "Runs batted in" why capitalise "Runs" mid-sentence?
• "At age 20" - perhaps ok in the US, but I'd say At the age of 20 or Aged 20...
• "Ty also ended up choking the man's wife when she intervened." needs further explanation - to death?!
• 1915-1921 section is listprose.
• As is the following section, you need to work on fleshing it out, making sure it reads well for engaging prose.
• The See also section is incredibly bloated - what directly relates to Cobb which couldn't be linked into the prose in the article?

That's a start, plenty more should you wish. Let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 01:10 UTC)

---

Sumatra (chicken)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am doing this for an English project. Please review the editing and anything else you think may need changing.

Thanks, Poultrygirl (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

SGGH

I suggest:

• Overall, it needs more information all round. As per WP:LEAD the main points of this information can be summarized in the opening paragraphs, and then the rest goes in each section.

• Characteristics section contains physical attributes, but can also contain roosting habits, mating rituals etc. (even if they are generic chicken ones)
• You could have a section on use of this species by humans, if there is anything
• you need inline citations (using the<ref></ref> templates and a reflist section at the end, see WP:REF for help with this.
• your image captions should contain more information than just a brief description, to enhance the usefulness of the caption

All in all, it just needs more information really, hope that helps! SGGH ^speak! 10:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 01:13 UTC)

---

Georgi Kinkladze

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This current good article about a Georgian footballer was peer reviewed a couple of months ago, with thoughts of an FAC nomination at an indefinite point in the future. Thanks to Jhony, the article has now been beefed up with more detail about his later career and has a free-use image. The changes are numerous, so this is a second peer review before taking this to FAC to deal with any issues that have arisen since the first one. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Contributed before, hope to help this on its way to FA eventually...

• "he became something of a " - a bit vague for an encyclopaedia, can we tighten this up?
  • Struck the "something of".
• "He finished his career..." would it be better to say "He ended his football playing career..." just in case he has subsequent careers?
  • Done.
• Seems a little OTT but consider linking "roubles" appropriately, esp. as you link GBP.
  • Done.
• "In September 1994 Georgia played Moldova in Tbilisi." - emphasise Kinki's role, even if it's just to say he played in it.
  • Done, though unfortunately I don't have much detail other than that he played in it.
• "unaffordable luxury" - can you cite this as a quote? (Probably said it before...)
  • Yes, this one came up it the GA review, where my response was The term is mine rather than one from a ref, but it is used by way of summary. Both Perfect 10 and Blue Moon Rising go into the relationship between Royle and Kinkladze at length. Having already used a quote from Royle I think a second quote would be excessive, and "Royle viewed Kinkladze as an unaffordable luxury" sums up the picture portrayed by both books.
• Order citations numerically... [83][7] would be better as [7][83].
  • Done.
• score, result in table should be separated by en-dash.
  • Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise it's incredibly well referenced, a good read and well suited to going over to FAC. (In my opinion!). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 5 May 2008, 20:21 UTC)

---

Hours of service

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think I've done as much as I can for it. It has already passed GA review, just wanted a fresh opinion on the article before it gets slaughtered at FA review.

Thanks, ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Tuesday 6 May 2008, 05:47 UTC)

---

Facebook

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for FA soon. I'm looking specifically for copyediting help and suggestions on what content to keep or remove. I've put a lot of work into this article. The article originally looked like this, so it's come a long way since then. Gary King (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive3.

(Peer review added on Tuesday 6 May 2008, 19:44 UTC)

---

The Order of the Stick

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this article for a while to improve its real-world context and add references. I'd like to get it all the way to Featured Article, primarily because there's only one webcomic FA in existence right now (Megatokyo). Right now, it's heavily referenced, partly to quell disputes between fans of the strip who didn't agree on certain statements and partly because webcomics seem to be held to a very exacting standard of notability. My request is to see what sort of information is still lacking to make this a FA candidate, and how the formatting and style can be improved. I've put this in for both a peer review and an article assessment at WikiProject: Comics and gotten no response, so I thought I would take it to the general population. Thanks in advance. --Ig8887 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 03:33 UTC)

---

A Day in the Life

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be a GA, and would like some help with what I actually have to do.

Thanks, Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 21:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/A Day in the Life/archive2.

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 03:37 UTC)

---

Ralph d'Escures

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC in the future and would like comments on how to improve the prose. I know that the dashes are off, I'll run a script over them before going to FAC to fix that issue. Any other comments are welcome, especially on prose or jargon.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 03:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "St Martin" currently red links to Sées Abbey, you've got an unlinked Séez following it. Should that be Séez Abbey?
  • I linked it to Seez Abbey. I could also see removing the redlink, since the liklihood of me actually getting to French abbeys is pretty slight.
• Escures redirects to Escurès. Would he have had the accent in his name? Should the estate name have the accent?
  • Someone else (I think) linked that. It linked to the wrong place, some place in southwestern France, which isn't Normandy, removed the link.
• "whose see he took " - I think I've discussed this before, worth linking for non-experts.
  • I've currently explained it and linked. Would "bishopric" or "diocese" be better in the prose? I'm not sure which folks are more likely to understand.
• "with the king" - would you clarify which king? And which pope as well?
  • done
• Move refs 1 and 2 to the other side of the comma following Seffrid I.
  • Done, relic of a previous incarnattion where some data seemed to show that Seffrid might have been a full brother.
• "The surname of de Turbine is only attested ..." it's not clear what this relates to. de Turbine is only mentioned in this sentence. Did I miss something?
  • Yep, you did. Clarified that he was once sometimes known under that surname, but no longer.
• Last three sentences of Early life read quite stilted, could you merge them to improve the flow?
  • I moved the bit about the foundation up closer to the "he joined" part and merged the bits about election. Does that work better?
• Avoid overlinking Henry I in the Time in England section.
  • I fight a constant battle against folks who seem to think they are "helping" by swooping in, linking a bunch of terms that are linked elsewhere, and swoop out. ARGH!
• "In June 1108 he succeeded Gundulf as Bishop of Rochester, having been nominated by Gundulf before his death,[11] and was consecrated on August 9, 1108.[12]" needs some rework to ensure it's clear who the subject of each clause is.
  • Attempted a clarification
• "favored" - add the U for British English.
  • Fixed
• "traveling" takes two l's in BritEng.
  • Fixed (can't ya'll learn to spell right????)
• "In 1116 the pope even demanded the payment of Peter's Pence" can you expand on this to explain its significance so non-experts can get to grips with it?
  • Gave a quick explanation. Let me know if that's enough.
• Sermon caption is complete sentence so it can take a full stop.
  • done
• Probably worth linking stroke at some point.
  • linked it but I am on the fence on this one, it might be a bit of overlinking.
• " Even William of Malmesbury could only find ..." why "Even..."? Was Bill of Malmes a bit of a sod?
  • Bill liked to find fault with everyone. If he didn't find fault with you for much, you must have been okay. Expanded a bit on the reasoning.

An enjoyable read, hope my comments are of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Your comments are always helpful! THanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 03:38 UTC)

---

ITC Entertainment

This peer review discussion has been closed.

The article has been around for a while now with several editors working very hard to contribe a large amount of information and I think the article is now at the point where I'd like to see it getting Featured Article status. It's one of the first articles I created on Wikipedia from scratch, so I'd be very proud to see it as a FA.

I'd very much like to get feedback particularly on the content of the Productions and Logos sections. I think the logos section is the weakest section of the article - it's descriptive but not actually very clear. However, adding more images might muddle the page more.

I'd also like feedback on the general style and length of the article. Anything that anyone would care to offer would be greatly appreciated and welcomed.

Many thanks, Howie ☎ 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie6705 (talk · contribs)

• First of all there should be a more than just 1 reference. If you want FA or even GA, the article should be heavily referenced.
• 'formed as a joint venture with Jack Wrather in about 1955'- the exact date should be listed. Done Howie ☎ 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• 'to Lew Grade about 1959-60'- same here. Done Howie ☎ 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• In producions, 'British' doesn't need to be linked. If it needs a link it could be earlier in the article where the UK is mentioned.
• TV should be tv.
• The FANDERSON link should be in the form of a reference, not as an exernal link within the text. Done Howie ☎ 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Although links to a category, the List of ITC Entertainment programs section could be expanded. Done Howie ☎ 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• A thorough read through, checking grammar (particularly commas) and overall wording, would be advised.

Hope these pointers can help. Eddie6705 (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eddie, thanks for taking the time to look through the article. I'm working my way through the changes you have suggested, attempting to add references and adjust wording where necessary. Obviously I don't expect FA or GA status overnight - I'm quite willing to put the work in to get this done though! I didn't realise that TV should be tv - is this a Manual of Style thing that I've missed? Thanks, Howie ☎ 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You need more sourcing for this article, and the way you're using your sources needs better formatting. The link you give for the abbreviation BFI leads to a disambiguation page.
• Lots and lots of things that need sourcing to something besides the company's website
• What makes http://www.bvws.org.uk/405alive/info/itc.html a reliable source per WP:RS?
• The lead section is too short.

As the article stands now, I would not pass it at GA. 22:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for your feedback and comments! I wouldn't expect it to be a GA at the moment... that's why I'm asking for other people to help edit it, however I seem to be the only editor on Wikipedia taking any interest in it - despite the huge number of people who edit articles related to British television and the fact that this company had an output of over 35 years. I don't know where to go to get more people to help out - that's why I came here; I was bound to get some sort of feedback! I am here so that it can get there and because I recognise that it needs work to achieve this; I certainly wasn't adding the article here because I believe it's ready for GA.

I do have a couple of questions regarding your comments:

• The link to the BVWS site may look ugly and like an early 1990s homepage, but it is actually the archive website of the long-running journal 405-Alive. The journal is published by the British Vintage Wireless Society and the particular article actually states that the contents have been taken from officially published ITC promotional material. I would hope that it would be an accepted source?
• Can you inform me what is wrong with the formatting of my sourcing?
• The company does not have a website, so I don't know what your mean about "something besides the company's website"; could you clarify that for me please? Or where you referring to the BFI link?
• I'm really stuck on how to expand the lead, other than by adding info that already exists in the article later on. Could you recommend a way to do this in a non-repetitive fashion?

I hope I don't come across as unappreciative - I just am trying very hard with this article, but writing it almost entirely alone with the limited information I can find. Most articles that get up to GA or FA standard usually seem to get there through a large amount of user collaboration. I need a lot of help with this, so I'm trying to squeeze as much info from anyone as possible! Howie ☎ 23:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I thought the BFI/etc link was the company page. And as for the lead, the lead summarizes the whole article, so it does indeed repeat information already in the article, think of it as cliff notes guide to the article itself. It should never give information that isn't in the article itself. See WP:LEAD for more information. The formatting, you can use <ref name=(name)></ref> to name references and combine them together so that you don't have more than one listing of the same web page. Several of these refs are duplicates. You really should avoid abbreviations in the footnotes also, especially the BFI one, since looking at the site/page it looks like the publisher is BFI Screenonline. The 405-Alive site, was that article published in the magazine? If so, you probably should format the ref as a journal article. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 03:39 UTC)

---

LNER Class A1/A3

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the team of editors believe that the article could develop further, becoming an FA article, especially due to the Historical significance of the type of locomotive. The article requires a general review to make sure that the material is accessable by all members of the Wikipedia community.

Thanks, Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is a disambiguation page with two listings. Did you intend to list one of those two? Fg2 (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'correct' article title is LNER Class A1/A3 and I don't think that anyone has previously spotted that what we actually have is an article called 'A3' which is a sub-page of a page called 'LNER Class A1'!! Ho-hum. Any suggestions how we get out of this mess? Presumably a page move would be in order, and then we can resubmit for FA...

(contributing editor pp BulleidPacific) EdJogg (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I will see if Geometry guy can fix this - the semi automated peer review is incorrect then too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed this by hand: articles with slashes in the title are tricky to handle. Geometry guy 18:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks G guy, I ran the semi automated PR by hand and pasted it in the right place, so it works too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, both. I have added a comment on its talk page, so other editors can make a future decision as to whether a page move is appropriate. EdJogg (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, a trip to London, and all hell breaks loose! I'm glad the mess has been dealt with, sorry for any inconvenience.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfsich comments: Well now that all of that is sorted out, here are some suggestions for improvement:

• I note that the first sentence of the article uses LNER Classes A1 and A3, so perhaps that is the way to go?

 Doing... -- has been adjusted to match article title, but may benefit from further refinement and/or renaming maybe? -- EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• The lead does not seem to summarize the whole article - my rule of thumb is that if there is a section header, then it should at least be mentioned in the lead (even if only a word or phrase), but there is nothing on Preservation of Fiction in the lead. See WP:LEAD
• Since LNER is in the title, would it be possible to explain what it means earlier in the lead than the end of the second sentence?

 Done -- EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Also is it LNER or L.N.E.R. (header, with period) - either way, be consistent.

 Done -- all now 'LNER' (no dots), except within references where quoting titles. EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please make sure to define abreviations before first use, so GNR needs to follow Great Northern Railroadway (GNR), for example.

 Done -- with the exception of ACFI, which is a manufacturer's name that links to a DAB page (obviously added for this article!) Couldn't see how to sensibly re-word this. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Some sections are unreferenced: Preservation, Wartime service - this last is also a very short section - could it be combined with the following section? Or expanded?
• This sentence makes no sense at the end However, by incorporating the Great-Western-inspired valve modifications, the economies in coal and water consumption achieved were such that the 180 psi Pacifics could undertake long-distance non-stop runs that were previously possible.
• It might just be the late hour, but I am having trouble following some the jargon here - can it be put more into context? I also wonder if there some sort of diagram of the Gresley conjugated valve gear and three cylinder arrangement.
• Typo in ref 28 Clay, John F. 'How good were the original Gresley Pacifies

 Done -- EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, What jargon is bothering you? You should be able to follow the blue links to Gresley conjugated gear at least.--John of Paris (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jargon is perhaps not the best choice of words. However, I have now read this part of the article three times and the linked Gresley conjugated gear article twice, and I understand that they were used to avoid maintenance on inaccessible middle wheels and I think I have kind of an idea as to how they worked (the wheels were in sync at 120 angles to each other), but I am still fuzzy on the details and I have almost no idea how they differed from the other designs. I realize this is likely all clear as a bell to rail fans, but my point is that it is not as clear for me (and I like steam engines, just don't know all the details). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 03:40 UTC)

---

Beyoncé Knowles

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just recently did a revamp and I would like to know if what other things to do for it to reach GA, or possible go directly to FA.

Thank you folks. --Efe (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 03:42 UTC)

---

Elaine Paige

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's recently passed a GA review and I'm now contemplating nominating it to become a featured article. The general feedback I'd like is on the article's prose, and the new section "Views on theatre". Many thanks, Eagle Owl (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 03:44 UTC)

---

List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coaches

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to get this to FL status but I'm a little worried it might be too short for that. Obviously I'd to know if there is anything eles I need to fix too.

Thanks, Buc (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Yes it's a little short but it doesn't mean it wouldn't stand a chance at FLC. It is, after all, comprehensive.
• Of the 7 Buccaneers - seven.
• You could specify (and link to) the precise Superbowl in the lead.
• Probably ought to cite the claim that three coaches were former players and the firing claim too.
• " This trade came after Dungy was fired after the Buccaneers has lost in the playoffs to the Eagles for the second year in a row and because it was determined that the offence Dungy ran was too inconsistent and he was unable to win in the playoffs." - too long, doesn't make sense to me (...has lost in the playoffs...?)
  • Removed, only put this in to bump up the word count in order to pass it for DYK. Buc (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "dispite" typo.
• Colour should not be the only way of identifying a property - see WP:COLOR. Use an asterisk, dagger etc to also denote coaches spending their entire career with the Bucs.
• Footnotes and References can be merged into a single References section with your current Footnotes being "Specific" and your current References being "General".
• What make JT-SW.com a reliable source?
• Hickok Sports. or Hickok Sports.com?
• Be consistent with the use of either work or publisher in the references.

That's about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Pinkkeith (talk · contribs)

• I would add a content for references under the foot notes content. The bulleted list at the end are not foot notes, but references for the article.
• Remove foot note five (Spent entire professional head coaching career with Buccaneers ). There is no reason to point this out since the table is already coded for this information.
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 03:46 UTC)

---

Matthew Shepard

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I think there is some room for improvement to reach FA with this article, but I would like to see what everyone else thinks needs to be done to improve it. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 03:47 UTC)

---

Voice type

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want feadback on the grammar and content of the article with the aim being nominating this article for good article status.

Thanks, Nrswanson (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - here are some suggestions for improvement:

• I noticed there are no images - surely there are some famous singers whose photos could be added, or a choir? You get the idea
• The lead does not meet the requirements of WP:LEAD. I think it needs to be shorter and it needs to be a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is that if something is a header in the article, it should at least be mentioned in the lead.
• Do not repeat the title of the article in headers - so "Number of voice types" could just be "number" (we already know the article is about voice types). ALso avoid starting headers with "the", so "The voice from childhood to adulthood" could just be "From childhood to adulthood"
• There are a lot of one or two sentence paragraphs that should either be expanded or combined into other paragraphs - they are choppy and break up the flow.
• Could use a copy edit to improve flow and avoid repetition - example "Soprano" [Header], is followed by "Main article: Soprano", and the article starts "Soprano range: The soprano is the highest female voice. The typical soprano voice lies between middle C (C4) and "high C"(C6)." That's three "soprano"s in the first two sentences (plus the two preceding in the header and hat note). How about something like "The soprano is the highest female voice and typically lies between middle C (C4) and "high C"(C6)." ?
• References are generally good, but there are several places that need refs (and some are marked as such). Example Many vocal pedagogists warn of the dangers of quick identification. Who are these vocal pedagogists? Cite some please.
• Per Wikipedia:MOS#First_sentences and the lead Items in boldface are not linked, and boldface is not used subsequently in the first paragraph.
• Per Wikipedia:MOS#Italics the article over uses bold face - Emphasis Italics are used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences (bolding is normally not used at all for this purpose). Generally, the more highlighting in an article, the less the effect of each instance.
• References are incomplete - you might want to use {{cite web}} and other cite templates. Internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and access date. see WP:CITE
• You might want to find a model article that is FA or GA to follow for style, possibly stucture and other ideas.

Hope this helps, you can also ask at WP:PRV for another reviewer's comments Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 03:49 UTC)

---

Eva Green

This peer review discussion has been closed.
good article

Thanks, Ultra! 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Just a comment - it is helpful to know what your expectations are when asking for a review. Two words "Good article" does not help much - I see that this is a GA, so I will assume you want to go for FA at some point. Interesting article, makes me want to see more of her films. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• The lead is supposed to summarize the whole article and nothing in the lead should not also be in the article itself. The quotes in the lead do not seem to be in the main text. See WP:LEAD
• Spell out British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) followed by the abbreviation - also which award specficially did she get? Best lead actress presumably? Ah wait, at the very end we learn it is Rising star - say this earlier please.
• The article seems a bit short for FA and will likely have to be expanded if FA is the goal and as she makes more films, etc. If it is, the lead will also need to be made longer.
• Writing is generally good, but there a few awkward places, such as She was a piece of last-minute casting for the role of Vesper Lynd..., so a copyedit couldn't hurt
• Some of the sources seem open to question at FAC, for example is Yahoo! Movies a WP:RS? Or Superherohype.com?
• Roger Ebert has all his reviews online and I know he reviewed The Dreamers and Casino Royale - these may have useful critical reaction.
• Is this a magazine or book or what? Daniel Schweiger. "All Hail The Queen: Eva Green Rules Supreme Over The Kingdom of Heaven", Venice, May 2005, pp. 60-63. Seems to be missing some information - how would I find this if I wanted to read it? See WP:V
• A model article that is already FA may be helpful here.

Hope this helps - mostly nitpicky comments as this is pretty good already, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 03:51 UTC)

---

Talyllyn Railway

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is nearly up to FA standard. It was recently nominated at WP:FAC, (see archive), but failed, presumably because some of the criticisms had not been fully addressed. Any assistance in giving this article the final boost it needs would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,  —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Nice to find out Skarloey is based on an engine on a real line - always feared he was a crass ploy to sell more books, videos and toys. Obviously this article is a labor of love - here are some suggestions to make it even better (mostly pretty nit-picky):

• I would look at the FAC as a very detailed peer review and make sure all of those comments had been addressed. I would also treat them as examples and look for similar problems throughout the article and fix those.
• According to WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the whole article and not inlcude any new information not already in the article. My rule of thumb is that every header or subheader should somehow be in the lead, so the fictional connection is missing and I would double check everything else.
  • Done
• You might want to use the {{convert}} template for units - I notice the semi-automated peer review finds some issues there.
• You might want to ask the League of Copyeditors or one of the copyediting volunteers at WP:PRV to help with tightening the article. Just in the lead The gauge of the track is 2 feet 3 inches (686 mm). This is an unusual gauge, and was shared by only three other public railways... could be perhaps The gauge of the track, 2 feet 3 inches (686 mm), is unusual, and was shared by only three other public railways...
• I know the article convention is to use modern names, but where the old name makes something clearer, I think it should also be given. For example, "Aberdyfi (also known as Aberdovey)" would provide context for "Aberdovey Slate Company" later - see WP:PCR
  • Done for Aberdyfi - I don't think there are any other cases.
• Think about what is most important in each sentence and clause and order them accordingly, for example in However the standard gauge Aberystwyth and Welsh Coast Railway was expanding rapidly from its base at Machynlleth and in 1863 had reached Tywyn, although the line was initially isolated from the rest of the system because of difficulties in bridging the estuary of the Afon Dyfi to the south. McConnel decided to build his line from the quarry to Tywyn, the nearest point where slate could be transferred to the standard gauge railway.[12] I would perhaps move the clause "although the line was initially isolated from the rest of the system because of difficulties in bridging the estuary of the Afon Dyfi to the south" last, something like The standard gauge Aberystwyth and Welsh Coast Railway was expanding rapidly from its base at Machynlleth and in 1863 had reached Tywyn, so McConnel decided to build his line from the quarry to Tywyn, as the nearest point where slate could be transferred to the standard gauge railway.[12] This was despite the fact that the line was initially isolated from the rest of the system because of difficulties in bridging the estuary of the Afon Dyfi to the south. or something like this. Makes clearer why Tywyn was chosen as the terminus.
• Refs generally go after punctuation, generally at the end of a sentence - several are in the middle of sentences with no punctuation before them and no other ref at the end of the sentence.
  • Done
• Avoid one or two sentence paragraphs unless absolutely needed. Combine with other paragraphs.
• Could the Rolling stock and Operations sections be combined?
• Beautiful maps and very nice pictures.
• Could the Stations and halts table be split out as a list article with a short summary left behind? If so it might be a WP:FL. See WP:Summary style
  • Done
• I would try to find a model article, an FA train line, preferably one that is also historic (if such an FA exists).
• Could the Route section be made smaller in the TOC? Perhaps "Original line", "Extensions and branches" and "Stations and halts" (3 subsections instead of 7)?
  • Done, but the flow needs improving

These are just some suggestions, you might want to ask at WikiProject:Trains or WP:PRV for more reviewers. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've updated some of the above - I'll cross them out when they're fully resolved. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 12:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 03:52 UTC)

---

Ghosts I–IV

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article just went through a very easy GA review, and I am interested in nominating the article for FA status soon. I would like a little more feedback before I take that step, however. Any comments or suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Thanks, Drewcifer (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) -

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.rockband.com/blog/entry/276614 Looks like a blog on a videogame site to me.
  • http://www.popmatters.com/
  • http://www.cinemablend.com/
  • http://www.tinymixtapes.com/

I'd have asked these questions at FAC also, so consider this a prequel for FAC. 22:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I love prequels! So, source by source: the Rock Band is indeed a blog, but that's not necessarily the kiss of death. The site is the official Rock Band website, and the interview is concerning a contributor to a band (NIN) that is closely associated with the game. The fact that they chose to release the interview on what can be most closely described as a blog doesn't mean it's unusable, it's just a matter of the source of the blog. Pop Matters and Tiny Mix Tapes are reliable since, based on the criteria of WP:RS, 3rd party sources have referenced/mentioned both sites as sources of information (link and link). Swapped out the cinemablend reference. Drewcifer (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, I will try to point out problems that would arise in FAC. I suggest you watch and participate in some FAC discussions if you are not already, and that my comments be treated as examples (so if there is one run-on sentence, there may be many more I did not note or even catch - please check for them too). Here goes:

• Since In Rainbows is already mentioned as a comparison and it is already FA, I would look at it as a model article for this one. If there are other NIN albums that are FA, they would also make good models.
• Possible run on sentence It contains 36 instrumental tracks and was recorded in ten weeks of autumn 2007 and is the first Nine Inch Nails album released without a record label contract.[1] How about Its 36 instrumental tracks were recorded in ten weeks of autumn 2007, and it is the first Nine Inch Nails album released without a record label contract.[1] instead (or something similar)? REWORDED
• I have read this sentence several times and still do not understand it: Accordingly, the album was reportedly stripped of much artwork and accompanying visual interpretation.[4] The article does not make it much clearer. Also avoid "reportedly" - attribute (According to X, because of this the album was stripped...) REWORDED
• Provide context for the reader - who are Atticus Ross and Alan Moulder - they seem to be producers, but the lead doesn't really say. See WP:PCR
• Recording section has "Reznor" 3 times in the first two sentences - try some pronouns for variation DONE
• Any reason not to name the album in The last Nine Inch Nails release on Interscope was a remix album based on material from Year Zero.[5] (I think Year Zero Remixed would be fairly clear that it is "a remix album based on material from Year Zero" REWORDED
• The Appearances in other works section is very short - NPR is already mentioned in the Music section, any reason this can't go there too?
• Could Artwork and Film festival sections be combined? Both fairly short and seem very related. Any chance of showing any of these artworks (not sure if they would be the right CC license, but perhaps Fair Use)?

Since Ghosts is licensed with the share-alike and non commercial clauses, any resulting art must be licensed similarly (share alike), which would mean it too would be unusable for commercial purposes.

• Chart positions - I do not write music articles, but it seems to me that total weeks on the chart and date of the peak position could be included easily here (lots of room to expand the table)

This is generally discorouged. Please see WP:CHART.

• Reznor described the music of Ghosts I–IV by saying "This collection of music is the result of working from a very visual perspective - dressing imagined locations and scenarios with sound and texture; a soundtrack for daydreams." needs a ref. DONE
• Refs seem good in general, any chance of more images - free ones of Reznor or other musuicians / contributors perhaps?

Added one of Viglione.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 03:56 UTC)

---

Ireland national football team (1882-1950)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there are very few editors who have worked on it, it has recently been judged to have failed the GA criteria, and I think we have taken it as far as we can without additional input Fasach Nua (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Not wishing to nitpick too much but the title should use en-dash to separate the years per WP:DASH.
• "During the era 1882 to 1950," - Just "From 1882 to 1950," will do.
• Football (soccer) is now association football.
• Using IFA in the note before the lead is confusing, what is IFA?
• Need to resolve the citations needed banner.
• "Northern Ireland national football team" is in bold. Why?
• ", having shared it " - this clause doesn't logically follow - just "and shared it..." will be fine.
• Hyphens in the infobox should be en-dashes, and citations should be placed immediately following punctuation, where possible, per WP:CITE.
• I would link the dates per WP:DATE so they autoformat.
• "These two losses, together with the initial loss to England still constitute the record wins held by each of the other home nation teams." - reads poorly - these results would sound better.
• "the 1800s[7]" missing full stop.
• "17 year old" suspect this should be hyphenated.
• Images should be sized in accordance with WP:MOS#Images
• I agree with whoever tagged it as needing more references. It's not 100% clear how much of the text is cited, a lot of claims go unreferenced.
• "Ireland[29] (see names of the Irish state)" citation placed badly, don't like "see... links" in prose, link intelligently.
• Early Ireland colours caption - lose the full stop, it's a fragment.
• Why is Did not enter in italics?
• Mural caption is a fragment so lose the full stop.
• What makes these players more notable than any other? And also, wikilink more elegantly to the category, e.g. For all players, see Pre-1950 IFA international footballers .
• Former coaches section is either incomplete or confusing.

That's a good start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for thre great input, I have implemented most of your suggestions. Two issues have been raised

• Why is "Did not enter" in italics?
• What makes these players more notable than any other?

Thses are both MoS issues, the former, is specified [[here, and I don't consider it a major issue, with or without italics is fine with me.

The second point is highlighting something, which I feel is complete original research, however it is specified in the MoS, the Scotland team which is FA class does not use it, I am torn what to do with this one Fasach Nua (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 03:57 UTC)

---

National Museum of Beirut

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've been working on this article when it was only a stub. This article is about the only national museum in Lebanon and the biggest depository of national treasures, i have already submitted it to "request feed back" page and i got encouragement to submit it here. thank you for your help in making this article better.

Thanks, Eli+ 17:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfsich comments: Good start and obvious that a lot of work has gone into this. Here are some sugestions to help improve the article:

• Make sure images have proper fair use rationales, for example the logo in the infobox. See WP:FAIR USE
• Expand the lead so that it is a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is that every header should be mentioned in the lead in some way, even as a word or phrase. See WP:LEAD
• Once the article is expanded, it will need a copy edit. For example, just in the lead there are some awkward sentences and errors - here is one example with my possible corrections: The museum's neo-pharaonic style building and some of its collection had suffered extensive damage throughout [in] the war, but the greatest part of it’s [its] artifacts was [were] saved thanks to last[-]minute preemptive measures.
• References go after punctuation and are in numerical order, so The initial collection was rapidly enriched through the work of the successive directors, but also through donations from private collections,[2] among which were Henry Seyrig's private coin collection,[4] General Weygand's collection in 1925,[2] and that of Dr George Ford in 1930.[2][5] See WP:CITE
• Per WP:MOSNUM, use numbers for 10 and less and spell out numbers above ten. So ..collection grew richer within 3 [three] decades..
• Golden Era sectin is very short - can it be expanded or merged with the preceding section?
• Try not to wikilink too much - most editors link once in the lead, once in the article, and that is it (plus once in the infobox).
• You might want to use {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and the other cite templates for uniformity. Internet references need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. See WP:CITE
• Great pictures - you may want to alternate them (right and left sides).
• A model article is often useful to follow for ideas, style, examples to follow, etc. I note that Palazzo Pitti is a Museum WP:FA and may be a useful model. GA articles on museums would also be useful at this point.

Congratulations on the DYK and I hope this helps. I see this is up for GA - to be honest I think it needs a thorough copyedit before making GA, but good luck, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Comments by Finetooth

Here are a few ideas for improving this article.

• I recommend a top-to-bottom copyedit by someone who will fix the many small errors such as "it’s artifacts", which should be "its artifacts" in the lead.

• Reference numbers in the text generally should be placed immediately after sentence punctuation rather than before. In the "Early beginnings" section, reference 1 is correctly placed, but reference 3 is not.

• If possible, people mentioned in the article should be identified on first mention by first name and last name and, often, a brief description. Raymond Weill (a French officer stationed in Lebanon), is identified that way in the "Early beginnings" section, but General Weygand is not. Most readers will know nothing about Weygand, and so it would be helpful when first mentioning him to say something like "Maxime Weygand, a French general who was doing X and Y in Lebanon at times A and B".

• The mention of Dr. George Ford involves a related naming problem. The Manual of Style says, "Academic and professional titles (such as 'Doctor' or 'Professor') should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead." Look here for more details. This naming problem can be solved in much the same way as the other two, by explaining briefly what kind of doctor he was and how he came to be connected to the museum.

• Quantities given in metric units should also be given in imperial units. See WP:UNITS. I added conversion templates to the article in three places to show how this works. The conversion template {{convert}} takes a while to get used to but handles many kinds of conversions, abbreviates correctly and automatically, and automatically prevents line-wrap separation of numbers and units. I find it extremely handy. See Template:Convert.

• Lower Paleolithic and other geologic time periods are normally given in millions of years with no reference to calendar terms like BC or AD The reason is that when we are talking about numbers this big, BC and AD are essentially the same.

• The main page of the Manual of Style, WP:MOS, is worth returning to again and again for the answers to small stylistic questions. In this encyclopedia, BC and AD appear without points, and date ranges use en dashes as separators rather than hyphens. Thus "3200 B.C.- 1200 B.C." should be "3200–1200 BC".

• The Bibliography section has only two items in it and doesn't seem to add anything. Both items are cited and appear in the Reference section already. I would simply delete the Bibliography. If one is needed later, it can always be added.

• Links 4, 5, and 17 are dead, and others may be too. You should check them all and fix the dead ones or replace them with good ones if possible. Please add the publication date to citations when possible.

• I would suggest breaking the lead into at least two paragraphs and adding a bit more to the lead about the individual collections. See WP:LEAD.

• I often find it helpful to look at models to imitate. Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums includes a list of museum articles that have been promoted to GA or FA. They would be worth looking at for ideas. Finetooth (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 04:00 UTC)

---

Pokémate

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to better learn to professionally write an article and make sure that my style of writing is appropriate for Wikipedia, and any other ways this article can be improved.

Thanks, Kuro Woof 00:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work here. There are many things to learn on Wikipedia and here are some suggestions and links to improve the article:

• All the guidelines for Wikipedia articles are in the Manual of Style - see WP:MOS
• It is often useful to have a model article to follow as an example. I see that Pokémon Diamond and Pearl is a Good Article, which means it meets farily strict criteria and has been reviewed for quality. It seems like it would be a useful model.
• The name of the article should be in bold and as early as possible in the first sentence of the lead. See WP:LEAD
• The lead should also summarize the rest of the article and not just be an introduction. Nothing should be only in the lead, it should also be repeated in the article text. Again WP:LEAD
• Is it "Pokémate" (article title) or "PokéMate" (first word in article)? Be consistent (and move the article or make redirects as needed - ask if you need help on how to do this)
• The game (?) seems to be only available in Japan, but the article does not say this. Provide context for the reader - WP:PCR
• Avoid second person (you) in writing
• References are usually easier with {{cite web}}
• Internet references should have url, title, publisher, autor if known, and date accessed (cite web does all this). See WP:CITE
• Also make sure references are reliable sources - see WP:RS
• The article should not be an instruction manual or description of how to play / operate the game, but a description of it from reliable third-party sources. See WP:NOT

Hope this helps, keep up the good work and keep improving the article and encyclopedia, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 04:02 UTC)

---

Evolution (Dove)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been away from Wikipedia for a while following the promotion of noitulovE to FA status, but I'm looking to jump back into the deep end and push this article to the same point. I'm particularly looking for any help with copy editing or general tightening of the prose, but any comments are welcome. I'll do my best to respond to any queries or suggestions. Thanks in advance, GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is very close to FAC and I have very few comments, mostly nit-picky, because it is already in very good shape. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

• This has a fair number of red links for FAC - if these are notable (especially the awards) perhaps they should have articles, even stubs

It's a sad fact, but refless stubs on advertising topics get deleted. Fast. I'm not up for writing lengthy pieces on the tangential articles at the moment, and WP:REDLINK applies.

• In Production I would identify Tim Piper as the art director again - everyone else is identified by role in that sentence. I know he ID'ed earlier, but I had to search to find what he did.

Done.

• Betts - any chance of identifying a children's show or two she has worked on?

Added credit for Producing Parker

• The budget is given in the infobox, but I would give it again in the Production section. Might also be useful to compare this figure to "average" commercial budgets - was it cheap or average or expensive? I realize this might be unavailable, but any idea what individuals got paid for their parts in this?

Added in Background section. The budget was incredibly paltry, but it'd be hard to find sources for the average campaign spend in 2005 - they vary too widely, and most aren't reported.

• The advert was a startling success online and was .. seems a bit POV

Reworded.

• I would cite ..was discussed by a number of mainstream television programmes, including Good Morning America, The Ellen DeGeneres Show, and The View, and news networks such as CNN, NBC, and ABC News,..

Cited.

• First two pararaphs of Slob Evolution section need cites. Also not clear to me what the purpose of the link was The web address to which the parody directed people who saw it was "www.campaignagainstreallife.com". put this into context

Removed, wasn't that relevant.

• Also need cites for the whole last Ruddy Hell... paragraph

Description from primary source, policy allows it to act as its own ref.

• Also a bit POV Following the huge level of interest in Evolution, post-production company SoHo released a five-minute making-of documentary... perhaps OK as a direct quote?

Pretty sure it was a quote, but can't find the source. Reworded.

• Any data on the effect on Dove's sales? This is after all an advertisement

Added the increases in Dove and Unilever sales in the period following the release of Evolution, though tying it solely to the ad would constitute OR

Over all very well done and I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it took over half a year, but I finally got round to addressing these comments. Thanks for pointing out the more blinding errors I made when writing up the piece :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 04:03 UTC)

---

Apollo 9

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have read the story of Apollo 9, and would like to see this important step in America's space program worked up to feature status. What improvements need to be made to promote this article up from B class to higher.

Thanks, Bender razz (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the opening paragraphs. Let me know what you think of them. Bender razz (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Good start, which needs a lot of work to get to featured status. Here are some suggestions to help along the way:

• It is always useful to have a model article to work from and Apollo 8 is already a WP:FA. I would look at that article very carefully and model as much of this one on it as possible.
• Lead should be expanded to summarize the whole article - see WP:LEAD
• "See also" goes at the end of the whole article, not at the end of a section. If there are relavant articles in a section you can use "hat notes" like {{see}} and {{main}} at the start of the section. See also WP:Summary style
• Put photos throughout the article, not just in a gallery at the end
• This article is currently very list-y and needs to be largely rewritten as text. Some of the lists could be broken out as their own sub-articles (List of Apollo 9 Maneuvers) instead of the whole Summary of Maneuvers section in there now. Look at how Apollo 8 handles the crew, for example. It lists them and then gives a few sentences on how they were chosen. You have one sentence As with Apollo 8 Before it, The crew of Apollo 9 consisted of two Gemini veterans and one rookie. but do not explain who was the rookie (I know, can figure that out from the number after the name) or which missions the others flew on.
• Provide context for the reader - why did the crew sing Happy Birthday, for example? See WP:PCR
• The biggest hurdle right now is a total lack of inline references and citations in all of the article. This would not make GA, let alone FA as is. See WP:CITE and WP:V and WP:RS

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 04:07 UTC)

---

George Liquor

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed the previous GA nomination and I want to see if anything else is wrong.

Thanks, Gak Blimby (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfsich comments: Since this has had a failed GA review, I would treat that as a very detailed peer review as well. Most of the issues raised in it were still present - here are my suggestions for improvement:

• A model article is always useful for ideas and style - I see that Aang is a GA about a character from a cartoon and may be useful as a model.
• Is the character named "George Liquor" (article title) or "George Liquor, American" (bold in first sentence, infobox header)? I realize there is some ambiguity from reading this, but this should be consistent. Since the story bible is just "George Liquor" I would go with that, but perhaps the first sentence could be George Liquor (also known as George Liquor, American) is...

Done

• Since he is apparently best known from Ren and Stimpy, I would put that in the first sentence.

Done

• This article still needs a copyedit. Many of the sentences are awkward or unclear and the article repeats itself. For example, just in the lead: Harris Peet voiced George in the character's first starring episode of The Ren and Stimpy Show[3] and has been voiced by Michael Pataki since. The subject of the sentence as written is Harris Peet, so the second half literally means that Harris Peet has been voiced by Michael Pataki since...
• Another big concern I have about this article is that most of the information seems to be attributed to Kricfalusi, who is not a independent third party reliable source. Due to the limited nature of the character's appearances in mainstream media this is perhaps understandable, please see WP:V
• Try to avoid repetition, some examples:
  • Kricfalusi said that the episode "Man's Best Friend" was the episode of The Ren and Stimpy Show that got Kricfalusi and the Spumco staff fired from The Ren and Stimpy Show.[2] repeats "The Ren and Stimpy Show" and "Kricfalusi" each twice in one sentence. The next sentence repeats "Nickelodeon" three times.

Done

• • Or this tells us he got the rights to Liquor twice in two sentences: When Nickelodeon fired Kricfalusi, the network gave him the rights to use George Liquor because the network employees did not like the character.[13][16] The arrangement with the network granted Kricfalusi the rights to Liquor and Jimmy.[14]

Done

• • Or do we really need to be told that The Goddamn George Liquor Program used Flash animation twice (start of that section, end of Advertisements)

Done

• Some information seems to be missing - what are the two episodes of Ren and Stimpy that Liquor makes cameos in? How many issues of Comic Book does he appear in?
• Provide context for the reader (WP:PCR). We learn Liquor was created in 1979, then there are no dates given until The Goddamn George Liquor Program in 1997, 18 years later.
• References are incomplete - for example interent references should give url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. Templates such as {{cite web}} may help.
• Ask yourself what makes this worth its own article (as opposed to being merged with the article on Ren and Stimpy characters and the article on Kricfalusi)? What arguments would you make if this were up for AfD? Then make those points clearer in the article.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the semi-automated peer review because 1) it breaks transclusion (so this does not show up on WP:PR) and 2) it does not follow the directions, above. I also removed the Done graphic per the directions - it speeds loading if there are no graphics. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 04:09 UTC)

---

Rudolf Wanderone Jr.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have extensively revised and expanded it over the last few weeks and believe it may be GA-class or close. I wanted feedback on it before nominating it for GA status. Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I will review this Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Nice, something I'm interested in, keep me in the loop!

• Lead is four paragraphs. Look at WP:LEAD for advice here, it should be shorter and flow more naturally.
• "Wanderone began began playing pool" - -began.
• "at a very young age " - be more specific.
• "atravelling" - space needed.
• "Wanderone returned to Illinois and semi-retirement." - couldn't return to semi-retirement unless he'd been semi-retired before. And what does "semi-retired" mean?
• "He was usually assigned 1913 as the year of his birth" - strange phrase. Why not "His year of birth was usually noted as..." or similar?
• "his obituary in the New York Times indicated that he may have been born prior to this year, perhaps by more than a decade, though it was impossible for the paper to confirm." needs citation.
• "received his first nickname." - which was?
• A lot of short sentences makes the prose stilted and awkward reading.
• "it was during this time that he picked up the nickname "New York Fats."" - why?
• Novel link then film link without clarification.
• "Mosconi stated that the character of Minnesota Fats was based on Wanderone." cite it.
• "...Played," Wanderone's..." - comma in the wrong place.
• Minnesota Fats section needs work on the prose to make it flow nicely and read properly.
• Page ranges in the references need to use en-dash.

That's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. I have fixed a few things but to comment on some others:
• "at a very young age " - be more specific. - I don't have a source for a specific age. My source says "child"; *"received his first nickname." - which was? it's mentioned and cited in the next sentence - "Double Smart"; "it was during this time that he picked up the nickname "New York Fats."" - why? I guess I don't understand this, it's just a fact that people called him that; Novel link then film link without clarification. I don't understand, one link is the the article for the novel and the other is to the article for the film; "Mosconi stated that the character of Minnesota Fats was based on Wanderone." cite it. the entire paragraph is cited to the same page of the Dyer book. Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you need to provide citation or reword. First nickname needs citation. Fats should be explained. You link to the book then the film but to the average reader it's the same. Explain further. Ok about the final para cite. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: (after ec) I agree with the Rambling Man's comments and since they duplicate much of what i was going to write, here are the few things that were different. Here are my suggestions:

• The New York Times obituary (published January 19, 1996) is quite detailed and would be a great source - also states he died on Jan 18. I would think most libraries in the US would have access to it.
• You might also want to check Time, Newsweek, perhaps People for that time to see what they wrote about him when he died.
• Wanderone and Mosconi came out of the gate with both barrels blazing in a one-on-one game of seven-ball, and Wanderone won the match. is POV and peacock language and needs a ref. See WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK
• Norfolk, Virginia where Wanderone hustled the many servicepeople who were gathered there seems too politically correct - in WWII Norfolk bars, my guess is he hustled servicemen

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• All feedback is appreciated. Otto4711 (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 8 May 2008, 04:11 UTC)

---

Abbey Mills Mosque

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe its prose is well-written and well sourced, its voice represents neutrality between the various factions, and I believe it has the potential to become a featured article. It has already been listed as a good article, and I am soliciting more feedback to take it to the next level. The one enhancement I can think of would be to add a picture of the site in question, but no free-use ones exist. I contacted someone in February about obtaining an image, but it has not happened yet.

Thanks, Avi (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Seen and addressed. Except I think that the 1 paragraph lede is appropriate, thoughts anyone? -- Avi (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Sunday 11 May 2008, 14:09 UTC)

---

Avatar: The Last Airbender (Season 1)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is only B-class and I am not sure where to go with it so I want to ask for some advice. Thanks, — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 02:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• I did some copy editing. In the second paragraph, what was the demographic? Production could use some expansion, maybe you can get some from the main Avatar page. It's OK if there is some redundancy between them. A reception section should also be created. It's easy to find reviews of seasons. For instance a google search for "avatar airbender season 1 dvd" turns up articles like this. Keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

Some initial thoughts:

• Production should be above the episode listing, and the secondary section is unneeded - creating episodes = production; the DVDs seem to have several behind the scenes features, but I don't see them being used in the production section. Planned future expansion or do they just have no usable info?
• Awards should also be above the episode list, converted to prose, and if possible rename to reception and include sales and viewership information
• The DVD table is too detailed. I'd remove the contains column, make the airdates separate columns and specify the Region of release rather than NTSC/PAL; it also needs sourcing along with its lead in prose. For one way of doing this, particular the table format, take a peek at List of Meerkat Manor episodes and List of Trinity Blood episodes. Those both have each in separate tables, but a single table be fine too, with columns for each region. If you want to know how many episodes or which episodes, you can also have a column just listing x-y for the episode numbers, rather than listing full titles. Also need to wikify the full format dates in the prose.
• Summaries do not need sourcing, so all those need to come out. It just clutters the table and make the article appear to be using more sources than it really is. Any other links to the transcripts on that fansite should probably also be removed and it does not seem to be an official site nor does it seem to have any endorsement or permission to post those transcripts online, which seems to be a violation of WP:COPYVIO.
• The first sentence of the first episode summary is nearly word for word from IMDB. Can that be reworded a bit to make it more distinct?
• For the episode table, the headers should be set to a different color to stand out more (#CCCCFF is most commonly used), and the table background set to white for more contrast and easier reading of plot summaries.
• When doing cite web, you don't need to add format HTML nor language=English to citations

Seems to be well on its way to be a potential FL. :) Collectonian (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about moving the production and award sections above the episodes section, considering that: 1) The list topic is the episodes, so shouldn't they be first? and 2) Other FL's put the episode section first. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 14:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

With a regular episode list, yes, but this is not a regular episode list rather it is a season page/episode list hybrid. As such, the sections belong above the episode list to give emphasis to the real-world aspects. For examples, some other FL season/episode hybrids: Lost (season 1), Lost (season 2), Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1), etc. Collectonian (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I almost said the same thing about section ordering, but Smallville (season 1) has the eps first. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 11 May 2008, 19:58 UTC)

---

Anna May Wong

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article was recently promoted to GA. This is a request to review the quality of the article before we list it as an FAC. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article is excellent and close to FA already. It's comprehensive, well-sourced, and well-written. I have a few small suggestions for improvement.

• Generally, it's better to have the eyes in photos looking into the page. The infobox does this well, but the photo in the "Early career" section would be better positioned on the right since the eyes look to the left. The photo in "Stardom" would be better on the left since the eyes look to the right. Wong and Dietrich should be on the right, looking left.  Done (left the Dietrich/Wong in place because it's right above another right-aligned image)

• The images section of the Manual of Style says, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes." If you move the "Stardom" photo to the left, you'll also need to move it down a bit to keeping from bumping a second-level head. Done

• "Among" is preferable to "amongst" in the phrase "amongst mostly Mexican and Eastern European families". Ditto "unbeknownst" in the phrase "Unbeknownst to her father"; "without her father's knowledge" would be better.  Done

• Generally, numbers from one to nine are written as words and numbers from 10 and up are written as digits. "By the age of eleven Wong" would be "By the age of 11 Wong". I see a few more of these scattered here and there. Done (couldn't find the "few others"-- will look again later)done-- found one more

• I would consider breaking into two paragraphs the long paragraph at the end of the "Return to Hollywood" section to give the reader a bit of a rest. Done

• Put a space on each side of an ellipsis, except at the very start or end of a quotation.

• Look for constructions such as "167 performances" and add a no-break code to keep the number from being separated from the noun by line-wrap. See WP:NBSP. Done

• I see a couple of ampersands in the Bibliography that should be changed to "and". They are OK in corporate names if that is what the corporation uses, but "Zia, Helen & Susan B. Gall" should be "Zia, Helen, and Gall, Susan B." Done

• The sentence, "Lady from Chungking was different from the usual Hollywood war film in that the Chinese themselves are the heroes, rather than American heroes rescuing the Chinese", is a bit awkward. I might suggest, "Lady from Chungking differed from the usual Hollywood war film in that the Chinese were portrayed as heroes rather than as victims rescued by Americans." Done

• The sentence, "A paragon of fashion and beauty, both Wong's image and career have left a lasting legacy", is also a bit awkward. I might suggest, "A paragon of fashion and beauty, Wong left a lasting legacy through her career." Better yet, think about abandoning this sentence, which is peacock POVish, and just begin with the second sentence: "Through her films, public appearances, and magazine features, Wong..." Done

• I would suggest seeking one more fresh set of eyes for a final light copyedit. A few bits of punctuation should probably be changed, and I'd substitute "that" for "which" in a few places.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Finetooth (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 01:38 UTC)

---

Scott Stevens

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have spent several months working on this page in my sandbox, and I feel it's good enough for a peer review. Stevens was one of the most dominant hockey players of his era, and as a Hall of Famer is worthy of a featured article (or at least GA). I'm looking for tips on how to make sure it's FA-worthy (especially in the copyedit area). Any hints would be much appreciated. Anthony Hit me up... 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Well researched and cited, generally well written, though it needs some polishing if it is to reach FA status. I think it is pretty close to GA. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• Expand the lead to summarize the entire article per WP:LEAD.
• I would also provide years in the lead to give some context to the reader, perhaps something like Stevens played 22 seasons in the National Hockey League for the Washington Capitals (1982-90), St. Louis Blues (1990-91), and the New Jersey Devils (1991-2004). I had to read the article carefully just to find these years - they should be made clearer in the text too. Or provide his birth order in Early life (i.e. second of three sons or whatever it is). See WP:PCR
• Make sure the writing is of encylcopedic quality and tone. In the "Early life" section I would spell out "semipro" and link it, i.e. semi-professional, and avoid phrases like Scott's two brothers Geoff and Mike also had hockey in their blood;... - see WP:PEACOCK
  • Done
• Per WP:MOSQUOTE, only use block quotes for quotations of more than four lines. I also would not repeat the attribution right after the quote if the author has already been identified before it (so Rangers coach Joe Crozier commented about Stevens: “ He’s come a long way this year... He’s strong, tough, handles the puck well and has tremendous hockey sense. ”

—Joe Crozier, on Scott Stevens, [9] This is true for most block quotes in the article.

• • Done
• I do not know much about hckey, so I don't understand this: Stevens’ defensive linemate was Dave Shaw, the defensive corps included Al MacInnis, Wendell Young was the team’s starting goaltender... What is the difference between a defensive linemate and the defensive corps? Is the goaltender a part of the defense (I would think so)? If so, why not the defensive corps included Al MacInnis, [and] Wendell Young was the team’s starting goaltender...?
  • Done
• Another unclear sentence: Due to injuries during training camp, Stevens made the team at 18 years old, and never played a game in the minor leagues.[10] I think this means other players were injured, but it reads as if he were injured in camp.
  • Done
• Unfortunately, the Blues were eliminated in the second round of the playoffs.[18] seems POV, as does Despite the heartbreak of 1994, Stevens and the Devils would not be denied in 1995.
• I do not know hockey and the only pitcure of Stevens previously in the article is of him in a suit with the President, so it was unclear to me who the picture was of with the caption The Devils were awarded Scott Stevens as compensation after the Blues signed away Brendan Shanahan. Perhaps add (pictured)?
• Perhaps put the international statistics together with the other stats at the end of the article. What is the hockey standard?
  • Hockey standard is to separate international play from NHL career; see Wayne Gretzky.
• Find a model article that is FA or at least GA and use that as a model.
• I would mention having his number retired in the text (not just an article caption)
  • Done
• Refs seem OK, although I am not sure what WP:RS for hockey articles are.

Overall well done with what seems like all the required information, just needs some polishing. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.hockeydraftcentral.com/index.htm
  • http://www.hockeydb.com/index.html
  • http://www.statshockey.net/
  • http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/

I didn't check for prose, just for WP:RS and WP:V which I would have done at FAC. 15:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 02:41 UTC)

---

Synthesizer

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have not contributed much to this article, but it needs some desperate help. I happen to be interested in the subject and have the Wikipedia skills to bring this up to Featured Article status. Obviously it's a mess right now - and I am looking for some help to restructure and rewrite this article. Any general comments on where to start would be good. So far, I have rewritten the lead (but even that could be improved far beyond what I have done just as a start).

Thanks, Wackymacs (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from La Pianista (talk · contribs)

Sorry for the delay! I've been away for a while (maybe I should have put a notice on my userpage?). Anyhow, to cut to the chase...there were a few minor things that I felt were too detailed to put here, so I've stepped in to tweak them myself. Below are either explanations for my edits or a few clarifications that need to be made by someone who knows more about the topic.

• "By contrast, an instrument that primarily records and plays back samples is called a sampler. If a sample playback instrument does not record or process samples as a synthesizer, it is a rompler." To be blunt, I don't understand the need to define a sampler and rompler if you already have them bluelinked. Tricky, tricky...see if you can elaborate it.
• If there's one thing I can say in general, it's cite, cite, cite. Many sentences and paragraphs need to be sourced if you would like to see this as FA someday. (Never mind, that's been mentioned)
• "the sound is horrible with mostly noise..." Peacock, peacock. Try describing how horrible it is, preferably in a way that isn't too POV.
• "Following the success of Yamaha's licensing of Stanford's FM synthesis patent, Yamaha signed a contract with Stanford University in 1989 to jointly develop digital waveguide synthesis. As such, most patents related to the technology are owned by Stanford or Yamaha. A physical modeling synthesizer was first realized commercially with Yamaha's VL-1, which was released in 1994." What place does this paragraph have under "Physical modeling synthesizer"? It would best be put under "History" somewhere.

I'll finish the rest of the peer review when I can...sorry again! (I hope my edits helped) :-) --^LaPianísta! 03:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done a few things (struck those out). I am in the process of sorting out the History section, and citing all of it (always takes a while to find good sources for everything). Thanks for your help so far. — Wackymacs (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from La Pianista (talk · contribs) (cont.)

• If there's one thing in general, try to avoid the use of "very" in an encyclopedia. I think some philosopher (I can't remember whom) said that it was the most banal in the English language... I've changed a few of them, but I may have missed some.
• "By 1976, the first true music synthesizers to offer polyphony had begun to appear, most notably in the form of the Yamaha GX1, CS-50, CS-60 and Yamaha CS-80 and the Oberheim Four-Voice. These early instruments were very complex, heavy, and costly. Another feature that began to appear was the recording of knob settings in a digital memory, allowing the changing of sounds quickly." is a little awkward, especially the placing of the second sentence. I'm afraid I don't know how to change it for the better without adding false "however"'s (in other words, "however"s without a point.) Catch?
• "When microprocessors first appeared on the scene in the early 1970s, they were expensive and difficult to apply." This sentence looks out of place, but I'm not tech-savvy enough to figure out where to put it. As a general advice, it has to fit best chronologically and logically.
• "As such, most patents related to the technology are owned by Stanford or Yamaha." Here, "as such" is a tad awkward. Anything else that is comprehensible will probably fit better.
• It's probably best to link some of the terms instead of defining them within the article (e.g. MIDI). But that's just my opinion - it all depends on style.
• "It provides for the transmission from one device or instrument to another of real-time performance data. This data includes note events, commands for the selection of instrument presets (i.e. sounds, or programs or patches, previously stored in the instrument's memory), the control of performance-related parameters such as volume, effects levels and the like, as well as synchronization, transport control and other types of data." is awfully long. I've done my part, but maybe a little technical shortening (not of the cooking type =D) will do.

Man, I feel guilty; a lot of things have been going on in real life, and I've been barred from editing, temporarily. Apologies accepted? :-) --^LaPianísta! 02:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• Current ref 10 "1970 Robert Moog Moog..." is lacking publisher information
• Main problem is a big lack of citations. It's not close to the standard required for GA citations, much less FA standards. The sources look good, what there are of them.

I didn't check for prose, just for WP:RS and WP:V which I would have done at FAC. 15:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested here are my comments. Agree that there need to be many more refs. Since you are expanding the lead, make sure it follows WP:LEAD. Here are some more ideas:

• References need to follow punctuation, so it should be The first electric synthesizer was invented in 1876 by American inventor Elisha Gray,[1][2] (not the current ...Elisha Gray[1][2], See WP:CITE
• The WP:MOS says not to repeat the title of the article in headers, so "How a synthesizer works" should be changed. perhaps to "How it works" or "Sound synthesis" and the whole series under "Types of synthesis" is problematic
• Ref 1 needs publisher info too
• "Impact on the music industry and culture" seems to end in the 1980s - have there been no hits using synthesizers since or impacts on culture since?
• I now notice that the most recent date in the whole article seems to be 1994 - needs more recent information.
• Physical modeling synthesizer section is quite short - can it be expanded or combined with another section?
• Seems to have a fair amount of information in it, so once it is properly cited, updated, and copy edited, should be much better.
• Any chance of a picture of someone actually playing one?
• The semi-automated peer review above has several useful suggestions on MOS issues.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 02:42 UTC)

---

Lost Our Lisa

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Stable WP:GA rated article, successfully added as part of promoted featured topic, The Simpsons (season 9). Looking for any feedback on ways to improve this article further, and suggestions/recommendations as it moves along in quality status.

Thanks, Cirt (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Posted notice about this peer review at talkpages of WP:DOH, WP:TV, WP:US-TOON, and WP:COMEDY. Cirt (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I like this episode very much and the article is generally well-written, so most of my suggestions are going to be fairly nit-picky.

• The article seems a bit short, especially if the ultimate goal is FA. Will mention a few places to possibly expand below.
• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should probably be two paragraphs for this length article.
• Perhaps The episode contains the last appearance of character Lionel Hutz.[1] would read better?
• The image is great, how about the caption tweak Homer and Lisa listening to the song played by the Orb of Isis
• Since there are 25 FA class articles on the Simspons, there are plenty of model artilces to look at. I picked "A Streetcar named Marge" (ah, alphabetical order) and noted it has a Cultutral References section, which seems like a possibility here. It also has a merchandise section (not sure that one would apply here).
• Are the Nielsen ratings for the original air date available?
• The Production section is a bit choppy - any way to introduce it with a "The production team faced several challenges on this episode..." lead in? Also is there anything on the music here?

I hope this helps - I can't think of too much else to add. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you I will try to look into these recommendations - though further expansion of the article may prove difficult as it has been hard to find additional secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

• Perhaps The episode contains the last appearance of character Lionel Hutz.[1] would read better? -- Done. Cirt (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• The image is great, how about the caption tweak Homer and Lisa listening to the song played by the Orb of Isis -- Done. Cirt (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• "The production team faced several challenges on this episode..." lead in? -- Done. Cirt (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Hrm, not sure about Nielsen ratings, will try to look into that further. Cirt (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 02:44 UTC)

---

2006 FIFA World Cup

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted some feedback on what in it needs improvement in order for this article to be able to become featured. It had been previously nominated for featured status three times (last nomination was in July 2007), and has changed a lot since its the last version that was nominated. Please feel free to give any suggestions that would help in improving the article.

Thanks,  ARTYOM  19:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments:

• Copyediting. Below is a small fraction of the problems that a copyeditor would probably catch and fix.
• In the lead, "eighteenth" should be "18th", and Italy is referred to as a "who" rather than an "it". The Italy sentence should read, "The tournament was won by Italy, which claimed its fourth World Cup title."
  • I disagree with this. Your suggestion makes the sentence read strangely. In my experience of writing about sporting events, football teams are usually referred to as "whos" rather than "whiches". – PeeJay 11:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You are probably right about this. I am an outsider to the sport.
• A change in word order is needed for clarity in the sentence, "Morocco was the first nation to be eliminated with only three of the 24 votes cast". I might suggest "Morocco was the first to be eliminated when it got only 3 votes out of a possible 24".
• In the Qualification section, a sentence says, "Hosts Germany were granted automatic qualification with the remaining thirty-one finals places divided among the continental confederations." Either "hosts" should be "host", and "were" should be "was", or something is missing. In addition, "thirty-one" should be "31".
• Jargon. Below is a partial list of jargon in the article that needs wikilinking or clarification.
• In the phrase, "The 2006 World Cup ranks fourth in non-unique viewers", what is the meaning of "non-unique"?
  • Assuming that you're actually asking a question and not just prompting for an explanation to be put into the article, "non-unique" means that viewers may have watched more than one match, meaning that they are counted twice in the number of viewers. Therefore, the viewers counted in the total are non-unique. – PeeJay 11:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • An insider might understand the term, but an outsider probably will not. Encyclopedia readers include a lot of outsiders.
• In "Pot C contained eight of the nine remaining European sides", what is the meaning of "sides"?
• "Seed" should probably be wiki-linked or explained.
• In the sentence, "In the special pot, Serbia and Montenegro (white ball) was drawn first, then their group was drawn (black ball) from the three seeded non-European nations, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico", what do "white ball" and "black ball" refer to?
• What does "order of fixtures" refer to?
• What does "settled" mean in the phrase, "the group was among the first to be settled"?
• Terms such as "wing-back" and "centre-back" should be wikilinked.
• The red and yellow cards need to be linked or briefly explained.
• "Match reports are available in the article for each group." What are match reports, and what does the "article for each group" refer to?
• In the Group E section, "tough backline" and "single own goal" need to be explained or wikilinked.
• Other thoughts:
• "The stadia and transportation systems were state-of-the-art, and the German people were lauded for their hospitality and enthusiasm and gained new friends world-wide." This is peacock POV and should be removed.
• The Squads section is only three sentences long. Perhaps it could be (a) combined with something or (b) expanded a bit.
• I hope these comments are helpful. Finetooth (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

All  Done, except the "non-unique viewers" suggestion. I'll think more about that! Thanks,  ARTYOM  11:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comments: I see several statements in the lower sections that either come from personal research or from a source or sources not cited. For example, "Trinidad and Tobago earned some international respect" and "Africans had a respectable tournament" and "Brazilians ... were sluggish and lethargic" are claims that involve analysis and express a point of view. These kinds of judgments should be attributed to the sports writers or other experts who made them. Finetooth (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. These may take a while though.  ARTYOM  19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• Current ref 14 is lacking publisher information (Palmer, Kevin "Group C ...)
• Current ref 15 is lakcing publisher information (O'Dea "FIFA changes...)
• A big problem is lack of sources on many section of the text. Also, there is a lot of tables, graphics, etc. which detracts from the flow of the prose. At this point, the lack of citations would keep the article from GA status, much less FA status.
• Do we need the large gallery of the photos of the venues?

I didn't check for prose, just for WP:RS and WP:V which I would have done at FAC. 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the publisher for ref 14, but ref 15 doesn't really have a publisher (the article is from GeoCities), so I guess it can be left as it is.

Regarding the tables and graphics - I always thought that articles look better with images and tables, rather than if they are composed of prose only. Besides, the topic of the article itself suggests that tables will be used.

Regarding the gallery of the venue photos, I added it recently. Previously it was just a table of stadia. When I was trying to improve the article, I looked at the different language wikipedias where it is featured, and noticed that most had the gallery of the venues. I don't mind going back to the old format, however, as long as the reader benefits from it.  ARTYOM  16:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 02:46 UTC)

---

Adelaide Rams

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to move it up to GA status, and may need some more help in possible imporvements. Thanks,  The Windler talk  06:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Expand the lead per WP:LEAD, two paras at least.
• Date ranges, scores, page ranges etc should use an en-dash to separate the values, not a hyphen.
• Sources/References section should be named per WP:HEAD.
• "...of trhe 1998 season..." typo.
• While I appreciate a lot of good work has gone into the tables of results, I don't really think they're appropriate. I'd prefer (with my GA hat on) to read some prose about the two seasons, by all means comment on the significant wins, losses, individual performances etc.
• "...Rams didn’t fare much ..." avoid contractions so "...did not..."
• The jersey image needs a thumb parameter and a caption. Use the upright modifier to get the image the right size per WP:MOS#Images.
• Fix the [citation needed].
• "Adelaide had none of it's players reach international status during it's tenture" - its, and I guess you mean tenure?
• In general, if a number is over 10 then it should be written out as a numerical value. More so in these sporting articles in my opinion.

That should be enough to get you started. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Risker (talk · contribs)

• I concur with The Rambling Man's comments above.
• As you had requested, I have also copy-edited this article, although it may need some additional work after updating per the peer reviews.
• Consider that some standard local expressions mean different things elsewhere:

• "The Adelaide Rams were wound up..." - in my country (Canada), that would mean they were hyperactive; is there another suitable expression?

• Cite error for Ref #5
• Please ensure all direct quotes have a reference, even if the same reference is used for the rest of the paragraph; even though the information may not be controversial, direct quotes tend to be challenged, so it's better to it now as a preventative action
• What was the nature of the "ongoing problems" with the Cricket association and the Rams and the use of that stadium? Were the Rams violating their contract? Were there scheduling conflicts? Damage to the field?
• "The SARL appointed Liz Dawson..." did the league appoint Dawson, and did she work for the Rams or for the league? Does News Limited fit in there somewhere?
• I use this guide for copy editing; although it is aimed at preparing for featured articles, it is very useful for all articles and has lots of best practices. It's even written by an Aussie.

Thanks for asking me to review and copy-edit. I've learned something new about a sport I have never seen (poor deprived Canadian that I am), and found it very interesting. I hope you will find my comments useful, and I apologise for having taken so long to get here. I'll keep this watchlisted for a few days in case you have any questions. Risker (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 02:47 UTC)

---

List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was put up for peer review before, but with only automated suggestions. I hope that editors can give feedback as to how to imporve the article and make it to featured list status. Thanks, AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 17:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Avoid bold links in the lead, per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
• Image caption is a fragment so it doesn't need a period.
• Image needs a fair use rationale for use in this article.
• Image could be made bigger - perhaps check WP:MOS#Images, I seem to recall the lead image (only) can be up to 300 px.
• "d twenty-two minute specials." - is that 22 x 1 minute or 20 x 2 minutes? If the former then I'd say 22 one-minute specials. Latter then twenty two-minute specials.
• "Bellow" below?
• Do you have citations for the claims in the lead re:marathons etc?
• " November 9-10" which year? And separate the dates with an en dash instead of a hyphen.
• Worth explaining why each episode has multiple titles.
• Season One etc doesn't need the capitalisation - Season one is fine (as per the main article titles)

That should get you well on the way to WP:FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by ""d twenty-two minute specials." - is that 22 x 1 minute or 20 x 2 minutes? If the former then I'd say 22 one-minute specials. Latter then twenty two-minute specials."? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 15:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I know what you mean now. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 15:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)

• Change the lead to

"This is a list of episodes of SpongeBob SquarePants, an animated television series broadcast on Nickelodeon, an American cable network aimed at children aged seven to twelve. SpongeBob SquarePants premiered on....."

That way, the lead sentence is bolded correctly, the wikilinking of the title is done correctly, and you're providing context to the reader in regards to Nickelodeon.

• "Each season thus far has consisted of twenty episodes." can be simply "Each season consists of twenty episodes." This removes the past tense, as even in 20 years, each season will still consist of 20 episodes
• "A total of 102 episodes have aired to date." Change this to "As of (insert date of last episode to be aired), 102 episodes have aired."
• "The series also had a feature film," Change this to "A feature film, The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie complements the series, and premiered in theaters in the US...", which will remove the past tense, and also state where in the world it premiered
• "Four of the seasons have received complete DVD releases, and half of the fifth season is also available on DVD." Add a reference from TVShowsOnDVD.com
• Wikilink or otherwise explain what a "marathon" is. (Not a 26 mile run, I assume.)
• For me, "There have been many marathons in which viewers vote for their favorite episodes. One of the more notable marthons is the Best Day Ever marathon,[2][3][4][5] which aried from November 9—10, 2006 and named "Karate Island" the best episode ever to date" is unnecessary, but as it is, the em-dash should be an en-dash, per WP:DASH, and you should say who named "Karate Island" the best episode? Was it the network, in which case it could just have been a tool to get more viewers, or was it from a third party media company?
• Use ((tl|Episode list}} to create the episode tables. This will allow for information such as episode numbers, production codes, writers, directors and a whole bunch of other things. This is a pretty important thing to do, because when/if each individual season article becomes featured, the tables can be transcluded.
• If you are aiming for FL, take a look at List of Lost episodes, and List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes. They (and other FLs) have a season overview section, which is a table for DVD information. This should be included here, too.
• Follow the style of other featured episode lists and instead of the Headers being "Season one: 1999–2000", just make them "Season one".
• "The season consited of a total of twenty episodes." has a spelling mistake, and is in the past tense. The sentence is not really needed as it is mentioned in the lead, so I would remove it (and from the prose of the rest of the seasons).
• "However, the aforementioned episode..." Don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
• Remove the Feature film section, as it is not an episode. You can link to it in the See also section
• I see the DVD section at the bottom of the page. This is what I meant above regarding an overview section. There seems to be conflicting information too, in that the episode numbers do not add up.
• I'm not convinced the shorts and crossovers are actual episodes, and might be better moved to a new page.

That's all I have for now until these comments have been addressed, then I'll take another look. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've noticed a notice on the article's talk page requesting screenshots be included to improve it's quality. I would remove this, because they will all be fair-use images, and if only 4 are added it will get the page failed at WP:FLC. No other featured episode list has them anyway. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 01:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 02:48 UTC)

---

List of Tour de France winners

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to push it for Featured List status. I particularly want suggestions on how the lead reads, any possible changes to the table, and how the images look.

Thanks, Peanut4 (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Very nice article, some comments to help it on its way to FL.

• "It is the longest race in the Union Cycliste Internationale calendar." should be cited.
• Should there be a comma after Armstrong in his image caption?
• I'd move ref [2] to the end of the sentence.
• "Spain and United States have each won ten events, with all of the latter's coming from two riders." reads a little awkwardly for my liking, particularly the second clause. You could name both riders...
• "race's best climbers" I know what you mean but this could be misconstrued.
• "..wore its distinctive.." the distinctive rather than its makes more sense to me.
• "leading young cyclist. It awarded a" - "...cyclist, awarding a..." would improve flow for me.
• Petit-Breton caption needs full stop as I think it's a full sentence. Same for LeMond. In fact, is LeMond in the Yellow Jersey in that image? Worth noting if it is the case.
• Maybe worth mentioning that P-B was the first cyclist to win it more than once?
• Indurain, Riis and Perreiro image captions need full stops.
• "Countries that have won in the Tour de France" - odd wording, and what do the colours mean? And does it only include the race winners and not the other jerseys?
• Force the summary table column widths to be the same so the tables look similar.
• "King of the mountains" shouldn't that be Mountains?
• "The USADA has found him guilty of using synthetic testosterone during the race and stipped..."
  • What's USADA?
  • Just "USADA found him guilty", (no has...)
  • stipped - typo.
• You don't mention the red/combination jerseys here - I only noticed them because of the template at the bottom of the page. I think you either need to say they're not included (and why) or include them for the sake of completeness. What do you think?

That's enough from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your input TRM, I think I've done most of it. Just got to find the citation for the UCI length - the UCI site was down yesterday when I changed it. Also got to work out what to do with the other two jerseys. What do you think of the images? At the moment, they just sneak onto the edge of the list in my browser, but with more columns, they won't do. Peanut4 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the images work fine for me at work and on my widescreen Mac at home, but they do get cropped at low(ish) resolutions. I don't know what you can do beyond removing the Youth winner which would be a shame, or losing the images altogether, which would also be a shame. Perhaps see what others have to say on the matter... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)

Looks good, just a few queries

• Some of the images overlap the table on my browser, so I'd advise you to either change the images, or which I think would make more sense you could remove the numbers which represent mulltiple wins and put this info in a table at the bottom of the list.
• Also you use the primary source a lot for references, is there any chance you could find any other sources apart from the primary one?
• Why is there a tour column numbering the tours seems a bit pointless to me

That's all good luck with the list NapHit (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 02:49 UTC)

---

Thriller (album)

Previous peer review

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

I just need some more advise and a fresh set of eyes before going for FA again. Sources are all good and correctly formatted. A copy edit and further advise would be welcome.

Thanks, Realist2 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Thriller (album)/archive3.

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 02:51 UTC)

---

Paul Rand

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is already at 'Good Article' standard but I want it to become featured, and thus I would like some feedback before that stage.

Thanks, Wackymacs (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article about someone I had never heard of but whose work I had seen. Here are some suggestions for improvement to FA status:

• I would find a model FA article Biography article - I know El Greco is FA, but there is probably a closer fit.
• The lead needs to be expanded and to summarize the whole article. My rule of thumb is that if something is a header in the article, it should at least be mentioned in the lead. My rule of thumb is that if something is a header in the article, it should at least be mentioned in the lead. Nothing should be in the lead only, as for example the Art Students League is now. See WP:LEAD
• I think more people know Yale is in New Haven than know where the Pratt Institute and the Art Students League are (so perhaps say NYC in the lead)
• Why not give his full birthdate in Early life...
• Missing a period? ... while taking night classes at the Pratt Institute[.][and not "," ?] Rand was by-and-large “self-taught...
• Broken link for "[Gebrauchsgraphik]"
• I like to start each section mentioning the article name as early as possible -
• I have never seen Images labeled "Figure A", B, C, etc.
• There are an awful lot of red links in the article and may be seen as a negative at FAC
• Provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. For example, there is only his birth year in Early life and education, and no dates at all in the first four prargraphs of Early career
• Watch POV / Peacock language - for example Indisputably, Rand’s most widely known contribution to graphic design are his corporate identities, ... see WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK
• I think this needs a copyedit to tighten it up some
• The organization seems a bit odd - the Corporate identities section would seem to be a good end, or at least good towards the end (and ends with mention of his death), but it is the middle of the article. Again a model article might help

Hope this helps, you can ask for another reviewer's opinion at WP:PRV Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Risker (talk · contribs)

• Concur with Ruhrfisch's comments above.
• You might want to look at Salvador Dali or El Lissitzky as other examples of FAs
• A bibliography would be useful, I think; you make reference to a few of his written works
• The prose could use some tightening. I've found Tony's guide to be very helpful.
• Check Words to avoid. The "undoubtedly" at the beginning of the "Modernist influences" section stood out particularly.
• I haven't seen images as "Figure A, B, C" before, but I have seen "Illustration 1,2,3" including tomorrow's main page article, Prince's Palace of Monaco; that article has 18 images, though.
• Per WP:LAYOUT, images B&C should probably be offset more, as they are squeezing the text in between.

Thanks for asking me to review, I hope these suggestions are helpful. Risker (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 02:52 UTC)

---

Eastbourne

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a few months ago the article obtained a Good Article status, and I am sure with a final push it can become a Featured Article. There have been no major changes since the GA, and we just like to know what needs to be done to achieve the FA status.

Thanks, MortimerCat (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Paulbrock comments:

OVERALL

• lots of info here, which appears well-referenced, I've picked out quite a few points, but the article is generally in a very good shape!
• maybe too much information if anything, and it relies on local knowledge, there's quite a bit of "it's now behind the church", or "next to the school grounds", which isn't much help to the casual observer.
• bit of a tendency to over-introduce related subjects e.g. "directed by Bend It Like Beckham director, Gurinder Chadha". Given that it's all wikilinked, I'd say it was much easier to read "directed by Gurinder Chadha". Same for Bang Bang, It's Reeves and Mortimer and The Mobiles.

LEAD

• infobox image is fairly low quality, could do with a nicer,clearer image.
• "It has since suffered from the general trend away from taking holidays within the United Kingdom." - could this be expanded or sourced? How (much) has it suffered?
• "second largest settlement in East Sussex after Brighton & Hove and before Hastings." - I'd be tempted to strike off Hastings from this.
• "Geographically, Eastbourne is situated..." - Geographically is unneccesary.
• what sunshine record? mentionted later on but needs to be more specific...
• 'boasts' is used a couple of times, maybe formalise this a little more?

HISTORY

• overall,looks fairly comprehensive and well-sourced to me.
• Maybe separate out "the Roman x was discovered in x" stuff, not sure really but they are more like evidence of Roman occupation. Maybe even just lose the dates and specific locations - not sure about this, so feel free to ignore!
• Redoubt fortress is 'introduced' in both the 1st and 3rd paras- also referred to inconsistently thru article - "Redoubt fortress" "Eastbourne Redoubt" "Eastbourne Redoubt Fortress"!
• Some sentences here tend to be quite long and rambly - e.g. "By the mid–19th century most of the area had fallen into the hands of two landowners: John Davies Gilbert (the Davies-Gilbert family still own much of the land in Eastbourne and East Dean) and William Cavendish, Earl of Burlington"
• "The town received more air attacks than any other in the south-eastern region" - London?

AREAS AND SUBURBS

• Quite difficult to read in parts,large paras, and it seems to be all about Holywell, rather than any other areas.

BEACHY HEAD

• Is there a source for 'unofficial statistics', or is that an oxymoron? :-) "3rd most common spot" where, nationally?

TRANSPORT

• Listing specific taxi firms is probably too much detail!

CULTURE

• Could do with a few more photos early on, maybe some of the notable residents or parks?
• Blue plaques stuff is interesting, but again possibly too much detail? Certainly address of each and every one. Two/three separate tables seems clumsy.
• Expand/explain VC wrt Nelson Victor Carter.
• The serial killer seems a little out-of-place as a 'notable resident'. Is it worth mentioning under History?
• Music - several bands had top 10 hits - why single out The Mobiles?

Hope that helps...! Paulbrock (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very useful. MortimerCat (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.ukfossils.co.uk/
  • http://www.muchmusic.com/music/
  • http://www.tonynorman.com/news.htm
  • Current refe 72 "Many Years Many Girls" says the publisher is the author, what makes this a reliable source?
• Current ref 26 "National Rail Enquiries" is lacking publisher information.
• Current ref 42 is lacking last access date (Soverieng Radio)
• Current ref 43 "Chris Brooks (about me link)" is lacking publisher information
• Current ref 44 (Towner Art Gallery) is lacking publisher and last access date. Also what makes this a reliable source for the information being sourced?
• Current refe 45 "Images of England ..." is lacking lubisher and last access date.
• Current ref 46 "Easbourne borough council - theatres" is lacking publisher and last access date
• Current ref 47 "About the under ground theatre" is lacking publisher and last access date
• Current ref 74 "British Council" is lacking publisher information

I didn't check for prose, just for WP:RS and WP:V which I would have done at FAC. 16:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 02:53 UTC)

---

Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I have frequently contributed to this article by adding updates and sources and would like to nominate this for a Good or Featured article status. However, I'd like a peer review with fact- and grammar-checking before I go up to a GA/FA nomination in order to give a better impression.

Thanks, Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, before I came in, the article was poorly sourced and had lots of inaccuracies; that was right before summer 2007 I guess. (Here's an example) And compare that with the state of the article more recently. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

SGGH

I suggest:

• in he leand, the [1] after broadcasting needs to be after the comma
• try not to let one line paragraphs stand alone
• "other countries" only contains canada, so either expand it or rename to "canada" (ideally the former)
• "Jackson's career began to decline after the incident. Her first album released since the Super Bowl, Damita Jo, was released in March 2004 to poor critical reception yet high worldwide sales and three Grammy nominations in 2005. However, her following album, 20 Y.O., did not sell as well despite better critical reception overall" is there any evidence that this event is the cause or a cause?
• the see also section is a but empty and of questionable usefulness
• References could be named "notes"
• the further reading needs bullet pointed

All in all, well referenced and written, hope it helps. SGGH ^speak! 13:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the ref/note issue, and I think that the Jackson sales decline issue has been discussed in the media, take this Brent Bozell column for instance. I also read an Ebony magazine article regarding the Super Bowl and Jackson's sales. I think it would be good to attribute the cotnroversy/their sales. Thanks for your Feedback! --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 02:55 UTC)

---

Crush 40

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this article for as long as I've been an active contributor to Wikipedia. The article has just passed through a somewhat easy GA (there were a few snags that had to be addressed in the hold period), and now I'm bringing it here to see what more I can do with it. I don't know if I'll ever have the sources to make this a featured article (there's already quite a few self-published sources, though WP:SELFPUB says I can use them), but if I either can or cannot, I want to improve this article as much as I can. Thanks. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 02:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Certainly no expert here, but some comments to help...

• Be aware of the use of discretionary plurals - "Crush 40 is a..." vs "...the band changed their name.."
• Why a single citation in the lead? A lot of things in the lead need citation if you only cite one. My advice - cite nothing there and ensure you cover it again in the main text. Cite it there. Job done.
• "got a job with" reads clumsily.
• "as a music composer for video games. As a video game composer" - repetition warning!
• " very first song" - very is redundant.
• "Even after making that track" - why is it a seemingly unusual for them to stay in contact (i.e. "Even...")?
• " Johnny's " - encyclopaedia would refer to him by surname.
• "When Sonic Adventure 2 was being made to commemorate Sonic's 10th anniversary," - cite.
• Sonic Ad 2 should either be in italics always or never, choose.
• "Crush 40 has not released any additional albums since 2003" - additional is redundant.
• Sonic is mentioned again, sounds a little repetitive.
•  Done "[Sonic Heroes (soundtrack)| Triple Threat: Sonic Heroes Vocal Trax]] " - needs sorting out.
• Drummer credits - this is borderline trivia. What's the significance?

• How can I make this more clear? It's basically a lineup change, but I can't find any reliable sources that flat-out calls it a lineup change. Katsuji has not drummed since Sonic Heroes and Toru Kawamura has continued to be the drummer since. Although I haven't cited it, Toru Kawamura is also cited as the drummer in the album booklet of True Blue: The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog for Crush 40's latest song, a cover of "Seven Rings in Hand". Not even the self-published source I have says that (then again, it only goes up to about 2004). That's the point, but obviously it's not clear enough.Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 18:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Kawamura was credited for the drumming for this soundtrack, as well.[11]" - Kawamura was also.... and drop the ", as well".
• Do ProgressiveWorld.net carry any weight? Are they even a reliable source?

• I believe so, but I may have to ask at WP:RS/N. I've taken a closer look at their home page and it's a site that handles progressive rock music kind of like how IGN handles video games. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 18:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That should start you off... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 02:56 UTC)

---

The Beatles

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

It's a vital article to Wikipedia and to WP:TB (Beatles wikiproject), and, IMO, isn't far from a FA. Just need some direction, that's all.

Thanks, Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 19:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting article, but I agree it could be improved and here are my suggestions:

• I think for such a long and detailed article, the lead needs to be expanded. My rule of thumb is that if it is a section header it should be in the lead. See WP:LEAD
• The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) also recommends not using the article title in headers (although if the album The Beatles were a heading that would be OK). So "1960–70: The Beatles " could just be "1960–70"
  • done
• I like the Beatles and know something about them, although I learned a lot reading this. I think that one problem this has is relative weight for the various topics. For example, do we really need all the detail on every name they ever had or thought about in the "1957–60: Formation" section, but no mention of the films A Hard Day's Night or Help in "1960–70: The Beatles". The Hamburg section also seems relatively large. See WP:WEIGHT
• There are several one or two sentence paragraphs that should be expanded or merged into other paragraphs
• Make sure things are in context - for example "NEMS" is used before "North End Music Store (NEMS)" explains it, or when the Beatles come to America we are told "where they first met Murray the K", but I think would help to add "DJ" - see WP:PCR
• "Musical evolution" seems to focus just on 1965 to 1967, but as the article is on their whole career I think it should start from the beginning (covers etc) and go all the way to the end.
• Achievements section seems like it would go better at the end. At FAC there might be some who call it a Trivia section, which is a no no.
• I owuld put the more text-y things like On film and Song catalogue before more list-y things
• A model article is often useful - there are several FAs on musical groups that would be helpful.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 02:59 UTC)

---

Aldred

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, but it probably is full of jargon and needs some copyediting.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hah, we meet again!

• Not keen that the infobox has his Birth name as Ealdred while most of the article uses Aldred.
• If you link English you probably ought to link ecclesiastic in the opening sentence...
• Link King of England rather than "king of England".
• Image sizes ought to comply with WP:MOS#Images so portrait images should use the upright modifier, for example.
• "The Handbook of British Chronology Third Edition says ..." - not keen on a handbook saying something...
• "Bishop of Hereford" or "bishop of Hereford"?
• Order citations numerically - [9][3] for example. And [28][3]
• "Aldred in 1046 led an unsuccessful ...", probably better to say that "In 1046, Aldred..."
• "moving of the see of Crediton to Exeter," jargon warning!
• "post-Conquest" - which conquest?
• I think Pope Nick's caption is a complete sentence? Thus a full stop/period is required.
• "Travelled" in Brit Eng, not a single l.
• Pages in references (if more than one) should use pp and (as you and your scripts know all too well) use the en-dash!

That's a good start. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 03:00 UTC)

---

SummerSlam (1988)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want some really good comments on how to improve the article in an effort to get it to GA and maybe FA status. This is the first article of this nature that I have written, so I would like some comments from people who usually write PPVs to make sure I including everything. I would also like some comments from non-wrestling fans. Is the article well-written? Is it accessible to non-fans? Is everything adequately explained?

Thanks, Nikki311 23:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/SummerSlam (1988)/archive1.

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 03:01 UTC)

---

List of St. Louis Rams first-round draft picks

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to know what needs to be done in order to make it a featured list. I used List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks as a template for this list. Thanks for your input. --Pinkkeith (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Avoid links in the bold part of the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
• Place (NFL) after "National football league" so when you use the abbreviation, we all know exactly what you're talking about.
• Opening sentences in the lead read very choppily.
• Any reason why always is in italics?
• A key for positions would be useful for people unfamiliar with US football positions.
• Enshrined? Admitted to would be better.
• WP:COLOUR would suggest you don't use colour only as a way of identifying a particular trait, so use an asterisk, dagger etc for these as well.
• Jack Wilson is a dab link. Check all others.
• Any reason why you have "Early Era" at all?
• And "Modern Era"? Are these official designations within NFL or are they terms you've used?
• Check periods in footnotes.

That's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 03:02 UTC)

---

Dredg

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been completely reconstructed over the last week. I believe it is at least a B-class article, but I would like any advice on how to improve the page.

Thanks, Ars Sycro (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a band I have never heard or heard of before. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• Watch POV and peacock language such as Dredg continued to push the boundaries of art and music with the 2002 release of El Cielo and... see WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK. If it is a quote, then put it in quotations and cite it please.
• This needs a reference Around 1996, the band released two demos of original material. While not much is known of their first demo, their second demo was titled Conscious and shows little resemblance to their current sound. Who said this? Why is so little known about the first demo? This is just odd as wrtten. Done.
• I would repeat their location in Early Years (1994-1998) and also give any background / history on the musicians. What other bands were they in before this - how did they know each other? Done.
• Be consistent - is it "dredg" or "Dredg" - both are used. I think there is a hat note for names that do not begin with a captial letter but are forced too by the Wiki naming convention Done; switched to lowercase.
• A model article is often helpful - several articles on albums are FA and may give ideas on style, organization, etc.
• Etymology section is quite shirt - could it be combined with the Early years section? Done.
• Article could use a copyedit
• There is no critical reception section - what have critics said about their albums and songs and performances?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will strike them or add comments here as I tackle each issue.

With regards to the second note: Within the Dredg fanbase, the name of the second demo is accepted as "Conscious"; however, as I cannot find a suitable source, I will remove that information.

I have requested a review by a couple copy-editors mentioned on the review volunteers page. --Ars Sycro (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 03:06 UTC)

---

Robert of Jumièges

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and need help identifying jargon, prose concerns, and anything that isn't clear to a non-medievalist.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, will try to look at it from a FA/FAC standpoint. Most of these will be fairly nit-picky. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• While there is no length requirement for FA, this is fairly short - my guess is that this is about all that is known about him, but I think some more background might help make the article clearer and expand it a bit in the process.
• Since his date of death is uncertain, should that be made clearer in the lead? Also is there any sort of guess as to his year of birth?

Attempted on the death, I do not have ANY guesses on his birth. Anything I put in would be OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• The main suggestion I have is to provide context for the reader WP:PCR to make things clearer for those not as familiar with this era of history.
• Specific examples where more context is needed
  • Do not need to wikilink William the Conqueror twice in the lead (in two sentences) and it might not be clear to everyone that "future king William of Normandy" is the same as "Duke William".

fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Identify William of Jumièges, perhaps as "medieval historian William of Jumièges"? in the lead. I also assume he was no relation - is this worth saying?

fixed and explained. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Explain why "Edward the Confessor was still in exile in Normandy"

VERY wordy explanation put in ... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Similarly explain "the party opposed to Earl Godwin."

explained Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Explain simony - presumably the king sold the chruch office?

explanation added. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Why did Godwin return from exile?

explained (mainly, to get back in power, and recover his estates) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Why was Robert outlawed and deposed on September 14, 1052.[8]?

expained Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Cite saints generally do not divorce their wives because the wife is barren. Nor do saints concern themselves with the need to provide themselves with heirs. sounds like Original research otherwise.

Clarified the wording. these section is sourced to the Walker ref, btw. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Missing word When Godwin [returned?] from exile in 1052 Robert left England quickly,[17]

fixed in some other editing. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is the Sacramentarium in the infobox the same as the Missal he gave? If so or if not, make it clearer please.

Yes, it is. Clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Second paragraph of "Outlawed, death, and legacy" is very disjointed - two sentences on his death, one on his Missal, then the rest on his role in William the Conqueror invading England.

Have reworked the section some. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Be more specific - It has been argued that Robert brought the style with him... who argues this?

clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Overall quite interesting and what is there is well done, I just think it needs more background and context for clarity. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 03:08 UTC)

---

List of missing ships

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've just started compiling this list for almost a month. I think I have come upon a stable format in which new entries can simply be added to the existing table structure. I also need to develop criteria for inclusion. As one can realise, this list can grow very large. Thanks, --Kvasir (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Not sure where you want to go with this. FLC or just to make it a decent list? Unfortunately, as yet there's no concept of a Good list (although I know not why) so these comments are aimed at potential FLC.

• Get familiar with the {{Cite web}} template! The article appears very well referenced but the template is a much more elegant way to add citations.
• "implies all hands lost." - explain this to non-experts.
• Refs should be placed directly after punctuation, per WP:CITE.
• Why the empty sections? Presumably you're going to fill them in?
• "Possible or Last Known Location" - reduce caps and you really need to indicate which one for each missing ship.
• If it was me, I'd force the table column widths to be the same so you get a consistent feel through the whole article.
• Fix any citation needed's.
• Nereus has no location.
• Capelin has no citation.
• S Aus & W Aus are empty.
• Year for Albion?
• Radcliff and Fleetwing and Raven need location info. As do a number of the U-boats.

Food for thought. I hope... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 03:08 UTC)

---

Sermons of Dean Swift

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been flushed out, most of the information is there, and one editor has stated: "I couldn't get three sentences in before seeing more empty phrasing, archaic views, and then, Lord help us all, a list of each sermon with a summary.... I could see that you content yourself with Lord Emmsworth-style pontifical writing."

So, I am looking for language (not the spelling - it is in English, because the appropriate language is 18th century Hiberno English, which is extremely difficult and American English is used by most of the critics cited) and other such problems.

Thanks, Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is very good. I might think that the introduction might indicate the titles of the works, like The Stories of John Cheever, particularly those which have received the most critical response, but am not necessarily particularly knowledgable about such matters. The intro might give a little more detail to who the author is, as he is best known for other, non-religious, works. Maybe, "Jonathan Swift, best known as the author of Gulliver's Travels and other works, also served as Dean of St. Patrick's Cathedral, and wrote several sermons during his tenure ..." Beyond that, though, I'm at a bit of a loss. It might not be a bad idea to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Books regarding any standards they might have for such works. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I must note - I totally forgot about the intro. Haha. I was expecting more of "this section is too confusing" or the rest. :) I will try to put something together and see how that works. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a small update to the intro. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 03:12 UTC)

---

List of Lizzie McGuire episodes

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i feel that this article is concise and complete in every respect. I am aiming for a FA status and hence i'm submitting this article for a peer review, so that i can get some feedback and suggestion which wud help in getting it to FA status...Thanks Gprince007 (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)

• Change the lead to

"This is a list of episodes of Lizzie McGuire, a television comedy series broadcast on the Disney Channel, an American satellite and cable network aimed at children. [[Lizzie McGuire originally aired from....."

That way, the lead sentence is bolded correctly, the wikilinking of the title is done correctly, and you're providing context to the reader in regards to Disney Channel, and mirrors other FLs. Done Gprince007 (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Remove the ": 2001-2002" part from the section headers, this doesn't appear in other featured Episode lists
• Create articles, if only stubs, for the redlinks  Done Gprince007 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Use "Series #" for the column that is currently simply "#". You could also add a "Season #" column, which would be especially helpful in the second season table. Done Gprince007 (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Explain what "code" means.
• The lead isn't long enough for FL status. At least one other paragraph should be written. This could include DVD and iTunes information. A paragraph saying who the starring actors and the characters they play might be good, too. Check out other Featured episode lists, such as List of The Sopranos episodes, List of Lost episodes and List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes  Done Gprince007 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• For consistency across Featured episode lists, there should be a season overview table. See the above links for examples  Done Gprince007 (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• The image could do with being a little bigger. 300px is the max for lead images. Done Gprince007 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Only one reference could make the page automatically fail at WP:FLC. Where is the references for airdates, titles, production codes, writers and directors? Done Gprince007 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Until I can see what the page looks like with the above changes, that's all I have for now. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just to clarify, as a list, this can not become a FA, but it can become a WP:FL (going through the WP:FLC process). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 03:14 UTC)

---

Gardens of Versailles

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review for consideration as a future featured article.

Thanks, --17:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)J-B Poquelin (talk)

Review by Wackymacs

Alright, there's a lot of stuff to cover...so this isn't going to be short:

• Put the "Plan of the chateau of Versailles" image (the first image of the article) somewhere else - it is common on Wikipedia for infoboxes to always go right at the top, next to the lead paragraphs.
• The lead needs to be re-written from scratch. It should be two-three paragraphs long, and fully summarize the article. See WP:LEAD. Always start with the Article title. For example: "The Gardens of Versailles were..."
• I also suggest you do not put a wiki-link in the article title in the lead. So, "Gardens of Versailles" instead of "Gardens of Versailles".
• The writing style seems odd at first. "This discussion will address the history and evolution of the gardens starting with Louis XIII and ending with the present day." - Is this a discussion? I thought it was an encyclopedic article. This sort of writing sounds like something that would belong in an essay.
• The article is under-linked throughout. Names of people should be linked using the standard [[ and ]] brackets.
• Avoid using lists. Instead, use prose. For example: "first, second, first" instead of a list of those three items.
• Please see Wikipedia:Lists for the correct usage of lists. The sub-sections in your article "Parterre d’Eau" and "Perfection of the Bosquets" are incorrect ways of using lists.
• Don't link words in section headers. (I'm referring to the section titled "The July Monarchy; The Second Empire")
• You have too many sections that have only 2-3 sentences. Please reorganize your section headers to ensure paragraphing is neat and collective instead of sparse.
• Avoid squashing text between images (as you have done in the sub-section Case of the ‘Apollo Perigrinator’). Keep all images in a section on one side of the article (right, or left). Please see Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Images.
• Most of the sub-sections under "Bosquets and the Case of the ‘Apollo Perigrinator’" are just lists. Convert to paragraphs to improve flow and provide additional context to the reader.
• I would say the article has too many images. Remove them wisely to improve the layout. People come to Wikipedia for real information - not just a bunch of pictures.
• Most of this article is unreferenced. Every paragraph needs to be cited properly using the <ref> tags. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates.
• The "Sources" list is useless as it stands. Is this Further reading, or are these real references you have used? Please title the section accordingly. (Either "Further reading" or "References")
• But most importantly: reference everything. As I said, every paragraph needs at least one footnote. When this ends up at WP:FAC, this article will get nowhere unless it is properly referenced.
• Please get a copy-editor to go through the text. See Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for a list of people who may be able to help you.
• Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for help with satisfying FA Criteria 1a, which concerns quality of writing.
• It is vital you pay attention to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria if you want this to become featured.
• Once you have done all of this, submit to WP:GA instead of WP:FA at first - a GA reviewer might give you even more feedback. GA is the second step to featured article status after a peer review.

I hope my feedback helps. I have focused on article layout, references and the images. I have not focused on the grammar, punctuation, and quality of text. — Wackymacs (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comment: It is often useful to have a model article to follow for style, references, structure, etc. I note that York Museum Gardens is a Good Article and may be a useful model. There are some palace GA and FA articles too that have sections on their gardens - Buckingham Palace is FA. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 05:36 UTC)

---

Formation and evolution of the Solar System

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what is still needed before it can be nominated for an FA. Thanks, Serendi^podous 10:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Monday 12 May 2008, 16:03 UTC)

---

GoldenEye

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
good article

Thanks, Ultra! 17:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/GoldenEye/archive4.

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 03:40 UTC)

---

J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I listed this because it has been rejected as a good article status, and I need some help on how it can get to featured article. Candyo32 (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I do not follow soap operas and have never seen this show, so in some ways that makes me an ideal reviewer (I hope). Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• I would follow the GA review comments and make sure that all of them have been addressed. I would also consider going through GA on the way to FA - my experience is that FA is about as far beyond GA as GA is beyond stub.
• A model article is often helpful to follow for ideas and style. Pauline Fowler a character on East Enders, is the only FA for the Soap Operas WikiProject
• The guideline for all of this should be to keep an "out of universe perspective" when writing this - see WP:IN-U
• Some of the references seem possibly problematic, especially for FAC. Does About.com meet WP:RS? How about TVmegasite.net or bellaonline.com?
• I would not start the body of the article with a quote from a fictional character for the "Original couple concept" section. I would also make sure to provide context for the reader - Babe is a new character, but we get no back story on J.R.
• Make sure to cite everything
• This article is about the two characters and their relationship, so it seems odd to start the Storyline section skipping their first year Following a complicated year together for characters J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey,...
• The WP:MOS says to avoid sandwiching text between images.
• Six fair use images seems a bit much. See WP:FAIR USE. Did you know the cake (arguably fair use image seven as it has a photo of the two on the cake) is up for deletion on Commons?
• I would refer to the magazine by name (Celebrity Living) in the Lead and the section header.
• The two long quotations seem too long, again this is a fair use issue.
• Since the GA review already referred to the need for a copyedit and the danger of Original Research, I will not go into detail on that here, but I agree those are things to watch out for.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Flyer22's comments: Ruhrfisch, has made some good suggestions for improving this article:

• Let me start off my saying, yes, About.com is a reliable source, especially for sourcing plot or quotes of fictional characters. Additionally, that site is used for sourcing various matters on Wikipedia. As for TVmegasite.net, it is not really a source that Wikipedia would like, but it is being used for non-controversial matters...such as quotes from the characters. If it is really better thought that that reference should not be used, then I will not use it.
• Babe's not that new of a character, and it is actually that we do get backstory on J.R. in the Couple creation section. What we don't have is too much backstory on Babe in that section, except for how she was introduced. What needs to happen there is that we need more in-depth backstory on both characters in that section and more couple creation information. The thing is...I'm not sure how much more couple creation information is out there about them. I would have added it long ago if I had found it.
• The reason that the Storyline section starts off a year after J.R. and Babe got together is because both of their individual articles cover their first year thoroughly, especially Babe's, and it is redundant to have it in this article as well, when we can just link to that first year (as I've done). It also saves Storyline room.
• I don't feel that there are too many fair-use images. Wikipedians sometimes forget that Wikipedia's policy does not go on how many fair-use images are used but rather if how many being used are needed -- if they really enhance or add to the article. I feel that all of the fair-use images in this article enhance its readability and actually add to the article. There were more images than that before, which was a little overboard, thus I got rid of them. But the remaining ones seem fair. If getting rid of two of them is thought to better this article, then I will be open to that, of course...and will most likely do that. And, yes, I know that the cake image is up for deletion, but I'm hoping that it survives because the mage really is free and permission has been granted to use it from its authors. If it is deleted from Commons, then I will see how else to get it back.

Those are main comments (most likely my only comments to be made in this peer review). The GA reviewer and Ruhrfisch covered everything else, and I also replied on the talk page of this article in response to the GA review. When I get a good chance to, I will further improve this article. I was not looking to get this article to GA because, well, I did not feel that it would be able to get to GA given the lack of coverage this couple has gotten as compared to Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone. But now that this article has been GA reviewed, and there seems that there might be a chance for it to make GA, then I may focus on that at some point. Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 03:52 UTC)

---

Halo (series)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article earned Good article status earlier this year and is the main article to the Halo trilogy Featured topic. User:David Fuchs and I have been expanding and copy editing it to prepare it for FAC, and would like some outside input to improve the article's chances of passing. Any comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 03:56 UTC)

---

Chrono (series)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was made GA a while ago, I have tried to beef it up a little, and would love to get it to Featured Status. What separates this from that? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I always thought Chrono Break should be merged in this article since it deals with the future of the series rather than a precise game, but I'm not sure about merging two GAs together... Kariteh (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I had that thought recently, that it would be a nice big section in a featured article about the series....until it comes out :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I would not merge two Good Articles without a RfC and prominent notices on each article's talk page, as well as notices to all the editors that made major contributions to each article (over 10 edits?). Since the goal is FA, I will review from that point of view. While this is a good article in more ways than one, it has some ways to go to FA. Here are suggestions for improvement:

• The lead is too short for the length of article (and I have not seen a recent FA with a one paragraph lead). My rule of thumb is that any header should be mentioned in the lead in some way, and nothing should be in the lead only. See WP:LEAD
• Awkward sentence: As of March 31, 2003, Chrono Trigger was, with 2.65 million units, Square Enix's 12th best-selling game (based on copies shipped); Chrono Cross was, with 1.5 million units, the 24th.[1] First are there more recent sales figures than 2003? Second, how about wording it more like: As of March 31, 2003, Chrono Trigger was Square Enix's 12th best-selling game (with 2.65 million units shipped), and Chrono Cross was 24th with 1.5 million units.[1]?
• Has to be a better way to say this about the "same staff" too: the "Dream Team" members did not participate in Chrono Cross, the game was developed mostly by the same staff as the first installment.[6]
• Missing word? perhaps Chrono Trigger was the first [game] for which he had served as composer.
• The game descriptions seem too short to me - also try emphasize connections between games since this article is about the series.
• This sentence would get ripped to shreds at FAC: It is regarded today as one of the greatest games ever made.[13] Say who regards it (the ref gives the publisher, but when I looked the author's name is also given). If there are other examples like this, specifics on attribution are always better than generalities.
• Per WP:WEIGHT the section "Dimensional Adventure Numa Monjar" seems too long and detailed compared with the rest of the article. There is more on a 16 minute promotional film than there is on the games it was made to promote.
• I think "humorous" is meant instead of "humoristic"
• A copy edit would be useful here - can also try to read the article aloud.
• I am not familiar with games and their sources - make sure before FAC that all sources cited meet WP:RS
• Finally, I would find a model FA on games and use that for ideas, style, etc. While not FA, I reviewed the Halo (series) article recently and it seems a bit more developed in some aspects than this article and may provide some ideas.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 03:59 UTC)

---

Religious nationalism

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was recently separated out from its main article Nationalism. Of primary importance now is adding citations and increasing the worldwide view.

Furthermore, the text has been written by a university class in their first foray into using WP as a teaching tool. I would like them to see the value of the wiki-method and how we can help improve their work.

Best, Witty Lama 04:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article that needs a fair amount of work to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style better. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• As already noted by the tag on the article "This article has no lead section." Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a one to two paragraph summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is that all of the section headings should be mentioned in the lead in some way. Also the text should repeat the lead - nothing major should only be in the lead.
• The main problem with the article as written is that it has very few references - See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Without refs, some of the assertions made may be interpreted as Original Research, which is not allowed. See WP:NOR
• For example, every section needs at least one ref (as India now does and none of the others do). The rest of the article also needs refs too - every paragraph needs a ref, as do any stats or extraordinary statements
• Each of the sections are quite short as now written (all but one are just one sentence) and need to be expanded, or if they cannot be expanded, combined.
• I would consider adding Iran under the Ayatollahs, Wahabi in Saudi Arabia, and perhaps religious rebel movements

The article is quite short as is - the good news is that it should fairly easy to expand. The bad news is I've run out of suggestions - hope these help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 09:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

State Shinto in Japan prior to the end of World War II would be a good topic for this article to address. It would give the article additional depth of coverage. Fg2 (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 04:00 UTC)

---

List of political parties in Italy

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

I think the article is better without links to date fragments. I tried to remove them but was reverted. Lightmouse (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Lightmouse (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that date fragments are very useful and I don't agree with Lightmouse's work of unlinking. --Checco (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article that makes clear just how many parties have been involved in Italian politics since the Second World War. I assume the goal is to get to WP:FL status, so here are some suggestions for improvement towards that goal:

• The major problem with the article that I see is that it has no (zero) references. For WP:FL the material will all have to be cited - see WP:CITE and WP:V
• If this is a FL, the lead will have to be referenced too. I have some suggestions about the lead / intro paragraphs, but will give my other big idea first
• I think this list would really benefit from being a sortable table - the first column could be the English name of the party, the second column could be the Italian name, and I leave it to you to decide what other information could be included. I would probably include some indication of position in the political spectrum (right, left, center), the years they were active (probably in two columns - one for the year they entered parliament or made whatever threshhold, a second for when they left (or noting they are still active). Other possible information would be a comments column, highest vote (%) received or perhaps largest number of seats, perhaps notable politicians who were members of this party, etc. This way of someone only knew the Italian name they could sort by that and find it, or if they wanted to sort by year of entry into parliament or whatever they could sort by that.
• Per WP:LEAD I would rewrite the first sentence to something like "This is a list of political parties in Italy; as of 2008 several parties are active in Italian politics, and historically there have been even more." Avoid using "today" as next year the sitaution may be different.
• I would mention in the lead that these are parties since the Second World War - define the start of the list too.
• Since the list is historical, I would mention that in the lead too - it should summarize the whole article.
• I would give the exact number of years here: During its almost fifty years in government, Christian Democracy chose its coalition partners... (i.e. be more specific that almost fifty years)
• I have several guesses, but no clear idea what this means: Christian Democrats led the government consecutively for 46 but five years.
• Provide context for the reader - for example in this sentence In 1992-1994 the political system was shaken by a series of corruption scandals known collectively as Tangentopoli and the subsequent police investigation called Mani pulite. explain the clean hands (Mani pulite) and give some idea of the nature of the Tangentopoli scandals. See WP:PCR
• I would also explain all abbreviations - many know MP, not all know MEP, for example.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 04:02 UTC)

---

Lawrence Taylor

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to see what else can be done to the article to make it featured. Thanks, Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 15:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Detailed and well-written, looks pretty close to FAC to me. Here my suggestions for improvement - they are mostly nit-picks - hope they help:

• Please provide context for the reader by adding dates in several places, for example Taylor played his entire professional career, 1981–1993, as a linebacker for the New York Giants in the National Football League (NFL). or give the years he attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. See WP:PCR
• I know the lead is not required to have citations, but He is often considered to be one of the greatest defensive players in the history of football, and has been called the greatest defensive player of all time by media members, former players, and coaches. is such an extraordinary claim (or series of claims) I wonder if it should be cited in the lead. Ditto for some of the other best of/ever claims in the lead.
• I would use "as of 2008 is" instead of "is currently" in and is currently pursuing a career as an actor."
• Did Taylor graduate from UNC Chpel Hill? What did he study / major in? Also give the years retiring his jersey number and for Julius Peppers time at UNC.
• I do not write sports articles - is it a style decision not spell out "number two" in ... was drafted by the NFL's New York Giants as the # 2 pick overall.?
• I think it best to provide specifics on comments like and is often considered to have had one of the greatest rookie seasons in NFL history.[21][22] so something like and his rookie season has been called of the greatest in NFL history by writers for ESPN and Sprts Illustrated.[21][22] - if these are well-known writers perhaps even name them. This is true throughout the article - specific attribution is better than general.
• I either missed Taylor's first violation of the NFL's substance abuse policy or it is not in the article - it should be metioned chronologically. OK< the next sentence is The first result had been kept private and was not known to the public at the time. - can any more be said - when was this for example?
• The quotes starting the "Impact on the NFL" and "Drugs and extreme measures" seem too short for block quotes - see Wikipedia:MOS#Quotations
• What did the company called All-Pro Products make or sell?

Overall quite good and hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 04:03 UTC)

---

Stigand

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to go to FAC at some point and the last PR only got me comments from the bot.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I recently reviewed Robert of Jumièges, Stigand's predecessor at Canterbury, so some of these comments may be similar. Another interesting article, and I will again try to look at it from a FA/FAC standpoint. Most of my comments will be fairly nit-picky. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

• This is also a fairly short article and while there is no length requirement for FA, some more background might help make the article clearer. My guess is that this is about all that is known about him, but I think more background would expand it a bit in the process.
• Since Elmham is a redirect to Norwich, should that name change be mentioned (although perhaps not in the Lead)?

Elmham was moved to Norwich after the Conquest, and after Stigand's death, thus I've not explained this in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Since the illustration from the Bayeaux Tapestry spells his name "Stigant", should this alternate spelling / version be mentioned?

This is the only place I see that alternate name given. All modern English sources call him "Stigand".

• Is there any sort of guess as to his year of birth?

None that I've found in print. The ONDB doesn't give a guess.

• Again, the main suggestion I have is to provide context for the reader WP:PCR to make things clearer for those not as familiar with this era of history.
• Here are specific examples where more context is needed
  • Provide the years of the reigns of Canute, Harold Harefoot, and Harthacanute so we know the time frames
    • Done
  • Add coronation date for Edward the Confessor
    • Done
  • Make the family relations clearer among last four kings - three of these are half brothers, right?
    • done
  • Explain the royal feud with Earl Godwin of Wessex briefly
    • Attempted.
  • Briefly expalin Robert of Jumièges history - what did Stigand have to worry about not repeating as bishop?
    • Clarifiied a bit.
  • Why not name the two successors to Pope Leo IX ?
    • Done
  • Shouldn't "his brother Æthelmaer" be mentioned earlier?
    • done
  • since before the days of Dunstan - can a year be given too?
  • Expand on Stigand may have been behind the effort to locate Edward the Atheling and his brother Edmund after 1052, possibly to secure a more acceptable heir to King Edward.[15]

Attempted expansion

• • After the death of Harold... seems a very low key way to introduce the Norman Conquest
    • Heh. Striving for "encyclopedic" tone. Working on. Added in "at the Battle of Hastings". I hesitate to say "After hte Norman Conquest" because most historians don't see the Conquest as ending with William crowned king, the current consensus is that it lasted at least until 1070, most feel 1075 or 1086 is a better date.
  • that he received his own pallium from Benedict X, an anti-pope.[38] should anti-pope be mentioned whne he gets the pallium?
• Need at least a comma in When Harthacanute died, Stigand appears to have acted as the chief adviser to Canute's widow, Emma of Normandy[,] mother of both Harthacanute and Edward the Confessor, who succeeded Harthacanute.[3] The Edward the Confessor part is a bit awkward as written

Overall quite interesting and what is there is well done, I just think it needs more background and context for clarity. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and was hoping the PR would point out areas where the non-medievalist would have issues of context. THanks a bunch. I'll get to work on these, some while I'm on the road, but more probably when I get home from a trip. Thanks for all the help! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 04:03 UTC)

---

System 6

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have been working on this article for the past week, quickly bringing it to GA standards. I'd still like to do more to it, so any feedback would be great.

Thanks, Wackymacs (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: An interesting article, since FA is the next step after GA (congrats by the way), I will base my suggestions for improvement on FA criteria. Most of these are fairly nit-picky:

• A model article is often useful - Windows 2000 is a FA and may give some ideas
• The lead is too short per WP:LEAD and should be expanded - my rule of thumb is that any section header should also be mentioned somehow in the lead
• Watch for choppy sentences - in the lead It was released in 1988 by Apple Computer. It was part of the Mac OS line of operating systems. could be combined as It was released in 1988 by Apple Computer as part of the Mac OS line of operating systems.
• Avoid unnecessary repetition - the lead says ... it was succeeded by System 7 in 1991. then four sentences later we learn The last version of System 6 was released in 1991.
• If this were at FAC I would ask about the history of System 6 - what preceded it, who developed it, why did they do so, etc.? There is a Version history table later, so the history of the system itself could be covered too.
  • Very hard to do - pretty much impossible. That sort of data was not documented back in those days. Apple was less open and much more secretive. I couldn't find any information on who engineered System 6 or when the project was started. — Wackymacs (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, but even a section on System 5 and the problems with it that this addressed might help - presume the Mac literature of the day talked about that, even if the company was tight-lipped. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Several places seem not to be cited - references will be needed for all pragraphs in FAC. Examples MacroMaker was not compatible with System 7, which used AppleScript instead. or the last three sentences of Multitasking
• I really did not get what Font/DA Mover did, especially the Font part
  • I added another sentence to this paragraph. — Wackymacs (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Parts of User interface seem more like they belong in Limitations
• The tense seems odd - is it past or present? Pick one and be consistent (I think I would use past as it is no longer commercially available). Examples: System 6 had several significant limitations... but System 6 also has a hard drive capacity limit; it supports up to 2 gigabytes...
  • Fixed. — Wackymacs (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Seems fairly short for FA - also a bit jargon-y (see WP:JARGON).
  • Can you elaborate? (point out which words in which sections/paragraphs are classed as jargon). I'm a technical person, so to me nothing really sticks out as jargon when it comes to tech. — Wackymacs (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I am still not 100% clear on the Font/DA Mover, and also am not sure what tear-off menus are. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

References seem fine, overall good and hope that this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 04:04 UTC)

---

Kosovo

This peer review discussion has been closed.
For a while, this article has been a battleground for dozens of editors. Somehow, we managed to put it into a somehow stable NPOV state and now I think it's time to improve the content. Any comments are appreciated.

Thanks, Tone 20:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: There is a lot of information here but it needs to be better written and organized to make it to higher standards like GA or someday FA. Here are some suggestions for improvment:

• It is always useful to find a model article and follow it for ideas on style, sturcture, etc. There are a fair number of country FAs - I note that Israel, which also has disputed territory and a long history, is one and may be a good model.
• Please make sure the lead follows WP:LEAD and is a summary of the whole article - my rule of thumb is that all of the section headers should be mentioned in the lead somehow - so Politics, Economy and Demographics as examples seem not to be in the lead.
• Also do the Albanian and Serbian names have to be given in the lead? If this is a style guideline, fine, but it seems excessive for the lead. WP:LEAD also states these should not just be in the lead, but repeated in the article (which they do not seem to be in the Name section at least)
• Spell out abbreviations the first time followed by the abbreviation in parentheses - for example, UNMIK in the lead
• Why is the western part called "Metohija" (Метохија) (Dukagjini in Albanian)?
• The three infoboxes lead to a huge amount of white space on my computer - there is the fist paragraph of history and then nothing in the text until after the last infobox.
• Calling code in the infobox is a broken link
• The intro to the History seems to suffer from WP:RECENTISM. Also the phrase the latter notably surrounding the Battle of Kosovo eponymous of the Kosovo region. is awkward and should be rewritten.
• I do not think "Main article: History of Kosovo" has to be given twice in 5 lines of text at the start of History.
• For its overall importance one sentence on the Battle of Kosovo seems a bit too little: In the 1389 Battle of Kosovo, Ottoman forces defeated a coalition led by Lazar Hrebeljanović.
• Explain Image:SAP Kosovo.png better in the caption - the dark red is current Kosovo and it and the bright red were the province, right?
• There are several very short sections, for example Foreign relations and Military, that should either be expanded or combined. Or the Districts section has no text besides a link and Municipalities and cities has one sentence and a link.
• Cinema and Media section makes no mention of Cinema.
• References are a mess and need to be consistent. Use of {{cite web}} and other cite templates may help. Internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed, for example.
• Article needs a copyedit.
• Semi-automated review makes some more valid observations to help improve this.

Hope this helps, interesting read Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 04:05 UTC)

---

London Underground

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we have come to a conclusion that there are several things wrong with it. It has tags all over it, and we either want to fix it so it stays A, get it downgraded to B, or back up to an FA!

Please give comments!

Thanks, BG7 02:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I gave a fairly detailed peer review of this a little less than two weeks ago - have all of those issues been addressed? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Since you apparently didn't bother to read the second peer review, here it is (mostly) again. The semi-automated peer review has a lot of good MOS suggestions. Here are some more:

• For as long as this is, it has few refs and there are several sections STILL marked as needing refs. I would make sure every paragraph has a ref, as does every quote or statistric or extraordinary claim.
• The references that are there need to be formatted to meet WP:CITE - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} helps, as do the other cite templates.
• NEW ONE - some of the refs do not seem to meet WP:RS - what makes emmaclarke.com a reliable source, for example?
• I think a map of the whole system early on would be very useful.
• The lead is very choppy, but I would fix the whole article and then make sure the Lead summarizes it properly.
• The FAR Wikipedia:Featured article review/London Underground/archive1 has some excellent suggestions for improvement
• The German Wikipedia article is featured there and offers some idea on organization that are lacking here. Here is a quick and dirty translation of their Table of Contents:

1 Rail network 1.1 Individual lines 1.2 CLosed stations and parts of lines 2 Operation 2.1 Operational numbers (figures) 3 Technical (engineering) 4 History 4.1 First plans 4.2 Metropolitan Railway 4.3 Metropolitan District Railway 4.4 First Tubes und Electrification 4.5 Expansion 4.6 Second World War 4.7 Further development 5 Future plans 5.1 New rolling stock 5.2 Cooling (air conditioning) 5.3 Expansion of the lines / network 6 Accidents and catastrophes 7 The logo 8 Map of the network 9 Mind the Gap 10 Fare system 10.1 Oyster 11 Handicapped access 12 See also...

Hope this helps Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 04:06 UTC)

---

List of U.S. Open (golf) champions

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm putting this list up for peer review, as I believe it will eventually meet all the criteria necessary to be a featured list. Also the numerous red links will disappear, as I'm periodically working on this. Thanks, NapHit (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • What does "par" mean? And what does "E" mean in that column?
  • Francis Ouimet should be colored differently since he's been both an amateur champion and a playoff winner.
  • List notes separately as was done here or at least combine the notes with references as was done here.
  • Is there an official website that could be added as an external link?

Done NapHit (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 06:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting list, here some more suggestions for improvement:

• Since the table is not full width, could a bit more information be added? For example, I find the names of countries more informative than flags and did not recognize the old South African flag or the Argentinean flag. Could the name of the country be under the flag?

Well I'm following the example set out in List of UEFA Cup winning managers which uses the same table format as I'm using including the flags, and also the table of winners by nationality explains which countries the flags represent except in the case of the old south African flag though NapHit (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I also wonder if the city and state of the golf course could be added to that column? For the non-golfer, the name of the course tells me almost nothing. This is especially true for the red links, but I also don't feel like clicking each link just to see where the course is. <br/> would add the text below the existing text here or the flag in the point above.

The only problem I have this is that it lead to the images on the right overlapping the table if I did add this info NapHit (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure about other information to add to the table - perhaps number of golfers in the tournament, or prize money?

Again I'm reluctant to add this as it might lead to overlapping NapHit (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• It looks as if a different number of holes were played the first three years - this should be noted somewhere.

There is already a note explaining this NapHit (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Refs should be in order - so [1][2][3], not [2][1][3] as an example
• Tiny typeface for refs is hard to read

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this? NapHit (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• • They changed the font size in {{reflist}}, this was the first I had seen the smaller font. Sorry for the confusion, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• I think in FLC they will want a reference for the notes like current ref 15 "Willie Anderson won in a playoff against Alex Smith."

This should be explained in the other references I have given, the note is used a long with the colour to highlight the fact there was a playoff NapHit (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Watch out for jargon and explain or eliminate it - this applies to the par and E = even comment above, also to statements like U.S. Open champions are automatically invited to play in the other three majors (the Masters, the Open Championship (British Open), and the PGA Championship) for the next five years, and earn a ten year exemption for the U.S. Open. The ten year exemption is really just a ten year invitation to play in the US Open (without having to qualify), right?

Amended this NapHit (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Might also want to explain in the introduction that the First and Second World Wars led to cancellation of 6 years.

Done NapHit (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 04:08 UTC)

---

British Rail Class 47

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like feedback as to how to get it up to a Featured Article standard. I will work on it over the next few months!

I believe it's doing quite well, and it's all ready a GA!

AdThanksVance, BG7 16:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Finetooth

Here are a few suggestions for improvement:

• Images should draw the reader's eye into the page rather than out beyond the margins. The layout of this article could be improved by aiming the trains into the page. The train in the infobox is going into the page, but the engine in the "In service" section is headed out of the page and should be placed on the right. Some of the trains in the lower sections are ideally positioned, and some are not.
  • Ok, seems simple enough! I'll also get some more images while i'm at it!

• I would suggest removing the gallery of trains from the article and instead adding an external link to the existing gallery, part of British Rail TOPS Locomotive classes, on the Commons. That gallery could be expanded if it does not already include everything that is needed.
  • Sure. It doesn't really add anything! I'll incorporate some of the better images into the text.

• The gadget that puts the Reference section in a window will probably not get through FAC. It makes the page vary from the encyclopedia's normal look and forces readers to figure out the gadget. It also makes the references harder to check at a glance for consistency, redundancy, and broadness of sourcing.
  • Ok, i'll change it to a type used on some other FAs.

     Done

• The verifiability of the claims made in the article could be significantly improved if citations of the Class47.com site and other personal web sites were backed up by references to published peer-reviewed sources. References should include the author's name if known; in the case of Class47.com, that appears to be Paul Appleby, and his name should be added to each member of this group of citations. The same is true of Roy's Railway Page if Roy's full name can be found. In general, personal web pages and blogs are weak sources. I don't think these will survive scrutiny at FAC. Lots of other possibilities for finding train information exist such as government publications, scientific papers, manufacturers' manuals, newspapers, journals, and books. These might be found on-line or off-line or both.
  • No problems. There a loads out there, and I can get access to official documents as well!

• Most Wikipedia footnotes are placed immediately after a punctuation mark with no space in between. Most of the footnote numbers in this article appear before the punctuation and should be re-located.
  • This was going to be one of the first things I was going tackle - thanks for the reminder!

• Unless the official formal name of an engine is 47/X (where X stands for any number), I'd recommend changing that to 47-X. The front slash is more ambiguous than the hyphen; 47/8 might be a mathematical fraction, for example.
  • Not sure whether it's official, but all British Rail locos use it - 66/0, 25/2 etc. XX-X is not normally seen (if ever!)

• I would consider expanding most or all of the incidents in the "Incidents" list to paragraph length and turning the list into ordinary prose.
  • Ok cool - i'll find some more info on them!
    • Many of them already have their own articles, no need to duplicate the info here. Black Kite 23:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Not sure if I should reply here, but I have done withing your points!

Thanks!

BG7 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 04:09 UTC)

---

Ross Kemp in Afghanistan

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

I would like to know how to improve it further.

Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 20:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and i have taken them all into account as i edited this article. I will further edit this article in the future and add the sections you have both recommended once i find details on them. One again thank you, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 11:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a show I have never seen. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• The picture in the Infobox is huge - 472 pixels wide. Most infobox pictures are 300 px wide at most.
• The first sentence does not follow WP:LEAD and could perhaps be rewritten as "Ross Kemp in Afghanistan is a five part documentary series by BAFTA award-winning actor Ross Kemp, following the 1st Battalion of the British Army's Royal Anglian Regiment during their deployment to Afghanistan's Helmand Province." Put the most important things in the first sentence - I am not sure the roles for which Kemp is known even belong in the lead, and they certainly do not belong in the first sentence.
• Also per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the whole article and nothing should be just in the lead. My rule of thumb is to make sure all the headers are in the lead. This lead needs to be rewritten.
• A model article is often useful for ideas, examples, style and structure. There are several television FAs and GAs - pick one or two and see what they do that this needs to.
• I would have some sort of background section which gave the information on Kemp currently in the lead. I would also give some background on the Regiment and Battalion he was with.
• The article should probably have a history section that focuses on the show itself - who came up with the idea for the show, how was it developed, etc.
• Also missing is any sort of critical reception section - did the show get good ratings, what did critics say about it, etc.
• The references are incomplete - several things need to have citations added - see WP:CITE and WP:V
• The existing refs need more information - internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. The {{cite web}} and other cite templates may help.
• Article needs a copy edit to fix some typos and clean up the text.
• Any more details on the casualties than just a list?

Hope this helps, sounds like an interesting show Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Collectonian

• Echo Ruhrfisch on the image in the infobox. It should be at the standard size of 250px. No need to have bigger.
• The episode list needs to be formatted using {{episode list}} and the summaries do not need to be sourced (airdates, however, do).
• Consider reworking "The Regiment" section into plain prose, without the subsection, on production, and give some additional context. Right now, it just seems like a weird section kinda thrown in the middle of things.
• Maybe work the deaths into the episode summaries instead of just having a list if the last suggestion is taken, and give some context
• As per those two sections, a production section is needed. The lead hints at some of the content to go there, such as Kemp deciding to do the series, how he prepped, etc. The history mentioned above would be appropriate here. See the MoS for additional suggestions on the content needed here.
• A reception section is also needed, if possible
• I also second Ruhrfisch's comments about the need to clean up the refs and add in the missing information, and I encourage the use fo teh cite web template. Helps show what info you need.

While it seems to mostly focus on fictional series, the [Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs |TV MoS]] is still very useful for determining sections and section orders in non-fiction works. With the suggested expansions done, I good copy edit should have it ready for reassessment. :) Collectonian (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 04:09 UTC)

---

Treehouse of Horror VI

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve this article for Featured status, as with Treehouse of Horror V. I think this would be a good simpsons article. I want anyone to help improve this article here.

Thanks, Greg Jones II 14:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Review by Wackymacs

• Write a lead which fully summarzies the article. One sentence is not good enough. It should be at least one paragraph. See WP:LEAD
• Don't use in-line HTML links (they appear as [1] and so on in the article) - Format these properly as citations. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates.
• Most of this article is unreferenced - every paragraph needs at least one footnote, but usually more.
• Convert Cultural references section to prose. Lists are frowned upon for one major reason: They ruin the flow of the context. Using lists in this way is incorrect usage. Please see Wikipedia:Lists for correct usage.
• Awards section is too short - consider placing it elsewhere so it doesn't look all alone.
• Similarly, the Opening sequence section is too short.
• "Math equations" is a troubling section - very trivial information, and none of it is referenced.
• Consider adding a spoiler template to the start of the Plot section.
• "This segment is a parody of Nightmare on Elm Street." - Consider using past tense here. Try "This segment was a parody of Nightmare on Elm Street." instead.
• Please get a copy-editor to go through the text. See Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for a list of people who may be able to help you.
• Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for help with satisfying FA Criteria 1a, which concerns quality of writing.
• It is vital you pay attention to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria if you want this to become featured.
• Once you have done all of this, submit to WP:GA instead of WP:FA at first - a GA reviewer might give you even more feedback. GA is the second step to featured article status after a peer review.

Hope this helps. — Wackymacs (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comment: A model article is useful to follow for ideas on structure, citations, style, etc. There are 25 Simpsons FA's at Category:FA-Class The Simpsons articles including an FA on the whole Treehouse of Horror series, and 83 GA's at Category:GA-Class The Simpsons articles, included Treehouse of Horror episodes III, V, VII and VIII. I would look at these for ideas. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 04:10 UTC)

---

Treaty of Butre (1656)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article deals with a rare and special treaty between the African state of Ahanta and the Netherlands, dating from 1656. In it a form of protection is established which would last for almost 213 years.

The article is brief but succinct, with all the necessary information and a link to the full text of the treaty on Wikisource. It is my belief that the article is already at GA-level, or very close to it, and deserves a serious assessment and commentary eventually leading it towards that status. Also, the layout of the article could well serve as a model for other short bilateral treaties in Wikipedia, so also look at it with that in mind.

Thanks, Michel Doortmont (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Would suggest altering the structure of the content. It would read most clearly and comprehensively, at least in my eyes, if the content were broken into three sections: (1) Events leading to treaty, (2) description of treaty, (3) subsequent developments, in that order. Also, article would benefit by a more thorough linking to other content, either extant or otherwise. Kings are almost inherently notable, so even red links for the names of kings would make sense. Also, the lead should be expanded to include more information. If the article is going to present content regarding events leading to and arising from the treaty, then the lead should include some of that information as well. John Carter (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in part here. Linking is indeed necessary, but suffers a little bit from a current lack of African history detail in the Wikipedia content. Linking extensively to Dutch history might cause bias and Eurocentrism. I will think about how to do this. With regard to the proposed three-section-approach I am hesitant to sandwich the treaty in between to historical sections. That is also the reason for my two-section-approach in the current text. To my mind in this way the treaty - core element of the article - might easily be swamped by historical information that belongs elsewhere. Will experiment with this a bit in the sandbox. And would like some more comments on the matter. Agree on lead-info.

As a postscript: this exercise is also a response to the numerous horrendous articles on treaties floating around Wikipedia at the moment. Michel Doortmont (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 04:14 UTC)

---

Carlito's Way

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Originally a start class when I started working on this article, I have changed a lot in the past few months, expanding on several sections and cleaning up others. The natural progression now is for other people's opinions with a view to GA nomination. Thanks, Nreive (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a very admirable writing project and the fact that you have taken it this far from a "start" phase to its present form, is commendable.

Minor concerns:

• Term, "focuses on Carlito's focuses on Carlito's endeavors" could be "focuses on Carlito's activities", "actions," "efforts."
• Note: "but has been better received by both critics and film fans through the years" could be expressed "but has subsequently been better received by both critics and film fans."
• The term, "wearing a wire", is commonplace, but consider he first use of the word as a specialized use, e.g. wearing a "wire."
• "Envisage Carlito Brigante's world," another take: "create, establish, portray, depict Carlito Brigante's world."
• "stuido" – typo.
• Careful – you have three different date systems in place.
• Careful – you have "overlinked" New York. The first mention is sufficient.
• "Carlito's homecoming; The barrio scene" should be: "Carlito's homecoming: the barrio scene."
• "target water temperature, salinity, and ocean floor depth" is a list, so eliminate the Harvard comma: "target water temperature, salinity and ocean floor depth."
• "For the shoot trains were re-routed" is written as "For the shoot, trains were re-routed."

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC).

Thank you for the kind words and guidance. I have made the changes as pointed out. It's amazing what you don't notice when you are so close to something. Thanks. Nreive (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 04:17 UTC)

---

Anekantavada

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because, Anekantavada is one of the most important concept of Jainism and hence this article needs to be rated/improved from a broader perspective.

Thanks, Anish (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I will review the remaining five articles on Jainism - I see The Rambling Man has already reviewed one. If I may make a suggestion, it might be better to pick one or two articles as models and work on them and apply the lessons to all of the other articles too. Also asking for other reviewer's comments at WP:PRV may get some more feedback. Anyway, I found this to be an interesting article and hope these suggestions help improve it:

• While the current lead is well written and a good introduction to the topic, it does not summarize the whole article. My rule of thumb is to see that each section header is at least mentioned in the lead, even if only a phrase or word. So, for example, Gandhi is a section, but it not in the lead. See WP:LEAD
• Perhaps the current lead could be made into an overview section right after the lead
• References come right after the punctuation and need a space following them, so "...blah.[1] Blah" See WP:CITE
• The article needs more references - any attribution should be sourced, so According to Jains, the ultimate principle should always be logical and no principle can be devoid of logic or reason. needs a ref (which Jains or where do they say this?) See WP:V
• References themselves need to follow consistent format - for example page numbers are given for some book references, but not all.
• Per the WP:MOS, please do not repeat the title of the article in section headers, or start a header with The, so "Role of Anekāntavāda in ensuring survival of Jainism" would just be "Role in ensuring survival of Jainism" or "The Three Jaina Doctrines of relativity" would just be "Three Jaina Doctrines of relativity" (and is it "Jain" as an adjective or "Jaina"?
• Try to avoid jaron where possible or explain it - the article does a fairly good job explaining non-Englsih terms, but there are some philosophical / religious terms that could use a breif explanatory phrase or sentence. Syādvāda is the theory of conditioned predication... what is conditioned predication? See WP:JARGON and WP:PCR
• Avoid POV language, for example "outstanding" in Ācārya Haribhadra who was an outstanding proponent of anekānta,... See WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK
• While there is certainly a role for quoting scripture, the article needs to rely more on outside points of view (which strikes me as a very Anekāntavāda thing to say, if I have understood the article). So, for example, in the section on Gandhi, I would quote Gandhi, but also find a biographer who discussed the influence of Anekāntavāda on Gandhi.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I note that Nayavāda is listed as one of "The Three Jaina Doctrines of relativity", but is not in the box on Jainism - there seems to be a discrepancy here. Could also use a copyedit, especially for punctuation. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...Your comments are very helpful and provides a different perspective that was missed by me. will start working on all the points.--Anish (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Second look While the article has been improved further, it is not yet ready for FAC in my opinion, and at least needs a copyedit - ask at WP:LOCE or the copyeditor volunteers at WP:PRV. Here are some points to consider - these are examples and not an exhaustive list.

• For example, a fair number of references still have a space between the puctuation and the ref itself. I fixed these in one section as an example.
• The references are still inconsistent - for example Current ref 1 is "Dundas (2002)p.231" (no space before or after "p."), ref 3 is "Grimes, John (1996) p.34" (space before "p." but not after), and ref 17 is "Dasgupta S.N. (1932) p. 2" (spaces before and after "p.").
• There is still a use of "Anekantavada" in two section headers: "Anekāntavāda in Jain scriptures and teachings" (could be just "In Jain scriptures and teachings") and "Andhgajanyāyah : anekāntavāda in parables" (which could be perhaps "In parables: Andhgajanyāyah")
• Some direct quotations are still uncited - Ācārya Divākara further states in Sanmatitarka :"All doctrines are right in their own respective spheres... and Ācārya Vidyanandi provides analogy of ocean to explain the nature of truth in Tattvarthaslokavatika- 116 : "The water from Ocean contained in a pot... both need references, for example.
• I write geography articles mostly and am not an expert on religion or philosophy or articles on them, but I would imagine at FAC people who are more knowledgable on Jainism / Religion / Philosophy would weigh in. I would try to find them before hand and ask them to look at the article with a critical eye. Are the references reliable? Is there enough third-party information or does it depend too much on sources from within Jainism? These are questions I can ask, but sadly not answer.

I hope this helps and agree it has improved, just not enough to get through FAC yet. Hope this helps too, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 14 May 2008, 14:33 UTC)

---

Civil Air Patrol

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working hard to clean up this article, add references, etc. I am opening this up for outside help on referencing, prose, and organization, in order to prepare the article for Featured Article candidacy.

Thanks, —  scetoaux (T|C) 17:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• All of the information looks good, well written, and well referenced but I would suggest adding a section on the history of the CAP, some well known pilots, and some well known and important missions, if not in detail at least a list of them with wiki links to existing articles. ^SyBer_WoLff 15:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  The history of the CAP was taken out, because it was decided that it was lengthy enough to be deserving of its own article, History of the Civil Air Patrol. As for well known pilots and well known/important missions, there are none that aren't already included in the History page that are notable for inclusion, as far as I know.

  Thank you for your comments. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Aha! In that case everything looks pretty good to me. Great job on the article! ^SyBer_WoLff 16:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, clearly has had a lot of work done on it. Here are some suggestions for further improvement, especially looking ahead to FAC:

• Per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the whole article and nothing should be solely in the lead. My rule of thumb is that each header should be at least mentioned in the lead somehow. The motto (as one example, may be more) is not repeated in the body of the article.
• As currently referenced, this would not pass FAC and would at least be put on hold at GAN. For example all four subsections of Activities are unreferenced, or the first three paragraphs of Organization, or direct quotes like the Cadet Oath and Cadet Honor Code. My rule of thumb is to have at least one inline reference at the end of each paragraph, and to cite all attributions () and quotations (Cadet Oath), statistics (In addition to CAP's fleet of more than 530 aircraft, over 4,000 member-owned aircraft are made available for official tasking by CAP's volunteers should the need arise.), and extraordinary claims (The Civil Air Patrol owns and operates the world's largest fleet of single-engine aircraft, predominantly Cessna 172 Skyhawk and Cessna 182 Skylane aircraft.). See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Is CAP considered to be a branch of the US Federal Government - if so then the oath and honor code are not copyright. Otherwise (and Relationship between CAP and the Air Force seems to indicate it is not a governemtn agency) they are copyrighted and quoting all of them is covered by fair use - see WP:FAIR USE
• Table of Contents is too long and there are many very short sections that could be combined (or perhaps expanded). For example, why not put the oath and honor code in one section? Or these tow sections, Region Cadet Leadership Schools and Non-Commissioned Officer Schools/Academies together, are only three sentences long.
• Internet refs all need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed.
• A possible concern at FAC will be the large number of references which are from the CAP itself.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several things that you've brought up there that are excellent suggestions. I do, however, have some comments (in order per your bullets).

• Agree, will work on that.
• Some sources are very difficult to find, and as such I would simply remove unsourceable information, except for the fact that the information presented is in many cases valuable enough for inclusion. So I'll work on finding sources.
• I actually don't know the answer to that question. I don't know if being a federally funded non-profit organization that appears to be under the jurisdiction of DoD and the USAF actually makes one a branch of the federal government.
• That requires major rewriting, I think, and a lot of work, but I'll see what I can do.
• OK. I wasn't aware that there were references that still didn't have some of that information.
• Here's the biggest problem. Much of this information is pretty much found only from within the Civil Air Patrol itself. If I find two sources, one from CAP and one outside, I try to use whichever gives the most information. Usually that's CAP itself as a source. I don't know how to work through this problem.

Thank you for your time. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is there any sort of print history of the CAP? That could be very useful as a source. Or some sort of magazine profile? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  Any print histories are already cited, and the only magazine profile that I know of is the CAP's own Volunteer magazine. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  I have made a number of changes to address your concerns. —  scetoaux (T|C) 04:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  Here is a summary of all changes made since this peer review was opened. Thanks for all your feedback! Keep it coming! :) —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Second look by Ruhrfisch: Looks much improved. Here are a few things that still stick out.

• I reran the semi-automated peer review script and pasted it in below the first run (link at top above)
• The lead should be several paragraphs long per WP:LEAD
• Second paragraph of History is still unreferenced, as is "Assistance to other agencies:" and middle three paragraphs of "Aerospace Education" and of "Senior members". Also note that the motto (a direct quote) is unreferenced. Read this and check every paragraph needs a cite.
• Per WP:Summary style I think the "Cadet Program" section should have a brief description of the Program, as should "Cadet members"
• Per WP:MOS#Images please do not set pixel widths beyond "thumb" for images so as to allow reader preferences to take over. Vertical images can have "vertical" to make them smaller.
• If the sources are not available, then they are not available. You might want to ask at the Military History WikiProject for a more expert review or advice on this.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done. How's it look? I think I'm going to submit it for FAC now, and have any further improvements to the article be on the basis of reviewer comments. —  scetoaux (T|C) 00:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 15 May 2008, 02:10 UTC)

---

Doggystyle

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it for afew weeks now and have improved it to GA status, but I would appreciate a review to help me develop the article to FA class. Any advice would be helpful.

Thanks, Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments:

Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• I'd recommend a top-to-bottom copyedit. I see quite a few small errors, and the prose could be much tighter in places. For example, "Snoop Dogg expressed that he felt he was a role model to many young black males and that he addresses the subject matter on the album to relate to this audience... " could be tightened and corrected. I might suggest "Snoop Dogg said that he was a role model for many young black males and that his album spoke to them."

• It would be good to include in the "Background" section something about the background of the genre itself. In the lead I see, "The album was recorded after Dr. Dre's debut release of The Chronic, the album which is credited with founding and popularizing the G-Funk sub-genre within gangsta rap," but this is not referred to or elaborated on in the main text. A brief "History" subsection right above "Concept" might help orient readers unfamiliar with Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre, G-Funk, or the history of gangsta rap. In a few sentences, the article might say what gangsta rap is, what the G-Funk subgenre is, and what gangsta rap's relationship is to earlier musical forms. It might also mention something about the form's social context and suggest some reasons, citing sources, for the form's popularity.

• The lead should be a good summary of the main text. A good rule of thumb is try to include at least some mention of all of the section topics. Also, the lead should not include ideas that do not appear in the main text. "Sex position" is mentioned in the lead but is not included in the explanation of the cover in "Cover art".

• Generally, it's best to keep short quotes inside the main text rather than setting them off separately on the page. Quotes should not be in italics. See WP:MOS. For the three short quotes in the "Cover art" section I would suggest "The quotes come from the dogs at the top of the brick wall on the album cover. They say, "Why must I feel like that?", and "Why must I chase the cat?", and "Nothin' but the dog in me".

• I notice several unusual and incorrect uses of the semicolon. In the lead, for example, the article says, "The album was recorded after Dr. Dre's debut release of The Chronic; the album which is credited with founding and popularizing the G-Funk sub-genre within gangsta rap." The semicolon should be a comma since the second half of this sentence could not itself be a complete sentence.

• Watch out for weasel words. "The title of the album is in reference of a popular sex position" is an example. "Popular" is vague.

• Quotes need to be set off with quotation marks.

• The phrase "sample clearance issues" needs to be explained for the general reader who may not be familiar with recording industry jargon. The phrase "five mics" is another example of jargon that might be mystifying to an outsider. Ditto "snyth-driven" and "funk-induced".

• "It was 4:36 long," would be more clear if the time was written as "4 minutes and 36 seconds" with (4:36) in parentheses. Then you could use 1:10 and 5:36 without spelling them out because the meaning would be clear.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Finetooth (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• I would consider linking Dre in the lead.
• "... of a sex position. It has been certified four times ..." what, the sex position?! Just state "The album has been..." to be 100% clear. You may need to rejig the previous sentence to improve the flow.
• " It was the fastest-selling rap album..." context needed - in the US, the world?
• "the highest US debut album " - highest chart entry or highest selling?
• Link "gangsta rap" in the History section.
• What's P-Funk? (i.e. link or explain)
• "after Dr. Dre's release of The Chronic," is wikilinked in the Recording section but not the History section (were the phrase appears almost verbatim) - seems a little inconsistent to me.
• " by Hip hop fans" - why is Hip capitalised here?
• "He spent much of 1995 preparing for the case which went to trial in late 1995" would read better as "...trial later that year."
• I would link NME for the benefit of the non-expert readers.
• "He was applauded for the realism contained within his rhymes and his harmonious flow which accompanied them." needs citation, particularly the "realism" claim which isn't backed by the two references which follow this statement.
• "weren't officially released " were not... avoid contractions.
• " The Source Hip-Hop Music Awards 1995" in 1995?
• "include Dr. Dre, Warren G, Nate Dogg and Tha Dogg Pound, among others." include or among others but both seems a little redundant to me.
• "couldn't gain the rights to use the beats because the record company weren't " could not, were not etc.
• "The Source magazine gave the album five out of five mics and it was added to their "100 Best Rap Albums". It was Included in Rolling Stone's "Essential Recordings of the 90's". need citations and decapitalise Included.
• Put citations in numerical order. You have [22][12] as an example.
• "platinum" or "Platinum"? Be consistent.
• "Performing Guest(s)" lower case guest is fine.
• Make default sort of the table either alphabetical order or significance of chart rather than in inverse success order.

That should keep you busy for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 15 May 2008, 21:46 UTC)

---

List of baryons

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

The list of baryon is complete (or near complete) and up to date. However I am not a particle physicist, so I cannot know for sure if my understand of some things was accurate. Not many people worked on the page, and it is hard to know if the page can be understood by people other than us. There are useful things in the talk pages and some ongoing discussion about the direction should talk in order to become a featured list.

Thanks, Headbomb (talk · contribs) 21:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Friday 16 May 2008, 06:52 UTC)

---

Macintosh Classic

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to GA standards. At the moment, it's very short - but I'd like some feedback on what could be added.

Thanks, Wackymacs (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Friday 16 May 2008, 07:07 UTC)

---

2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel the article has the potential to become a good article but obviously lacks something here and there. Hence I would like it to be reviewed by others and get some honest inputs.

Thanks, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra/archive1.

(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 11:59 UTC)

---

History of Blackpool F.C. (1887–1962)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'd like to know which areas are covered too much and which aren't covered enough. I think the article is pretty well referenced, though I'm unsure if I've placed the reference tags in the correct location sentence/paragraph-wise.

Note that the history is across two articles. Navigation is via links at the top of each article.

Thanks, Dudesleeper / Talk 19:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll go through the article thoroughly in due course (bug me on my talk page if I don't), but a couple of brief comments from a quick scan through:

• For an article of this size the lead is a little thin, I'd suggest three decent sized paragraphs.
• The article overwhelmingly relies on a single source. While I don't doubt that Calley is the best book about the club, having >90% of citations to the same reference is excessive when the subject is not overly obscure.
• Lots of one or two sentence paragraphs give a stop-start feel in places, possibly due to the temptation to separate out each season. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 17:25 UTC)

---

Rachel Corrie

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article has potential to meet GA standard. However, I think there are flaws in it, and I'd like a review by an editor.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Review by Wackymacs

Overall, this looks like its on its way to being GA soon.

• Expand the lead to 2 paragraphs per WP:LEAD.
• Early Life section is too short - consider expanding, or merge with another section.
• "Corrie's death sparked controversy and led to international media coverage, in part because she was an American, and in part because of the highly politicized nature of the conflict itself." - There is no reference for this statement.
• " Capt. Jacob Dallal, a spokesman for the Israeli army, called Corrie's death a "regrettable accident" and said that she and the other ISM activists were "a group of protesters who were acting very irresponsibly, putting everyone in danger — the Palestinians, themselves and our forces — by intentionally placing themselves in a combat zone. " - Again, missing a reference.
• Consider reorganizing the section "Artistic tributes" - the paragraphs are short and the flow isn't very good.
• Please format all references properly (with publication dates, publisher name, author info, and access date). Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates.
• Please get a copy-editor to go through the text. See Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for a list of people who may be able to help you.
• Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for advice on satisfying GA Criteria 1, which concerns the prose quality.
• It is vital you pay attention to Wikipedia:Good article criteria if you want this to become a Good Article.

Hope my comments are helpful. — Wackymacs (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 17:25 UTC)

---

Bert Trautmann

This peer review discussion has been closed.

The goalkeeper who broke his neck in the cup final and carried on playing. I've been developing this article for a while with a view to a future FAC nomination, but have now hit a certain level of writers' block. I'm looking for comments with a view to FAC. I'm aware I'll need an image, I have a certain one in mind but don't currently have access to a scanner. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment beware of POV/hagiographising. Esp with section headings: "Golden years with Manchester City" - says who? But overall, it's looking good. You seem to be covering the right stuff and with the addition of some images, isn't far off a bid to FAC. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • PS Get a cite asap or remove (hide?) the comment about the marriage breakdown. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I've cited it and made clear that the source is Trautmann himself. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on someone I had actually heard of (sadly I am not into football). I aree with Dweller's comments, although it looks pretty good otherwise, so most of my suggestions will be fairly nit-picky:

• Should German phrases be translated, for example Blau und Weisse means "Blue and White"?
  • The MoS doesn't specify. As it is a proper noun I am unsure.
• I thnk this should be "which" not "who" as the subject of the phrase is the regiment though a station far behind the front line resulted in boredom for his regiment, who resorted to sports and practical jokes to pass the time.
  • I frequently use "which" where I shouldn't, so this is probably a result of overcompensation. Changed.
• I would identify Dnipropetrovsk as being in Ukraine - provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR
• Over winter hit and run attacks on supply routes were the main focus,... who was doing these attacks - the Germans or the Soviets? Please also add years (and months if possible) for events like his withdrawal from the Russian Front or transfer to France.
  • Clarified the hit and run attacks. From my sources it is unclear whether he was withdrawn from the Eastern Front in 1943 or 1944.
• This needs a ref and is a bit confusing as the reader does not yet know he goes to France next He was captured by the Russians and later the French Resistance, but escaped both times.
  • Moved further down and cited.
• Explain what B and C prisoners were in category "C" prisoners. He was soon downgraded to "B" status.. Also waht does this mean (know it has something to do with where he stayed) Trautmann continued to be barracked at away matches
  • Clarified the categories. It appears that the "to shout at or jeer" meaning of barracked is peculiar to British English, and after looking it up it seems it means the opposite in Australian English, so I've rephrased it.
• A bit POV - at least needs a cite Two days later Trautmann stepped out onto the Wembley pitch for the match he would be remembered for above all others.
  • One of those "definitely true but doesn't have an explicit cite" phrases - perhaps 90% of articles written about him centre on that match. Rephrased and cited.
• I am not a football fan, this sounds like three goals were scored (one each sentence) The previous year nerves had contributed to the opposition scoring an early goal. The City team were more settled on this occasion, scoring an early goal themselves, a left footed strike by Joe Hayes. Birmingham equalised on 14 minutes. but it has to be two goals as the score was equal, right?
  • The first sentence refers to the previous cup final described in the preceding paragraph. It doesn't seem ambiguous to me, but then I did write it...
• Awkward sentence: Trautmann excelled at shot-stopping, particularly penalties, of which he saved 60% of those he faced over the course of his career. Perhaps Trautmann excelled at shot-stopping, particularly penalties, saveing 60% of those he faced over the course of his career.
  • That's me abusing "which" again, changed to your improved wording.
• I think this could use a copyedit, can also try reading it out loud - watch out for POV and peacock language - see WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK
• I think refs need to be consistent - put a space after p and before page numbers

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks to both of you for your comments. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 17:26 UTC)

---

The Simpsons (season 3)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is part of many featured lists, and with some work and feedback, The Simpsons seasons could become a featured topic. Thanks, Teh Rote (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been slowly working on the page, and it still has a ways to go. I have to add some production info, and the synopsis' of each episode need to be cleaned up and expanded. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is a good start but needs some work to get to FL status. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• I note that The Simpsons (season 1) and The Simpsons (season 2) are both already Featured Lists and would make excellent models for this article for ideas on structure, style, etc. Seasons 4 through 9 are also FLs and would be models.
• Normally I would say that WP:LEAD would forbid linking anything in the bold part of the lead sentence, but I notice the model articles also link the Simpsons.
• Follow chronological order - The season contains all 23 episodes, with two hold-over episodes from season two's "7F" production line. The complete third season was released on DVD in Region 1 on August 26, 2003, released in Region 2 on October 6, 2003 and released in Region 4 on October 22, 2003. A bonus episode also aired on August 27, 1992. This goes from 1991-1992, then to 2003, then back to 1992 again. Looking at the models, I would rewrite this as something like The season contains 26 episodes, with two hold-over episodes from season two's "7F" production line and a bonus episode that was originally supposed to be the season four opener, but aired on August 27, 1992 instead. The complete third season was released on DVD in Region 1 on August 26, 2003, released in Region 2 on October 6, 2003 and released in Region 4 on October 22, 2003.
• Should the lead still read The Simpsons third season originally aired between September 19, 1991 and May 7, 1992. since the last episode aired August 26?
• Watch tense - this should all be past tense, but Al Jean and Mike Reiss take over as show runners, while Hank Azaria becomes a regular cast member.
• Avoid one sentence paragraphs - expand or combine them.
• Do not use & as in Kirk & Luann Van Houten., spell out "and" instead.
• The lead should summarize the whole article but does not mention Awards, for example.

Hope this helps, with all the models to follow this should be fairly easy Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 17:26 UTC)

---

Himura Kenshin

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a GA article. Would like feedback and thoughts on ways it can be improved and any tweaks needed to get it ready for FA candidacy.

Thanks, Collectonian (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Lazulilasher (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

First, the article is generally well-done and reasonably broad in scope. Second, while reading this piece I did encounter a few items which may be of help to you and your collaborators:

• OVA - I didn't know what this meant-I recommend writing the abbreviation out the first time for newbie readers such as myself.
• I would work on the prose, especially with an eye towards more exact wording. For example, see this excerpt from the "Background" section: "... killed all with the exception of Shinta, who is saved by Seijūrō. Seijūrō decides to adopt Shinta into his apprenticeship, and renames the boy "Kenshin" (with 'Ken' meaning 'sword' and 'Shin' meaning 'heart'), believing that 'Shinta' is not a fitting name for a swordsman.[22]"

Perhaps this would be clearer if it were recast like this: "...killed all except for Shinta, who is saved by Seijuro and renamed "Kenshin" as the name 'Ken' (sword) and 'Shin' (heart) where more fitting for a swordsman.

I changed this particular line, however the article would benefit from copyediting from a stylistic viewpoint.

• On the same topic, sentences such as this one can be recast to eliminate redundancy: Various anime and manga publications have provided acclaim and criticism of Kenshin's character. Perhaps would read better like this: Kenshin's character has been met with mixed reviews within the anime and manga community.....specifically, I am referring to the word "various" which is unnecessary.
  • Within that vein: "Kenshin's desire is to protect people from danger without killing" can be cut slightly to: "Kenshin desires to protect people from danger without killing."
• In the "Techniques" section, this phrase appears: "...and the ability to read through the movements of his opponents." What does "read through the movements of his opponents" mean? Further, in this instance, it may be clearer to use the genitive case: "opponent's movements" rather than "movements of his opponents."
• Although it is good for the Lead section to provide a concise, scintillating version of the whole article, shy away from actually using the exact same text as in the "Plot Overview" section.
• I find it useful to refer to Featured Content with a similar subject. There are several FAs in Himura Kenshin's Wikiproject, for example: Madlax. These can be a useful resource.
• To conclude, the largest area for improvement that I see regards style and prose. Typically, I recommend League of Copy Editors, as they generally do a terrific job of polishing prose!

I hope this helped. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page with any questions. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll get to work on those and see if can get it copy edited :) Collectonian (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at reworking the lead. Is that looking better? Collectonian (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from user:erachima

While the article as a whole is well organized, I see a couple paragraphs that could read more clearly than they currently do.

In the Creation and Conception section, the third paragraph needs work. (Was it based on an imperfectly translated source?) It has instances of bad grammar throughout ("as well as a simply structure", "changes he made was"), and though I'm currently fixing it as well as I can, it will at least needs looked over by the original editor to see if my rewording is accurate.

In the Background section, there are several ambiguous statements, a couple of which I found rather amusing. ("Both Kenshin and Tomoe get married"? Such a pity, I thought they would have made a good couple together.) Seijūrō also gets dropped out of the sky with no introduction or wikilink. Actually, that seems to be true of a lot of the characters. First mentions of characters, like first mentions of jargon, need to be given context for the reader unfamiliar with the series.

Speaking of things being dropped from the sky, the last sentence of the technique section segues with the grace of a brick to the back of the skull. (Right now it essentially reads "Kenshin learns an all powerful sword technique. Then dies.") I can tell a lot of effort was put into compressing that section to only describe his most important attributes, but I think an extra sentence or two of transition would serve us well there.

That's all I have the time to look for right now, but I may come back later. Fortunately, despite the writing needing a significant amount of improvement, the real effort, gathering information for the article, has already been done excellently. Good work, and good luck. --erachima talk 21:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from user:tintor2

I tried doing the statements that erachima commented. My only doubt is the balance of the in-universe information and the out-of-universe information.--Tintor2 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 17:26 UTC)

---

Gyromitra esculenta

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend taking it to FAC, and two of the normal folk I'd ask to copyedit are unavailable for various reasons. It will need some copyediting and suffers for lack of a range map though this is hard as it is found across much of the northern hemisphere though information on exactly where it has been recorded and what its range boundaries are is exceedingly difficult to find. I'd love some more pix too but Australia is a long way from Finland....

Thanks, Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.nifg.org.uk/herbarium.htm

It is a fungal study group from Northern Ireland, thus more reliable than a single-person blog etc. Would be great for a government website but this has to do for the moment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Any chance we could put the frequently used journals in the Sources section also? It's a picky thing, but it makes it easier to check if the often used sources are in the source section.

I didn't check for prose, just for WP:RS and WP:V which I would have done at FAC. 15:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thx - hadn't thought of that.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems a shame such an interesting article has not had more comments, so here are some suggestions for improvement, most of which are fairly nit-picky. Hope they help:

• The lead seems to be a bit short for the length of the article.
• Most units are given as both metric and English, but not all are, i.e. The spore print is whitish, with transparent spores elliptical and 17-22 μm in length.[18] OR 10 to 30 mg/kg for children and 20 to 50 mg/kg in adults. These doses correspond to approximately to 0.2 to 0.6 kg and 0.4 to 1 kg of fresh mushroom respectively
• Missing word? It is an early mushroom, and [the? its?] hunting period is from April to July,... (well spotted)
• Need a ref for The growth can be promoted by breaking the terrain further in places where false morel is known to grow. (agree, have to find where this came from again)
• Is the word "principle" correct in Gyromitra esculenta contains the poisonous principle gyromitrin ...? Would compound or substance work? (trimmed to the simple 'poison')
• Geographical variation section is quite short - can it be expanded or combined with another section?
• Ditto for Prospects for cultivation - not sure if these two could be combined?
• Provide context for the reader - MMH also causes oxidative stress leading to methemoglobinemia.[30] explain briefly what methemoglobinemia is, "a blood disorder where red cells cannot carry oxygen" or something similar.
• Is this a reliable source? The Finnish Wikipedia suggests 6 kg of water for each 1 kg of mushrooms. (removed)
• Semi-automated review has some helpful suggestions I think.

Very interesting and seems pretty close to FA already, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thx - had been staring at it for so long I must have missed those. Will get cracking. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 17:26 UTC)

---

Fovea

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a good quality article that seems to meet most of the featured article criteria.

Thanks, SaintedLegion (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Firstly, I'd suggest going for good article rather than FA, this article is quite short.

• References should not have spaces between each other or between them and punctuation, per WP:CITE.
• Don't use underlining in the references.
• Lead image shouldn't exceed 300px per WP:MOS#Images.
• Too many short paragraphs in the description section, merge some of them.
• More citations are required, for example " As an anatomical term there are several foveae around the body, including in the head of the femur." needs reference.
• Description section could use a few wikilinks, e.g femur.
• Non-breaking spaces should be used between values and units.
• (Balashov and Bernstein, 1998) - if this is intended to be a reference, make it a proper ref.

My biggest concern is the lack of references. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from delldot

I agree with The Rambling Man that the article is very short and thus would probably not pass FAC; go for GA first, but I think it could stand some organization before it passes GAN as well. But a good start, a very interesting article. A few comments:

• If you take TRM's advice to scale down the image, I'd upload a new picture with bigger writing (won't be hard to do, since it's svg).
• How about a list in the lead of the types of animals that have and do not have foveae? For example, do insects have them? This will help with the discussion of the different types in different animals in the next section.
• "This, in turn, is surrounded by a larger peripheral area that delivers highly compressed information of low resolution" delivers it to where?
• "That is why it has little loss of sensory data..." If 'it' here refers to the fovea, maybe say "That is why the fovea has..."
• "For example, in primates, cone photoreceptors line the base of the foveal pit, the cells which elsewhere in the retina form more superficial layers having been displaced away from the foveal region during late fetal and early postnatal life." This sentence is hard to understand. Maybe it can be expanded into a few sentences with more detailed explanations.
• I would recommend breaking the text into different sections, rather than having it all under one "description" section. For example, the discussion of the fovea centralis could go in its own "fovea centralis" section. Another set of sections could discuss differences in different animals, e.g. an "in mammals" section, "in birds", etc. At the very least, I would recommend separating out anatomy and physiology from other facts into their own section.
• Can you explain what the 'foveal cone mosaic' is?
• The sentence "The absence of inner retinal cells from the foveae of primates is assumed..." also needs a citation. Same with "the fovea is largely responsible for the color vision in humans which is superior to that of most other mammals."
• When you have a sort of obscure term that your average lay reader might not understand, e.g. 'optical axis' or 'chromatic aberration', you should give a little byline explaining it. On the other hand, good job wikilinking these terms, that will work in some cases where a parenthetical note wouldn't work.
• You should avoid galleries if possible, instead working some images into the article (I went ahead and did this).
• See also section should come before references (I did this).

Overall nice work, keep it up! Don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need anything, I'm always glad to help. delldot talk 17:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: What does (Balashov and Bernstein, 1998) refer to? This should be turned into a complete citation and converted to the cite.php format that the rest of the references are in. If we can't do that, it should be removed, because it's not useful if the work it's referring to isn't clear. delldot talk 17:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 17:27 UTC)

---

List of Oakland Raiders head coaches

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Would like to get this to FL status but there are a fex problems.

Madden and Shell and both in the hall of fame and spent entire career with the Raiders but I can only make their row one colour. Also Shell is in the hall of fame as a player, does that count? Shell had two spells as Raiders head coach so should he have two rows? Where to put the "Los Angeles Raiders" row. Tom Flores began coaching the Oakland Raiders and reimained head coach they moved to Los Angeles. Anything else I need to fix?

Thanks, Buc (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Per the Bucs coaches article, check for WP:COLOR for the table and avoiding identifying particular characteristics of individuals with colour alone.
• "two coaches has won " have won.
• "Tom Flores in in 1980 " lose one of the ins.
• "Shell is the only coach to have more than one tenure with the team. Flores and Shell are the only coaches to coach the team in both Oakland and Los Angeles. Statistically the worst coach in the Raiders history is Red Conkright with a winning percentage of .111.[3] The all-time leader in games coached is and the leader in wins is Madden, Rauch leads all Raiders coaches in winning percentage with .805.[4]" is really choppy, listprose. Merge some of the sentences and improve the flow.
• Regular Season should just be Regular season (this also applies to the Bucs article you're working on).
• Art Shell should have two rows, splitting his tenure accordingly. Just don't increment the # on the second spell. I'd also split Flores for the LA/Oakland as well. As for Shell in hall of fame as a player, yes I guess it counts, but it's worth a footnote to explain that his induction wasn't as a coach.
  • I don't like the sound of that. It was the same team just in a diffrent location. Buc (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Well it's up to you but the team name changed you're not being consistent in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Then, like Madden he is in the hall of fame and spent entire career with the Raiders but I can only make their row one colour. Any suggestions on what to do? Buc (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd make it the colour of the achievement you consider most significant and add a footnote. As long as all the information is there in way form or another. That should do the trick. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Hickok Sports" or "Hickoksports.com."?
• Again, be consistent with the use of either publisher or work in the cite web templates.

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

comments from Pinkkeith (talk · contribs)

• I would put a noted why Art Shell doesn't have a number by him for the second time as head coach. It might confuse some why this is done.
• I would do away with the color coding and just use the symbols to mark who is in the HoF or head coached only the Raiders.

Ok all done. Buc (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 17:27 UTC)

---

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've developed it a bit, and I need to know where to go next. What needs to be added? is there enough detail? Any suggestions?

Thanks, IdiotSavant (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a treaty I knew nothing about before reading this. Presumably the next place to go would be to try for {{WP:GA]] so I will review with that in mind. Here are some suggestions for improvement - the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) above also has some useful ideas:

• Lead needs to be longer and summarize the whole article per WP:LEAD
• Genesis section is interesting but needs refs for the end (last few sentences)
• Since you are looking for expansion ideas, how about the history of the development? Who drafted it? Which provisions didn't make it into the final treaty? There is some already on different country's reservations and the US position, but not much on how they got from the idea to the treaty. Also could add more on other signatory countries that have not yet ratifief (South Africa, Pakistan from the map - others?)
• Although it should be painfully obvious, I think the style convention is to add the abbrevation in parenthesis right after the first use, i.e. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
• Summary has no refs
• Be consistent on American vs British English - since the treaty quotes use BE spellings, probably should write the whole article in BE (also in SAPR)
• Part 3 of the Summary would read better as text (not bulleted list)
• Biggest obstacle to GA would be lack of references for whole sections - for example, the entire Reservations section - see WP:CITE and WP:V
• Internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. Use {{cite web}} for consistency
• Any pictures? The UN building? The building where they meet in Geneva? Jimmy Carter?
• I am a bit mystified by the list at the end - why not also list all parties to the treaty? Also can make lists of multiple columns.
• While I realize "States parties" is in the treaty, it is jargon and should be explained and used carefully and sparingly - see WP:JARGON

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So far I've tweaked the lead, expanded the genesis section, removed the list of non-parties (something made redundent by the map anyway) and made a few minor changes here and there. I'll get to work adding more refs in the sections without them, though doI need to cite the Covenant every time I state its contents? Surely people can just read it? IdiotSavant (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Good question - since the Covenant is online and fairly short, my guess is as long as you are clearly refering to it and its section, it is OK not to cite it. You might then want to put a general note in the references explaining this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Saturday 17 May 2008, 23:06 UTC)

---

Zelda Fitzgerald

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I think this article is already good (it is, in fact, a Good Article) but I'm trying to figure out where to focus to take it to the next level. I want to add a little bit more information about Zelda's paintings and improve the final section that mentions her modern interpretations. If anyone has suggestions regarding this, they would be greatly appreciated. General copy-editing, structure, flow concerns -- any of that -- would be adored as well. Also image ideas. Basically any thoughts at all. Thanks, JayHenry (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

dihydrogen monoxide

• "earning a reputation as a "speed"" - what's a speed? Maybe some slang I'm not familiar with, so a wlink would be good...(though I can guess from the context).

  Simply took this out as I don't think it's necessary. --JayHenry (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think the quote at the end of the Family and early life section should be centered (not sure what {{cquote}} policy is, but I'd suggest that...

  I actually tried centering this and it doesn't look right to me. It looks too far off to the right. --JayHenry (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just realised there's virtually no mention of the first section in the lead, though it seems somewhat important...

  Overhauled the lead. Good catch! --JayHenry (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've wlinked a few dates (per WP:DATE), please check again in case I missed any.

Prose generally good, just a few things you could work on... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Water Man, I'll look into the quotes, and will probably rework the lead one final time before submitting to FAC... I still have a few sections I want to add and change first. Dates look good to me (okay, I don't really know what WP:DATE says, but I trust you!) As for "speed" it's just old slang for a girl who was too friendly with the boys. I'll see about tweaking that section. --JayHenry (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Yllosubmarine

Finally got some time to myself, so here I am. I greatly enjoyed reading and learning about Zelda and I think that overall this article is very good. Some of the writing could be finessed, however, so most of my comments are in regards to that:

• To use the serial comma or not to use the serial comma? It's both ways (with and without) in the lead.
• The first paragraph of the lead is a little confusing. The "the first American Flapper" comes out of nowhere and perhaps needs context, as this is explained in the body. The next sentence is odd: was it because of the success of This Side of Paradise that they were seen as "young, rich, and energetic"? And who was it exactly who saw them this way?
• Agree with h2o above that more needs to be written in the lead about her early life; we jump right into her marriage and lose sight of her, the individual.

  Rewrote the lead. --JayHenry (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• became obsessed with becoming a ballerina: redundant, but not sure how to alter it... reinventing herself as a ballerina?

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of referring to Zelda as, well, Zelda so often. Her husband is mostly referred to as "Scott", so why isn't she "Fitzgerald"? Why isn't he Fitzgerald, for that matter? I only see four uses of the name, in regards to he and not she, in the "F. Scott Fitzgerald" and "In popular culture" sections. As an item they are constantly referred to "the Fitzgeralds", but "Scott" and "Fitzgerald" are often used interchangeably and Zelda is always "Zelda". Ow, my head. Continuity?

  Well, your second question answers the first here. I can't call them both Fitzgerald, because then who am I talking about? This one has come up before. His biographers invariably refer to him as Fitzgerald, her as Zelda. Her biographers use the convention I've tried to follow throughout of Zelda and Scott. (Try swapping a Zelda for a Fitzgerald and then reading the sentence. Wherever I've tried this, I think most readers will assume it's referring to him and be confused.) --JayHenry (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Scott became absorbed writing the book that became The Great Gatsby: more redundant "became"s. Is "the book that became" even necessary? Can it not just be "absorbed with writing The Great Gatsby"?

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Zelda with a dashing young French pilot, Edouard Jozan.: there's something missing from this, yes? Zelda what with a dashing young French pilot? Also, comma needed.

  A failed attempt at being clever. Scott was absorbed with Gatsby, Zelda [was absorbed] with Jozan. Guess it didn't work so I rewrote. --JayHenry (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Overall, very clean and intriguing. I think Zelda is fairly portrayed, which is no easy feat. The main thing bugging me is the lack of consistency with the names, but I think this article will fare well at FAC once it's ready. Great job, Jay! María (habla conmigo) 13:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• I looked over the sources, and didn't see anything that would cause sourcing concerns at FAC. 16:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks Ealdgyth! --JayHenry (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Sunday 18 May 2008, 21:10 UTC)

---

Pat the Bunny

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was made GA in 2006, and was delisted today. I added a few references, started some more sections, readded the lead image. What else should be added to this article to get it back to GA, or dare i say it, FA? There are no Picture book FAs, so any comments would help! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Make Way for Ducklings is FA and is at least a children's book with a lot of pictures, and may be a good model. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How silly of me, of course there is that one :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While this is a short article, I think it has the potential to be GA again and perhaps FA some day. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• The Lead will need to be rewritten to summarize the whole article per WP:LEAD. Also make sure nothing is only in the lead (i.e. Daddy's beard). You might want to wait to do this until the rest of the article has been rewritten, otherwise this will have to be done twice.
• I believe it is properly a board book, although the current lead says It is not a book in the traditional sense..
• I looked at the existing sources in the article and on the internet and found a lot about this book, much of which is not in the article - I think it can be expanded
  • There are a fair number of scholarly refs in GoogleSchoolar and Google Books which could be used in a reception section
  • Online in ref 1 - New York Times - I found the number of words in the book (135), the fact that it is still hand assembled, the amounts of various materials used to make the book, that in 1990 it was the best-selling American children's book of all time and the second best-selling children's book in the USA, etc.
  • It is going to be the subect of an exhibition at the Eric Carle Museum of Picture Book Art here, assuming there is a catalog, that would be a great source
• I would try to update the sales and other figures if possible - the sales are as of 2006 right now. I would also add to the article "As of 2008..." or whenever the date is for the stats
• If possible I would add a history or development section - talk about Kunhardt's career, what she wrote before, and how she came to write this
• I would split Legacy from Reception and look at the various sequels Kunhardt wrote, the other titles in the line, and how it can be seen as the first "touch and feel" book

What is there is good - refs, etc. I would also look at the model article. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 19 May 2008, 11:29 UTC)

---

Thomas Cranmer

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am requesting a peer review in preparation for FAC. Any comments, suggestions, or criticisms are welcome. RelHistBuff (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Monday 19 May 2008, 13:18 UTC)

---

Louvre

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I and other editors have been working on bringing this article up to FA standards. Much of the content has been expanded, but we are hoping to garner other editor's input. Specifically, do you think the content level is comprehensive without going into too much detail? Our "style guide" has been Palazzo Pitti, an FA.

Also, all general suggestions are welcome.

As always, dearest thanks for taking a look and commenting!

Thanks, Lazulilasher (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally, an excellent article.

Personally I find the language used in the "history" part to be too dry, and that part goes on for too long...I wanted to get to the art - the main feature of the museum. But I'm not sure how things could be arranged better.

I am going to work on shortening this section before I throw it to FAC. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The pictures are excellent.

I'm not sure about the pic in the info box though, which, although a fine picture, is really showing the pyramid rather than the Louvre - so perhaps not appropriate?

It has been changed...and I hope you like it, because I took it :) Lazulilasher (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the year it was built should be in the lead. I don't know what those periods of reign mean in real terms, so one or two years would help.

Y I agree, done.

Y The last sentence in the lead, "The collection is divided among eight curatorial departments.", looks out of place, as it's not related to the rest of that para. Maybe it could be deleted, or moved to the top of the 'departments' part.

Chzz (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Overall quite well done. Here are my nit-picks, hope they help:

• Y Perhaps the last paragraph in the lead could be something like The museum collection is divided among eight curatorial departments and houses some of the world's most famous works of art, such as Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, The Virgin and Child with St. Anne, and Madonna of the Rocks; Jacques Louis David's Oath of the Horatii; Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People; and Alexandros of Antioch's Venus de Milo.
• Y Would it make sense to start the History section with the building and date (the three sentences Regardless, a[A] fortress was built ... foundation of the southeast corner.[5], then have the murky name, then Charles V and additions?
• Y Missing word: Regardless, a fortress was built under Philip Augustus from 1190 to 1202 to defend Paris [against?] foreign attacks.[8][9]
• Y Since there are multiple artworks moving around through the article, should this be plural (treasures): Despite this, Saint-Yvenne again criticized what he called the neglect of much of France's artistic treasure,...
• Y Would it make more sense to have the Axe historique material in the preceding section - as it is we go to 1935, then back to 1871 and the Commune, then to 1989 and the Pyramid, then the present and near future with Lens.
• Y Problem sentence: Among the Louvre's sculptures are the Winged Victory of Samothrace and the Venus de Milo.[25][15][5] sculpture is linked here for the second time in two sentences (avoid overlinking), I would consider the WInged Victory at least to be both an archeological find and a sculpture (perhaps the Venus de Milo too), and refs should be in numerical order 5, 15, 25.
• Y Should the date here be a range? The Louvre contains a large collection of art from the Nile civilizations, dating from around 4000 BCE.
• Y Should Louvre Abu Dhabi be with Louvre Lens? Both are modern expansions into new museums?
• Y I prefer list-y things at the end (so Notable works would come after Location and access) but if the Pitti Palace model is organized this way, fine. I also think Notable works might benefit from an image or two.
• What is the organization of the Notable works? Perhaps it could be organized by curatorial department?
  • Working on it..... :) Lazulilasher (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Y...and done! The notable works have been organized first by medium, then alphabetically by name. It's a bit more clear, although, I must say, not as aesthetically pleasing as the original IMO hehe Lazulilasher (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 19 May 2008, 18:46 UTC)

---

Stephen Short

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I came across this page and noticed that it is written as an autobiography and seems to be very... slanted towards whoever wrote it. By looking at the [2] one can tell that User:ManbirS has some relation to this person, and his edit history is deeply suspicious of promotional activity.

That's not to say promotional activity is entirely bad; They do work that adds to the encyclopedia, but it seems to be the information being added isn't exactly unbiased.

That is why I am flagging this article for a PR.

Thanks, Jeff (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this meets the Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy, specifically Requests that aren't appropriate for peer review, for instance requests for help in containing vandalism, resolving an edit war, or detecting a copyvio. These should be removed promptly in the interest of the requester, since he/she is unlikely to get adequate response to them at Peer Review. Please drop a note on the requester's talk page to inform them of the removal and the reasons for it, and try to recommend a better page to list the request.... If the listing at the SPAM noticeboard does not work, please consider the conflict of interest noticeboard: WP:COI/N. Thanks and sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 20 May 2008, 02:09 UTC)

---

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this a broad article and I'd like feedback about which sections need to be improved, expanded, or even removed, as well as anything that should be included that has been omitted. I think a lot of people who have worked on this are UNC students and alumni, myself included, and it would be good to get outside opinion.

Thanks, Artichoke2020 (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Wednesday 21 May 2008, 05:24 UTC)

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

History of Indiana

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

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

I am wanting to submit History of Indiana for FA but I want to make sure the article is as good as possible first. Another user and myself had written the article largely from scratch. Coverage of the topic is good and so is references, images, etc. My concerns are 1. Reference formating 2. Length (although i am not sure how much can be cut without comprising the themes of the article)

Any suggestion or assistance would be really appreciated.

• I've standardized the refs with cite web and cite book. I've also expanded referencing in the areas it was lacking as suggested. Much of what is stated is generally non controversial and somewhat common knowledge, in my opinion. I could reference almost every sentence. I am not certain where to draw the line, I just try to have at least one ref per thought, or paragraph. Charles Edward 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Charles Edward 18:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)}

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Can you find an infobox?
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between.
• The United States section has one citation - Add more.
• As with Indiana Territory
• And Morgans Raid
• Post War Era could use some more...
• "We the Representatives of the people of the Territory of Indiana, in Convention met, at Corydon, on Monday the tenth day of June in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixteen..." needs a citation.
• This an reliable source?
• Consider using {{citeweb}}, {{citenews}} etc. with the references.
• That's it from me. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 01:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Milk's Favorite Cookie's comments above. I do not think that this is ready for FAC yet. Here are few more suggestions for improvement:

• A model article is always useful - History of Minnesota was just WP:TFA and is a great model article for ideas on structure, weight, references, etc.
• Per WP:LEAD the lead needs to be a summary of the article, and should probably be expanded to four paragraphs given the length of the article.
• The semi-automated peer review has some useful suggestions.
• The article needs an image in the upper right corner - I think Image:Indywarmem.jpg is quite striking and might be a useful lead image.
• Internet references need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. The current references are all lacking this - this alone would be enough to fail the article at FAC for most reviewers.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• Large sections are unreferenced.
• Per WP:MOS, the use of curly graphics quotation marks is discouraged. Since FAC requires compliance with the MOS, you need to remove those.
• Lead section is probably too short for the size of the article.
• Lots and lots of short choppy paragraphs. Consider consolidating some.
• As above, your web references lack publishers. Make sure they all conform to the WP:RS guidelines also. Your references also vary considerably in format. Sometimes you give author first, sometimes you put author after the title. Try to make them consistent. Use {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} or similar templates to help with keeping your formatting consistent.

Hope this helps. 04:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 21 May 2008, 15:55 UTC)

---

The Garden of Earthly Delights

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Any suggestions or input on this difficult painting would be appreciated.

Thanks, Ceoil (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Thursday 22 May 2008, 14:04 UTC)

---

Cogan House Covered Bridge

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've asked for a peer review because I believe this article on a covered bridge that is on the National Register of Historic Places is nearly ready for FAC. While the article includes almost every bit of information I can find on the bridge itself, I am not sure on the level of detail, especially for the background. Should I include the name of the man who drive the wagon of timber when the bridge was being built (not in), how about the people who "cut the ribbon" after the rehab (in), or the names of the speakers then (not in). There are some photos I have not used in the article which are on Commons - thoughts on those would be great too. In fact, any comments from fresh sets of eyes would be useful and appreciated.

Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Thursday 22 May 2008, 22:56 UTC)

---

List of F.E.A.R. Mods

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

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

This article seems to be lacking something (other than sources) and I was hoping someone could spot it.

Thanks in advance, Paulalex19 (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted at AfD Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 04:59 UTC)

---

The Beatles (album)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want some advice before I start it on its path to an FA.

Thanks, Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 15:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This has some similar issues with A Day in the Life, which I also reviewed. Here are some suggestions for improvement"

• There is a lot of mostly well written material here and it is a good start, however much of it is unreferenced. I see this and the structure of the article as the biggest obstacles to FA (not that it won't need a lot of work in other areas too)
• A model article is useful to follow for structure, ideas, style, etc. While there are five Beatles FAs, they are all songs not albums, see here. There are a fair number of album articles that are FA - see Kid A for one example.
• The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD and needs to summarize the whole article. My rule of thumb is that if it is a header, it should be at least mentioned in the lead.
• I think there has been some vandalism and "George Barry" used to be "George Harrison" in In May 1968, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and George Barry assembled at Kinfauns, Harrison’s home in Esher, and demoed 23 songs, most of which would end up on The Beatles.
  • done
• The section titled "Early material at Rishikesh" could perhaps just be "Early material" or even "Composition". It is out of chronological order - why not start with the Rishikesh retreat, tell the story of writing songs there, and end with meeting a George's house (was Ringo not there)?
  • done
• Any chance of more exact dates for the Early material... section than "Spring of 1968"? and May 1968? The dates in Rishikesh have to be known. See WP:PCR
• marked a period of extraordinary musical experimentation and songwriting creativity for The Beatles. needs a cite and is fairly POV as written, perhaps this can be changed to a quote from a reliable source?
  • done removed, way too POV
• Article needs a copyedit - example of an awkward sentence Author Mark Lewisohn reports that The Beatles held their first and only 24-hour recording/producing session near the end of the creation of The Beatles, during which occurred the final mixing and sequencing for the album. during which occurred? Eek!
• Much of the "Album sequencing, editing concerns, and release" section reads like original research and desperately needs references or pruned.
• "Critical assessments and the album's legacy" (perhaps better as just "Critical reception and legacy") should not use bullet pointed lists of reviewers comments (that's what WP:PR is for ;-) ), put it into text instead.
• Influences, parodies and tributes reads like any fan of any group / artist that ever released an album with a color in the title has added their sentence and left. This needs to be pruned and cited. Unless there is a reliable source that says they were influenced by this album to name theirs, I would leave it out.
• I would look very closely at organization and try to make it less jumbled than currently. For example, we learn how Lennon and McCartney wrote songs in India, then get details on recording, then on individual songs, including more on how / why they were written. For example, the Dear Prudence story could easily go in with the rest of the India material.

Hope this helps, you may want to ask another reviewer for feedback at WP:PRV Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments by Naerii:

• The references really need tidying up.

• #5, #6, #7 contain no information about authors/publishers/ISBNs.
• #12 & #14 need accessdates.
• #24 needs publisher and author information.
• #25 needs accessdates, publishers and authors.
• #29 appears to be missing an "h" on the http and needs a title, publisher, author and accessdate.
• #31 needs more information than just "Billboard magazine".

• What makes the geocities external link reliable?
• The long lists of numbers under 'Personnel' are pretty messy.
• The 'influences, parodies and tributes' section needs to be condensed, there are too many stubby paragraphs.
• Album articles usually have sections listing the positions the album and its singles reached on the charts.

Apologies if this seems overly harsh, this is just what I'd say at FAC and what needs to be done before it goes to FAC. The "Recording Sessions" and "Songs" sections are a great read, by the way. -- Naerii 00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment For a band like the Beatles, about which so much has been written, websites like Geocities should not come within a kilometre of the articles. There is no excuse that better sources are not available. indopug (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:11 UTC)

---

Marvel Cave

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article contains a lot of information, but the style may not be as great. My goal is to bring this article to GA class, and maybe a Featured article someday.

Thanks, Branson03 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I think it has some way to go to reach GA. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• The lead needs to be expanded and summarize the whole article, my rule of thumb is that if it is in a header, it should be in the lead. See WP:LEAD

I've expanded the lead section.

• Several sections are very short (one or two sentences) and should be combined or expanded. For example "Spanish Explorers" and "The Baldknobbers" - also avoid starting a header with "The" per WP:MOS
  • Spanish Explorers could be combined with the Early explorers section, Baldknobbers could be combined with the Marmaros section.

I combined Spanish Explorers with Early explorers, but not Baldknobbers with Marmaros yet.

• Biggest obstacle to GA is lack of references - whole sections and paragraphs are unsourced. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Most of the information is from a book or dvd about the cave, how to I use those as refernces. I can add more references from the web too.

• • I would use {{cite book}} for the book, and Template:Cite video for the DVD. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Are the Baldknobbers active "Around the mid 1800s" or in "1889"?

To keep it short, they tossed people in the cave in the mid 1800s and burned down the town in 1889.

• The whole Tours section is uncited, reads like an advertisement, and uses second person (you) when it should use third person. The subsections Lantern Tour Experience under Lantern Tours and Traditional Tour Experience under Traditional Tours seem superfluous.

I removed both tour experience sections.

• • OK, I thoughtthat the basic information in them was OK, just the way it was presented needed to be changed to match Wikipedia style. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Units should be spelled out (feet, not ') and should be given in both English and metric units. The {{convert}} template would help here.

I changed all of the feet symbols with the convert template.

• References need to be to reliable sources - see WP:RS Internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} may help.
• A model article is useful - I note that Mammoth Cave National Park is a good article and may offer some useful ideas. I also note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Caves exists and may be able to help.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:13 UTC)

---

Halle Berry

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
One peer review done and the sources here have doubled since then. So I thought of requesting another.

Thanks, Ultra! 20:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article about a famous living person. I have few suggestions about how it might be improved.

• Photos of people looking to the left or right are generally placed to make the eyes look into the page. This brings the reader's attention into the page rather than out beyond the edge. The infobox photo is OK in this regard because Berry is looking straight ahead. In the second photo, however, Berry as Miss Ohio is looking out of the page and should be positioned on the right. Berry at the Comic-Con International should be moved to the left side of the page.

• The Miss Ohio photo has another problem. It is too fuzzy. It might work better as a .jpg than a .png. If not, I'd look for a replacement.

• The article could be improved by a top-to-bottom copyedit. For example, a paragraph in the International success sections begins, "Rewrites were commissioned to give Berry more screentime for X2. This was because of her earning the Academy Award.[38] Berry stated during interviews for X2 that she would not return as Storm unless the character had a significant presence comparable to the comic-book version. there was little difficulty reaching an agreement.[39] In late 2003, she starred in the psychological thriller Gothika opposite Robert Downey Jr. she broke her arm. Downey was supposed to grab her arm and twist but twisted too hard. Production was halted for eight weeks." In this quoted passage I see choppy prose flow and three sentences starting with a lower-case letter. It's not clear how the Gothika material is related to the X2 material. Perhaps adding "In 2003" to the beginning of the paragraph would make the connection. "Screentime" should be "screen time". I see many similar problems in other sections of the article.

• Make sure that the lead summarizes the main text of the article and that it doesn't cover material not mentioned in the main text. For example, Berry's birth date is given in the lead but not mentioned in the main text. When I got to the sentence about diabetes in the "Early life" section, I had to hop back to the lead and do some math to find out how old she was when diagnosed.

• A couple of short paragraphs could be improved by expansion. The diabetes paragraph, for example, leads to other questions. How was she treated? Has the disease caused her further problems? How is she doing? Answering one or more of these would make the paragraph more interesting.

• Internet refs need title, url, publisher, author if known, date of publication if known, and date accessed. Use {{cite web}} for consistency; I see that it has been used in some places in the article but not others. You can use companion templates such as {{cite news}} and {{cite book}} for other kinds of sources. Complete citation data not only makes it possible for others to check sources for verification, it helps others with their own research on related topics.

• Nested sets of quotation marks are handled by using double quotation marks (") for the outer set; single quotation marks (') for the next set, double quotation marks for the third set, and so on. When two sets bump into one another, separate them with a space (' ") instead of ('").

• Full dates need to be autoformatted like this: January 10, 2008.

• I would try to track down and revise any phrases suggesting POV or interpretation. For example, in the lead I see a sentence that says, "She and Aubry welcomed their first child, a girl named Nahla Ariela Aubry,[7] on March 16, 2008." That's OK as far as I can tell except for the word "welcomed". We must assume they did, but the assumption may not be easy to verify. It would be safer to say, "Their first child, a girl named Nahla Ariela Aubry, was born on March 16, 2008".

I hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Watch capitalization issues, e.g.:

   "Lindy Hemming insisted that She wear a bikini and knife as a homage."
    

Glane23 (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Your description of the Adrien Brody incident is unsourced and a little misleading. You should mention that he was actually the winner of the award and not some loony running onto the stage.
• You may want to use a sharper image as the main image. The Hamburg one looks good to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:15 UTC)

---

Black Sabbath

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
OK, this monolith has been completely rewritten, every word, and I plan on taking it to FA. Its long but the band has a huge history, with so many albums and lineups. Any suggestions would be helpful, I've spell checked it (to the best of my ability) and sourced everything I see that needs a source -if I miss anything, please point it out. And song samples are coming this weekend. Thanks!

Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:19 UTC)

---

2008-09 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm working on this article, and once the season gets under way, I'd like to raise this article to GA status. For the time being however, I'd like to known what should be added and edited. Thanks, Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

SGGH

I suggest:

• Well your obvious next port of call, as you say, is season information, make sure it is as well referenced as your pre-season information already is!
• "season was very good" perhaps a more encyclopedic term? Or simply quantify it to avoid the prose-related difficulties of qualifying it.
• The opening sentence ends abruptly
• the second sentence is missing a "who" after the comma
• the entire lead could flow more
• your citations have spaced between them and the full stops, there is no need for this.
• I like your "first day of November" link to November 1, however you best see what WP:MOS and WP:DATE have to say on flowery date-making, I'm not sure whether they prefer standard dates or not.
• Off season changes has some small paragraphs that could be merged
• as per WP:DATE, only full day-month-year dates should be wikilinked unless the day itself is of particular notability because of this topic, which they aren't really.
• Ideally, I would personally change "references" to "notes"

Overall, just an expansion and those points above, looks good so far! Well done. SGGH ^speak! 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:20 UTC)

---

Year Zero (album)

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has failed at FAC twice now, both times because of an apparent lack of Support (and a relative lack of Opposition as well). So, before renominating the article hopefully for the last time, I'd like to iron out any further issues with the article. I'm pretty confident in the quality of the article, and I'm certain that any issues remaining will be fairly minor and easy to resolve. Any comments and suggestions are welcomed and appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - I read it, the talk page and both FACs. Although the request says it was not opposed much, I see the Comments that do not lead to Support as "tacit opposes" in that they took the time to comment, but did not switch to Support. I would use both FACs as very detailed peer reviews and make sure that all issues raised in them were addressed in some (either making the requested changes or being prepared to defend why something was not changed despite an actionable request). Here are some suggestions for improvement which I hope are helpful:

• I always think a model article is useful for style, structure, ideas, etc. There are several album FAs and I note Kid A by Radiohead is one - it also marked a fairly major shift in sound / style from the previous album.
• I am uncomfortable with changing a direct quote in the lead: Reznor also stated that the album was "part of a bigger picture of a number of things [he was] working on".[2] when the original reads ... "part of a bigger picture of a number of things I'm working on".[2] I think the "I'm" in the original quote is clear since Reznor is identified as the speaker.
• Having read the article I can understand why it has gotten several comments at FAC but only limited support. It is a good article, but just does not seem quite up to FA standards. I will try to give some examples:
  • The lead for example seems to have almost too much emphasis on the alternate reality game (which has its own article) - 3 of the 9 sentences in the lead are about the game - see WP:WEIGHT.
  • The hardest FA criteria for most editors to reach is 1a, near brilliant prose. In the lead there seems to be some needless repetition. Does Reznor need to be repeated twice in two sentences, and could those sentences be combined? Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor indicated that this required a completely different approach from his usual style of lyric writing, and also stated that the album was "part of a bigger picture of a number of things I'm working on".[2]
  • Try keeping the focus on the album, so could the second paragraph be something like The album is part of a larger "Year Zero project", which includes a remix album, an alternate reality game, and a potential television or film project. The Year Zero game expanded upon the album's fictional storyline by using media such as websites, pre-recorded phone messages, and murals, while the remix album... [fill in the blank]. I would link alternate reality game for the first instance and link the game at "Year Zero game. Adding something on the remix album helps avoid weight issues and expands the emphasis on the overall project.
  • One last example from the lead The album spawned two singles, "Survivalism" and "Capital G", the latter being a promotional single. Is there any way to avoid the word "single" twice in one sentence? I would also link to single (music) and Promotional recording, and make it clearer how they differ.
  • I also agree that the album seems fairly "Reznor-heavy" - as one example, the "Disputes with Universal Music Group" section is almost all quotes from Reznor, with only a reference to press coverage of the dispute, and no reference to Universal Music Group's views or any of their positions or statements.

Unfortunately, UMG never issued any response. However, there was a good amount of press coverage, so maybe some 3rd party quotes would be nice. But as far as it being Reznor-heavy, the whole dispute revolves around what Reznor said, so without quoting Reznor, there's no way to thoroughly discuss the dispute.

OK, I would at least mention that UMG never replied, and if there are any sort of useful press coverage I would add that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOS#Images leave image sizes as thumbs and let reader preferences take over - several are now set to 200 px. DONE
• There are some interesting things on the two singles in their articles that are not in this album article.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:22 UTC)

---

Mario Kart Wii

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to get some creative comments about what to improve on the article. This is my first peer review, and I'm a major contributor to the article.

Thanks, Thornstrom (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Refernces 16, 33, and 37 aren't properly cited. Epass (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I will assume you want to go for GA. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• A model article is useful for ideas on style, structure, etc. I note that there are numerous FAs at WikiProject Nintendo. Super Mario 64 is FA and may be useful as a model.
  • Thanks for the advice.
• The lead needs to be expanded to meet the criteria at WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is that anything in a header should be mentioned in the lead somehow. So Reception and Sales do not seem to be in the lead, for example.
  • Added comments about sales and reception.
• Since this is part of the Mario Kart series, this should first be mentioned and linked more clearly in the second sentence of the lead, not the second sentence of the second lead paragraph. i.e. It is the sixth installment in the Mario Kart series (not including the two arcade games) and the second to use Nintendo's free online service.
  • Fixed.
• Perhaps rewrite the current last sentence of the lead to something like Unlike more realistic racing games, Mario Kart Wii features less realistic physics, and the use of various weapons and or items to achieve victory.
  • Yes, that sounds better.
• In Gameplay this is unclear In Mario Kart Wii, the player(s) can choose any one of up to 24 unique characters to operate their kart, which are separated into three weight classes. Are the characters divided into three weight classes or are the karts? Seems like the characters, but not sure.
  • Very true. Fixed.
• Last four sentences of first paragraph in Gameplay are unreferenced. I also note that references come after punctuation and are typically at the end of a sentence.
  • Added references. Also, all refs are now after punctuation.
• I think "150cc" should be "150 cc"
  • Not sure about this.
• Are there four modes of play or five - do the two Battle Modes count as one mode or two? Also Versus mode is identical to Grand Prix... can't be true - identical means exactly the same, and they are not.
  • Fixed.
• Second paragraph in Game modes is uncited
  • Fixed.
• Article could use a copyedit
  • Yes, probably :)
• References are not formatted properly - for example internet refs should have url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} is useful here, as are the other cite templates.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:23 UTC)

---

List of Red Dwarf episodes

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has had a lot of work done to it in the past few months and I feel it needs an outside opinion before trying for FL nomination. Thanks, Nreive (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Since I just reviewed the REd Dwarf episode The End, I will review this too. Here are some suggestions for improvement, but I must say it looks pretty good to me with the main question on the refs.

• There are a huge number of television episode lists at Wikipedia:FL#Media - I would pick a few from similar series and use them as models.
• I was going to say this in the other review, but Cadmium II is fictional as a radioactive isotope - I am not sure I would link Cadmium II to Cadmium, although perhaps giving it as "Cadmium II" would be OK.
• Should later developments in the series be described in the lead, as well as the original series set up? Perhaps as a third paragraph?
• Should the regions in DVDs be explained - Region 1 is North America, etc.?
• I think of "Lost Episodes" as shows that were actually made but were not saved somehow - as in some Dr. Who epsiodes. Is there a better name for these ideas / scripts that were never made?
• Does the movie really belong under Episodes (Lost or not)?
• References - I am not sure IMDB is a relaible source.
• Also not clear how the lists should be cited - I write Geography articles mostly and am unsure about citing in such lists.

Hoep this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, I have made some amendments and will continue to work on it. Nreive (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:25 UTC)

---

The End (Red Dwarf episode)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has come a long way from its Stub class in November 2007. I beleive it is time for it to be reviewed for any problems before a GA nomination. Thanks, Nreive (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The bit about the slime coming home should be a quote rather than prose. The image caption could be clearer - perhaps mention in the lead. The bit about Rimmer being resurrected as a hologramatic isn't clear - I thought the word was hologram? What's the Red Dwarf smegazine - a fan zine? Forgive me for asking this, but is it a reliable source? -Malkinann (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've made the changes to the issues as pointed out. Red Dwarf smegazine was a Fleetway Editions publication from the early 1990s. It contained comic strips, news, interviews etc. on Red Dwarf. I suppose it's as reliable as any other magazine source. Nreive (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a series I have heard of but never seem, here are some suggestions for improvement:

• The lead needs to be expanded to meet WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is that all the headers should be mentioned in some way in the lead - so Casting is not in the lead and the Production and Reception seem under-represented - see WP:WEIGHT too.
• Avoid needless repetition "the script" is in every sentence but one in the "Writing" section.
• I would also repeat the writers' full names in the first sentence of "Writing"
• Provide context for the reader - I do not undertand this Craig Charles was sent the script by Paul Jackson because of the concern that the character of the Cat might be seen as racist, and that he was also considered for the role.[7] see WP:PCR
• What are skutters? Explain please - in Changes specific to "The End" include bluescreen elements added to the opening scene with the skutters placed in the foreground of Rimmer and Lister and silhouettes of the crew's heads were added to the foreground of George McIntyre's funeral scene.[27]
• A copy edit would help - there are a few places that could be smoother.
• Seems fairly close to GA to me - I note that Red Dwarf is already GA and may be a good model article. There are other television episode articles that are GA and FA that may also be models.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look through the article again in the next few days for copy edit issues. Nreive (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:26 UTC)

---

Jeffrey Steele

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

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

Well, now that I've finally found a source to verify his date of birth, I'd like to help promote this article to good article status (that may take a while). A few things I'm looking for are:

• Would I need to give any specifics on his songwriting style, since he's primarily a songwriter? I'm finding nothing on his songwriting style.
• Similarly, I'm finding almost nothing on his singing style or musical influences, in or out of Boy Howdy. I will probably need help there.
• I'm not quite sure which songs would be notable enough to mention as being among his more notable compositions. "What Hurts the Most", obviously, since it was a huge hit, and maybe "If You Love Somebody" and "Unbelievable" since they won him awards and were among his first compositions.
• Any other tips that would make for a smoother article would be appreciated.

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I am not a music article writer, but will boldly jump in and give some ideas for improvement.

• Is there any critical commentary on his albums or songs, even those sung by other artists? I would think that any critical feedback on the songs he has written would include some material on them that might be adaptable as style.
• I would say any song that was on the charts or received an award would be notable. Another thing to look at would be what others say about him, if someone says "Steele, author of X, Y and Z", then I would include those songs (XYZ)\

Now for comments on the article

• A model article is often useful for a model to follow in terms of structure, style, etc. There are several musician FAs that may be useful models.
• having co-written more than sixty songs - does he only co-write? Does he ever write on his own?
• I would rename "Biography" something like "Early life" as the whole article is a Biography in a way, and this section is really just on his early life.
• Biography section has some gaps in chronology - in 1978 we get by age seventeen, he was performing with local groups, and playing keyboards at various gigs on the Sunset Strip in Los Angeles.[5], then skip nine years to te next sentence In 1987, after the death of his father, LeVasseur changed his last name to Steele... What were the names of some of his groups and wWhat did he do before Boy Howdy?
• Article needs a copyedit, for example In 1990, Jeffrey Steele and three other California musicians -- Hugh Wright, along with brothers Cary and Larry Park -- to form[ed] the band Boy Howdy, in which he served as the band's lead vocalist and bass guitarist.[7]
• Since Boy Howdy seems to be one of the main things for which he is notable, I would give a bit more about the group. For example, why did it break up (we are just told in passing they broke up two years after his move to Nashville)
• I think the Singles table is only for singles he recorded. This should be made clearer. Also why no table on songs he has (co-)written for others?

Interesting article, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Response:

• Any critical commentary on his songs? -- I've yet to find anything substantial.
• ...his albums? -- Again, nothing that I've found. All Music Guide never reviewed his albums, and apparently, neither did Billboard, Entertainment Weekly, or even country review sites like Country Standard Time or The 9513.
• Does he only co-write? -- I've looked him up on BMI, and about 99% of his material seems to be co-writes.
• Gaps in chronology -- I couldn't find anything regarding the interim there; no names of bands, et cetera. That was also one of maybe two sources to even verify his surname.
• Boy Howdy -- I've had a very hard time finding sources for this band since the name Boy Howdy has, like, 400 meanings. So far, I've found nothing on why they broke up, just that they did (the Country Weekly source, which actually just says that they were on hiatus).
• Singles table -- Yeah, I should clarify that those are his own singles. It wouldn't hurt to give a table of some of his notable compositions, I guess.

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, if there is not much material out there, that makes things harder. Is there a Steele fan club or a Boy Howdy fan club? They might know of some obscure but reliable sources - you never read the article in the "Springfield Shopper"?! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Springfield Shopper? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• It was meant to be a joke - it is the newspaper in the Simpsons, so I was pretending the fan club knew of an interview from some equally obscure (but reliable) source. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:28 UTC)

---

Thoroughbred

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine has a goal of getting this article (among others) to FA status and would welcome any suggestions that would help improve the article towards that goal.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Finetooth: In general, this article reads well, seems complete, and is clear and interesting. I enjoyed working on it, and I learned a lot about Thoroughbreds. In the process, I did a fair amount of copyediting, but quite a bit of nit-picky stuff still needs to be attended to.

• The last paragraph of the lead needs a re-write. Perhaps making "health issues" the essence of it rather than leading with the idea of controversy and protests would do the trick.

Done. Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• The terminology section is confusing. It's not clear why the appearance of the word Thoroughbred in the General Stud Book would have led to the misuse of the term. In addition, it seems contradictory to say that "horse breeders" consider it incorrect to use Thoroughbred to refer to any other breed and to say in the next sentence that "breeders of other species" do exactly that. This paragraph could do with a re-write for clarity.

Done (by Montanabw). This paragraph is the source of much discussion, and has been rewritten several times. The main editors seem to agree that it needs to be included, but not completely agree on what it should say or where it should be placed. Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Use en dashes in page ranges. For example, the Erigero entry in the reference section should be p. 287–94. I see lots of other instances in the notes section.

I'm lazy, I usually get Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his dash script over articles before going to FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Full dates like the one in the Finley entry in the reference section should be autoformatted.

Will fix. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Write out "percent" as word in simple constructions such as "Ten foundation mares account for 72 percent of maternal (tail-female) lineages, and, as noted above, one stallion appears in 95 percent of tail male lineages."

got it. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Avoid using "Thoroughbred" in the section titles and subtitles since it appears in the article title. In the history section, you might simply use "In America", "In Europe", "In Australia and New Zealand" and "In other places" and drop the word Thoroughbreds.

fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Constructions such as "1,000 Guineas" and "19th century" need to have no-break codes inserted between the number and the unit to prevent them from being visually separated by line-wrap. See WP:NBSP. I fixed a few of these, but I see a lot more.

got as many as I can see. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• The punctuation in some of the short references is missing. For example, "Phifer Track Talk p. 38", should be "Phifer, Track Talk, p. 38".

I don't see any at the moment Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Where possible, add ISBNs to books in the reference section. For example, "Napier, Miles (1977). Blood will tell: Orthodox breeding theories examined. London: J. A. Allen" appears to be ISBN 0851312543. In general, make the citation data as complete as you can. You've done this already for most but not all of the citations.

got as many as I can. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• The image captions could be improved by including just a bit more information in them that would link them better to the accompanying text. An example would be the caption, "Matchem". You might add something short and important about Matchem.

Expanded most. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Most of the horses in images are shown running into the page, and this is good. The horse in the infobox is an exception. If you have an equivalent photo of a horse running into the page and drawing the reader's eye with it, that might work better.

If I have to, I can just flip the current lead image in photoshop when I get home.. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The image has been replaced by one that is clearer, with the horse facing the other direction. Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you find these comments helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks muchly for all of these.

Further Finetooth comment: I never publish flipped photos because flipping runs the risk of distorting reality in sometimes unpredictable ways and it also meddles with the aesthetic perceptions of the original photographer. You might be able to flip the horse photo in the infobox, but questions come to my untutored (in horses) mind like "Do the runs on the infield grass go either way, or do they always go clockwise?" Experts might spot something else odd or impossible about a flipped photo. Finetooth (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

See above comment re: photo. Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job. It looks fine. Finetooth (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:28 UTC)

---

Archaeoastronomy

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to try and take it to GA or FA status. It's recently come out of an edit war, but that last bit of battling on the article over that was April 13 and the issue has been resolved at AN/I. Problems found in the GA re-assessment were a lack of references. With other editors I've added more to rectify this. Possible problems now are length and repetition, and people finding other problems I can't see would also be helpful. :)

Thanks, Alun Salt (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is quite an interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement:

• I agree the article is too long - I think there is a fair amount of room to trim it without making sub-articles. See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a
• The lead image does not do anything for me - I would see if one of the images already in the article would be better. Perhaps Image:Summer Solstice Sunrise over Stonehenge 2005.jpg (a FP) or even Image:Newgrange Eingang Stein.jpg would be better.
• In the lead, if Clive Ruggles is linked at all, it should be at first mention. Also the article title is supposed to be the only bold in the lead (so "ethnoastronomy" should not be bold). See WP:LEAD
• Please identify who some of te experts quoted are - Clive Ruggles for example - see WP:PCR
• Quotations should not be in italics, and should only be block quotes if they are more than four lines long - see WP:MOS#Quotations
• Per the WP:MOS, do not repeat the article title in the headers, so "History of archaeoastronomy" would just be "History", and "Archaeoastronomy and its relations to other disciplines" would just be "Relations to other disciplines", etc. We already know the article is about Archaeoastronomy, so the headers need not repeat it.
• While this is generally well sourced, there are several places without refs that still need them. Every paragraph should have a ref, every quote, every statistic, and every extraordinary claim. I would also cite every attribution (According to X...). Some examples (not a complete list): The basic methods were developed by Alexander Thom during his extensive surveys of British megalithic sites. (attribution), the second paragraph of Green school is uncited, or Despite this it is accepted that Archaeoastronomy is not a discipline that sits in isolation. - who accepts it? needs a ref.
• The Brown and Green sections seem like they could be compressed - there is also a fair amount of repetition about Green and Brown schools in later sections.
• Images should all be set to thumb width so reader preferences come into play (WP:MOS)
• Several sections are quite short and could be combined - for example could it be "Solar and lunar positioning"?
• The semi-automated peer review has several useful suggestions - see above.
• Personal question - since the Earth wobbles, etc. why do ancient monuments still align with the Sun etc. on particular days (like Newgrange)?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:31 UTC)

---

Nero Wolfe

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems to have a significant amount of information, possibly enough for GA consideration. Unfortunately, I have no really good idea what is required for GA consideration of an article about a fictional character, so am looking for some ideas as to what should be done to help the article reach that level.

Thanks, John Carter (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While a lot of work has gone into this, it needs more work to get to GA status. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• A model article is often useful for ideas, structure, style, etc. There are 20 character GAs here which may provide some ideas.
• The lead needs to be expanded to meet WP:LEAD and summarize the entire article. My rule of thumb is that any header should be mentioned in the lead somehow. Also nothing should be only in the lead, so the awards could be repeated in the body of the article.
• Images should be set to thumb (not pixel widths) per WP:MOS#Images so readers' preferences can take over.
• The title of the article should not be repeated in headers per the MOS, so "Nero Wolfe books by Rex Stout" could be "Books by Rex Stout" since we already know this article is about Nero Wolfe.
• Biggest two problems as I see it are the need for more references and the need to have more of an out-of-universe perspective. For the latter see WP:IN-U
• Examples of places where references are needed - the paragraph starting with On weekdays, Fritz serves Wolfe's breakfast in Wolfe's bedroom... any direct quote It is noted early in the first Wolfe novel that there is a gong under Archie's bed that will ring upon any intrusion into or near Wolfe's own bedroom: "Wolfe told me once ... that he really had no cowardice in him, he only had an intense distaste for being touched by anyone ..." or all of the Friends section
• Critical reception section is missing - what have critics said about the character?
• Also is this article about the character or the series of stories / novels?
• References need more information - books should have ISBN numbers, publishers, etc.

What is there is good and detailed, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:32 UTC)

---

GreenLeft

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after working out a basic structure for Dutch party articles, expanding them and this party in particular, working on images and tables, and getting it fully referenced, I was wondering what the community felt, about this article specifically and the structure in general. Not knowing the procedure I put it up for Wikipedia:Good articles instead, and they advised me to take it to peer review here first.

Thanks, C mon (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improving it to GA and beyond:

• A model article is often usful to follow for ideas, style, structure, etc. I note that Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago) is a FA, and there are some GAs such as Green Party of Canada that may be useful models
• The lead needs to be expanded to conform to WP:LEAD
• Please do not include symbols in the headers such as "&", spell out "and" instead
• The article has a lot of information, but needs a copyedit for grammar and to read / flow more smoothly. Try asking WP:LOCE or one of the copyeditors at WP:PRV
• Watch out for unclear language: example Before the election of 1986 the CPN and the PPR wanted to form an electoral alliance with the PSP. This led to a crisis within the party... Which party? The rpeceding sentence just named three parties
• People without a parliamentary system might not understand the numbers at the beginning of the "1989-1994" (that parties within the alliance were assigned numbers in the list: The PPR which had been the largest party in 1986 got the top candidate (Ria Beckers) and the number five, the PSP the numbers two and six...'). Provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR
• In the table in Representation & Support, I would explain the abbreviations, so In this table the election results of the GreenLeft in Tweede Kamer (TK), Eerste Kamer (EK), European (EP) and provincial (PS) elections is represented...
• I am also uncertain about using the Dutch terms in the table - for example the Dutch for Party chair is Partijvoorzitter but "Party Chair" is used in the table. Since this is the English Wikipedia I think I would use the English names for "Fractievoorzitter" and "Lijsttrekker" too. AT the very least I would be consistent, either all English (prefer) or all Dutch.
• References need more complete information - see WP:CITE and WP:V. For example the internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} and the other cite templates may help here.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:33 UTC)

---

Portuguese Liga

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to know how improve this article.

Thanks, Sdrtirs (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and here are my comments to help improve it:

• The three tags at the top of the article need to be addressed first - this needs inline references (see WP:CITE and WP:V), and the external links need to meet the criteria in WP:EL. No hope of getting to GA, let alone FA without these.
• Is this a list or an article? It might make sense to split out some of the lists as separate articles and make this more detailed and prose on the league. See WP:Summary Style
• The lead needs to be expanded - see WP:LEAD
• External links such as The 2006-07 season saw an average attendance by club [3]: need to be converted to inline refs too. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be useful here.
• A model article is often helpful for ideas - there are a large number of FA and GA articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that may prove helpful.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:34 UTC)

---

Big Walnut High School

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

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

I really want to get this article up to GA status on WP:WPSCH, if not on WP:GA. Anything, and I mean anything that you can suggest would be awesome.

Thanks, Ejg930 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

PEER REVIEW - chzz

Nice little article, generally.

A picture or two would be nice. The crest, or a pic of the school?

Suggest 'High school' links to High_school#United_States so that US info is given

"School Information" contains the word "school" too many times...I know it's in the name(s), but it's a bit much!

In "Academics" =- don't abbreviate to "BWHS" - better to say "The school..."

In "Athletics" you need to say the name of the team at the beginning

After "Ohio Capital Conference" you should put "(OCC)", so that when you usee the abbreviation later, it makes sense

I didn't immediately understand the part reading; "Ohio High School Athletic Association State Championships

   * Boys Golf – 2002 [1]
   * Varsity Football- 2007 [2]

...are these awards presented by OCC? Maybe it should be titled "awards" or "achievements"?

What's FFA in external links?

HTH,

Chzz (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:36 UTC)

---

Exterior algebra

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that the article is complete, or nearly complete. It is extensively referenced and has been quite stable for some time. This is on a rather technical topic, of somewhat marginal interest outside of mathematics and theoretical physics, so the encyclopedia entry follows more the model of the Encyclopedia of Mathematics than that of theEncyclopedia Britannica. I'd like to get the article up to GA status, if possible.

Thanks, silly rabbit (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Looks very good, I would agree to GA rating. A few suggestions:
  • Cover exterior algebras of modules (in addition to vector spaces) already in the lead (at least mentioning them). It is quite conceivable that someone comes to the article looking for exterior products in that context but leaves the article before reaching the corresponding subsection coming much later. (In fact, missing coverage of modules hampers most linear algebra articles on WP today – would be good to try and deal with this issue more generally).
  • In the discussion of universal property, should mention that discussion takes place in the context of unital associative algebras (for the "most general" algebra being the tensor algebra).
  • Functoriality would be better discussed earlier (e.g., just after the universal property). That way alternating tensors would also follow directly after the bigebra structure and interior product.
  • The applications would benefit from some clarification. In particular, the paragraph on differential geometry needs fixing (the tangent space of a manifold?). Discussion of n-forms as alternating functions on tangent vectors (vector fields) would probably be useful. Here one would also get a practical applications for exterior algebras of modules (over the ring of smooth functions).
  • Exterior products, algebras of sheaves should deserve a mention (if not too extensive discussion here).

But in general look great! Stca74 (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I like the article. Nice! It's a shame that only few WP readers will benefit :) Some ideas:

• I'd try to center the article more around the several equivalent definitions. 1st the one you give, 2nd the universal property, 3rd the stuff you write under "Duality" (I don't understand why the section Alternating operators shows up under "Duality"). This way you coul reduce redundancy.
• Another general impression is that properties which come from the tensor algebra (such as grading) could be trimmed down and deferred in greater length to that article.
• Also, in general, I think the article should emphasize the vector space case less, in favor of rings and (locally free) modules.
• "Under this identification, and if the base field is R or C" ... -> what is R or C for?
• The article is pretty long. Could you trim down a bit? For example the "interior product" section could be shortened/move content to the subarticle.
• The applications section is somewhat slim compared to the rest of the article.
• I know differential forms, but I don't understand "A differential form at a point of a differentiable manifold can intuitively be interpreted as a function on weighted subspaces of the tangent space at the point."
• The internal link to reference Kannenberg (2000) does not work.
• I would replace "n choose k" by the standard symbol.
• The word "area" in the motivating section should be wikilinked.
• Maybe a link to mathematical notation (for the wedge symbol) would be good, if something in this direction exists. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Another minor suggestion: there is a template {{harvnb}} which displays harvard style citations without brackets. In the notes section I'd propose to use this so as to get something like

This is shown in Bourbaki 1994, section blablabla. instead of This is shown in (Bourbaki 1994) etc. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:37 UTC)

---

Gojira (band)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it a Featured Article. It is already a GA and I would like to know if it passes the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. And if not, I would like to know how to improve it. Thanks. Cheers.  LYKANTROP  13:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Laser brain's comments

• You have a great start here, but I wouldn't consider this anywhere near comprehensive enough for FA status. Take a look at some other FAs on musical groups, like Powderfinger or Red Hot Chili Peppers to get an idea of the depth required. More research and more writing is needed.
• The lead is far too short, but I suspect it will grow as the article grows.
• The prose is pretty good as it stands; just need to expand it. :) --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:38 UTC)

---

Bernard Hopkins vs. Joe Calzaghe

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I created it in April and I've been working out it since and I've received a peer review yet on this article.

Thanks, Rvk41 (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement:

• A model article is useful for ideas on style, refs, structure, etc. Unfortunately I do not see a boxing match GA or FA, but try asking at WikiProject Boxing for ideas.
• The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD and should summarize the whole article.
• Watch out for POV and peacock language, for example For quite some time, this matchup seemed destined to be one of the great what-might-have-beens in recent boxing history. While Hopkins made 20 consecutive title defenses as a middleweight before two losses to Jermain Taylor, Calzaghe dominated the super middleweight division from Europe during a decade-long reign that still hasn't ended. See WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK
• These two sentences are just one example of many that also need citations / references. Generally each paragraph, any statistics, all direct quotes, and any extraordinary claims need a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Please give both metric and English units - the {{convert}} template is useful here - example Both fighters weighed in at 173 lb.[6]
• Minimize or explain jargon - for example Hopkins appeared to be fighting his fight as he was gliding off his backfoot around the ring and he landed his first flush punch - wikilinks can help here too
• What did people other than the two boxers say about the fight? What did sportswriters write about it? Did they feel it was a fair fight and agree with the split decision by the judges? Put the fight into context for the reader, WP:PCR
• Refs look good.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:39 UTC)

---

O Canada

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for FAC soon. Gary King (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• What makes the NNDB a reliable source? Wouldn't it be better to source a biography of Alfred Lord Tennyson?
• Citing another generalist encyclopedia such as Encarta to source a generalist encyclopedia is a bit odd. It's not an unreliable source, but it's not the best sourcing possible.
• When you say "criticized by secularlists" you only have one source, so I'm not sure that you can really say more than "one group of secularists". Probably need either another group or two citation or a news article saying specifically that groups plural criticize it. (I don't think this is going to be a big issue to find, since if Canadian secularlists are like US secularlists they dislike references to God in government...)

Otherwise the sources look good. 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues addressed, references resolved. I don't know what you think of The Canadian Encyclopedia as a reference, but I find it extremely useful because it specializes in Canadian content, and it also has a Canadian Music section. The article for "O Canada" is more extensive than I could possibly ask for. I've removed Encarta, though, since a lot of their information can be found on other sites pretty easily. I've also added another conservative site as a reference to the secular statement. Gary King (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to weigh in here... myself, I'm happy with specialist encyclopedia's such as The Canadian Encyclopedia, but would always look for a better source than a generalist encyclopedia such as Encarta. So all's well.

Meanwhile, I'm about to plunge in with some copy-editing to the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• You've sourced all versions of the lyrics except the Inuktitut. --01:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a source for that. Gary King (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:40 UTC)

---

Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Lost FA status mainly because of poor info on the reception of the game. I'm sure with a little work we can return this to FA status.

Thanks, Buc (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dihydrogen Monoxide

Since reception was the issue, here are some notes on that...you can get feedback on the rest if you like - just ask and I'll do it when I have time!

Might as well just review it all. Buc (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do when I get the chance. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the metacrtic review box score be based on reviews, not votes?
• IGN shouldn't be in italics in references (etc.) - noticed this on ref 81
• "The game was generally well-received by the media, and was given high scores by some of the most prominent gaming critics." - this is kinda meaningless, as the reviews box and subsequent commentary should give this impression...
• First para of reception is awkward...basically just listing scores for the first half, then you start quoting etc. It basically needs re-organisation; eg. quote IGN when you first give the score (more than just "incredible")
• "Further criticism came from the website Adrenaline Vault" - if it's a website, it shouldn't be in italics (if it's a magazine, it should).
• A lot more general receptive commentary is necessary for such a major game...plenty of VG FAs do this well, but basically a short paragraph like that isn't enough...
  • Can you recommend one? Buc (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl#Reception_and_sales; currently at FAC. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm that's a bit too different a game really, and it's brand new while this is about ten years old. Any exsample you could recommend? Buc (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Interesting - Bole, is this somehow related to why you added Brawl's entire reception section into MGS's reception section (without changing anything at all)? I question that action. --haha169 (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• "Members of GameFAQs ranked it the 8th best" - 8th best WHAT? (same with next sentences)

dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:45 UTC)

---

Elias Porter

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

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

• I am new to Wikipedia and want to be sure I have created a nuetral viewpoint article - a biography of Elias Porter with relevance in the field of Psychology.
• The article could benefit from edits for clarity, redability, grammar etc.
• I'm not sure where to draw the line with links to other topics (example: should "World War II" be a link?) and what the protocol is for multiple links of the same topic (example: Client-Centered Therapy is linked once in the text and once in the references section - but not in every occurence.
• I wasn't sure whether "Relationship Awareness Theory" should be it's own heading because it was the culimination of his life work, or if it should fall under the "Significant Work and Contributions" heading.
• Is it appropriate to add new topics for "Relationship Awareness Theory" (with more depth and references than his bio), Strength Deployment Inventory (a validated psychometric written by Porter), and Personal Strengths Publishing (the company he founded)? I see that other psychometric tests and theories and companies have thier own pages, some of which look like they have a marketing component, some of which appear to have a nuetral perspective.

Thanks, Tscud (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting and generally well-written article. I will try to answer your specific questions in order first, and then make some suggestions for improving the article itself:

• The article seems relatively neutral to me - if you have not read WP:NPOV please do so. One possible area to make it more neutral would be to include more material written by reliable independent third-party sources on him. So it is OK to quote Porter himslef on his theories, but also try to find what others have written about them (and him) and include that too. See WP:RS for more on relaible sources.
• A copyedit is always useful. One trick is to not work on the article for a week or so and then read it "fresh". Another is to read the article out loud - many rough spots become more obvious that way. You can also ask at WP:PRV for a copyedit.
• Generally topics should be linked at most twice in an article - once in the lead and a second time in the body of the article. If you feel the Second World War is important to the article, link it. Typically avoid linking simple things like house or car. Full dates (day, month year) should always be linked as it makes them display according to the user's preferences.
• For the last two questions, I would ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology for more knowledgable opinions. This would also be a good place to ask for more peer review comments.

Ruhrfisch comments on the article itself

• A model article is useful - I looked at the Psychology WIkiproject article assessments and there are no GA or FA articles on psychologists. There are over 400 FA class biography articles at Category:FA-Class_biography_articles so I would look there and see what you can find that would be useful as a model for style, structurem, refs, etc.
• PEr WP:LEAD the lead needs to be expanded to summarize the whole article.
• The picture has the wrong license - since he has died it is WP:FAIR USE (impossible to make a new photo of him) and it is also impossible that the uploader made the picture of him in May 2008.
• References come after pucntuation, so He completed his Masters work in 1938 at the University of Oregon[1], which documented... should be He completed his Masters work in 1938 at the University of Oregon,[1] which documented ... There are others that need to be fixed.
• Per the WP:MOS headers should be capitalized like this "Career highlights". This "The more a theory is for people, rather than about people, the better it will serve people" has got to be the longest header I have ever seen - can it be shortened? It also sounds like a direct quote and should be cited as such.
• Article needs more references - for example the Career Highlights section has zero refs, as does Entrepeneurship.
• Some sections are quite short and break up the flow of the article - can they be combined with other sections or expanded?

Hope this helps, if you find it helpful please consider making comments at another peer review, especially one with no or minimal responses so far at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:45 UTC)

---

Insane Clown Posse

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's been a while since the last time I had a peer review done on an article, but I did some major work on this article and want some feedback in order to find out what needs to be done to get this article up to FA status.

Thanks, Ibaranoff24 (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Yannismarou

• The lead looks to me a bit over-cited. Have in mind this.

• Cleaned up the lead's citations. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

• "Bruce and Utsler have also collaborated with many famous hip hop and rock musicians.[11][12] Insane Clown Posse have dedicated followers, known as Juggalos and Juggalettes.[13] Bruce and Utsler founded the independent record label Psychopathic Records with manager Alex Abbiss. The label produces and distributes works by Juggalo musicians, in addition to Bruce and Utsler's own music." This part of the lead looks a bit choppy and like trivia. It needs better prose and better prose-connection between the various issues you treat.

• Rewritten. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

• "Bruce, Utsler and Hill formed a gang" Do we know more about this gang. What wat it doing exactly?
• "and are known both for the dark and violent content of their lyrics", "has been criticized for the dark and violent content and perceived immaturity of their lyrics". Both sentences in the lead; a bit repetitive.

• Rewritten (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

• "Insane Clown Posse went back on the road with House of Krazees. Halfway through the tour, House of Krazees disbanded. Two ... " An example of choppy prose which is common place throughout the article.

• Rewritten. In the process of finding other examples and correcting this problem. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

• The article is well-cited, and includes some critical assessments of the group's music, which is positive. You could have also critical assessments of each album separately, as I have seen in other articles, and not only to refer to what these albums have done to the charts.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:46 UTC)

---

Resinol

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A couple of years ago I put up an article on Resinol that basically had the information from the bottle. I have recently added a history section to give more insight to the whos, whats, wheres, whens, whys, and hows of the medicated ointment. Unfortunately, the article has been around for over two years and is orphaned. It would be great if you could possibly help make the article better and spread the word about it.

Thanks, Patrick 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have never heard of this product, so I learned something about it. I do feel the article is written like an advertisement or promotional piece for the company and put an {{advert}} tag on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• This article need to prove its Notability better - why should there be an article on it in Wikipedia? See WP:NN, which says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. Except for the intro at the archive and the obituary, there is very little to show notability.
• Lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD and the how to order it stuff is probably not needed in the article, let alon the lead.
• Image:Resinol.jpg needs a better fair use rationale.
• I found the article a bit confusing - the lead should make clear this is an Over-the-counter drug for example. DONE
• References need to give proper information - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} for the obituary may be helpful.
• Uses, Directions, Warnings, and Ingredients have no (ZERO) refs and read in palces like copy vio (taken right off the jar, as noted above). DONE They also need to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone. DONE
• Could you you link this from Resorcinol as it is the active ingredient? DONE
• Semi automated peer review has some useful ideas.
• Also good to try and find a model Good or Featured Article on another OTC drug and use that for ideas to expand and improve this.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:47 UTC)

---

Costello Music

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article failed an FAC, I'd like some pointers as to where to go next with it as I feel I've addressed all concerns raised in the FAC :) Thanks, -- Naerii 23:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have actually heard this album and will make some suggestions for improvement:

• A model article is always useful for ideas, style, structure, etc. There are a large number of music FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music that may be suitable models.
• I would also treat the FAC as a very detailed peer review. I read the FAC and agree with their sugestions - the article needs a copyedit for grammar and to tighten up the article and it seems to be fairly short / lacking detail in places. I would address every point raised, make sure that there are not other similar points to be addressed in other parts of the article (i.e. treat the examples as just that, not a complete list), and then ask the FAC editors to look at the article again and see if their concerns have been addressed. I read for content but noticed some spelling concerns too - i.e. "scount" for "scout"
• The WP:LOCE can do copyedits or you can ask at WP:PRV in the copyedits section. Reading the article out loud is often helpful too.
• Per WP:LEAD the lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article - my rule of thumb is that every section header should be mentioned in the lead somehow, even if it is only a word or phrase. I would read the article carefully and make sure this applies - lyrics really aren't mentioned in the lead, for example. Neither are the B sides and extra tracks.
• References should be in numerical order so and "Chelsea Dagger" is said by Jon Fratelli to be about a showgirl.[4][1] should be and "Chelsea Dagger" is said by Jon Fratelli to be about a showgirl.[1][4] There may be other instances of this.
• Find someone at WP:PRV or who has written most of an album article you like and ask them for more ideas.

I hope this helps, if you found it useful please consider peer reviewing a request, especially one with no feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found your request). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:49 UTC)

---

McGill University

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the last one only brought forth a couple of replies, and because this article only has around 3 users working on it. We would like some more suggestions to McGill University. We have someone about to do a full copyediting, and the past week has seen more than fifty edits to improve this article. Thanks, Sunsetsunrise (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

View of Twenty Years (1)

• There is too much detail on the Redpath Musuem in the lead. It should be chopped down to one sentence, and merged into the bit above it in the lead.
• this image claims in the Fair use rationale that it is the "Whole logo of McGill University", yet the image name is; "Mcgill crest.png", should not it be "Whole crest of McGill University?
• I dislike having the image mentioned above at the bottom of the infobox. There should be one image of the schools crest in the infobox, not two.
• In the History section, When he died in December 1813, this task became the responsibility of the R.I.A.L., a reference is needed for that.
• In the history section On March 31, 1821... the date needs to be wikilinked. Also, id like to see a reference for this; In fact, due to the lawsuits—which did not finally end until 1835—and because the college had little money (the government was not funding the institution at the time), classes were not held until 1829, when McGill College was officially inaugurated. Id also like a reference for this; That same year, the Montreal Medical Institution became the college's Faculty of Medicine and its first academic unit. If the Montreal Medical Institution was really notable, this might be worth mentioning in the lead.
• In the history section; In due course, the R.I.A.L. lost control of the 84 grammar schools it had administered. - How did it lose them, and why?
• In the history section; The Institution's name appears on all cheques cut by the university. - Does anyone care?
• Royal Institution for the Advancement of Learning is abbreviated to RIAL early in the article, but it still appears in full throughout the first section of history.
• Does there really need to be a one paragraph section on the school getting battle honours, it may be very notable (possibly mentioned in the lead), but it doesnt deserve its own section and breaks the flow of the article
• In the McGill français movement section, the full date March 28, 1969 needs to be wikilinked. Id like a few more references in this section also, for example; The McGill français movement began in 1969, clamouring for a new McGill that would be francophone, pro-nationalist, and pro-worker..
• In the Academics section; McGill's student population includes, both full-time and part-time, 23,758 undergraduate and 7,323 graduate students in over 340 academic programs in eleven faculties (as of 2007-2008). Reference needed.
• Also need a reference for; where the students come from, what language they speak, fluency in french is not a requirement, the faculty of law stuff, break down of students into faculties.

Five Years 04:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

View of Twenty Years (2)

• the schools share a successful publishing house (McGill-Queen's University Press). How do we know its successful, why is it successful? or is this just POV? Is there a reference for it.
• There has been a McGill alumnus or alumna competing at every Olympic Games since 1908. - This MUST be referenced.
• The second use of the school coat of arms in the article is not allowed per Fair Use.
• The article mentions the full text of the school song, does the song really deserve to be written out in full? Even if it does, what is its copyright status? Is there a reference confirming that those words are correct?
• The Misc Facts section lacks any serious notability. Id just delete it all.
• Id like part of notable alumni section to have more prose, going into more depth about certain categories of alumni, eg. it has an olympic runner who got gold, etc.
• Image:Robertseanleonard.jpg is a Fair Use image, it cannot be used in this article.
• Image:Universitas21.jpg doesnt even have a Fair Use Rationale and should be deleted from wikipedia. Add one ASAP so it will survive.
• The section on Campaign McGill should either be deleted or moved into history (with less emphasis)
• To try and create a better flow in the article. May i suggest the following;
  • Move Campus to the position under History
  • Make facilities a sub-section of Campus
  • Make Athletics a sub-section of Student life
  • Get rid of the Finances section -- the info is important, but not to its own section.
  • Merge research into Academics -- they seem to go well together.
• Hope this helps. Five Years 16:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 20:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:50 UTC)

---

Tungsten

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
When I started editing this article, it was B-class. I added many inline references, cleaned up the formatting, and although I'm not completely done, I think it's ready to be submitted to GA. Thanks, Ziggy Sawdust 19:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mrshaba comments:

• I think the high melting temperature is mentioned one time too many. I realize this is an important property but the page starts and ends mentioning this property.
• The Chromium page combines the etymology within the history section. Consider this because both sections are relatively short and the topics seem to complement each other. The Helium page has history down the page a bit but where you guys have it seems fine.
• I think I found and fixed the punctuation after reference problem. Also removed a redundant sentence that mentioned fluorescent lighting.
• There's still some cases of Celsius being spelled out. I don't think this is desired per the MoS unless it involves a conversion. i.e X Celsius (x F)
• The first sentence of the Chemical Properties seems to need a home or some other sentences around it to keep it company. "Tungsten resists attack by oxygen, acids, and alkalis."
• The first sentence of the Biological role also seems to be hanging. Maybe combine it with the next sentence without a break.
• The tungsten (VI) oxide link doesn't work. The red link is distracting. If it can be fixed fix it, and if it's not essential consider removing it.
• I realize this is a chemistry page but the chemical formulas that open up the first sentence of the Production section are over-kill.
• How is it that the Spanish isolated the element but the Swedes named it? I'm just curious. There might be an interesting bit of history there.
• Look at the reference section on the Gold, Mercury and Helium pages. The type is smaller, there's no underlining and they look cleaner. I know formatting references are a pain but consider this.
• Consider the wolframite picture for the page.
• I hope this review helps. I've given this review hoping for a reciprocal review of the Solar energy page. No worries if you can't get through it but any suggestions would help. Mrshaba (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 16:54 UTC)

---

List of schools in Northland, New Zealand

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for featured list. The main list is comprehensive for all schools currently open and recognised by the Ministry of Education. The rolls and decile ratings change each year. I last updated them in January and intend to update them once a year. For each school, the information in the table can be verified using the MOE link, and very occasionally if the MOE website is not up to date, using the link to decile updates in the references section. Very few of the schools on the list have their own article; the links are redirects to the local town, suburb or community, which includes a paragraph on the school. I created 72 articles on such communities, some of them stubs, most start-class, and a few B-class.

It is not practical to add a photo of every school, and attempting to do so would greatly increase the size of the article while adding little value. I believe the map of secondary education locations is sufficient to illustrate the article. I had planned to produce a map of all localities with at least a primary school, but the number of locations would have necessitated a much larger map, or much smaller text, and the present map seemed like a suitable compromise.

I'm not sure whether the incomplete lists of closed schools should remain in this article or be split off. I am not aware of any comprehensive and reliable source which lists closed schools for before 1999, so I have pieced these lists together from the lists that are comprehensive for schools closed since 1999, and the material in several books written on local history of the communities.

Thanks, gadfium 08:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of schools in Northland, New Zealand/archive1.

(Peer review added on Friday 23 May 2008, 22:38 UTC)

---

Siege of Lal Masjid

This peer review discussion has been closed.

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've worked on this article for almost a week now once I saw the potential this article had. I would particularly like to say thanks to Mercenary2k who worked on the article before me.

I already have addressed all the concerns previously mentioned in other reviews. Since I already have background knowledge on this article, I am not sure if I am leaving anything out. Therefore might I ask that particular attention be payed to the Background section. I also have some concerns about about images. Since I am not a "image-person", it has been difficult for me to find images that fit Wikipedia's policy. I would like some comments on whether the article needs more images for its appeal.

Thanks, → Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Sunday 25 May 2008, 21:05 UTC)

---

Siege of Lal Masjid

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've worked on this article for almost a week now once I saw the potential this article had. I would particularly like to say thanks to Mercenary2k who worked on the article before me.

I already have addressed all the concerns previously mentioned in other reviews. Since I already have background knowledge on this article, I am not sure if I am leaving anything out. Therefore might I ask that particular attention be payed to the Background section. I also have some concerns about about images. Since I am not a "image-person", it has been difficult for me to find images that fit Wikipedia's policy. I would like some comments on whether the article needs more images for its appeal.

Thanks, → Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and great lead picture. While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, for example the reactions section is not mentioned in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
• There seems to be too much empahsis in the lead on events leading up to the siege compared to the amount of text in the article itself, see WP:WEIGHT

• The death toll in the infobox is 96, but the article lead says "95 casualties". I also note that casualty in military operations usually refers to all dead and wounded (plus missing and prisoners).

Fixed There was a reason I had put it at 95 but that doesn't matter since I changed the article name. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• There are also 11 SSG killed in the infobox, and the article says Of the 164 SSG army commandos that had laid siege to the mosque on July 3 and stormed it later, 10 were killed and 33 were wounded.[4] but the photo caption of 8 dead SSG The troops of Pakistan Army’s Special Services Group, who were killed by militants during assault on the mosque makes it seem as if only these 8 were killed.

Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Since you asked for feedback on photos, what is there seems OK. I would move the photo of the mosque earlier - as it is, there are two photos very close together (mosque and street, attack). The dead soldiers needs a better Fair Use template and source information.

Fixed I moved the pictures but I am not sure what to do with the picture of the dead soliders since I do not have knowledge of Wikipeida's image policies. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Biggest complaint for the Background is to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR
  • For example, The Lal Masjid was founded by Maulana Qari Abdullah in 1965 and is named for its red walls and interiors. should mention this is a mosque and that the name translates as Red Mosque. Also who is/was Maulana Qari Abdullah?

Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Problem sentence General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq was very close to Maulana Qari Abdullah who often gave speeches on jihad during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.[14] Zia should be identified as President of Pakistan, and who (who gave speeches) is unclear - assume MQA

Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Another problem After the Soviet war in Afghanistan ended in 1989, the mosque continued to function as a center for radical Islamic learning and housed several thousand male and female students in adjacent seminaries.[14] the center for radical Islam is not mentioned earlier - speeches, yes, but learning, no. Same for the seminaries. When were they founded / built?

• • Identify Musharaf better in Following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, Mushrraf's government...

Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I prefer "the leadership of Lal Masjid" to just "Lal Masjid" in Lal Masjid and the Jamia Hafsa denied having any links with organizations now banned for supporting terrorism, but ... Also Jamia Hafsa needs to be identified before this (mentioned in the lead, but this is the Background).

Fixed and will do--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Grammar "was became" and clarify his (Musharaf) in The mosque was became a center for speeches calling for his assassination.

Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• • If the same reference is used for three sentences in a row, I would just have one ref at the end of the three sentences (unless one of those is a direct quote or statement likely to be challenged)

Ok--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• • tense in All of them are released after the women supposedly admitted to running the brothel...

Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Who alleged a soft approach? Who made accusations of leniency? Specifics are helpful - An allegedly soft approach taken by the Pakistani government in dealings with the mosque led to accusations of leniency on the part of President Musharraf.[14]

• There is a citation needed tag at the end of Background and a few other places need more references, such as However, the statements from government authorities were controversial, and according to surrendering students, about 2,000 students were still inside. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Fixed Will work on it.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Article needs a copyedit for grammar, typos, etc.

Will do. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Bullet list in Pakistani media should be converted to text

Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why does China get its own section in reactions? Why not other nations?

There is already a section for the US and Al-Qaeda since those are the only other "international" reactants. I could remove the section headings and leave "International Reactions". --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 13 here has a date and author that need to be included, as does the date accessed. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and oter cite templates may be helpful.

Fixed--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this article. Feel free to comment on a suggestion for the international section.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This was somehow listed twice on Peer Review so I have properly archived the peer review. My question on foreign reaction is more why should China's reaction be important? What did Great Britain (former colonial power) say? What about the European Union? How about India? I do not have a problem with the US and Al-Qaaeda having their own sections, but could China and other foreign reactions be together with out a subheader? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved the article but the peer review didn't connect so I tried fixing it but it didn't work I suppose. I understand what you are saying and will add other reactions under the same header. Thanks again. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 25 May 2008, 21:07 UTC)

---

Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Florida

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
As part of my attempt at a featured topic for Hurricane Dennis, I published this after a while of hard work, it passed GA, went through GAR and was kept listed, and now I'm trying to figure out what it needs before an FAC. Any comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article that is in pretty good shape already, so most of my suggestions for improvement will be pretty nit-picky:

• There are many Hurricane FAs so I assume there are a number of model articles to follow - I do not write on storms, so if some of my comments go against Hurricane style, feel free to ignore them.
• I think in the lead "Effects" should be lower case, i.e. "effects"
• This is a bit confusing: Hurricane Dennis formed from a tropical wave on June 29, 2005. The wave proceeded westward across the Atlantic Ocean, and became a tropical depression on July 4, a tropical storm on July 5, and a hurricane on July 7. My understanding is that tropical waves are not named, so the initial name would be Tropical Depression Four and it would only gain the Dennis name as a Tropical Storm, and only became "Hurricane Dennis" when it became a Hurricane. I would rewrite this as something like The tropical wave that became Hurricane Dennis formed on June 29, 2005, and proceeded westward across the Atlantic Ocean. It became a tropical depression on July 4, a tropical storm on July 5, and a hurricane on July 7. I tried to make the sentences more equal in length, and note that Hurricane Dennis is a FA and describes this very well too.
• Santa Rosa Island is a dab - might want to add "in Florida" here too (since it has already made landfall in Cuba) so The storm made landfall [in Florida] as a Category 3 hurricane on Santa Rosa Island on July 10.[1]
• Still in the lead - the first paragraph says two direct deaths, then the second paragraph says three people died in a flooded car. I assume these are not considered "direct deaths"? Should the direct deaths be mentioned more explicitly in the second paragraph? I would also summarize indirect and direct deaths in the lead (2 direct and ? indirect)
• A map showing the affected areas in Florida might help clarify this article
• Awkward sentence Although, shuttle managers eventually decided to begin preparations to move Discovery from the launching pad.[6]
• Watch for overlinking - Santa Rosa Island is linked at least three times in the article, for example
• Be consistent on names of places - since the article is on Florida, does it really have to be "Milton, Florida"? Many of the places are just listed by name (no "Florida"), which seems clearer to me.
• Article could use a copyedit - try reading it out loud.

Hope this helps, interesting read Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks for the comments and suggestions. I'll start working tomorrow when I get a chance. Yeah, my writing abilities aren't great, so I don't know how much I'll be able to copyedit it. The other stuff is pretty easy, though. Thanks, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, and about the direct and indirect deaths, the three people who drowned in a flooded ditch were killed indirectly because they were believed to have hydroplaned. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps explain this in the article then - I did not know what makes a death "direct" in a storm vs. "indirect" Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know about FAC, so I looked at the sources for the article.

• A couple of your website references only give the author. Examples:
  • http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1410514.htm where the publisher is a radio program
  • http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=29466&archive=true where the publisher is Stars & Stripes
• http://www.fla-keys.com/spiegelgrove/ is an okay source, but not the best.

Otherwise the sources look fine. I did not look at prose, just sources as I would have done at FAC. 16:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 27 May 2008, 15:01 UTC)

---

King Arthur

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has just been expanded using several sources and the editors are wondering where to go next to get to FA status.

Thanks, Wrad (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Tuesday 27 May 2008, 15:01 UTC)

---

Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has already had a peer review before. Since then it has made tremendous jumps in terms of quality, and is now well-sourced, well-written and well-structured. I personally think it is ready for a Good Article nomination, but before I go so far I'd like any more advice on improving its quality even further.

With the exception of a user who added in the mythology section today, I'm largely the only editor working on the page, so if there's also anyone else who wants to work on the page to fix things like grammar, tone, prose, etc, please help because I'm not so well-versed in those areas.

Thanks, The Clawed One (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Tuesday 27 May 2008, 15:01 UTC)

---

Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine)

See also Simultaneous second peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review, in the interest of demonstrating there can be a globalised article (i.e., insurgency) with one or more national doctrines implementing it. There has been some confusion as a result of an unconventional warfare article that is quite distinct from this one.

Thanks, Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch

Ruhrfisch comments: First off this article needs to follow the five pillars of WIkipedia, one of which is Neutral Point of View. As written, this seems to me to be an example of content forking. This is not to say that there could not be a very good and neutral article on this topic, but right now this ain't it. Still it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it and so here are some suggestions to make it better. These are broad as a lot of work to clean this up has to be done. I will also give examples, but usually there will be many more occurrences of the problem that need to be fixed in the article - the examples are not an exhaustive list. Here goes:

• The lead needs to be completely rewritten to be a summary of the whole article. See WP:LEAD A more NPOV version of the current lead could perhaps be used as an overview after the lead.
• The title of the article needs to be mentioned as early as possible in the first sentence of the article - currently the US DOD does not appear until the second paragraph of the lead (and then is linked twice in two sentences - avoid overlinking).
• Bold fonts are way overused in this article - see WP:MOS and read it (and not just on use of bold)
• The article needs many more references - every section, every pararagraph, every quote and statistic needs a ref. Now for example whole sections such as History and World War II are unreferenced. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Refs that are given need to be consistent and provide more information - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if know, and date accessed. Use {{cite web}} and other cite templates may help.
• The MOS asks that an image be put in the top right corner - the skydivers over Afghanistan is visually striking and seems like a good possible lead image.
• Do not repeat the article name in headers (or its abbreviation), so "Evolution of the UW mission" could just be "Evolution of the mission"
• Much of this reads like a field manual for UW - talk about the topic and how others have analyzed it, not how to do it.
• Above all, please do not use this article to critique the Unconventional warfare article.

The article is generally well written and interesting, it just needs some work to more closely conform to Wikipedia's policies and guideline. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 27 May 2008, 16:05 UTC)

---

Marriott School of Management

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the first FAC council (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marriott School of Management/archive1) thought it would be needed. Please focus your efforts on any POV in the article and lend to the History section as much as possible. Any other general copy editing appreciated as well.

Thanks, Eustress (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and detailed article, here are some suggestions for improvement:

• A model article is useful for style, refs, structure, etc. There are 20 FAs at Category:FA-Class Universities articles, many of which would be useful articles
• The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
• Give the full name and follow it with the abbreviation the first time, so Brigham Young University (BYU). Watch overlinking - BYU is linked in the lead and then at least the next two sections, of the LDS Church is linked multiple times.
• History - I was a bit confused by the whole middle paragraph on Accounting and Information Systems - why is this important? Also the history chronology skips around a bit - 1975 to 1988 and then back to 1976. I also note the four hubs have no dates, which seems odd for a history.
• Campus as a section heading makes it seem it has its own campus, but it is just a couple of buildings on the main BYU campus, right? I have also not seen the coordinates in the body of the article - especialy since they are already there on the top right of the article.
• Units need to be in both English and metric - the {{convert}} template may be useful here.
• Where was the school before the Tanner building opened in 1982?
• Avoid "currently" and "now" - use as of May 2008, for example
• For The Wall Street Journal ranked the Marriott School as #2 among the best schools for graduates with strong ethical standards in 2003.[24] I would cite the Wall Street Journal, as well as or instead of the Deseret News.
• These also need better cites: The MBA program is ranked #1 among regional schools (The Wall Street Journal, 2007) as well as for the amount of time to payback (BusinessWeek, 2006), at #2 for its emphasis on ethics (The Wall Street Journal, 2007), and #18 overall (Forbes, 2007).
• Article is fairly well written but needs a copyedit to smooth over a few rough / awkward places.
• As for POV, the article is very gowing about the school - sounds like it is a very good school, but are there any criticisms / complaints / scandals / problems? What do guides to business schools say about it?
• The other thing to watch out for is WP:Recentism
• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width (can also use vertical for vertical images) to allow user set preferences to take over.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 28 May 2008, 04:35 UTC)

---

Dr. Dre

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I have significantly contributed to the article since late 2007 and feel that it might fit into good or even featured status. Thus, I'd like further feedback on how to improve it. It is much more well-sourced than ever before and well-developed into the subject's life.

Thanks, Andrewlp1991 (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, obviously a lot of work has gone into it. Here are some suggestions for further improvement, looking mostly at GA but also with an eye to possible FA status (still a ways to go):

• It is useful to have a model article or two to follow, there are several musician FAs and GAs, 50 Cent is a GA and may be a good model for style, structure, etc.
• I think the lead should be another paragraph - see WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is that every section header should be in the lead somehow, and nothing should be just in the lead. For example World Class Wreckin' Cru is not in the lead now.
• I would give his full name and date of birth in the Early life section and give the place of his birth. I would also cite the fact that his parents were unmarried when he was born. Calling him their "first child" seems to imply that they had other children - they should be mentioned if they exist, or perhaps say "first and only child" if that is the case.
• Article could use a copy edit - just from Early life there is a missing word in both of whom [are] now deceased, although this could also be shortened to both now deceased. Another missing word in During Verna's marriage to Curtis Crayon, Andre and brother Tyree were cared [for] mostly by their father Curtis... The first sentence is a bit awkward too, as is the repeated use of "impregnated".
• Refs usually come right after punctuation, often at the end of a sentence.
• Try to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. For example, how about giving years in the World Class Wreckin' Cru section, or when he started high school, for example.
• Final album and Film production are both very short sections - could they be expanded or combined with other sections?
• Artists usually have some sort of critical reception section - what do critics say about Dr. Dre and his music?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually, in the "early life" section, "are" isn't necessary because the deceased mention is actually a participial phrase, not a sentence. And "impregnated" is only used twice, so it's not repetitive. OK i will put "are" there.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, musical artist articles should have critical reception, but not necessarily in a section. See the featured articles on the bands Godsmack and Pearl Jam - reception is integrated throughout the chronological sections of the article. At least the Dre article has sections on his musical styles/work ethic. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved

• Clarified parts about Dre's family and corrected grammar there as well.
  *The article also already lists that he joined WCWC in 1984.
  *Also fixed reference styles and section styles; expanded film section as well.
  *Removed unsourced, potentially libelous claim about Snoop Dogg ghostwriting certain songs, in accordance with WP:BLP procedure.

Err, you'll have to open the source of this peer review to find which issues I resolved. Did i do something wrong here? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that the Dre article is a good article nominee, I'd like to close this review. Thank you for your feedback, editors. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 28 May 2008, 16:18 UTC)

---

William Wilberforce

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA and there are active and capable editors who wish to take the article to FA.

Thanks, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Wednesday 28 May 2008, 18:03 UTC)

---

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am still pushing for FA status, and that failed FAC only made the article so much better. I am working on finding suitable replacements for the last two images on the article, but in the meantime, any kind of comments, questions, or issues are welcome. Please, tell me everything you've got! haha169 (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dihydrogen Monoxide

Here I am, as promised! :)

• "video fighting games" - "fighting video games" is better IMO
• "collaborated within a rented Tokyo office and worked on creating Brawl, which was formally released in Japan on 31 January 2008" --> "collaborated on Brawl at a rented Tokyo office. The game was released in Japan on..." (and then change "the game" to "it" (or something) in next sentence)
• "This installment" --> "Brawl"
• "It also supports multiplayer battles" - Brawl, or single player? Obvious but clarify.
• "noticed Brawl's "spectacular" soundtrack, "spanning a generous swath of gaming history"." - how do you notice a soundtrack? Commented on?

  In particular" - there is no context for the in particular here, so it sounds awkward...

• "for a total of four possible control styles." - this can be counted, you don't need to say it...
• "In addition to the standard multiplayer mode, Super Smash Bros. Brawl" - prior to this it's always referred to as Brawl...be consistent (also check Melee vs. Super Smash Bros. Melee throughout)
• "allowing players to relive defining moments of the characters' pasts." - example?
• "At the pre-E3 2005 press conference, the president of Nintendo, Satoru Iwata," - needs less commas..."...Nintendo president Saturo Iwata..." would be better
• "As far as Wi-Fi play is concerned" - sounds awkward when the rest is in past tense
• "Solid Snake is the first third-party character to make an appearance in a Smash Bros. game." - italics for Smash Bros. please
• "Subspace Emissary adventure mode. He also described the graphics as "an enhanced version of Melee" - SE italics not needed, nor is Melee wlink
• "and 1.61 million units total as of 31 March 2008" - by this stage I've forgotten the release date, so this lacks context...not sure how to solve it, any ideas?

Hope this helps. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed all those problems. Thank you for your time in reviewing this! So many minor problems...that was the issue on the FAC. --haha169 (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 30 May 2008, 06:12 UTC)

---

Homicidal ideation

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I am hoping to get some feedback from some other people about it.

I've done a moderate amount of work to produce this page. It started as I was adding to the List of medical symptoms and found no page for homicidal ideation (despite there being one for suicidal ideation). So I created it. I've been working on it pretty much single-handedly up to now. I've discovered that it's more a criminology/forensic psych thing than strictly psychiatry and hence have had to do a fair bit of reading. I initially was going to put lists of theories and get into a lot of stuff there that should probably be on a more dedicated criminology/criminal justice page or have pages of their own.

Thanks, Orinoco-w (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and while a lot of work has gone into it, it needs a lot more work to more closely conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, references, etc. I note that Schizophrenia is a featured article and may be a useful model.
• The lead needs to be a summary of the whole article and not contain anything that is not also in the body of the article. My rule of thumb is write the article then make sure all of the section headers are mentioned in the lead somehow. See WP:LEAD*Any chance of a free image or two?
• Large sections of the article are currently unreferenced or are oddly referenced. For example, "By-product hypothesis ("slip up" theory)" and "Homicide Adaptation Theory" have no refs. Refs usually come at the end of the sentence or paragraph, and are not in the header. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Do not repeat the name of the article in section headers, so "Theories of Homicidal Ideation" could be "Theories". Also do not repeat a header in a subheader unless needed, so "Homicide Adaptation Theory" would be "Homicide Adaptation" under "Theories". See WP:MOS
• The "Associated Psychopathology" section is very short and should either be expanded or combined with another section.
• Avoid lists in the article - convert them to prose instead.
• Provide complete information for citations - for example ref 1 is a dissertation and should give this data and the University. {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} and the other cite templates may be useful.

Decent start, needs a lot of work to improve it and hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ruhrfisch for your constructive comments. I have been giving them thought and will make changes appropriately.

• The schizophrenia article is a good read, however schizophrenia is a disease whereas homicidal ideation is a symptom - and one that seems more commonly present in the ABSENCE of disease, as I have been discovering. I had hoped to make use of the suicidal ideation page as a template, but they seem quite different from my reading.
• I will need to rewrite the lead. I have been thinking hard about what sort of image I could come up with to exemplify Homicidal Ideation and the closest I can come up with is this image of the Murder of Cassandra: http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/greeks/religion/myths/pictures/cassandra.jpg I would appreciate some pointers as to how to find a free version of this for use in the article.
• I will correctly reference the Homicidal Adaptation Theory to be from the J Duntley dissertation (btw, how do I show that it is a dissertation in the cite web? - I make it a cite book and use one of the special fields?)
• I will rewrite the lists into prose.
• I guess I could pad out the Associated Psychopathology section with blah about how Homicidal Ideation seems to be most commonly not associated with psychopathology at all. I hadn't done this because it seemed to be covered in the Lead, but I guess if the lead should contain the stuff that is covered in the article this is the place to put it.

Orinoco-w (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not a Psychology expert - sorry I picked a less than apt model. It may still be there is an FA or GA that would be useful. I would use cite book for the dissertation - it has a URL section. Perhaps ask User:Awadewit on properly citing a dissertation. I know she has cited some in some of her FAs. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The dissertation cite looks fine to me. I would use a footnote for (see ICD-10 Chapter V: Mental and behavioural disorders F05). instead of the parenthesis. I also note that WP:MOS says only to capitalize the first word of headers, so "Associated Psychopathology" would be "Associated psychopathology", etc. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 30 May 2008, 09:57 UTC)

---

Survivor Series (2004)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like for the article to be a professional wrestling Good Article. Any helpful feedback, would most be appreciated.

Thanks, Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Survivor Series (2004)/archive1.

(Peer review added on Friday 30 May 2008, 09:57 UTC)

---

Treaty of Axim (1642)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because this article deals with a rare and special treaty between the African state of Axim and the Netherlands, dating from 1642. In it a diplomatic, political, and economic relations are defined, some of which would last for 230 years.

The article is brief but succinct, with all the necessary information and a link to the full text of the treaty on Wikisource. It is my belief that the article is already at GA-level, or very close to it, and deserves a serious assessment and commentary eventually leading it towards that status. Also, the layout of the article could well serve as a model for other short bilateral treaties in Wikipedia, so also look at it with that in mind.

Thanks, Michel Doortmont (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much the same comments as made here: perhaps alter the content so that the treaty itself occurs in the article after the events leading to it and before the later developments, add more relevant links (Axim isn't even linked to yet), and expand the information in the lead section to more accurately reflect the content of the article. John Carter (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I think it needs some work to get up to GA status. Here are some suggestions to help:

• A model article is often useful for ideas and as something to follow for style, structure, etc. I note that Treaty of Devol is a FA and may be useful as a model.
• The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD and should summarize the whole article.
• Please also try to provide constext for the reader - see WP:PCR For example, Axim is not wikilinked in the lead at all and Netherlands is not linked until the second sentence - both should be linked in the first sentence, as should Gold Coast (region).
• Also useful to let people know this is in Africa in the first or second sentence in the lead (for those not familiar with Axim or who think the Gold Coast is part of Queeensland, Australia or Florida or Chicagoin the US).
• Be consistent - the infobox spells it "Axem" but the article spells it "Axim". If Axem is a common alternate spelling, say that in the article.
• Also did the Dutch leave / treaty end in 1872 (infobox and lead) or 1842 (Background)? Is it "Fort St. Anthony" (caption) or "fort St. Anthony" (lead and Background)?
• WP:MOS#Images asks that the image be places in the top right corner of the article.
• Article could use a copyedit - some awkward sentences like The treaty regulated the jurisdiction of the Netherlands and the Dutch West India Company in the town and polity of Axim after the Dutch West India Company had successfully attacked the Portuguese who were the occupants of fort St. Anthony in the town. or phrases like ... fortified with the fort St. Antonio (St. Anthony) since the early sixteenth century.[1][2]
• The bold in Content is discouraged by WP:MOS and the treaty summary is unreferenced.
• I note from your user name that you appear to be the author / editor of two of the three sources listed - you might want to read up on WP:COI and WP:NPOV

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As John Carter notes above, one thing I look for when I read this article is what effect this treaty had on the local inhabitants, both immediately & in the later 230 years. But a more important point that needs to be addressed in this article before you can consider this for FAC (& also applies to the Treaty of Butre below) is this: what were the motivations & objectives of all parties involved? This far more important than it might appear at first glance. Taking an example from the part of Africa I know best (Ethiopia), when European explorers & adventurers arrived & made attempts to convince the local rulers to sign treaties, the local rulers were either very passive or indifferent to these documents. It was only when Tewodros came to power that they encountered a potentate who took a clear interest in the matter, who not only treated the negotiations as an important matter with serious consequences, but actually read the documents. (I say this not to make them look foolish, but to point out that these documents are also artifacts of the encounter of two civilizations who doubtlessly had little previous experience with each other.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 30 May 2008, 09:57 UTC)

---

Ubuntu (operating system)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see how I can best improve it to FA status.

Thanks, ffm 00:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I will look at this from an FA standpoint - while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, more needs to be done to approach FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• A model article is often useful for ideas, style, structure, etc. I note that OpenBSD, Mozilla Firefox, and Windows 2000 are all FAs and may be useful models.
• I must also say that I am not a computer person, and that after having read this article, I still have only a vague notion of what Ubuntu does and how it is different from a Mac or Windows OS.
• The lead needs to be rewritten as a summary of the rest of the article - my rule of thumb is every header should be mentioned in some way. It should also not contain anything not repeated in the main article text - so the meanings of the word Ubuntu should go into the body, for example. See WP:LEAD
• As written the article has many short sections (one or two sentences only) and is also fairly list-y in places. Both of these make it choppy to read and interrupt the flow. Short paragraphs and sections should be combined with others, or possibly expanded.
• Avoid needless repetition - for example the ShipIt section already says Currently, only Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Edubuntu are offered for free via ShipIt. Other variants, including the popular Xubuntu are not available through this service.[91] (I would argue the second sentence here is not needed - the first sentence says it all). Then in the very next section (Variants) we find Of the official variants, Kubuntu[93] and Edubuntu[94] are also available free of charge via mail order through Ubuntu's ShipIt service, but Xubuntu is not available.[95] this is totally not needed.
• Avoid jargon and provide context for the reader. I do not know what Debian is or does, for example. Wikilinks are useful and nice, but a sentence or two explaining important concepts is even better.
• References need more information - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. The cite templates such as {{cite web}} may be useful here. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Another worry for FAC is that the article seems to rely an awful lot on Ubuntu as a source - wherever possible use independent third-party sources that meet WP:RS.
• In the same vein, expand this It has been favorably reviewed in online and print publications.[108][109][110] and quote what the reviewers said.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is particullary different from those other OSs mentioned, this one is just another OS. ffm 23:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ruhrfisch replies: as noted I am not a computer person.
  • Since it is in the article title, I do nto think it would be horribly wrong to make the first sentence something like Ubuntu (IPA: [uːˈbuːntuː] in English,[3] [ùbúntú] in Zulu) is a Linux distribution (operating system) for desktops, laptops, and servers. I know what an operating system is. I had to click on the link to see what a Linux distribtuion is. This provides context for the reader - see WP:PCR - and follows WP:LEAD in making the lead as accessible as possible.
  • As for sources being mostly from Ubuntu, please see Wikipedia:V#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. It is always better to get an independent third-party take on something if it is available. Imagine writing an article on the Soviet Union using only Pravda. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PS Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 30 May 2008, 09:57 UTC)

---

Nimrod Expedition

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is the fourth and final article of a series dealing with the major British expeditions during the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration. The other three, Discovery Expedition, Terra Nova Expedition and Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition, are already FA, and Discovery Expedition was the main page article on 1 May 2008. I hope in due course to take this article to FAC, and would welcome any suggestions as to its improvement.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Friday 30 May 2008, 20:34 UTC)

---

Indigenous people of the Everglades region

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is the first of perhaps four or five satellite articles for the Everglades article that I'm revising. I intend to bring all of them, including Everglades to FA. Please let me know what I need to concentrate on. I appreciate your taking the time to read the article and comment on it. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Saturday 31 May 2008, 09:57 UTC)

---

Echo & the Bunnymen discography

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded and reformatted it substantially and believe it has potential to become a Featured List. I'm not sure if I've missed anything though so would be greatful for someone with a keener eye to glance over it.

Thanks, JD554 (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

This looks mostly good, fixed some things myself. the remaining are:

• expand the lead to about two big paragraphs (it is a 30 year old band). take note mention landmark album popular singles, major lineup changes etc.
• put the EP table just below the studio albums and format it like an aal bums table rather than the singles table. ie, include release date, format, label in bullet points
• delink the albums in the singles table
• include the references just below the chart headers in the table. see The Strokes discography
• the Videos should be formatted like an albums table. dont overlink the formats
• No music videos? No miscellaneous releases: charity compilations, soundtracks etc...
• The A B C superscripts in the singles table is the wrong way. see The Strokes discography studio albums. Also note B seems unnecessary, plenty of singles get reissued, we only ention them if they did better than the original
• Although there is discussion *ssome MOS conflict) about it, you may want to bold album names in all the album tables for clarity. indopug (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made the changes you've recomended above and added a substantial amount of "other" apeareances (album, single and DVD). I'd be greatful for you further opinions. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is looking good. For reference I suggest you look at The Libertines discography (an FL, mine).

• The enormous detail in Other Album appearances--notes and peaks--should go. We aren't interested about the album itself since it's not a Bunnymen release in itself.
• Singles needs a Peak chart position header
• The lead needs reworking; see the examples I showed, the lead needs to be completely chronological. Just like the lead of a band article, only with more mention of chart performances. indopug (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Would you recommend combining the other albums, other singles and other videos sections into one miscellaneous section or to keep the separate? --JD554 (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, leave it for now; maybe the folks at FLC will suggest something. indopug (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made the changes that you suggested above apart from the one for the lead section. I originally based that on the lead section of another FL discography, Depeche Mode discography. Looking at that one I think this one should be okay, hopefully the good people at FLC will agree too! Thanks for all your help, --JD554 (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

--JD554 (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 31 May 2008, 20:00 UTC)

---