Wikipedia:Peer review/May 2014

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

---

Robert Stephenson

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I closed the previous PR with no comment a couple of weeks, as I needed to take a wiki-break. I've re-listed this article because after writing a number of articles about historical railways, I thought I'd write a biography. I would like to get this FA; please let me know if you think anything is missing or the a section of prose really doesn't work.

Thanks, Edgepedia (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from David Cane

• Introduction
  • Without looking at the reference "The only son of George Stephenson, who has been called the "Father of Railways"" is ambiguous as to whether it is Robert or George who has been called the "father of railways". I suggest that you change to "The only son of George Stephenson; he has been called the "Father of Railways""
    • Done
  • Avoid putting information only in the introduction. It should summarise information from the rest of the article, so should not need citations.
    • Doing, need to consider best place for this... ++
• Early life
  • "to a two rooms in a cottage" - remove the "a".
    • Done
  • Explain why it is relevant that Robert's right arm was stronger.
    • From the phrasing in Jeaffreson I take this to mean he was left handed, but this is not clear; I'll see if I can't find anything in Ross about this. I might take it out.
      • Frustratingly, Ross just quotes Jeaffreson without coming to a conclusion. Edgepedia (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Betrothed" and being "summoned back to get married" seem archaic. I suggest "engaged to be married" instead of betrothed, although this, her literacy and her church attendance seems tangential to Robert's life story.
    • (1) Rephrased and (2) I mention Robert's faith later, so I considered he faith of his Aunt and father important, as they probably influenced this
      • I removed the literacy comment through Edgepedia (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • When did Robert first go to school in Long Benton?
    • This is not known (Ross p. 31).
  • Is there a reason why "(Tommy)" is inserted into Thomas Rutter's name? Is he particularly known by this name?
    • Some sources say Thomas, some Tommy
  • Link picks so it is clear there was a degree of burdensomeness in his task. The age at which he was doing this might be interesting, though it does seem as if his biographers were attempting to imbue him with heroic stature.
    • Done, from Ross, taking pickaxes to smiths was a common task for young boys at this time.
  • "George was promoted in 1812 to be enginewright at Killingworth Colliery with a salary of £100 per year; he built his first steam locomotive, Blucher, in 1814 and the following year was earning £200 a year." Needs to be split into sentences. At the moment it covers three years without a pause. I suggest a full stop after "£100 per year".
  • You use both "per year" and "a year".
  • Give a current equivalent for £100/year and £200/year.
    • Done these three; I though we only need one conversion as the second is clearly double the first
  • Lost most of his accent. State what accent he would have had (Tyneside?).
    • Done
  • A comma is needed before the "but" after "(16 km)"
    • Done
  • "his father and him" - change to "he and his father"
    • Done
  • "after school" following "in the evening" seems redundant
    • Removed
  • Make the piece about the sundial a new sentence. It does not naturally follow the designing of steam engines so a semi colon is not a strong enough break.
    • Removed
  • If Elizabeth's brother stated that he introduced George and Elizabeth in 1818 or 1819 and the Smiles biography was corrected for this, wouldn't that seem to be more reliable than the later biographies that may have just repeated Smiles' original error?
    • Just covering all the bases and allowing the reader to form an opinion. See if I can get other views.
      • Thinking about it, my concern is that if we leave it out, others will add it. Edgepedia (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Start a new sentence at "unable to buy a mining compass..."
    • Used 'and' to join the two clauses together instead
• Stockton and Darlington Railway
  • "Ways were investigated in the early 19th century to transport coal from the mines" and "canals had been proposed". Who investigated and proposed?
    • Isn't too much detail for this article? This is detailed in the Stockton and Darlington Railway article
  • "Welsh Engineer" -> "Welsh engineer". A link to Wales here might be appropriate.
    • Done
  • Is it necessary to state that Edward Pease was a Quaker? Put this in the note with the other information on Quaker backing.
    • I mention Quaker (once) again. Perhaps we consider both together?
  • Was Pease just a backer or the instigator of the scheme for the S&DR? Did Overton make his survey for Pease or for others?
    • Pease backed a already formed scheme, I believe. Will see what I can dig up. No, Pease was a prompter at the meeting; this is not clear in Allen, but is in Tomlinson.
  • The new route would have required a new bill to be presented. Use "an Act" rather than "the Act" this first time and link to Act of Parliament.
  • Note 5: Presumably Wood is Nicholas Wood, though it is not mentioned previously that he was involved with the S&DR proposals. How was he involved? Where had Stephenson and Wood "travelled down" from?
    • He travelled with George from Killingworth. Don't think he wasHe wasn't involved with the S&DR, just a travelling companion and witness.
  • Why was Pease concerned about Overton's competence?
    • I'll see if I can find any details; perhaps these would be better in the S&DR article?
      • I've removed it, it's not in all the biographies. Will see if I can find something for the S&DR article. Edgepedia (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Which "work was hazardous" to Robert? Presumably working down the mine, but coming after the mention of his father surveying a new route this is ambiguous.
    • Changed to his work
  • Current equivalent for £660/year. George was now pretty affluent so an indication of what this would be worth would be useful
    • Done, although a comparison with the average wage could be more useful
  • Why did Robert spend only six months at Edinburgh University? Was that the intention or did he leave early to help his father on the S&DR? What did he study? Explain why it is relevant that Robert met George Parker Bidder there.
    • Doing, will work on this (Ross has details...) Edgepedia (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Done, here Edgepedia (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Change "whilst" to "while". Americans have a big problem with this at FAC.
    • Found two and changed them
      • It's not only Americans. I wage a guerilla war against whilst, amongst, amidst and other over-long fossil words. Tim riley (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "On 23 May 1823 the second S&DR Act received Assent"; put a comma after "1823" and change "the" to "a". Add "Stephensons' proposed" before "deviations".
    • Missed this, now done. Edgepedia (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In June 1823, Robert Stephenson was not yet 20 years old. Current equivalent for £200/year.
    • It seems Rolt miscalculated, so I removed it.
  • Hagger Leases branch, needs a bit more explanation.
    • Not quite sure what you were asking for, clarified a bit [1]. Is this what you meant? Edgepedia (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Chronology is getting out of sequence. Put the sentence about the locomotive order after the bit about the branch line act.
    • Done
  • Remove last sentence as it pre-empts the next section. I suggest you just state that the line opened on 27 September 1825.
    • Ok, I've joined the sentences together.

- More to follow. --DavidCane (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DavidCane, done some of this, doing the rest ... Edgepedia (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Think I've covered or made on comments everything above, except for the lead which I would like to come back to at the end. Edgepedia (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

First batch of comments from Tim riley

• Lead
  • First para – "has been called" twice in successive sentences
    • Good catch, will see if I can't rephrase
      • Re-rephrased here, removing the even bigger mistake: it's George who is known (among others) as the Father of Railway! Edgepedia (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "but she died" – not sure that "but" is called for here, and indeed I wonder if his married life is important enough (to us, not to him) to warrant mention in the lead. Just my two-penn'orth.
    • There's a question on the talk page about marriage on children. I've rephrased.
  • "British Knighthood" – I'd lower-case "Knighthood" and perhaps pipe a blue-link to Knight Bachelor.
    • I was wondering what to link this to, as the English or British Knighthood system is complex (with Knight Bachelor and the orders of garters). But one source said British Knighthood, and that (AFAIK) must be Knight Bachelor. Will link in lead and body.
• Early life
  • "usually known as Fanny. Fanny was twelve years" – to avoid the repetition of the name I think "She" would be OK instead of the second one.
    • Done
  • "Eleanor was engaged to be married before travelling to London" – the chronology isn't quite clear. If all this happened before she moved in with George and his son, perhaps "had been engaged" would be clearer.
    • Yep, the tense was wrong
  • "1½ miles" – nothing to do with this review, but I mentioned at the Babe Ruth PR that I thought the neat little fraction (such as I have just typed) is not approved of for reasons of accessibility for screen-readers etc, and that your large 1/2 is preferred. I suspect I may have picked that up from an earlier PR of an Edgepedia article. If so, I wonder if you have chapter and verse to hand? Ignore me if I'm barking up the wrong tree.
    • • For accessibility reasons, {{frac|1|1|2}} → 1+1⁄2 is preferred. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
        • (ec) I'm using {{convert|1+1/2|mi}} => 1+1⁄2 miles (2.4 km) here. {{fract|1|1|2}} => 1+1⁄2 gives the same without the units and conversion, but there's a different syntax. The link to the MOS is MOS:FRAC.
  • "£100 per year" – a matter of taste, I admit, but I prefer to keep Latin with Latin (£100 per annum) and English with English (£100 a week), with a strong personal preference for the plain words of the latter.
    • Will change and see if anyone wishes for "£100 a year"
  • "with a salary of £100 per year (worth approximately £5,600 in 2012)" – I'm doubtful about this. Are we using the RPI here? If so, I think it's the wrong measure. You want to compare against typical incomes rather than retail prices. £100 a year in 1814 was a very good salary for a newcomer, I suspect. Your chosen site gives alternative measures of £95k and £323k. I know that one of my mentors on Wikipedia, User:Brianboulton, has Views on such measures and I hope he'll add a word or two on this.
    • Ok, I was asked for this by DavidCane, will do some further research and wait for review. Agree the RPI is probably the wrong measure. I covered equivalents with a footnote in other article, this may be way to go here.
      • My view on this one point is that present-day values of ancient sums are best avoided. The social and economic structure is so different now from 1814 that such calculations are almost meaningless, and any method you use is likely to be questioned. If as Tim indicates, different methods provide sums as varied as £5,600 and £323,000, something is obviously amiss. I don't think it's particularly important to have an up-to-date equivalent of Stephenson's 1814 salary and, in my view the comparison is best omitted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Agreed. Using the calculator at [2] and comparing 1812 with 2012 and a salary of £100 gives an "historic standard of living equivalent" of about £5,600 but an "economic power" of £317,000. I was going to source an average salary – the same website gives £34.27 for 1812 that could be rounded to £34 – but perhaps this would encourage unfair comparisons. Edgepedia (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Not so much unfair as questionable comparisons – the whole area is dotted with confusion. Even the term "average salary" is capable of misinterpretation, unless we know how it was calculated. In 1814 a very small proportion of the population enjoyed enormous incomes, and a very large number lived on pittance wages. In such skewed distributions, "averages" are generally meaningless. As a matter of interest, £34 a year is roughly what Scrooge paid Bob Cratchit in A Christmas Carol (15 shillings a week if I remember rightly) – but I'm not suggesting you use this as a reliable source. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Stockton and Darlington Railway
  • "and the scheme was prompted" – not sure about "prompted" – advocated, promoted?
    • I've confused promoted with prompted
  • "when there was underground explosion" – "an underground explosion"?
  • "Wood was asked to release" – and, I infer, consented. If so, then perhaps "Wood agreed to release…"?
  • "George was elected Engineer by shareholders" – not sure about the capital E here, and the measure for the salary seems dubious, as above.
  • "he wished that Robert not become a gentleman and work for his living" – this needs to be made clearer: at present the last five words say the opposite of what you mean. Perhaps "he did not wish Robert to become a gentleman, but to work for his living".
  • "with Stephensons' deviations" – I suggest "with the Stephensons' deviations", for clarity.
  • "Robert was also surveyed the route" – either "R was also surveyor of…" or just "R also surveyed…"
    • Done last six, apart from the conversions

I am enjoying this very much. So far Robert seems a thoroughly delightful man, and I look forward to spending more time in his company. More soon. Tim riley (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Tim : Using ++ to mark the to dos Edgepedia (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Tim and DavidCane, I've removed the inflation as the RPI/CPI figure is the wrong one to use. Will look into this, and see if a footnote comparing these salaries with today's figures can't be created. Edgepedia (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I think I'm up to date with everything, other than DavidCane's comment about references in the lead. Edgepedia (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Second lot from Tim – to end of Liverpool and Manchester Railway

• Colombian mines
  • "to say goodbye to his son" – I'd be inclined to blitz the last three words.
    • Done
  • "Rolt was not satisfied" – this is the first mention of Rolt, and you really must give him a few words of introduction here. I'd like to see something on the lines of "In his 1984 biography of the Stephensons, L.T.C. Rolt takes issue with earlier writers' suggestions…"
  • "However, Davis … whereas Ross" – I'd lose the "however" and "whereas", replacing the comma with a semicolon. And you need to introduce these two authors, too. Perhaps something like, "Of other biographers, Hunter Davis (1975) argues that Robert wanted to escape from a controlling father; David Ross (2010) considers that Robert could have been asserting his independence." And (Lord, how I go on!) you could argue that these two statements are so similar that they could be be combined: "Of other biographers, Hunter Davis (1975) and David Ross (2010) argue that Robert was seeking to assert his independence from the control of his father". You are absolutely at liberty to tell me where to put my suggestions, of course.
    • Liked these two, re-phrased slightly [3]
  • "estimating the cost of a pier as £6,000, but that a breakwater or railway would be uneconomic" – the syntax has gone off the rails a bit between the first and second part of this. How about "estimating that the cost of a pier would be £6,000, but that a breakwater or railway would be uneconomic"? Or even, if the source justifies it, "estimating that the cost of a pier, £6,000, would be sustainable but that of a breakwater or railway would not"?
    • Done
  • "but these proved difficult" – "but they proved difficult" would flow better, I suggest
    • Done
  • "and gave him £50" – to avoid ambiguity I'd make this "and who gave him £50"
    • It was Robert who gave Trevithick £50. I'll see if I can't make this clearer. ++
  • "Everyone was saved, but Robert lost his money and luggage, and noticed that a second-class passenger was given priority in the lifeboats. The captain later said privately that he and the passenger were Freemasons" – this seems to me to break in the wrong places for coherence. Perhaps, "Everyone was saved, but Robert lost his money and luggage. He noticed that one second-class passenger was given priority over first-class passengers in the lifeboats: the captain later said privately that he and the passenger were Freemasons"
    • Done
• Newcastle
  • "working as the Chief Engineer" – not sure I'd capitalise
    • Ok, this capitalisation is probably archaic
  • "his Quaker partners accused him of neglecting" – is "Quaker" relevant here?
    • See comment below
  • "it took a while" – slightly colloquial phrasing? Perhaps "took some time"? Merely a suggestion.
    • Done
• Liverpool and Manchester Railway
  • "a Member of Parliament William Huskisson" – I think I'd put a comma after "Parliament", but others may disagree with me on that.
    • Done

More soon. I'm still enjoying this hugely. Tim riley (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Tim. I'm wondering how much to make of the Quakers. I'm sure that George and Robert were financed by and worked with Quakers had an influence, but if I haven't including any details making a passing mention is probably unnecessary detail. Edgepedia (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed the Quakers from the body and left the footnote. Edgepedia (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Last lot from TR

• Civil Engineer
  • Heading: the capital E is contrary to usual practice and, I think, to the Manual of Style
  • "Chief Engineers" – more unwanted caps, and again below for Locke, Brunel and others
    • removed capitals from all the Engineers here
• London & Birmingham Railway
  • "started working for Robert" – started working for him?
    • Done
  • "Conder said" – first time we've heard of Conder – we need a phrase of introduction, such as "His friend and biographer, Francis Roubiliac Conder said" or similar.
    • Done. I described Conder as a writer; Personal Reflections is not really a biography is it?
  • "he commissioned a coat of arms from the Herald's College" – I don't think this is quite the way of putting this. He will have applied to the College of Arms for a grant of arms. There would have been a substantial fee, but "commissioned" has the wrong implications. I think perhaps, "to please her he successfully applied to the Herald's College for a coat of arms, paying for it in November 1838, but he never liked it…"
    • Thanks for this. Really was not sure how this worked.
• Great George Street
  • "meeting Paulin Talabot" – on the grounds that you don't want people to click out of your article more than can be helped, I'd say "meeting the leading French railway engineer Paulin Talabot" here."
    • Done
• Cambridge Square
  • "the house on Haverton Hill" – the first we've heard of it, unless, as I surmise, it's a typo for "Haverstock Hill"
    • Whoops, fixed
  • "He moved nearer Westminster, to Cambridge Square" – at present (and I imagine it was true in the 1840s) Cambridge Square is technically part of Westminster, not merely near it.
    • Not sure why I wrote that. In the ref I says he moved to be nearer the clubs and town, so I've changed it [4].
  • "but soon after moving" – this dangling participle could be avoided by writing "soon afterwards" or some such
  • "step mother" – usually one word not two
  • "George retired to Tapton House" – "He retired…"?
  • "However, later that year" – I'd lose the "However". Nine times in ten one's prose is better without a "however".
    • Done last four
      • Done down to here Edgepedia (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Bridge builder
  • "he accounts" – "he recounts"?
  • "expert witness such Locke" – expert witnesses such as Locke?
  • "The required Act that was given Royal Assent in 1845 included…" – as this is a describing clause (a "non-restrictive relative clause") rather than a defining one, you want commas round it and a which rather than a that at the start of it. Thus, "The required Act, which was given Royal Assent in 1845, included…"
  • "he had just been offered a knighthood, but had declined" – do we know why he declined? Was he anti-titles? Interesting aspect of his personality, if so, especially in those hierarchical times.
    • Thanks Tim. Ross believes this had something to do with George having had turned down a knighthood more than once. (This was my thought too, but I could have half remembered Ross). However, there's nothing constructive, just speculation. Your other points are excellent, and I'll work on them later today. Edgepedia (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Politics
  • "In the summer of 1847 Robert was invited to be Member of Parliament for Whitby" – I suppose in a pocket borough being invited to stand for election was effectively being invited to be the Member, but technically all he can have been invited to do was be the candidate. I see from the report in The Times (31 July 1847, p. 3) that his election address at Whitby consisted of a swipe at the RC church and a sop to the local population in the form of strong support for the Navigation Laws. After the result was declared, "he was chaired through the town, accompanied by a large concourse of people."
    • Changed to "Robert was invited to stand in the election for the Member of Parliament"; will read the Times article
  • "Rolt and Ross differ as to whether he voted for or against the government in January 1855" – I don't know which of them says what, but The Times for 31 Jan 1855 (p. 8) gives a complete list of those voting for and against the Government in the crucial debate on the conduct of the war, and Stephenson is firmly in the pro-government list, alongside members of the cabinet such as Palmerston, Gladstone and Sidney Herbert. They lost, and the prime minister resigned.
    • Thanks will look at the Times article, and will work on this
      • I have done this one already. Edgepedia (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Société d'Études du canal de Suez" – we have an article on it, short and not very informative, but you should probably add a link to it. I see the article capitalises "canal" (though I personally wouldn't in a French title, or Études, either come to that) and perhaps it would be as well to follow suit here.
    • I have linked to the article as it currently is for the moment
• The house that has no knocker
  • The two halves of the opening sentence are linked by an "and" but don't seem to have anything to do with each other. You can practically spit from Cambridge Square to Gloucester Square, by the way; I wonder why he bothered to move such a short distance?
    • That would leave two very short sentences. I shall trying moving the FRS up to by the knighthood offer.
      • Removing marker; I did this one yesterday. Edgepedia (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "involved in third" – a word missing: either "one" or "a".
    • done
  • "the America Cup challenge" – the link works all right, thanks to a redirect page, but surely the competition is always called "the America's Cup"?
    • done. Don't know why I missed that, America Cup is a redirect
  • "Chief Engineer … Resident Engineer" – more caps I think you should demote to lower case
    • already done
  • "vice president of the Institution of Civil Engineers … he was elected President" – if the vice-president doesn't get caps then nor should the president.
    • done, now all lower case
• Notes
  • Note 3: "meeting in early edition" – either "in an early edition" or "in early editions"
    • done
• Sources
  • "Only one of your older books has its OCLC number given: I think at FAC there will be eyebrows raised if the others haven't been given theirs.
  • I doubt if the titles of the Tomlinson and Wilson books are capitalised (or not) quite as they are here. The people at WorldCat (wonderful though they are) lower-case too many titles, and it's as well to check with the actual volumes if you can. See the capitalisation here for instance.
    • Done this one Edgepedia (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That's all from me. This article gave me enormous pleasure. I knew about RS vaguely, as I suppose most Britons do, but I have greatly enjoyed getting to know more about him. The shape, length and balance of the article are excellent and the prose is most readable throughout. I don't usually watch the peer review pages of articles that I've reviewed but will watch this one, with considerable interest. – Tim riley (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • • Thanks Tim. I'm busy in real life and a little stressed, so I'm not able to spend so long on here at the moment. Thanks for the Times references, will look at those with interest. Edgepedia (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks everyone, I will close this Peer Review now. Edgepedia (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
          

---

Babe Ruth

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it for FA and would appreciate feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 Doing...: will do in stages – it's a long article. Brianboulton (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton

first batch of comments

Lead

• "Everyday player": perhaps the term has a specific meaning in baseball terminology. To British ears, unfortunately, it suggests run-of-the-mill, commonplace. I think the equivalent British term would be "all-round". I'm not asking that you change this, but be aware that it might be misunderstood by some British readers.

Tweaked. It is a baseball idiom.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Denied a job in baseball..." without explanation is a little mystifying. Perhaps add a few words of justification?

Early Years

• Reads as if the relatives owned Frederick Street
• "while at St. Mary's" – superfluous words
• "As a baseball player, making a large salary, he would adjust the collars of his shirts himself, rather than having a tailor do it." Confusingly worded within this paragraph. Suggest something along th lines of "When he became a baseball player..."
• There is a link, albeit to a poor-quality article, for Xaverian Brothers
• "George rarely was visited by his family..." – shouldn't this be "Ruth rarely was visited..." etc? You have not previously called him "George"

Reader better eased into that usage.

• Link catcher, shortstop
• "During his time there he would also play third base and shortstop, again unusual for a left-hander, and forcing him to wear mitts and gloves made for righties." Reads slightly awkwardly; maybe lose the second comma. And "righties" is listed in the OED as "N. American - informal" I am also dubious about the encyclopedic nature of "bender" which occurs a few lines further down.

Since "left-hander" is used twice in succession, I think "right-hander" would feel repeated, and given the lack of synonyms … "bender" I think is justified. It sums it up and is instantly understandable.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well...slang by its nature is readily understandable, but in an encyclopedia the norm should surely be more formal language. "Righties" could be "right-handed players", "bender" could be "drinking spree". While I accept the need to use the jargon of the sport to a considerable extent, does that justification really apply here? Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have, somewhat reluctantly, deleted bender. I'm not sure right-handed players avoids the issue of repetition, and the dexter/sinister sort of synonyms seem out of place.

• "Catholic" should be piped to Catholic Church
• "He was generous to the school..." St Mary's presumably, but needs to be specified

Baltimore Orioles

• The signing is dated in the text "early 1914", his first game being dated 7 March 1914, but the image, with Ruth in it fully kitted, is dated 1913.

The image is badly named. I'll look at the page. Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• "How it came to be that Dunn signed Ruth" seems a bit wordy: "The circumstances of the signing..." etc?
• "Others involve Brother Gilbert..." → "Other accounts involve Brother Gilbert..."
• General: if you are looking to trim the wordcount, I think this paragraph could be a candidate for a cull. The details of the various accounts of Ruth's initial signing don't seem particularly contentious and are questionably worthy of inclusion in a summary encyclopedia article.

Issue with Brother Gilbert mooted by removing him from the article. Part of the reason or that, is I found another Brother GIlbert story on this, supposedly from the good friar himself. Dunn's signing of Ruth is a base that must be touched in this article, but I agree it is overdone.

• "Although by late June the Orioles were in first place..." In first place in what?

In the league. That is an American sports idiom that it would be troublesome to fix, as it recurs in the article and avoiding its use would be difficult.

Developing star

• "...the Cleveland Naps (as the Indians were still nicknamed)" – I don't see much point in introducing the nickname, which adds unnecessary confusion to the parenthetic note.
• "Shore was given a start by Carrigan the next day, and won that and his second start and thereafter was pitched regularly. Ruth lost his second start, and was thereafter little-used." Three "ands" in the first sentence could do with some smoothing, as could the close repeat of "thereafter"

The repetition is is intentional as a contrast is being drawn between Shore and Ruth, so similar words are being used.

• It's a little hard to understand why Ruth's taking batting practice should offend his team-mates to the extent of their destroying his equipment. Am I missing something?

Pitchers are usually not very capable batters, accordingly their taking batting practice might not be considered as essential as those who play other positions, and are expected to be capable with their bat if they expect to keep their jobs. A pitcher need not be more than minimally capable with the bat to keep his job, therefore Ruth taking up some of the limited opportunity to take batting practice might be resented by his teammates. It would be especially presumptuous as he was a rookie.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Although Shore was initially the more effective pitcher, it is uncertain why Carrigan used Ruth so little." The answer to the question posed in the second part of the sentence seems to be provided by the first part.

First part of sentence deleted.

• "...his departure for Providence was delayed when Cincinnati Reds owner Garry Herrmann claimed him off waivers".Even with the help of links I can't work out what that means.

It has to do with the circumstances under which a player may be transferred from a major league club to a minor league one. I think withe link it will have to stand.

• "getting his first major league hit, a double." Explanation?

Linked.

• Why did Ruth think he was a year older than he was?

It is explained in a footnote. Perhaps wise to delete that portion of the sentence.

• "a 20 game winner" → "a 20-game winner"?
• "Until another game of that length was played in 2005, this was the longest World Series game..." Unless the 2005 game was longer than 14 innings, the 1916 game is still the (joint) longest World series game.

I tried various alternatives, that I do not think would help. It is a very fine point and I am inclined to let it stand. Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

More soon Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Next bit

Developing star

• "ERA" should be linked or explained at first mention in text

Emergence as a hitter

• "The runner was caught stealing" – no doubt immediately understood by baseball followers, but otherwise mystifying. Who was "the runner", and what was he stealing?
• Is there any known reason why Ruth wasn't conscripted? He was surely of military age?

That is explained in "Emergence as a hitter". The owners had contended that as baseball entertained the troops, the players should be exempt. When they were ruled against in 1918, they negotiated keeping the players out until the end of the season, which was shortened. After that, they had to either join the military or an essential war industry, as mentioned.

• "Ruth's effort gave his team a 3–1 lead in games, and the Red Sox won the Series, their third in four years, two days later, four games to two." Too many commas. My suggested version: "Ruth's effort gave his team a 3–1 lead in games, and two days later the Red Sox won their third Series in four years, by four games to two."
• "Before allowing the Cubs to score..." – is "allowing" the best verb here? It reads as though the Cubs needed his permission to score.

It is baseball lingo. Alternatives would be "surrendering" "permitting". All of the terms place responsibility on the pitcher.

• "...in a ballpark where the distance to right field was 215 feet (66 m)." The implication is that this was a smaller field of play than usual, but can this be made more explicit?

Word "only" added.

• "He broke it four days later..." → "He broke the record four days later"
• "...the Red Sox finished sixth..." – one can only judge the merit of this by knowing how many teams there were in the league. For example, sixth out of six is a lot worse than, say, sixth out of 18.

I will add a footnote. Done down to here, will resume later.

Sale to New York

• "Not all of the circumstances of how it was Frazee sold his best player to the Yankees are known..." A laborious construction. Possibly: "Not all the circumstances of Frazee's sale of his best player to the Yankees are known...", but personally I would cut down to "Not all the circumstances of the sale are known"
• Pipe-link Prohibition
• Link Polo Grounds

Linked in an earlier section.

• Do we know what Ruth's personal salary was when he joined the Yankees?

Yes, I will add something.

• "According to Marty Appel in his history of the Yankees, the sale of Ruth..." etc: it was of course the sale and purchase of Ruth that affected, repectively, the Red Sox and the Yankees. Or, perhaps, "the Ruth transaction"

I think "the transaction" is enough, there's no ambiguity.

New York Yankees 1920–23

• "...a feat believed only to have been accomplished by Joe Jackson" – insert "previously" after "accomplished"
• "Ruth hit his second home run on May 2, and by the end of the month had set a major league record for home runs in a month with 11, and promptly snapped it with 13 in June." Needs rwording to avoid two "ands". In normal parlance, records are broken rather than "snapped", which has a sportswriter feel about it.
• "Frazee and Barrow quickly made a deal with Frazee..." chop last two words?

First Frazee should have been Ruppert. Changed.

• I don't think it's encyclopedic to refer to Ruth as "The Babe"
• "Ruth's appearance in the 1921 World Series also led to a problem and triggered another disciplinary action" – why not, simply: "Ruth's appearance in the 1921 World Series triggered another disciplinary action"?

Sentence cut, it is purely introductory and things are fine without it.

More to follow Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Done to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

3 more sections

1924–1925

• The repetition of "spring training" is unfortunately aligned in lines 2–3 of the second para.
• Although you have a link to the "premature obituary", Ruth is not among those listed there. Maybe you should add a line there?
• "had what would be his worst season" → "had his worst season"?

1926–1928

• "The St. Louis Cardinals had won the National League with the lowest winning percentage for a pennant winner to that point (.578) and the Yankees were expected to win easily." Insert "the World Series" after "to win".
• "deemed a defensive gem" – odd phrase, meaning not immediately clear: "deemed" by whom?
• Re the Sylvester story: are we to understand that Ruth did not, in fact, hit the supposed promised home run?

I think the point is it was made a lot more dramatic than it was. I've inserted that he did not know the boy, thus he did not have as great emotional involvement than the version in the movie, where the Babe visits and gets all teary eyed, and then goes out and hits the home run and puts little Johnny on the road to recovery. He did not even remember who Johnny Sylvester was, soon after. It's a base that must be touched in the Ruth story.

• I believe I've commented on the usage of "the Babe" before.
• "as much as" unnecessary. Not clear at what point they led by 17 games

The source does not specifically say.

• Who are "the A's"? I suppose the misplaced apostrophe is necessary, to avoid "the As", but is use of the nickname really necessary?

1929–1934

• I don't think that Babe Ruth's called shot should be hatted as the main article for this whole section, which covers five years of Ruth's career. The link in the paragraph describing the incident is enough.

I think it is likely enough that someone looking at this part of the article is seeking info about this to be worth a "further information". It's the only Really Big Babe Ruth Legend to be in this section.

OK, but call it "Further information" rather than "Main article", which is a misnomer. Brianboulton (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Can you explain "half a World Series share"?
• "He hit the first home run in the game's history" – this should be clarified to "in the all-star game's history"
• "Ruth hit only .288 with 22 home runs..." – statistics repeated from earlier in the paragraph.

I shall be missing for a couple of days, but expect to be back on Friday. I should complete the review then or on Saturday. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Have a useful time off. I'm up to date, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

My final pickings

Boston Braves (1935)

• "Rumors cropped up" – a bit informal. Perhaps: "There were rumors that Ruth..." etc
• "he was talked out of it by his wife, Claire" – this is the first mention of this lady; what happened to Helen?
• "Under way" is two words in all my dictionaries (evolved from "under weigh").
• "Ruppert had stated that he would not release Ruth to go to another team as a player". The words "go to" are redundant. Also, Ruth was obviously going to play for the Braves (as a gate attraction), so shouldn't this read " as a full-time player"?
• "Hoopla" is an informal term (BritEng equivalent "hoo-ha"), and clear enough in meaning, but I think beyond the borders of encyclopedic use.
• "five of New England's six governors" – link New England, and I suggest "six state governors" (you'd be surprised how many people over here assume that "New England" is a US state).
• "His conditioning" → "His condition". Also "little more" and "little else" in close conjunction
• "Ruth also found out that rather than give him a share of the profits..." I'd strengthen this to: "Ruth also found out that far from giving him a share of the profits..."

1935–1946

• "Larry MacPhail made it clear when Ruth was hired that he would not be considered for the job if manager Burleigh Grimes retired at the end of the season as expected." Needs a slight tweak to clarify which job he wouldn't be considered for,. e.g.: "Larry MacPhail made it clear when Ruth was hired that he would not be considered for the manager's job if, as expected, Burleigh Grimes retired at the end of the season."

Cancer and death (1946–1948)

• "His name and fame gave him access to experimental treatments, becoming one of the first cancer patients to receive both drugs and radiation treatment simultaneously." "Becoming..." is wrong here: "...and he was one of the first..." etc

Personal life

• The information "Ruth met Helen Woodford, by some accounts, in a coffee shop in Boston where she was a waitress" has been given earlier in the article.

It has, but quite a long time ago and I don't think the repeat that horrible as a lead-in

• You should mention year of Claire's death, as you do for Helen and stepdaughter Dorothy.
• I'm not sure that "Despite his marriages..." is the right way to introduce this anecdote, since we have little previous indication of the nature of these marriages, e.g. whether or not they were happy. "Despite" would make sense in the context "Despite his two happy marriages..." if that is the case, but otherwise it doesn't really work.

I've tried again.

Memorial and museum

• "Moved from old stadium to new were the tributes to Ruth housed in Monument Park, which remains in center field in the new ballpark, as it was in the old". I found the organisation of this sentence rather odd, and also hard to follow. I gather from the link that Monument Park was a museum in the old Yankee Stadium, and that the museum was re-established in the new stadium when it was opened. So I'd replace "remains" with "was re-established". From the monument's WP article: "When the Yankees moved to their new ballpark in 2009 a replica Monument Park was built beyond the center-field fences and the contents of the old transported over" – the whole contents of the museum, not just the tributes to Ruth, were moved from the old stadium to the new.

I've tried in a simpler manner.

• What does "the monument was in play" mean?

It means that a ball could conceivably hit it and still need to be retrieved by the fielder, though likely in vain by this point. This did not happen very often. Piped to ground rules

• Close repetition of "is located" in first line of the second paragraph

Contemporary impact

• Montville argues, Stout notes (both present); Creamer recorded, Wagenheim stated (both past). Is there a case for consistent use of the literary present? (later in the article we have "Montville noted)

I've tweaked that. Montville is now present tense except when definitely dated.. Stout is still with us.

• "Ruth's penchant for hitting home runs altered how baseball is played." Seems like a "legacy" statement rather than contemporary impact

Yes, but the game changed while he was still playing it.

• Ruth Cleveland has a WP article & can therfore be linked
• Likewise, the most recent events concerning the "Baby Ruth" candy bar are hardly "contemporary impact". I'd say the whole para could easily be transferred to the legacy section.

Legacy

• Is there any example of "Ruthian" having this meaning outside the baseball context?
• "...fictions about Ruth, and in the case of the latter film, the impression that Ruth was overweight throughout his career, rather than just in the later part of it." Well, he did weigh 260lb in 1925, which is hardly "the latter part of his career".

Nothing to add. This is a most affecting article, and needs only minor polishing, in my view, to meet the FA criteria. I found it absorbing enough barely to notice the length. The only area which I think needs careful watching is the dividing line between what is acceptable in baseball reporting, and what is admissable within a formal encyclopedia article. I have highlighted a few instances which I think need to be looked at again, but there are no major concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I've addressed everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll chime in when I can as well. I've made a few minor changes in the References and External links sections for clean up. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

And I just fixed three dab links. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. THe more the merrier.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll be clocking in as well, but not till BB has finished. Shall watch this review page and report for duty after Brian has done the hard work. Tim riley (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Coming on after the Boulton cavalry has swept through the battlefield is an excellent arrangement. I can just bayonet the wounded here and there.

• First lot, to end of Early years (leaving the lead till last, as I prefer to do):
  • "the date of his parents's marriage" – I continually bleat on about possessive forms – Jones's rather than Jones' – but even I boggle a bit at parents's.
  • "during his well-compensated baseball career" – compensation suggests making up for some unpleasantness rather than for playing a sport he enjoyed. Perhaps just "well-paid"?
  • "George rarely was visited by his family" – I'd replace the name with a pronoun, and perhaps "rarely was visited" might flow better as "was rarely visited"
  • "made for righties" – the meaning is abundantly clear, but I question if "righties" is encyclopaedic language. It certainly ain't in these islands, and I speak as a militant left-hander who notices these things.
• Baltimore Orioles
  • There are a lot of differing statements before we get to the cluster of citations 19, 20 and 21. Could they be conveniently distributed among the earlier individual statements?
  • "Dunn also became his guardian" – Does that mean his legal guardian, in loco parentis and all that?

There's enough doubt on this one that I'm removing it.

• • Second para: two "likely"s in two sentences.
  • "most center around" – there are those (of whom I am emphatically not one) who get aerated about "center around" on the grounds that it's a logical impossibility. I find it expedient to accommodate this fetish by writing "center on".
  • "him being referred to" – I'd make this a gerund – his being referred to – but that may just be me, in my wing-collar, pince-nez and spats.
  • "who was also dangerous at the plate" – does this mean dangerous as a batter? Just asking. I suppose you can reasonably assume that anyone reading a substantial article on a baseball player will understand (as I do not) the basic terms of the game.

Yes.

I have never seen a baseball match or read an article on the subject, but I can truly say I am enjoying this. More anon. Tim riley (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Second lot, down to end of Sale to New York

• Boston Red Sox (1914–1919)
  • "and was thereafter little-used" – I get in a dither about hyphens, but I'm reasonably sure you don't want one here.
  • "As a batter, in his major-league debut, Ruth went 0-for-2 against left-hander Willie Mitchell, striking out in his first at-bat, before being removed for a pinch hitter in the seventh inning" – just a mild English observation that there's a helluva lot of technical terms in that sentence. I'm not objecting, or even demanding a translation, but pray keep in mind that, e.g., a "pinch hitter" is as incomprehensible to those in Commonwealth Countries as "silly mid-on" is to you over there.

I know, but I'm loath to link every baseball term. It can't be toned down lest the ninety and nine not have their expectations fulfilled.

As it happens, the term "pinch-hitter" is pretty well known here and in the Commonwealth, to followers of limited overs cricket. A pinch-hitter is a fast-scoring batsman sent in early in an innings to knock the opening bowlers out of their stride. Sanath Jayasuriya of Sri lanka was famous for pinch-hitting in the 1996 Cricket World Cup. Chris Gayle is a current example for the West Indies. Perhaps the term has a similar connotation in baseball? Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Linked and point taken.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• • "quickly acquired tastes for food, liquor, and women" – I imagine he had a taste for food from a much earlier age than this, as we all do. Perhaps "fine food" or similar?
  • "hold onto first place" – this may be a transatlantic difference, in which case ignore, but I think "onto" needs to be two words in this context. (Isn't there a Gershwin song, "Hang on to me"?)
  • "Phillies ace Grover Cleveland Alexander" – I swear you make these names up, Wehwalt. We had a cricketer whose full name was William Gladstone Grace" – not!

I blame the parents.

• Emergence as a hitter
  • "The United States's entry" – as with earlier possessive apostrophes, above, I'm uncomfortable with the s's here. As a rough guide to myself I speak the phrase aloud, and then write what I say. In this case it isn't "Stateses", but perhaps you demur, in which case I withdraw.
  • "World War I" – I can't provide chapter and verse but I have an idea that linking to this war and WW2 is now regarded as WP:OVERLINK. I may be delusional, however.
  • "had many holes in the Red Sox" – suggestion (perhaps deliberate and mischievous?) of sewing or darning here. Perhaps "vacancies"?

I think this is where baseball lingo doesn't allow for alteration.

• • "Ruth hit .300" – showing my complete ignorance: is the period correct before 300?

Yes. It is a baseball statistic.

• • "Ruth pitched 29⅔ - I believe I have seen that the neat formatting of the fraction as here is not compatible with screen readers for visually impaired users. I just flag this us and do not press it, as I really don't know the facts.
    • Later: by courtesy of another peer reviewer at Robert Stephenson today I can now pass on to you the statement that for MOS:ACCESS reasons, {{frac|1|1|2}} → 29+2⁄3 is preferred. Tim riley (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sale to New York
  • "According to one of Ruth's biographers, Jim Reisler" – with my musical bias I enjoyed this paragraph, but I'm afraid I must question its importance in the whole long narrative, and I'd be inclined to consider blitzing it. Frightful cheek, and I'm quite prepared to be told to get lost.

It is, in my view, part of the Ruth legend, and has to be addressed in this article or people will put it in wrong. Generations of Boston young have been told of how Harry Frazee sold Babe Ruth to finance No, No, Nanette.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• • "Cynics have suggested" – does your source justify the word "cynics" here?

More anon. – Tim riley (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for soldiering through this. I will have to check on the cynics tomorrow, I fear.

The source uses the word "Cynics".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

To the end of Boston Braves

• 1920–1923
  • "Ruth rewrote the record books" – a lively image, but not quite literal enough for an encyclopedia article, perhaps.
  • "flirting with first place" – ditto
  • "decimated" – Pedantry Alert: it may one day be universally accepted that "decimated" no longer means "reduced by one tenth", but not while I'm alive
  • "that broke on September 28" – which broke, as this is not a defining clause but a descriptive one
  • "but drew 1.2 million fans to the Polo Grounds" – is this strictly correct? Selling 1.2m tickets doesn't mean there were 1.2m fans – many, perhaps most, of those attending one match surely also attended most or all of the other matches for which the total 1.2m tickets were sold.

It's acceptable in American English in my experience.

Hmmm. Not wholly persuaded. Arithmetic is arithmetic. But I waive that point. I do not press it. I look over it. Tim riley (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A most kingly response.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• • "On March 6, 1922, Ruth signed …" – there are eleven "Ruth"s in this para, some of which could be replaced with a pronoun to the advantage of the flow
• 1924–1925
  • "binging" – correct spelling? Over here we'd write "bingeing", I think, but perhaps this is a US/UK thing.
• Boston Braves (1935)
  • "A's owner/manager" – have I missed an earlier explanation of what "A" stands for in this context?

A's is the common abbreviation for the Philadelphia Athletics' (now Oakland Athletics) team name (as shown by their team logo). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Last lot will be with you shortly. Tim riley (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will get back with these by Saturday as I am traveling right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Concluding comments from Tim

• 1935–1946
  • "Ruth played much golf…" – Of the six "Ruths" in this para I think you might with advantage change the fourth and sixth to "his"
• Cancer and death
  • "he may have been the first human subject" – a citation after this statement would be welcome.
  • "to the school's library" – to an English eye "school" seems an odd word for Yale University
  • "Ruth visited Yankee Stadium for the final time in his life" – I'd lose the last three words (assuming he hasn't visited the place as a ghost).

Probably, as Yankee Stadium is, or was, a very tradition-laden place. But that is where they held the public procession by his casket.

Very good point. Objection withdrawn. Tim riley (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• • "at St. Patrick's Cathedral, outside of which" – probably another US/UK thing, but "outside of which" looks very strange to me, rather than "outside which".
  • "Ruth rests with his second wife" – rather refined phrasing: how about "is buried"?

I tend to use that phrasing, I find "buried" too abrupt, and it avoids question on above/below ground.

• Personal life
  • "(1897—1976)" – very long dash here. Is it what you intended?
  • "the famous "bear hug"" – this reads as though it has been mentioned earlier, but I don't think it has
  • "among those of Yankee greats who have had their numbers retired" – this prompts even non-fans like me to wonder who the others were. Perhaps a footnote? Likewise for the recipients of monuments.

They are extensive enough that it would be perhaps better not to, and more than just players have monuments, i.e. Huggins, Steinbrenner, Ruppert … Plus one for 9/11 and a brace of Papal masses.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Contemporary impact
  • "meant more to fans than any runs they were responsible for" – in a quote, I know, but I don't understand how the fans could be responsible for any runs.

Some might disagree, see Jeff Maier, for example. Is it that unclear that the runs are being produced by the home runs?

I see! Now it is clear. A pity your source didn't write "any other runs". No matter. Tim riley (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• • "behind Michael Jordan.[209])" You close a bracket that you haven't opened earlier. Not sure where the opening might be intended, if at all.

That's my lot. This is a remarkable article. I struggled here and there with the technicalities of the game, but I'm confident anyone likely to open the page will be comfortable with them. On to FAC! – Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I've caught everything. Thank you for a most thorough review. Note to other reviewers: Please feel free to weigh in. I plan on nominating this for FAC whenever Oliver Bosbyshell clears, and it has two supports. I won't rush this PR, as it is an important topic, but ...--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from GabeMc

Lead

• Beginning his career as a stellar left-handed pitcher for the Boston Red Sox, Ruth achieved his greatest fame as a slugging outfielder for the New York Yankees.

Although this is arguably undisputed, I would avoid using the word stellar and the phrase greatest fame; consider "promising" and "best known" or similar.

It's supported in the article his statistics and downright domination of the American League two years out of the reformatory speak for themselves and I don't think that it's a bad idea to put it in the lead

Well, "stellar" and "fame" are not as encyclopedic as they could be, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• In 1914, Ruth was signed to play minor-league baseball for the Baltimore Orioles. Soon sold to the Red Sox, by 1916 he had built a reputation as an outstanding pitcher who sometimes hit long home runs, the latter a feat unusual in the pre-1920 dead-ball era.

Consider: "In 1914, Ruth was signed to play minor-league baseball for the Baltimore Orioles, who sold his contract to the Red Sox. By 1916 he had built a ... " or similar.

No, the existing phrasing keeps all the Red Sox material together and make it clear he was playing for the Red Sox at the time the freezing you proposed people might wonder if he was traded

• he wanted to play every day

I'm not sure if the average reader realizes that pitchers don't play every game.

There is a limit to how far this article can be dumbed down to cater to those who know nothing about baseball without really annoying those who do know something about baseball I think this is one of the times where it should not be dumbed down

• allowed to convert to an outfielder

Consider: "allowed to change positions to outfielder" or similar.

• After that season, Ruth was controversially sold by Red Sox owner Harry Frazee to the Yankees.

Consider: "After that season, Ruth was sold by Red Sox owner Harry Frazee to the Yankees in a controversial deal for $100,000, the largest sum ever paid for a baseball player" or similar.

• He retired in 1935 after a short stint with the Boston Braves.

Consider adding a little bit here about why he retired, e.g. age, declining ability, injuries. Maybe there isn't anything that notable in particular, but it left me wondering why he didn't play until he dropped; although at 40 he is obviously no spring chicken for professional baseball, so maybe this point is self-explanatory.

I don't think that anyone will question it was necessary for a major-leaguer to retire in his 22nd season it is a game for the young

Well, 1) if he was shipped-off to the Braves at the end it was because his play had significantly declined. 2) the careers of many professional athletes are ended by something other than just old-age. I.e., if Babe was still hitting the ball without too much trouble he would have played longer, which leads me to ask if you think his 4 home runs in his last game are worth mentioning here; to show that he had remarkable skills even in his last game? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It was 3, and it wasn't his last game. Read ahead.

• legendary power

Though obviously true, I would avoid this outside a direct quote, especially for the lead since it seems a bit peacocky. Consider: "Ruth's reputation for power-hitting" or similar.

Its not so much about truth; "power hitting" has a specific meaning in baseball, which is why it should be linked to slugging percentage. Maybe this is meant only to refer to his hitting of long-ball HRs, but I think this will confuse die-hard baseball fans, who relate power to slugging. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some things that you can say in articles even though they are a bit peacocky, or the contrary when there is no dispute or doubt about it. There is no contrary point of view Babe Ruth was a great ballplayer

• His often reckless lifestyle was tempered by his willingness to do good by visiting children at hospitals and orphanages.

Consider: "He tempered his often reckless lifestyle with charitable work with children at hospitals and orphanages" or similar.

• He was denied a job in baseball for most of his retirement, most likely due to poor behavior during parts of his playing career.

Consider: "He was denied a position in professional baseball for most of his retirement, due in part to poor behavior during much of his playing career" or similar.

That would imply that there were other factors that caused him not to get the managers job. As far as we know it all came down to his poor behavior as a player as Barrow put it how can he manager other men he you can't manage himself

Then "due to poor behavior". Why is there need for the "most likely" if you are so certain about the point? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ruth is regarded as one of the greatest sports heroes in American culture, and is considered by many to be the greatest baseball player of all time.

Consider: "Ruth is regarded as one of the most important sports figures in American culture, and is considered by many to be the greatest baseball player of all time."

Early years

• a rough neighborhood

"Rough" isn't the best here; consider: "economically depressed", "impoverished", or "poverty stricken" or similar.

Rough is the best word that's what Pigtown was

But is it the most encyclopedic? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• George Jr. was born in the house of his maternal grandfather

The picture looks more like an apartment building; is this the same structure, because it looks too big to describe as a "house".

it's a rowhouse only the one on the end is where Ruth was born I believe they own some of the others as offices

My point here is that if its a multi-unit building then its not a house, its an apartment. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the slice on the end :)

• Many things are unknown about the circumstances of Ruth's childhood; even the date of his parents' marriage is undiscovered.[4] Few other personal details regarding his parents are extant.

This seems a little verbose and jarring to me, consider: "The circumstances of Ruth's childhood are unclear and little is known about his parents" or similar.

• when young George was a toddler

This is redundant; omit "young".

He had a father, whose actions are being talked about right there.

Then why not refer to little George as George and big George as Ruth? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• by the time he was six, his father had a saloon with an upstairs apartment at 426 West Camden Street.

Replace "had" with "owned".

i'm not aware that he owned it

So, does had imply he was a manager or business owner? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Manager

Then why not: "by the time that he was six, his father managed a saloon"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Details of why he was sent, at the age of seven, to St. Mary's Industrial School for Boys, a reformatory and orphanage, are similarly scanty.

Consider: "Its unclear why, but at the age of seven he was sent to the reformatory and orphanage St. Mary's Industrial School for Boys.

• Babe Ruth, as an adult, suggested that not only was he running the streets and rarely attending school, he was drinking beer when his father was not looking.

Consider: "Ruth later suggested that he was running the streets and rarely attending school, and drinking beer when his father was not looking" or similar.

• Stories exist that after a violent incident at the saloon, the city authorities decided the environment was unsuitable for a small child. At St. Mary's, which he entered on June 13, 1902, he was recorded as "incorrigible"; he would spend much of the next twelve years there.[5][6][7]

Consider: "After a violent incident at the saloon, the city authorities decided the environment was unsuitable for a small child. He entered St. Mary's on June 13, 1902, where he was recorded as "incorrigible"; he would spend much of the next twelve years there" or similar.

• a substantial amount of time was devoted to work

Consider: "they were also expected to work" or similar.

• The boys, aged 5 to 21, did most work around the facility

Consider: "The boys, aged 5 to 21, worked mostly around the facility" or similar.

• The food was simple, and the Xaverian Brothers who ran the place insisted on strict discipline; corporal punishment was omnipresent

Consider: "The food was plain and the overseers of the facility, the Xaverian Brothers, insisted on strict discipline, which included the frequent use of corporal punishment" or similar.

• Ruth's nickname among the boys was "Niggerlips", as he had large facial features and was darker than most boys at the all-white reformatory.[8]

The syntax here seems to imply that the nickname made sense, consider: "Ruth had large facial features and was darker than most boys at the all-white reformatory, which led them to give him the nickname "Niggerlips" or similar.

• Ruth was sometimes allowed to rejoin his family, or was placed at St. James's Home, a supervised residence with work in the community, but he was always returned to St. Mary's.

1) Rejoin → Visit? 2) What does "a supervised residence with work in the community" mean. 3) Its not clear why he was at times sent to St. James's Home.

A halfway house

But why was it necessary for him to leave St. Mary's for any periods of time? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The idea was, in today's parlance, they were trying Ruth in less restrictive alternatives, that is, with his family, or at St. James's. Obviously the behavior problems continued.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• his mother died when he was 12 and by some accounts, he was permitted to leave St. Mary's only to attend the funeral.

Again, this is confusing because the previous sentences make it sound like he was at time allowed to leave St. Mary's, so what was different this time?

we don't know for sure these are from accounts for example by his classmates or the brothers after he became famous

I'm sure that's true, but as it reads now its confusing. Were the Brothers abusive in that they let him leave St. Mary's for baseball and reasons, but not to attend his mother's funeral? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not to be allowed to join in the family grieving in private, to give and receive comfort to his father and Mamie. At the very least it is stern. And Ruth was 18 when they let him join outside teams. No doubt they saw it as an opportunity for him to have exposure to the outside world, under controlled circumstances

-Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Brother Herman

Is his full name known?

While we know Brother Mattihias' last name apparently this one is not insources

Let's close through so no one cared

• The older man became a mentor and role model to George

George → Ruth?

in consider it pretentious to constantly call a child by his last name

Right, but Wikipedia conventions are that we don't use the given name unless its to avoid confusion with other family members. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• but by 1913 at age 18 was allowed to leave the premises

Why was he detained at St. Mary's past legal adulthood?

at that time the age of majority was 21

• He received several newspaper mentions, for both his pitching prowess and an ability to hit long home runs.[17][18]

Consider: "His pitching prowess and hitting ability earned him several newspaper mentions" or similar.

• Ruth became a shirtmaker, and was also proficient as a carpenter.

Consider: "Ruth became a shirtmaker and a proficient carpenter" or similar.

• The boys, aged 5 to 21

5 → five?

I think it would look very odd to switch from words to numerals in the middle of the phrase

More later. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The ones I'm going to do and the ones I'm not are about equally divided I think. Possibly we have different ways of writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess if you disagree with more of my comments than you agree with I won't bother finishing the review, but best of luck at FAC! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

These things happen. Thanks for your review. Your Pepper article is excellent, by the way, and I look forward to its FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Titanfall

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Video games aren't known for attracting robust peer reviews (especially since there are so many FACs to attend to right now), but I'm looking for feedback on an article I've been building for a while. Looking for some advice from those interested on where I may be missing the forest for the trees. Any standard feedback appreciated—would like to take this to FAC eventually. czar ♔ 01:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

plsreviewbigandwispthx

Here are the major obstructions I see:

• "Many critics considered Titanfall to be the next step for the first-person shooter genre,[86][87][92] and the game received abundant publicity from video game journalists." - This sentence isn't really necessary, as both parts are covered elsewhere in the section.
• I'd separate Reception into "Pre-release" and "Reviews" or something to break up the wall a bit.
• Likewise, Development could probably be split up a little.
• What's the story of Expedition like? If there's enough to say about the expansion, you can probably create a subsection for it.
• "The two opposing Titanfall teams each have their own musical fingerprints" - Elaborate.

May come back with more later. Tezero (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That first sentence is there to signpost the rest of the section. I left the subsections out to keep it cleaner—I think it's more personal preference unless there's a readability argument. No info released on Expedition yet, but probably a subsection eventually. Rephrased "fingerprints"—I have one source I may use to expand that section. I likely won't be able to get to the other peer reviews due to life afk (and I do think you can only have one up at a time per the rules), but I appreciate the feedback czar ♔ 22:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh, you're right about the review limit. Well, I hope they'll let that slide; to make up, I've been adding comments to other peer reviews. Tezero (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Solitary comment from The ed17

Why are the voice actors not named? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@The ed17: Thanks for stopping by. They weren't mentioned by name in any of the reliable sources so I didn't think it was notable information czar ♔ 02:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Isaac Isaacs

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nominate this article for GA status and would appreciate feedback on what to improve in regards to prose, expansion and etc.

Thanks, Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 02:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Review from Peripitus. I've not looked at this article since it was the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight back in 2008, and it hasn't changed much since then. I suggest reading Zelman Cowan and Max Gordon's biographies; the latter is a dry book but fairly comprehensive. A few points stand out

• Lady Daisy should be Lady <lastname> and the sentence needs a reference
• paragraph's 3 and 5 of "working life" are unreferenced.
• The honors section needs more. Who proposed the suburb be named after him + needs a reference. Paragraph 1 of this section needs a reference. There is a position at Monash University named after him.
• There is a [citation needed] tag that needs sorting
• Were there any reviews of his published work ?
• Given he spent so long on the high court bench there should be a section covering his time there, the important cases he sat on, and his impact on law in Australia
• In what way was he a difficult person ? This is in reference to him being pushed out of politics to the high court.
• Why is the Cowan biography repeated ? Is this just two editions ? I think that there is a further Biography missed.
• "He died in February 1948" - it's usual to note where, if he was ill before, was there a (state) funeral and have this all referenced.
• ref 18 is missing a page number
• Should be more on his personality - especially as it had such an effect on his parliamentary career, the poor regard by some of his political peers, the good regard from his legal peers, and the significant conflict between his views on Zionism as they came at a similar time to the Holocaust and were poorly regarded by some/many in the Jewish community.
• There should be more on his time in government. The Aust Biography site shows that there is more that could be covered.
• The lead consequently needs expanding. at the moment it summaries very little of the article

- Peripitus (Talk) 10:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the stuff to do, I'm going to close the peer review now, thanks for your help. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 06:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed. This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's close to being ready for a GA nomination (which hopefully will go better than the last one), but I want to make sure any potential problems for this nom get weeded out with this peer review so I can fix them before the GAN.

Thanks, Jinkinson talk to me 03:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Thorpe affair

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Following the Profumo scandal of the 1960s, the 1970s gave us the unlikely sight of the erstwhile leader of Britain's Liberal Party on trial at the Old Bailey for conspiracy to murder. He was acquitted, but the case shattered his reputation; the public perception was that if he hadn't got away with murder, he'd got away with something. Among the bit-part players: a dog called Rinka (RIP), a carpet salesman called John Le Mesurier, and unforgettably at the end, Peter Cook. It must have been distressing for those directly involved in the long drawn-out affair; the rest of us, I'm afraid to say, were largely beside ourselves with malicious glee. (And then came Thatcher – ah, well...) All comments and suggestions welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Cliftonian

Looks interesting—I'd never heard of this (showing my age! ha). From a brief look over it looks very well written and I'm sure I'll enjoy reading it in detail. Since I don't know anything about the subject, I'll start with the body, make notes as I go through and come back to the lead at the end.

Background

• "In the following year" Perhaps "A year later" to reduce repetition?

• Its the only use of the phrase in the article, so I'm unclear about the repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I should have been clearer; the previous sentence begins in a similar way and it's quite repetitive (In ... In) "In 1953 William Field, the Labour MP for Paddington North, was forced to resign his seat after a conviction for importuning in a public lavatory.[2] In the following year..."

• I'm somewhat uneasy about describing somebody as "homophobic" in Wikipedia's voice. I'd recommend using a quote of some of his actual words, which will get over exactly what Maxwell-Fyfe thought of homosexuals without courting controversy—perhaps "victim of a virulent campaign against "male vice" led by the Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, who described homosexual activity as a "plague"."

• Point taken – but I've kept it short. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Four years later Maxwell-Fyfe had departed" not entirely clear from context, suggest change to "By 1958 Maxwell-Fyfe had departed"

• Removed unnecessary ref to David M-F. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• "the apartheid regime"—Dreadful though it was, I would prefer not using the loaded word "regime" if possible; perhaps "the apartheid government" or "the apartheid system" (even just "apartheid" would work)
• "attracted the attention of the South African Bureau of State Security (BOSS), who took note of this rising Liberal star." sentence fragment, needs redrawing

Origins

• "among his pesions" possessions?
• Was the assumed name Scott chosen for any reason, do we know, or was it simply to help him start again overseas?

• It was the family name of Lord Eldon, near to whom Josiffe had lived for a while in Devon. He probably thought that by adopting the name, people would assume a familial relationship with the Eldons. I will add a footnote explaining this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• "In April 1967 Scott wrote to Bessell" The previous sentence begins "In January 1967", I would recommend rephrasing slightly to reduce repetition
• "dated July," I think you need another comma before this (or perhaps, because there are quite a few commas here, put this between emdashes)
• "wished to re-establish his career as a model" Had he been a model before? Either I have missed this or it is left out above.

Developments

• "his utter loyalty" not keen on "utter" here, suggest substitute "unswerving"
• "Caroline Thorpe was killed" perhaps "his wife Caroline"; we've only mentioned her once in the article before this and it took me a second to remember who she was
• "inverstigation" typo
• "gave full details of his relationship with Thorpe" this implies that Scott was definitely telling the truth; perhaps "of his claimed relationship" or similar
• We don't wikilink Harold Wilson
• £2500 should have comma
• perhaps wikilink the actor Le Mesurier at "actor" (also not sure "famous" is needed, potentially POV)
• "On a deserted stretch of road"... I'd recommend starting a new paragraph here

• I've tried this – not too sure it works well, might reconsider. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I like it like that, but if you prefer it the other way I won't make a big deal of it. I think it works well to have the shooting incident itself described in its own paragraph. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Revelations

• —

Committal and trial

• "he (Scott) vanished" did he actually say "Scott", or is this us making this clearer? if the latter we should use square brackets
• "one-sided to Auberon Waugh" perhaps "in the view of Auberon Waugh" to make this clearer—"to Auberon Waugh" could mean it was biased towards him

Verdict and aftermath

• defendents should be defendants
• "In January 2008 Thorpe gave his first press interview in 25 years, to The Guardian" To reduce repetition, suggest redrawing to "Nine years later, in January 2008, he gave his first press interview in 25 years, to The Guardian" or similar
• perhaps wikilink the News of the World

And back up to the Lead

• Liberal Party needs a capital "P"
• perhaps wikilink "illegal" to Labouchere Amendment
• "Thorpe denied any such relationship while admitting a platonic friendship" Perhaps "Thorpe denied any such relationship, insisting that he had Scott had merely been friends"
• defendents again should be defendants

I will come back for more probably, but I don't think anything major will pop up—this seems very well dealt with and, as always, extremely well written. A pleasure to read and review. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for these comments, all addressed; I have only commented where I think necessary, otherwise I've adopted your suggestions or something close. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm glad to have been helpful. Well done again Brian—I look forward to seeing this at FAC. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

• "The basis of the scandal were allegations by Norman Josiffe": Possibly my grammar is sub-standard, but this doesn't look right here: should it not be

"was allegations"? (But there's probably some obscure grammatical rule at work here, or I'm being thick. Either is equally likely...)

• No, it's my carelessness, duly reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Thorpe denied any such relationship while admitting that the two had been friends, and with the help of political colleagues and a compliant press ensured that any rumours of misconduct were unreported for more than a decade.": Would it be smoother here if the comma was placed after "and", and another added after "press"?

• Again, I've slightly reworded – on reflection, neither my original nor your suggestion looked quite right. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Scott was a persistent threat" and "was perceived as a danger both to Thorpe and to the Liberal Party": Could we make it clearer here what the nature of this threat was, and where it was? I don't think the lead quite says how Thorpe was being pressured until it says "further newspaper revelations" quite late on.

• The threat and danger came from Scott's allegations of a relationship with Thorpe that, as the opening paragraph says, was illegal. I have tweaked to make this clearer in the second paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• "he devoted his main energies to making an impact.": Presumably on the political scene , but at Oxford or generally? A little vague.

• A personal rather than a political impact, I'd say. Clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Four years later, in October 1979": I'm assuming a typo for 1959?
• "According to some accounts, Thorpe was briefly considered as best man at the 1960 wedding": Which accounts? Unless there is another source than the de Courcey book, maybe attribute it specifically to her? If there are other versions of this, could we give some examples to establish how reliable this might be?

• Plenty of sources besides de Courcy. Chester et al, p.31; Daily Telegraph 31 May 2008; Ken Bayliss: Secret Royal History p. 190] – and plenty more, need I go on? I've decided to delete the words "According to some sources, which implies a significant degree of doubt, and I've added two more sources. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Down to the end of "Background" so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks thus far Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• "In 1963, a relatively stable period in Josiffe's life as a riding instructor in Northern Ireland ended after an accident at the Dublin Horse Show.": Why did this cost him the job?

• Clarified: he was quite badly hurt and couldn't work for a while. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• "When, in July 1962, in the wake of some disastrous Conservative by-election performances, Macmillan sacked seven cabinet ministers in what was known as the "Night of the Long Knives" , Thorpe's comment: "Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his life", was widely regarded in the press as the most apt verdict on the prime minister": A very long sentence, which I suspect was intended to be two.
• "Emlyn Hooson, no friend of either Thorpe or Bessell": Do we need a word on why he was not a fan?

• He was a Welsh non-conformist, very reactionary for a Liberal, who instinctively recoiled from louche figures such as Thorpe and Bessell. I don't particularly want to go into detail, but have added that he was on the right of the party. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• "This seemed plausible to Scott, who had been beaten up a few weeks earlier.": Any connection?

• None established. Freeman and Penrose say that Le Mesurier may have been involved, with an accomplice (possibly Hattie Jacques), but nothing known for sure. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• "and a few days later Steel discovered from Dinshaw, a personal friend": Worth reiterating which Steel: it's been a while since he was mentioned, and there could be some confusion with the earlier mentioned Steele.
• "Auberon Waugh, who was writing a book on the trial, noted that Cantley's general attitude to other prosecution witnesses became increasingly one-sided.": In saying noted, are we not agreeing? Perhaps "believed" or similar would be more neutral?

• Changed it to "thought". Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Is there anything worth adding about later reaction to the affair, or later coverage in books, newspapers, TV, etc?

• Not really, but I wouldn't be surprised if some interesting stuff comes out when Thorpe dies. We shall see. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing else jumps out. You couldn't make this stuff up, could you??? It almost makes the MCC look saintly. Almost. Another excellent piece of work, and please let me know when it reaches FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for completing the review and for your useful suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

I've made a few copy edits here and there - mostly uncontentious ones, but feel free to revert anything you don't like. As always an engaging and interesting BB article - very readable and enjoyable throughout. Unfortunately I have to do this in chunks - but hope to finish this as soon as is practicable.

Overall

• There's a sad dearth of images here - I presume because there are no PD ones available?

• I'm afraid that's the case. Thorpe and Scott are both still alive; I don't think claiming fair use for non-free images of lesser lights such as Bessell, Holmes etc would be accepted, and I wouldn't want to do this anyway. (Perhaps we could stick in a photo of your Le Mez, with a caption saying: "It's not him!"). Seriously, though, I think that for the moment, we're stuck with what we've got, or similar. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• I like the thought on that one, but even he doesn't have any PD images, except his grave! - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Disputed friendship

• "the "missing card" remained an ongoing source of grievance.": with Josiffe, I presume?
• "In his hurry to depart he left his suitcase behind, which among his possessions held letters and other documents which supported his claims to a sexual relationship with Thorpe.": I think this could probably be framed a little better - I had to read it a couple of,times to get it straight and the which / which jars a bit.

• Dealt with both. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Threats and counter-measures

• There's a "however" at the start of a sentence: I don't have a problem with it, but I know there are some who may comment at FAC about its use.

• "However" is perfectly OK when properly and sparingly used. It is an appropriate connection when a presumed state of affairs is qualified or modified in some particular. The word occurs five times in this article; the one you've highlighted is probably the least justifiable, and I'll probably delete it. But those editors who maintain the word should never be used are going too far. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

More to follow soonest. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A few more (very) minor copy edits done here and there – more in the way of nit-picking than anything else. An excellent article (as always) and I look forward to seeing it at FAC soon. - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Lede

• "the judge was particularly scathing" How does "particularly" add anything to the reader's understanding?

• Adds a bit of emphasis – but I'm always game to lose a word from the count, so deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

H&the Law

• "importuning" this would not be understood by a US reader though he would probably figure it out from the context.

• "soliciting for sex"? Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Four years later" we are sufficiently remote from the last date that I think there should be another.

• It's intended to reduce the "In (year)..." format which occurs quite a bit in the article. The year is given just afterwards, so I don't think there'll be much confusion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• "a junior Foreign Office in Harold Macmillan's government," A word appears to be missing.

Thorpe

• Pipes to the relevant general elections would appear in order.

Bessell

• "Aware that at that time, exposure as a homosexual would end Thorpe's career" Is "at that time" really needed? You've educated the reader as to the relevant statutory provisions.

Origins

• "Kingham stables" you earlier capitalise "stables" in what appears an identical phrase

• "Kingham Stables" was the business name, so K and S should both be capitals

• "In 1963 a relatively stable period " I think there should be a comma after 1963.
• "Macmillan sacked seven cabinet ministers" at least pipe to Night of the Long Knives (1962) even if you can't bring yourself to say it in the article!
• Again, pipe to the general election
• "Father Sweetman" You could not make this stuff up. (no action)

Developments

• I'm returning to this after completing my reading. You take the allegations against Thorpe as true. He does not confirm these details. He is a BLP. It's going to be asked sooner or later, so how can you be so definitive?

• I began the "Incitement" section with "According to Bessell", and this was meant to cover all the allegations in the section. However, I have now strengthened the qualification considerably, adding "Bessell said", "Thorpe supposedly thought", "Bessell further maintained". I've also added that Holmes largely corroborated Bessell's account of the second meeting. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• "the Home Secretary, Reginald Maudling, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir John Waldron to inform Byers " Should there be a comma after Waldron?
• Although you mention a reluctance to print in the next section, it might be worth a mention of how widely known the party enquiry was, including to the press. Westminster being what it ever has been, I can't imagine such prime gossip remaining truly quiet.

• The party enquiry was confidential If the press were aware of it they didn't report it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• "South African intelligence agency BOSS" Pipe?

• Piped earlier. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• "lay low" Dare I say that Wiktionary deems this informal?
• "returned the briefcase and its content to Thorpe." Did Thorpe previously possess the briefcase?
• "continuing extent of investigative reporting. " I would move "continuing" to after the "of". Perhaps "ongoing"?
• The Pencourt description can be read to say that Wilson hired them AFTER retiring as prime minister. Not everyone will read the footnotes.

Verdict

• "nor adequately explained himself" I would insert "had he" after "nor"
• " campaign to stop the erosion of the San Diego beaches in California." Shades of King Canute! They are still there, I saw. (no action)
• "failed to find a newspaper willing to print his story" or would it be fairer to say failed to find a newspaper willing to pay him for his story?

• I'm inclined to think they wouldn't have paid for such stuff even had it not been written for money. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Most absorbing, and a detail of British politics I had scanted in my studies. And the legal aspect is most intriguing. I have jury duty tomorrow, in fact, though it is surpassingly unlikely any sane lawyer will tolerate me getting on a jury. In any event, I have no doubt this article will do well.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these very insightful comments. I'd be obliged if you would again cast your lawyerly eye over my attempts to avoid the BLP pit, and would be glad to know if and where these precautions need to be taken further. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dr. Blofeld

Sorry for the delay, will read shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Lede

• "British political and sex scandal that ended the political career of Jeremy Thorpe" -repetition of political.
• "denied" and "while admitting" are in a different tense, "although admitted" would fit better I think.

• No tense conflict. He denied something while at the same time admitting something else. A similar example might be: "He read the newspaper while eating his breakfast". Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• financial arrangements with a newspaper. -which was?

• 'The Daily Telegraph

Background

• "Four years later public attitudes had changed little" If you said 1953 wouldn't four years later be 1957, yet you say November 1958. Shouldn't it be five years?

• After "1953", it reads: "In the following year, e.g. 1954, so 1958 is four years later? Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• "He was ostracised by the Conservative Party" -I'd link it seems as you mention it in the next paragraph.
• "rising Liberal star" comes across as a little tabloid-like.

• My view - just about OK. At any rate I can't think of any other equally succinct way of putting it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Developments

• (unconnected with the famous actor of that name) - better put in a footnote I think.

• The trouble is, people don't often read footnotes. And it's a very distinctive name. So some will come across Le Mez, and perhaps think: "Crikey, he got about a bit!" without realising it's a different bloke. I wouldn't even put it past some ignoramus to add something to the real Le Mez article. That's why I think the clarification should be in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• In the shooting section you state The Daily Mail and then Daily Mail. You've linked the other papers but not that one?

• No Dail Mail in the "Shooting" section. As far as I can see, the two mwntions in "Revelations" are consistent in format. I have wikilinked the first.

• " In an effort to forestall this, Thorpe arranged for the publication of two of the letters in the Sunday Times, a paper generally sympathetic towards him." Some sources to back up that the paper was sympathetic towards him would be good here as it's a strong claim.

• It's covered in the citation at the end of the paragraph (Freeman and Penrose, pp. 238–41). In these pages F&P refer to the Sunday Times as a "firm ally" of Thorpe which could not believe that "Thorpe, MP and PC, was a liar and that Scott ... was telling the truth". Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Committal

• I think it would be useful to link Rhodesia for anybody unfamiliar with it as a former country and its history, even though according to MoS existing countries are not advised to be linked.
• "considered a rising star in the legal world," by whom? I'd reword.

Verdict

• "The jury retired in the morning" -is "in" preferred than "on" the morning?

An excellent read and clearly knowledgeable account of the ordeal. One thing though, I think the article suffers from lack of images of those involved. The problem of course it that both Thorpe and Scott are still living so it's difficult to claim fair use. A newspaper cover of the scandal like [5] I think you could possibly get away with though which would greatly help the article, although some would claim it has to be about the newspaper/article itself. I think in such cases where an image is badly needed for encyclopedic purposes you can find a way of claiming use of an image in some way. I just google imaged Thorpe and he looked nothing like the plump, jovial sort of character (like Cyril Smith) I was envisaging, rather gaunt in the face actually! Norman Scott on the other hand looks exactly as I'd envisaged.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for this review. I've done the minor fixes more or less as you suggest, otherwise, see my notes above. On the image question, I am tempted to fly with your Daily Mirror front page as a special case for fair use, but I see problems: it contains a photo of Thorpe; the page itself is not the subject of critical commentary in the article; finally the tone of the banner headline is non-neutral and damaging to Thorpe, and even if we explain this by a caption, the headline is what will stick in people's minds. I intend to consult some of the editors I've discused images with before, and see what they advise, but thanks for the suggestion and link. Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah if you could upload that as the main image and move down the road to section I think it would look a lot stronger. It's finding a way to claim use though which will be tricky. I think it would be a valuable asset.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Ruhrfisch

I was asked to comment on the fair use of an image of a newspaper front page. I have finally read the whole article and think that such use would be allowed under WP:Fair use, specifically the contextual significance criteria where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article. I think that showing a newspaper front page image helps the reader better understand why Thorpe resigned and the role the press played in the affair, even though Thorpe was eventually acquitted (thank you Judge Cantley). I think the caption would be important to fair use too - perhaps something like "Newspaper coverage of the affair helped force Thorpe's resignation from party leadership and parliament, even though he and his co-defendants were eventually acquitted in court." Not great, but hopefully it gives some idea.

I found one place where the text had a needless redundancy: ...Bessell began paying him a weekly "retainer" of between £5 and £10 a week, ...

Very nicely done. Please let me know when this is at FAC, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ruhrfisch, and thanks for responding to my request. I very much respect your views on image usage, and have as you know relied a lot on your advice in the past. In view of what you say, I'm prepared to let it ride at FAC, though the image may well have to be defended there. I will give further thought to the caption wording; this newspaper headline dates from the committal proceedings, two and a half years after his resignation. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been bold and added the fair use image with a caption based on that suggested above; I agree with the Dr that it strengthens the article a lot. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As indicated above , the caption needs more thought. Thorpe resigned in May 1976; at that point, nobody imagined that he would be arraigned for conspiracy to murder, and the headlines he'd been getting were pretty restrained. Things changed at the committal, when the prosecution revealed its case in all its gory details, and the press was free to publish whatever was said in court. I will work on this. Note also that he did not resign from parliament. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have redrafted the caption. though this is not necessarily the final version. Still under consideration. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Brian - I was not as clear on the timeline as I could have been and apologize for the error. I still think the newspaper image conveys how the affair was covered in a way that justifies fair use. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added more text to the "trial" section, relating to the Mirror headline and the likely effect of press coverage on Thorpe's future career. This should strengthen the case for the picture's use. Brianboulton (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I think it improves the article. I like too that the libel laws are made clearer by your recent additions (especially for those of us from countries whose libel laws are somewhat different regarding court testimony). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Gubby Allen

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to take this article to FAC soon. Gubby Allen was many things in cricket; a player, an administrator and a bit of a reactionary. An awful lot happened to him in his life, and although not the most sympathetic character, he had an interesting story. As usual, I'd be grateful for comments on any prose issues and accessibility to the non-cricket reader. Additionally, this is quite a long one (and I think justifiably as he had a long, active life which impacted widely on cricket) so if there is any excess detail or padding please feel free to point it out.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Preliminary comment: I've not started to review yet, but please look at first paragraph of the "Success" subsection. In the Test you describe, Allen's score was 122; it was Ames who scored 137. And their partnership of 246 was for the eighth wicket. I hope Swanton gets it right in the source! Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy. I think this article has affected my brain. I'm suffering from some kind of "Gubby-resistance". Fixed now. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments

• Unlike last time, I do have at least one comment here. In Cambridge University, I see "University match" and "University Match", which I'd imagine should be consistent. More later... Giants2008 (Talk) 00:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Got this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Bodyline series: Bradman is already linked a couple of sections up.
• Before the war: There's a glaring repetitive word in "became an amateur before the season and became another candidate."
• War service: Maybe it's just my eye, but I'd prefer more variety than having three straight sentences start with "He" at the end of the section. Even putting his last name in once would be an improvement.
• Last years as a cricketer: "In three Tests, he scored 94 run and took five wickets." "runs" should be plural, I believe.
• Got all these, I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• D'Oliveira affair: Is "Establishment" supposed to be capitalized? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• In this case, yes. We even have an article, although I don't think it's relevant enough to link to. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Your help is much appreciated, as always. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

Article title

• As he was generally known in cricket as "G.O. Allen", shouldn't this be the title? Or possibly "G.O. (Gubby) Allen"? The unadorned nickname, which is only explained in a footnote, might set a precedent for the re-establishment of monstrosities as "Dodge Whysall".

• I usually agree with you, but in this case I think "Gubby" is justified. There is not one cricket source which does not refer to him as "Gubby"; none call him George except in passing, and only rather old-style sources such as Wisden use the formal G. O. Allen. I think we are safe from setting too much of a precedent as this is a fairly unique instance of a common nickname. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• Footnote: shouldn't we identify the uncle who played for Australia? According to ODNB this was in 1887; my researches reveal that "R.C. Allen" played at the SCG in February 1987, scored 14 and 30 and wasn't picked again. Incidentally, I've seen the ODNB photograph, and if that's Gubby Allen in 1932-33 then I'm Don Bradman.

• Done; and I agree that it is an odd looking photograph. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• First line: maybe mention his England credentials before county etc – see e.g. Jardine, MacLaren, Leyland etc

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• "when the home team won 3–2" → "where the home team won 3–2"?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Contribution to coaching manual mentioned twice in lead

• FIxed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• "highly involved in the team": perhaps "closely involved" – but I'm still not sure what you mean by this. He was obviously involved in team selection, but how else was he involved? Did he coach them, make friends with them, go to the pub with them, etc? Perhaps it would be simpler to just say: "during which time he worked closely with Peter May, the captain."

• Followed the latter course. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Final para needs a bit of rounding off. Otherwise it reads a bit as though the D'Oliveira affair ended Allen's role as a cricket administrator.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Early life

• Probably should be "née Lamb"

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I am wondering whether the "son of Warner" story should be at least mentioned in the main text – not the full details, but it's a fairly intriguing theory, and it's a shame to confine it to a footnote that may not be read by everyone.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think that, in this context, "persuaded" or "encouraged" would be preferable to "enticed".
• The phrase "achieved little" occurs twice in the second paragraph.

• Both of these done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Cambridge University

• The first paragraph, which is pre-Cambridge, belongs to the previous section.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• "University Match" and "University match" should be standardised

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• You need to explain what "awarded his Blue" means, e.g. "awarded his blue by being selected for the University match against Oxford at Lord's" – and amend the subsequent text accordingly.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Questions were raised..."; this formulation always invites the question "by whom?"
• On that issue, "Questions were raised at the time about the fairness of his bowling action, and there were suggestions in the press that he threw the ball" sounds as though his suspected throwing was additional to the questions of fairness, whereas I imagine that the supposed chucking was the unfairness.

• Reworded to cover these. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Middlesex

• As rustication is a temporary exclusion, rather than "having left Cambridge" you neeed to say; "having decided aginst returning to Cambridge" or similar

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Third paragraph second sentence: final words "in the match" are redundant

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Assistant general manager" – decapitalise the A

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Allen was allowed a leave" → "Allen was allowed leave..."

• Oops! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Test match debut

• You mention Allom and Stevens as rivals who were "more successful" – I'd alter that to "also successful", since 4 for 28 is hardly failure. On the other hand, since neither Allom nor Stevens was selected for the first Test, I wonder why they are specifically mentioned here.

• Removed them, as it was just following Swanton here. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would mention that England won the first Test, at Nottingham, and also that the second Test was at Lord's.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Minor quibble: the Australian score was 729 for 6

• Just trying to avoid linking declared! Done now. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• "spent the English winter playing squash" – possibly an overstatement (he might have done a few other things). Was this the British Amateur Squash Championship?

• Swanton doesn't really say, and knowing him, it could have been any old organisation! I'd toyed with cutting this, and having looked again, I've simply removed mention of this as it's hardly important. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Bodyline series

• Perhaps explanatory note 7 should be placed earlier, when you first mention the MCC team to tour Australia in the previous section.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Bradman a coward of fast bowling? Doesn't parse well. Perhaps "a terrible little coward when facing fast bowling"?

• Actually, I had the quotation marks in the wrong place, and "a terrible little coward of fast bowling" are Allen's actual words to "Darling Dads". Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• "...he was involved in subsequent legislation to ban it after the 1934 season". What was the nature of his involvement?

• Added a flavour, but Swanton gives quite chapter and verse about St Gubby's crusade... Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Change of career

• "Subsequently, he played little cricket in 1933" – I think you mean "Consequently..."
• "unavailable ... unavailable" in quick succession
• Try to find a way of mentioning Wyatt as England's captain in 1934, otherwise his mention at the beginning of the following section lacks context.

• All these done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Selection as captain

• "When selected to lead one of the teams in a Test trial match, his leadership was effective enough..." A bit cumbersome: suggest "...he was effective enough..." etc
• "Allen threatened to resign were [Voce] to be included" – I think, in view of what followed: "Allen at first threatened to resign..." etc

• Both done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Tour of Australia, 1936–37

• I have heard the "it's probably cost us the rubber" story before, but I always thought it was in relation to the third, rather than the second Test. That is what the WP article on Robins says, though with no citation. The story makes a lot more sense in the context of the pivotal third Test, rather than in the second at a point when England were well ahead in the match and the series. Can you investigate further? This may be a case where, not for the first time, Swanton has got it wrong.

• OK, this one threw me a bit. I have no "heavy-hitting" books on the 1936-37 series, and found several "quote" and "funny story" books which place this in the third Test. But Wisden does not mention a drop in either the second or third Test (when it might have been more likely to have done so in the crucial third Test); the Times daily reports do not mention Robins dropping Bradman in the third Test, but record Robins dropping Bradman off Allen in the second Test. So in this case, I think I believe Swanton; I don't think Allen (who probably told the story for the book) would get this wrong as it would be a much better story if it were in the third Test, when it would have cost the series. I suppose it's to his credit that he didn't try to tell the story differently, when it would have reflected better on his bowling/judgement/whatever. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Australia chose Laurie Nash, a fast bowler, who had returned to first-class cricket after a three-year absence to play for Victoria against the MCC, for the game." Sentence needs reconstructing: "For the game, Australia chose a fast bowler, Laurie Nash, who had returned to first-class cricket after a three-year absence to play for Victoria against the MCC".

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• "extremely closely" – just "closely" will do. Or, simply, "The series was watched by..."

• Went for the latter. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• "...to fraternise with Australia" – "presumably, "to fraternise with the Australian team".

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

War service

• "By June 1940..." → "In June 1940..."
• "demobbed" is military slang. "Demobilised" is the formal term, but "left the army" would be simpler.

• Both these done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Final years

• This section deals with Allen's final playing years, not his last years on earth. Title should reflect this. You use the same title later on, to describe Gubby's dotage.

• Changed. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not too sure of the relevance of Griffith's century to this article

• Allen selected him out of position, and he was very successful. So it's sort-of Allen's success as well. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• On a point of chronology, Hutton was sent for when the series was well under way – he flew out for the third Test

• Hopefully made this clear. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

After the Second World War

• "he served on the MCC Committee again" → "he rejoined the MCC Committee"?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• As an ordinary MCC committee member I doubt that Allen could "secure" honorary memberships for retired professionals. I'd say "support" rather than "secure"

• I think it was his idea, and he saw it through. But I'll double check outside of Swanton for confirmation. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Tim Quelch states that the scheme, and other similar initiatives at the time, achieved little owing to the limited resources available and because the boys coached in this way had little actual opportunity to play cricket". It's not entirely clear what "the scheme" or "in this way", are vreferring to. Some clarification advised.

• Hopefully better now. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Test selector

• "The workload of the post brought his playing days to an end" – plus, I suppose, the fact that he was 52 years old by then!

• According to Swanton (and therefore the man himself) he would have carried on. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• It's not really right to say that May "emerged" during Allen's chairmanship. He first played for England in 1951, and was a well-established Test player before Gubby came on the selectoral scene. Ted Dexter might be a better example.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Being pedantic, May served until January 1960 (he missed two matches in 1959), before briefly resuming in 1961.
• The result of the 1956 series was 2–1, not 3–1
• "Washbrook was ultimately successful" – why not "Washbrook scored 98"?
• I don't like the use of "extremely" for emphasis, even in the case of Laker in 1956. How about: "which led to Laker's extraordinary success in the series"?

• I think I got all of these. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Influence behind the scenes

• "term of office" should not be hyphenated
• On his appointment as MCC treasurer it might be worth explaining that this was a more influential office than it sounds, with a wider range of responsibilities than looking after the money.
• "The newly formed Sports Council required that cricket be more democratically organised, and not just run by a private members club, to receive financial support from the government". Sugest flip this: "The newly formed Sports Council required that, to receive financial support from the government, cricket be more democratically organised and not run by a private members' club" (note members' punctuation)
• Many readers won't necessarily know that "Billy Griffiths" is the same "S.C. Griffith" who scored a century on Test debut in 1948
• "comfortably affluent" = tautology

• Got these. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The D'Oliveira Affair

• I think the MOS requires you delete "The" in the heading

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Probably you should explain in opening sentences that D'Oliveira was of mixed race. "On the grounds of his colour" seems a bit pussyfooting.

• Kept "on the grounds of his colour" as some readers may not know why they wanted him out, but added mixed race. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Cobham communicated this information to an MCC Committee member by private letter. Only Allen, Griffith and the then-President Arthur Gilligan were aware of the letter..." – and, presumably, the committee member to whom it was sent?

• Clarified. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• "enormous anger and controversy" – "enormous", like "extremely", best avoided; "widespread anger..." etc? Note: "enormous" is repeated a couple of lines further down.
• Ah, I see you are using "widespread" in the final paragraph. The first "enormous" could be "considerable" and the second, "heavy"

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Final years

• Per earlier note, probably this heading is appropriate here
• "In 1962, he was appointed a CBE and knighted in 1986": tidier if "He was appointed a CBE in 1962 and knighted in 1986"

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's it; another well-researched article packed with detail, and probably more even-handed than the subject deserves. I will watch its progress at FAC with confident interest. Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and help, and I think I got everything. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Cliftonian

I don't know so much about Gubby so I will start with the body and come back to the lead at the end. I have been trialling this method and am feeling quite happy with it. Hope you don't mind.

Early life

• Shouldn't we give the exact date he was born here and wikilink Sydney? (also, the infobox says Bellevue Hill, New South Wales; I'd recommend making this consistent in the infobox and body).

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• If Pearl was a nickname, shouldn't it be in quotation marks? (or was it a middle name?)

• This is how I usually do it, and how the ODNB does it, so I don't think it really matters. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'd recommend changing the semicolon before "later rumours" to a full stop, and starting a new sentence

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Both of his parents"; recommend changing "his" to "Allen's" to make this clearer

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Both of his parents had roots in England as well as Australia, and in 1909..." This is a very long sentence. I'd suggest splitting it up a bit (also note the repetition of "initially" and "England"). Here's a suggestion:

• "Both of Allen's parents had ancestral links in England as as well as Australia, and in 1909 they moved the family to London with the hope that Allen, then six years old, and the other children might benefit from an English education. They lived at first in a flat in the English capital, but subsequently moved between various country villages. Finding that they enjoyed England, the family abandoned plans to return to Australia."
• Went for a combination of your wording and mine. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "His ability attracted the attention of Eton College; a friend of his father, Cyril Wells, was the cricket coach there, and he encouraged Allen senior to send his son to the school..." This passage is a little bit choppy, I have suggested an alternative below. We say he "went" to Eton in the winter of 1915–16; this could be taken to mean this is the only time he was there, but what we mean is he started going there in the winter of 1915–16. I have integrated this into my suggested wording below:

• "His ability attracted the attention of Eton College, where a friend of Allen's father, Cyril Wells, was the cricket coach. The family had planned to send Allen to Haileybury, but Wells persuaded Allen senior to send his son to Eton instead, against Allen's own wishes. He started at Eton in the winter of 1915–16."
• Done this. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would recommend consolidating some of the references in this section; a lot of places they are only a page or two a part and we have multiple references within a sentence or two where we could just have one

• OK, done some, and I'll keep an eye on this. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "by 1918 he was captain" perhaps make clearer we mean captain of his house and not of the school team. Do we know what house he was in?

• Did this, but not sure what house he's in. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• perhaps say Lord's is in London (the uninitiated may not know)

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "newly appointed Eton coach" perhaps just "new Eton coach"

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• wikilink Winchester College (my dad was first scholar there in the '70s, you know!)

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• topping the bowling averages of the Eton team, or of the division they played in?

• Clarified. Eton weren't common enough to play in a division! League cricket was for the common people up north. Down south, it was played for the love of the game!!! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "the best schoolboys" given the era we are talking about these would be the best public schoolboys, right? (Eton, Winchester, Westminster, Charterhouse, etc?)

• Yup, clarified. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "encouraged his selection by the club, despite the potential risks to the team's position." what risks? because Warner might be accused of favouritism, or because Allen did not consider himself experienced enough to play first-class cricket?

• Clarified. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

First-class cricketer

• "country house cricket" what is this?

• Err... Cricket played in country houses! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• We haven't wikilinked the Country Championship... neither have we linked Yorkshire CCC, I am astounded to note! (cue note from Tim saying Yorkshire is not worth linking to)

• Linked to the greatest team in the history of sport. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "568 runs at 21.84" perhaps clarify to "a total of 568 runs at an average of 21.84"?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• perhaps wikilink England cricket team the first time we mention it ("for the England team against Australia that summer")

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "an MCC team of moderate ability" according to whom?

• Removed this. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "He declined an invitation to tour South Africa with an MCC team" do we know why? perhaps because of work?

• Not sure, but presumably work. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• why not wiklink Lyon?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• in the passage about the business in France, we use the word "business" several times. Suggest less repetition

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Why not say Debenham's is a department store? (foreigners may not know)

• I'd rather not say this here, as I'm not sure if he worked in one store, or for the company itself. And I think the link should be enough there. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "each year since 1926" not "every year since 1926"?

• Done, but not sure it makes much difference. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "He was praised in the press" perhaps "most of the press"; it seems kind of odd to say the press praised him, then give only two examples of reporters that didn't

• I don't think the two reporters were really having a go, merely pointing out the limitations of his performance. Changed the "but" to "although" to make it less harsh. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Down to Test match career; will continue —Cliftonian (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Test match career

• Since we discuss Jardine and his relationship with Allen at some length in the first paragraph, perhaps point out he is seated in the centre of the front row in the photograph (perhaps also point out Allen's benefactor and supposed father, Pelham Warner, at the far left. I must say in this photograph at least there does seem to be a resemblance)

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• How does Frith explain Allen's inconsistency regarding his relationship with Jardine? Why was he terrified of him?

• He doesn't, and to be honest does something of a hatchet job on Allen in this book, making him look very bad. This is just one example where he looks slightly nuts. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "His attitude made him popular with spectators" perhaps clarify to "His attitude made him popular with the Australian spectators"? (I can't imagine there were many from England, but this isn't totally clear)

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps mention earlier that this was the first time he had been to Australia since he left at the age of 6? I imagine that for Allen it would have been quite an emotional occasion. I would place it further up, before "Jardine did not initially plan to include Allen in the Test team":

"The Bodyline tour was the Allen's first visit to Australia since the age of six. Jardine did not ..."

• Not sure it works here. I put it deliberately with the family part to avoid the feeling in the biography about how great Gubby was and how special he was and how lovely his family were and ... Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• and trim the first sentence of the "Change of career" section accordingly.

• I think it is better here, to be honest. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• was Norah Grace's family American or British? (or something else? just feel this might add some flavour)

• Need to check this. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• wikilink the London Stock Exchange in the body

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

England captain

• perhaps wikilink Stan McCabe in the image caption

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Allen was treated sympathetically by press and public," comma here should be full stop

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "encouraged his team to fraternise with the Australian team" perhaps "encouraged his playerss to fraternise ..." to reduce repetition. you could also trim "and he" to just "and"

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "However, he clashed over tactics with one of his team, Joe Hardstaff; the pair never subsequently got along" perhaps "never got along thereafter"?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Down to later career, will be back —Cliftonian (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this so far! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Later career

• "commissioned in the Territorial Army" shouldn't this be commissioned into the Territorial Army?

• I'll take your word for that! Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Arthur Harris! A self-identified Rhodesian, not many people seem to know. (no action)

• Do you really want to claim him???? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Allen left the army in July 1945" perhaps just "He left", because there's no ambiguity here about who we are talking about

• There might be, as we are talking about his cricket just before. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps explain briefly that the Free Foresters are a wandering amateur club (the name sounds almost like it could be a yeomanry regiment or something)

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Cricketing technique

• "As a batsman, Allen's was technically sound" typo here; think we mean "Allen was technically sound"

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Administrative career

• "deliberately restricted the career of Les Jackson for reasons of class" perhaps clarify to "the working-class Les Jackson" or something like that to make this clearer

• Not sure it's unclear, and I'd like to avoid class ... class, unless anyone has any good ideas. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• "When he was later added to the team when another player was injured" we repeat "when ... when"; suggest redrawing

• Fix. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Vorster protested" he did more than that, I think—he outright said that the England team would not be welcome.

• Reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• "the government eventually asked the Council to cancel the tour." perhaps make clear it did, and also perhaps reword as if I recall correctly the government didn't just ask but actually put very heavy pressure on the cricketing authorities to cancel it.

• Reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• "In 1968, Allen moved to a flat directly behind the Pavilion at Lord's,[250] where he lived until his death." suggest reword to "He moved to a flat directly behind the Pavilion at Lord's in 1968, and lived there until his death."

• I'd prefer to leave it to avoid too many sentences beginning with "He" or "Allen". Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Very good overall in my opinion. I very much look forward to seeing this at FAC and hope these comments help. I'm sorry about the delay in finishing up. Cheers, have a great weekend! —Cliftonian (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Crisco

• where the home team won 3–2, having lost the first two matches - is "having lost ..." necessary for the lede?

• In this case yes; it was a famous loss from 2-0 up with 3 to play, and is very rare in Test cricket. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• He died in 1989. - this doesn't really build on the first sentence (the life span)

• Added a touch more. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• was briefly in Australia at roughly the right period. - meaning Warner was in the UK... how could he have become a fan of Pearl?

• It's all a little vague. I get the impression that she was quite popular with eligible men, but there's little we can say for definite. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• He began to play cricket seriously - when did he take up the sport non-seriously?

• Basically from the time he could stand! I think in common with most at the time, he played in the back garden but not for a team as such until he went to school. Not sure it is worth a mention, but I could ref it if I had to. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Allen went to Eton in the winter of 1915–16. - perhaps "beginning in the winter" ... that being said, per WP:SEASONS we shouldn't use winter.

• I think it is marginally better as it is. As far as the WP:SEASONS thing goes, it is very difficult to avoid this in cricket writing; the easiest way is to refer to the cricket season, and summer and winter is the convention. I think there is enough wiggle room in the guideline to justify this, and I personally think their recommended styling is horribly clunky. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Worth noting that Warner was Middlesex captain? At least, according to his article.

• Not by 1921; it mentions his captaincy in the note about who Allen's father may have been, when he was the captain, but not here. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• in which he appeared for the amateur "Gentlemen" - but he was not of the nobility, no? He certainly wasn't financially stable enough to qualify as an amateur, from my reading of this article... or were they somewhat loose with the classification? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, it was all very peculiar. The Gentlemen were not "gentlemen" in terms of nobility, it was just an archaic (even then) way to describe amateurs; the link to Gentlemen v Players should cover that. In terms of Allen being an amateur, he was one of the few to actually qualify as one in cricket. That was why he didn't play as much as other amateurs: he couldn't afford to, and he made literally no money from cricket. (But some amateurs were affectively paid to play, but it was all hushed up. It was basically about your social status. It was a mess, and this is one of the things I love writing about!) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Debenham's - Article is at Debenhams, why the apostrophe?

• At the time, they had an apostrophe, but not any more. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a link for the act of taking all ten wickets? I mean, it certainly sounds like a rare enough achievement to have a list like what the baseball people have. List of cricketers to take ten wickets in a first-class match or something?

• It's a potential list; it has happened quite a lot but is relatively rare. But lists aren't my thing... Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Link Richmond to Richmond baronets? Or is he worth an article?

• Did the link, but not sure he is worth his own article. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Larwood seems to have had about as much luck with injuries as Allen...

• Worse. If you have time, read Larwood's article (it's one of Brian's); Allen was a hypochondriac, Larwood was insanely unlucky. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Those are the last comments of the night. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Although still unable to appear regularly, Allen played 16 matches, - since you are shifting from test to county, perhaps note that this is for Middlesex?

• They wouldn't just be county or Middlesex games, but added a note saying first-class. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Watch for overuse of "Declared" in the second Australian tour

• Unless I'm missing something, it only comes up twice in that section, and there isn't really a way to rephrase it. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• In #Technique, watch for mixed tenses (past and present, like "described / describes") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Done, I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Would the opening paragraph of #Administrative career work better as part of the "Death" section?

• I quite like it as an introduction to that section, and want to avoid another "technique/impact" section at the end of his off-field career. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• the MCC Coaching book - two questions: why the capital "C", and is this likely notable enough for an article?

• Idiocy and unlikely, in that order! Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think I'll ever understand the British class system... "Many professional cricketers thought that Allen was a snob who preferred to keep them in their place; critics believed that he deliberately restricted the career of Les Jackson for reasons of class." and yet he was still working (although admittedly in a senior position) and of common descent... just the wealth? *sigh*

• Oh, money has nothing to do with it old boy; it's all about breeding... Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• to keep him in his place. - Trueman's class, or...?

• Not quite sure what you mean here, but this is as far as the source goes. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• no-balled - link?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Any way to avoid repeating "1968"?

• Not really. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• a National Cricket Association - if it's "a", why the capitals?

• Switched to "the". Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• investments in Australia - don't think you've mentioned these yet, yet you include them as if the reader already knows.

• Tweaked. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• According to Peter Oborne, in his biography of D'Oliveira, Allen and the MCC secretary Billy Griffith, - is it a biography of all three? I think that closing comma needs to go, or even use "in his biography of D'Oliveira, Peter Oborne writes that..."

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Capitalisation: you have both MCC Committee and MCC committee

• Fixed I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• a statesman and former Prime Minister, - I think PM is non-definite here, since the "a" applies to it as well.

• Not really, he was a former Prime Minister. I'm pretty sure that's OK. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Stomach operation for what? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Source does not say. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

First batch, just putting a marker down till I have time to wade in properly:

• Lead
  • "who held key positions in the Marylebone Cricket Club, which effectively ruled English cricket at the time, and became chairman of the England selectors" – this goes off the rails a bit: if read literally it says that the MCC became chairman. I think the addition of "he" before "became" would do the trick, perhaps replacing the "and" with a semicolon.
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "Upon leaving university" – sorry to ride my hobby horse about quaint words yet again, but in general (not invariably, but here) I think "on" better than "upon", just as I prefer "while" to "whilst", "amid" to "amidst" and so on
    • Hmmm, thou ist probably correct! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Thou taketh the pifs, methinks, thou fcoundrel! Tim riley talk 14:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "with the captain Peter May" – "with the Test captain Peter May"?
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "In 1963 he became MCC President, and was made the club's treasurer" – capitalise both titles or neither, I'd say.

• Went for both, but someone may well shoot me down over it! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Early life
  • There was evidently a bit of money around in the Allen household if he was sent to Eton. Did his father successfully practise law in England? It seems surprising that he could earn large sums straight away as a new boy to English legal practice.
    • Gubby says that it was a bit of a financial stretch, but is not too specific. Allen senior joined the Met (the police, rather than the Opera!) during the war, but again financial details from Swanton's careful book are scarce. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "where a friend of Allen's father, Cyril Wells, was the cricket coach" – I tremble at challenging you on cricket technicalities, but I rather doubt this. Wouldn't the Eton cricket coach have been a retired professional, like (later) George Hirst? Whereas C. M. Wells was a very grand classics master who succeeded Mike Mitchell as Eton's top cricket man. Incidentally, as far as I can see, Wells was always "C.M." not "Cyril" even to his friends. See the Lyttelton/Hart-Davis Letters, passim. From which, for your delectation: "On Tuesday C.M. Wells's dinner, his ninetieth birthday. He hasn't changed in the last twenty years. His forty-to-fifty-year-old pupils have—bald, fat, dewlapped, limping etc. G.O. Allen was there. He had just seen Statham who told him that Hall, 6 ft 5, was much the fastest bowler he or anyone else had ever seen; not even Cowdrey really enjoyed facing him. C.M.W. of course repeated W.G.'s saying about fast bowling, viz that the faster it was the better he liked it. I gathered that G.O.A. regarded himself as of much the same pace as Larwood etc. But D.R. Jardine told me L. was a good deal quicker."
    • You are right, I've been a bit loose with the source here. He was a housemaster according to Swanton, but seems to have been the master-i-c of cricket as well. Went for the former as simpler to link, and also changed him to C. M. Incidentally, I have a far higher opinion of Jardine than Allen, for all the former's faults. Not too sure what that says about me. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "the annual matches at Lord's in which the best public schoolboys opposed each other" – this sounds like some Lord of the Flies free-for-all. There were presumably two representative sides?
    • To be honest, Lord of the Flies may be quite an accurate description, but clarified anyway. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

More soonest. In haste… – Tim riley talk 17:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

To the end of Cricketing technique

• Middlesex
  • "although the Guardian correspondent suggested that a weak batting performance flattered him" – two things arise from this. First, it was The Manchester Guardian until 1959. Secondly, I have its cricket report dated 17 June 1929 in front of me and I don't think it even hints that poor batting "flattered" Allen's performance, and indeed the report is headlined "Allen's great feat". I can send you the report if you'd like it. What's more when, the following month, Tich Freeman of Kent also took all ten Lancashire wickets in an innings, the MG (25 July) commented that it had cost him 131 runs to get them, as compared with Allen's mere 40.
    • I think I'm being a bit harsh on Allen here. The source I'm using takes the line "it has to be confessed that much of the batting was poor", and I think I've read too much into it. I've toned it down to "helped by a weak batting performance", but maybe that is too much. I'll ponder, and may remove this altogether. Changed to Manchester as well. I get the Grauniad archives through my library, so I checked out the original report. (Where was Cardus, I ask myself?) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Debut
  • "not particularly well-received by the press" – hyphens! I think – but may very well be mistaken – that you don't wan't a hyphen here. By the bye, I think you may enjoy the MG's comment (27 June 1930) on Allen's inclusion: "The choice of G. O. Allen will have astonished North of England people, who may well ask what claims Allen possesses to a place in the England eleven, excepting that he plays for Middlesex, which, of course, is a qualification in itself. True, Allen once took the whole of the ten wickets in a Lancashire innings. But London is not in the habit of regarding Lancashire cricket as a test of anything, save patience. Allen bowls fast-medium stuff, rather tearaway. If he takes the whole of the ten Australian wickets to-day he will still be a bowler far, far away from international class."
    • I'll believe you on the hyphen. Incidentally, that was the view of most people of Allen, especially early in his career. Only Swanton worshipped him. Cardus (who that quote looks to be from!) was quite dismissive of him in the 1930 series. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I've strayed down too many byways to get much done this time. More a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 09:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Last lot from Tim

• Influence behind the scenes
  • "When the MCC abolished amateur status in cricket in 1962" – Technically it was 1963: on 26 November 1962 the 17 first-class counties voted to abolish the distinction, but their vote was not valid until ratified by the MCC committee, which the committee duly did, nem con, on 31 January 1963. Citations from The Times for 1962 and 1963 available if wanted. (This pedantic detail has stood me in good stead: I scored a boundary with it off Brian B's bowling during the FAC for Alec Home the year before last.)
    • Found a ref (probably the same as yours!) and changed the date. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• D'Oliveira affair
  • "The Shadow Foreign Secretary and MCC member Sir Alec Douglas-Home" – not merely a member: he had been President in 1966. (Tangentially, now I read your article I think I may need to tweak Home's because I think I imply there that he was still President when he met Vorster. I'm glad of that prompt.)
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "enemies of the MCC and the Establishment" – you've used "establishment" twice, earlier, both times without the capital. I think it probably works better capitalised, but either way it would be best to be consistent about it.
    • Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Categories
  • I prefer the categories to be in alphabetical order, though I admit I there is a perfectly good argument for setting them out in order of importance instead. I just mention this and if you revisit and prefer the status quo I shall not quibble.
    • I make it a rule not to touch categories, and find them vaguely irritating; sorting them is also a pain as people just stick them on as they think of them! If anyone else wants to do it, feel free! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That's my lot. This is a fine article, and I can say hand on heart that I don't believe anybody would guess from reading it that you are no fan of its subject. If I might add one suggestion, the article ends rather abruptly, and would, I think, benefit from two or three valedictory quotes from obits or later assessments, which I'm sure are to be had from your sources, summing up his influence on the game, both for good and ill. Prod me when you get to FAC, please. – Tim riley talk 14:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll ponder some closing comments, which do exist but are a little saccharine for my liking. Bradman gave him a nice tribute, and I may be able to get something from him, but it's all a bit generic. For some reason, Wisden felt the need to include a quote in Allen's obituary from Mike Gatting. (And after the rebel tour had been announced I believe, which is quite grating if you stop to think about it. But anyway...) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like more input before I nom the article at FAC.

Thanks, GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wasted Time R

Infobox:

• This gives the recording begin date as 6 December 1966 but the article text says sessions began 24 November 1966. Maybe the text should clarify that the recording of the first song that made it onto the album was 6 December.

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• The chronology 'next' link to The Beatles' First seems unwarranted to me. It's very obscure and if the article on it is correct, it was a re-release of a 1964 original release.

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You'll also have to do something about the chain at Magical Mystery Tour, since right now it's a dead-end for the British releases. Seems to me a double-EP containing six new songs should be chained with the albums in addition to with the regular EPs. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The one that dead-ends is the EP chronology; there is an album chronology further down the infobox that does not end at MMT. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead:

• This was shortened from four to three paragraphs during the GA review due to a misunderstanding by the reviewer. At 50 kB readable prose size, the article definitely merits a four paragraph lead and I think the old one should be reinstated.

Restored. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• In particular, the old lead had all the different musical styles on the album, which is very important, and also the three most well-known songs from it ("With", "Lucy", "Day"), which any album article lead should include.

Restored. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• The reviewer also didn't like "is widely regarded as one of the most influential albums ever recorded" in the lead and it was removed. I disagree that these are 'weasel words'; they are true, are borne out by the article text and its cites, and even by those who think the album is overrated on its artistic merits would agree that it has been very very influential. Now maybe one could argue that the new third (old fourth) paragraph is enough on this count, but I still think it's worth saying where you had it.

I think they made a good point in that its a bit strong to state without a direct quote, so I've restored the point as a quote. Let me know if this is an adequate solution. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• The one thing I wouldn't restore from the old lead is "their work on songs such as "Strawberry Fields Forever", "When I'm Sixty-Four" and "Penny Lane" ..." This would be confusing to less expert readers who might conclude that the first and last of these are on the album. Better to leave that for the article body.

Removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• It might be a good idea to give the years of the Larkin and Rolling Stone best-ever lists.

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Background:

• Re linking "mop-top", WP:LINKSTYLE says to avoid links within quotations, and this is especially true of block quotes. If you want The Beatles' influence on popular culture to be present in the article, give it as a "See also" entry or work it in somewhere else.

Removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Same with the link in "send out four waxworks ... "

Removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not at all convinced by the theme of the second paragraph, which seems to be that the end of touring allowed them to make a great record. They had been making great records all along during the touring era. When did Lennon say "We're fed up with making soft music for soft people"? The Beatles never made "soft music" at any point in their career; this sounds like one of those 'Lennon is liable to say anything' remarks that can be disregarded. When did McCartney say "Now we can record anything we want ... and what we want is to raise the bar a notch, to make our best album ever"? They had already done just that twice, with Rubber Soul and Revolver, while they were still touring! They could largely ignore the material from those albums when putting together their set lists. I agree that the end of touring was a significant change in The Beatles' history, and yes it gave them the time and freedom to further push the boundaries, but they were already pushing those boundaries anyway and I think this paragraph is overstating the case.

I'm not sure that I agree with you, but more to the point every source that I used for the article made a strong point about the retirement as the key moment that allowed the Beatles to spend so much time on a record; its used quite literally by everyone to set the stage. While its true that their previous releases are considered as good if not better than Pepper, I think the point here is that they finally had the freedom to take 5 months to record without having to fulfill any other commitments during that time. E.g. spending 55 hours on "Strawberry fields" and 35 hours on "A Day in the Life" would not have been possible under a deadline. Further, they left to tour Germany just two days after completing Revolver, which must have put a strain on those sessions, or at the very least they felt compelled to finish the album before the tour lest they miss a contractual deadline. This point is reinforced by the fact that two of the first three songs that they recorded were pealed-off for a single. Maybe I'm not making the point in the best way possible, but the sources are adamant and consistent that retirement from touring afforded them the freedom to work unencumbered, making the elaborate and indulgent Sgt. Pepper recording sessions possible. Had the Beatles committed to another tour for say, January or February 1967 Pepper would have been a much different album. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say in this response, but the text in the "Background" section goes further with those two quotes by John and Paul. I think they should be replaced by some form of what you wrote here. Both quotes seem to be from the same source, Geoff Emerick's book written 40 years after the events in question. There's a good chance he misremembers them or constructed them, but regardless, they just aren't accurate in terms of depicting Beatles history. Some of the rest of that page in the book doesn't ring true to me either. Back then concerts weren't used to support specific albums like they were later; the Beatles and Rolling Stones and other groups had asynchronous record releases and tour schedules. Is there any evidence that the Beatles tried performing Revolver songs in concert but gave up? That's the first I've heard of that. And what Lennon supposedly says about being able to record music they don't have to play live applies just as well to Revolver and it does to Sgt Pepper. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, they performed "Paperback Writer" in Japan (there's film of it included in the Anthology docs), but I'm not sure about any other Revolver period songs. The other points are made in recording and production, but as far as the two quotes: does this edit resolve your concern? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Just dropping into say that an old issue of Q Magazine printed the 1966 US Tour set list in full (sorry, I threw my copies out years ago, not thinking they'd be useful cites on a free encyclopedia project). As well as "Paperback Writer", they performed "Nowhere Man" and "If I Needed Someone" off Rubber Soul, but nothing on Revolver itself was ever performed live. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

More later. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to help out, Wasted. As always, you're comments are most helpful; I look forward to the rest! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Concept and inspiration:

• When discussing the Pet Sounds insipiration/competition, it's worth noting that Brian Wilson and that album had in turn been inspired by Rubber Soul.

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Recording and production:

• Regarding: "He explained: "It was going to be a record ... [with songs that] couldn't be performed live: they were designed to be studio productions and that was the difference."[34] McCartney commented: "Now we can record anything we want ... and what we want is to raise the bar a notch, to make our best album ever."[35]" This relates to my comments before, with one of those quotes now relocated here. You've got to make clear that Revolver contained a number of songs that couldn't be performed live at the time too and also contained significant stretching of their musical boundaries. I've looked through the whole article and it's never really made clear that Revolver foreshadowed many of the devices and experiments of Sgt Peppper - Indian music, backwards recordings, psychedelia, slice-of-life vignettes, churning guitar lines, etc. And "Tomorrow Never Knows" is arguably more avant-garde than anything on Pepper. I'm not saying this as a Revolver partisan - I like Sgt Pepper better - but credit needs to be given where it's due.

I guess I'm a bit perplexed by this concern. I don't see any need to frame the Pepper album in terms of its relation to Revolver and I don't see any need to make it clear which songs on Revolver couldn't be performed live – its off-topic – or which ones can be seen as forerunners of Pepper tracks – its trivial speculation.

IMO, this is covered in proper summary style with the lines: "Sgt. Pepper continued the artistic maturation seen on the Beatles' albums Rubber Soul (1965) and Revolver (1966)" and "According to Riley, Rubber Soul and Revolver are 'miracles of intuition' that are 'greater than the sum of their parts' while in comparison "Sgt. Pepper is tinged with conceit".'[204] He describes Sgt. Pepper as 'a flawed masterpiece that can only echo the strength of Revolver'.[205]" GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as: "credit needs to be given where it's due", I don't necessarily disagree, but I also don't see this point made as explicitly as you suggest by any WP:RSs. I see comparisons of the tracks on Rubber Soul and Revolver, but not much regarding Revolver and Pepper. RE: "Indian music, backwards recordings, psychedelia, slice-of-life vignettes, churning guitar lines, etc": there are no backwards tapes on Pepper except for the run-out groove, psychedelia and "churning guitar lines" were nearly omnipresent in rock music during 1966-67, which tracks on Revolver are "slice-of-life vignettes" and which RSs describe them as such while comparing them to Pepper tracks? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

None of those other mentions of Revolver are very specific. All I'm looking for is one sentence, something like this: "The trend towards exploring new and adventurous musical territories, and recording songs that could not be performed live, had already begun with the previous year's Revolver." Now if I'm really the first person ever to make such an observation, you're right, it can't be used here. But somehow I doubt that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've read most of the sources and none explicitly states that. I'll keep looking, but I think this might be resolved after I work in Martin and Emerick's books. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a good start: According to the Beatles biographer Hunter Davies, "the really serious experimentation" started in April 1966, with the closing track from Revolver – "Tomorrow Never Knows". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but I think it's misplaced there, coming after the Pet Sounds material. I still think it would be better near the end of the first paragraph of "Recording and production". And if you want a cite for the other part of this, Schaffner 1977 pp. 58-59 says, re the 1966 American tour: "To the Beatles, playing such concerts had become a charade so remote from the new directions they were pursing that not a single tune was attempted from the just-released Revolver LP, whose arrangements were for the most part impossible to reproduce with the limitations imposed by their two-guitars-bass-and-drums stage lineup anyway." Then on p. 60: "As the Beatles trotted from one continent to the next, going through the motions of performing a style of music they had decided to discard, they spoke excitedly at every opportunity of the music they really cared about - the songs that were about to be unveiled as Revolver. Gushed Paul: 'They are sounds that nobody else had done yet - I mean nobody ... ever.'". Not clear exactly when that quote from McCartney is from, but this should get across the idea. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the first bit to a note in Recording and added the first Schaffner quote as a note, but I don't see any value in the second Schaffner quote mentioned here; 1) its redundant and 2) the 'They are sounds that nobody else had done yet - I mean nobody ... ever.'" bit is not accurate or helpful, IMO. Its also too much detail about Macca's opinion of Revolver, which is off-topic here in an article about Sgt. Pepper. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• The cost of recording the whole album should be given, since it was considered very expensive (a later section gives the cost of the cover). Carr and Tyler 1975 p. 64, 67 give it as £40,000 and Schaffner 1977 gives it as $100,000, which essentially the same at the exchange rates back then.

Martin gives £25,000. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm surprised the Hunter Davies bio isn't used as a source in this article, since he sat in on several of the songwriting and recording sessions for Sgt Pepper. To me, such contemporaneous accounts, written for a general audience, are often more valuable than the raft of books that came decades later and are written for hard-core Beatles fans.

I intend to work my way through the primary sources and first-hand accounts – such as Davies, Norman, Martin and Emerick – after everything else is about finished. I think its best to include stuff that the secondary and tertiary sources focus on before adding too much material from the primary sources and first-hand accounts. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• In particular, pp. 296-302 (of the 1968 paperback edition) give an account of a mid-March John and Paul songwriting session to work on "With a Little Help From My Friends". It shows they were still getting on at the time, which is worth noting given what soon happened. Indeed I've always had the impression that this might have been the last song they really wrote together.

Since this does not pertain to recording or production, I've Added the bit as a note in Music and lyrics. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• And pp. 303-306 give an account of the recording of "It's Getting Better". It shows how exacting they were about the sound that they wanted and how long and tedious the sessions were. There's a good depiction of Ringo looking lost in the studio on his drum kit, and then later being ordered back in and then cancelled depending upon the production decisions of the other three - would fit in well with the 'playing chess' bit that you already have.

Added. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• On p. 309 Davies gives his own impression of the overall process: "Listening to each stage of their recording, once they've done the first couple of tracks, it's often hard to see what they're still looking for, it sounds so complete. Often the final complicated, well-layered version seems to have drowned the initial simple melody. But they know it's not right, even if they can't put it into words. Their dedication is impressive, gnawing away at the same song for stretches of ten hours each." I think using some of this perspective would more perspective on the human aspects of the recording sessions.

Added. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I like that side box, thanks. It captures the human element, in with all the musicologist perspectives. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

More later. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources:

• What you said about the Davies book above, hmm, I don't quite understand this. The Davies book is a secondary source just as much as any of those that came later. It just has the advantage that, for the portion of the book that covers the Sgt Pepper timeframe, he was present and around and doing interviews and witnessing events and so forth. Later authors have had to rely on participant memories and historical documents (just as he had to do for the earlier years).

I never said that Davies was a primary source like Martin and Emerick, but Davies is a first-hand account and not a very neutral one at that, IMO. His book was really an extended PR release that offers little to no critical commentary. Nonetheless, I'll work in any good bits I find. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll start working my way through Davies' book today, but I assume that this is a good start: "According to the Beatles biographer Hunter Davies, 'the really serious experimentation' started in April 1966, with the closing track from Revolver – 'Tomorrow Never Knows'." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been through Davies twice now and unless I missed something, I think that's all we need from him. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• But if you haven't finished going through all the sources and adding material to the article, which is what it sounds like, then maybe I should wait before making further comments, since several of the comments I was planning to make come from the Davies book.

My process for this article is to include the first-hand accounts and primary sources last, after I've included the relevant points that multiple secondary sources make. This article should not overly rely on Davies' contemporary book when we have Martin and Emerick writing about the same period, but with greater clarity and understanding. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been through Davies twice now and I'll be going through Martin and Emerick early this week. I stand by the editorial choice to cull first from the more distant secondary and tertiary sources before using the primary and contemporaneous first-hand accounts to round it all off. There isn't much room left in this article, but if Martin or Emerick have anything crucial to add – I expect that they do – I'll certainly include their more salient points. Please let me know if I missed anything important from Davies. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• There is one I want to put forward now anyway: In "Side two", you should indicate there is laughter heard between "Within You Without You" and "When I'm Sixty-Four". Davies writes (pp. 363-365 in 1968 paperback) that some critics didn't understand this and thought this was the other Beatles mocking George's seriousness, but that it was all George's idea, and quotes him: "Well, after all that long Indian stuff you want some light relief. It's a release after five minutes of sad music. You haven't got to take it all that seriously, you know. You were supposed to hear the audience anyway, as they listen to Sergeant Pepper's Show. That was the style of the album." Since, as one of your notes indicates, Harrison has kind of a minimal role on Sgt Pepper, this does show that his sense of perspective was still intact and that he contributed in this way to the album's schematic.

Great suggestion; added. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at the "Sources" section itself, I see some books' titles are linked to their Google Books entry and some aren't. I've never seen the utility in doing this (unless the entire book is free there, which is unlikely for works of this era), nor if there was utility, why Google Books is preferred over Amazon or some other site. And the fact that all the articles in the Julien edited volume link to the same overall book page illustrates this is of little value.

This is not really the type of stuff I was hoping to get from this PR. Its not an actionable objection at FAC, so I'm not going to spend any time here dealing with housekeeping stuff that I'll fix per-FAC. The various chapters of the Julien book link to the same page because I cannot insert a url for each chapter, which links to the url provided for the book as a whole. You might not think that they are needed, but they certainly aren't errors that need correcting, which is what I wish you would focus on. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I focused on many content suggestions until this point. If you don't want certain types of comments, you should make that clear at the top of the PR. Normally authors are happy to get any kind of feedback, from the major to the minor. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate all of your comments and you're right that the stuff needed to be fixed. So thanks! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Some author names are linked but some aren't, even though they have articles (Davies, Everett, Harry, Lewisohn, Marcus, just to name some that jumped out at me). I think they all should be linked if they have articles, even if referred to earlier in article text, since this section is often viewed as a standalone.

Ibid, but done GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Publishers are missing on a couple of entries - Cross and Martin & Pearson.

Ibid. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• The ordinal indication for editions is missing on some entries - "(1 ed.)", "(2 ed.)", "(2 ed.)" again, "(18 ed.)"

Ibid, but I don't include edition information unless there are more than one edition of a book. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• The bolded "1" for volume on Kastan is a journal citing convention, doesn't make sense for books.

Its part of a multi-volume work, so its important to note that this comes from the first volume or the pagination won't make sense. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• In the Lewisohn CD booklet entry, "Apple/EMI Records" should not be italicised.

Fixed, but again, I was hoping for comments about the article's content, not formatting nitpicks that I intend to fix pre-FAC. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what value the "Further reading" section has in a case like this, since you're already using so many books. But I guess it does no harm. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ping. Wasted, do you think that the importance of Revolver is now adequately represented in the article? Do you have any more suggestions and/or concerns? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments

• the first rock LP - this implies that another rock recording had won the Grammy before. Is this implication correct?

In my mind, "the first rock LP to receive this honour" means that no rock LP had ever won this honour before, so I'm not sure if its confusing. Are you suggesting that I need to clarify if any rock singles had ever won best album, because that's neither logical nor possible. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not a single, but an album released as something other than an LP. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't an album be released in more than one form? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, LP = long-playing record, so that precludes a single, but you are correct that sometimes EPs are called albums. I'm not sure how I could better clarify this, since there is only one format called LP. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The term "LP" (long player) was coined in 1948 by the new 12" 33 1/3 RPM format, preceding the Grammy awards by a decade. Albums could be released on 78 RPM shellac albums, then later on they came out on cassette and even later CD, but from 1958 - 1967, an LP meant only one thing, substantially different from an EP. The price structure was different (singles were the mainstay, EPs were specials, LPs were deluxe items akin to today's box sets). So I don't think there's any ambiguity. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd tone down some of the POV words, such as "seminal". Yes, it's probably correct, but outside of a quote I don't think it's quite neutral.

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• If the album is multigenre, why classify the Beatles as a rock band?

1) The classification of the Beatles as a rock band is based on all of their releases, not just the Sgt. Pepper album. 2) That's irrelevant here anyway, since the genre of the band is addressed at the dedicated topical article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• avant-garde - Should this be italicized?

I'm not sure, but I don't think the RSs italicize it. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• the studio - haven't mentioned which studio yet

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• When it progressed to Japan the polite and restrained audience shocked the group – as the absence of screaming fans allowed them to hear how poor their live performances had become. - Two things: 1, I'm tempted to include a comma after "Japan", and 2) is the ndash necessary, or just for effect?

1) In deference to BritEng editors and WP:ENGVAR I've eschewed the use of commas after introductory clauses except in extenuating circumstances. I suppose the dash is not really needed, but it seems like a comma would be if I remove it, so I like the stylistic choice here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, sounds fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Embroiled - Is this an encyclopedic word in this context?

Yes. I think that it is, but I'm open to suggestions. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• They subsequently - I'd go with "The band members" rather than "they", as the most recent plural subject was Beatles' concerts

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• The Family Way soundtrack - why link this in both the body and the footnote?

I view the footnotes list as a stand-alone section, but the links certainly aren't required. They aren't really an FAC issue either. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just checking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Link Starr's wife and son to Maureen Starkey Tigrett and Zak Starkey, respectively?

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• In February 1967, - I've seen an instance above which does not use a comma; please standardize

My instinct here is to use a comma when a date is juxtaposed with a proper noun, but removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• the first time that they had come together - the subject of this sentence was "sessions", so perhaps "they" should use "the band" or something else.

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• multitrack or multi-track?

I believe its multitrack. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed several instances of "multi-track", in case you want all of them to be "multitrack". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the catch. I'll scan the article and make consistent. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• before ADT it had been necessary to record such vocal tracks twice; a task that was both tedious and exacting. - I think that semi-colon is best replaced by a comma, as "a task that was both tedious and exacting" is a dependent clause.

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please ensure that songs which have articles are linked on first mention in the text. I've linked "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", for instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Since stuff is still being moved around and added I'm not going to worry too much about linking until the article is ready for FAC. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• More to follow... maybe tonight or tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much, Crisco! I appreciate your taking the time to help; your comments are most useful! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• psychologist - is this overlinking?

Yes it is; fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• "In mid-March 1967, during a songwriting session at Lennon's home in St John's Wood, he and McCartney wrote "With a Little Help from My Friends" as a song for Starr. With Lennon on guitar and McCartney on piano, they traded lines back and forth, eventually settling on the call-and-response format of questions and answers." - Would this note work better after the mention of "call-and-response" in the text?

That's a fine suggestion; done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Lennon adapted the lyric for "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" - lyric or lyrics?

I think its lyric because it refers to the words as a whole. If it was referring to a line or two it would be lyrics, but I might be wrong about this. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• He characterises the song as a synthesis of ragtime and pop and notes - can we avoid and ... and?

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I will fuck you like superman - capital s or miniscule?

I'm not sure because the cited source uses miniscule, but I think that capital is more appropriate so I've changed it per your suggestion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd consider moving the track listing to right above #Music and lyrics. That you are arranging the paragraphs in accordance with the order of songs on the album may not be clear to some readers. Mind you, this doesn't seem to be the common layout in FAs, so if you disagree I'd understand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be fine, but I also think that most editors expect to see the track listing at the end and right before the personnel section. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Self-Realization Fellowship gurus Mahavatar Babaji, Lahiri Mahasaya, Sri Yukteswar and Paramahansa Yogananda. - per WP:SEAOFBLUE there should be at least one fewer link. I'd nix the link to "guru".

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• "The final grouping also included" is very listy. Why not work that List of images on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band link somewhere in here and cut a few hundred characters?

What do you think of this copyedit? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• acetate - perhaps link somewhere?

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Tim Riley - My curiosity has been awakened... (no action needed)

• None of the album's songs were issued as singles. - since you often mention that such-and-such was a first in the industry, perhaps a footnote as to whether this was uncommon at the time?

Martin felt like it was unfair to the public to sell the songs as a single and then also include them on the album, which would have fans paying twice for the same songs. I'll dig-up his statements and add a note to that affect. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Richard Goldstein - odd how he was "one of the best-known at the time" yet he's unlinked. Is this Richard Goldstein (writer born 1942) or someone else?

Goldstein is first mentioned in "Music and Lyrics", during the discussion of "She's Leaving Home". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• the first rock album to receive this honour. - since you've just been through a list of X Grammys, might be worth rephrasing so that it's clear you mean Album of the Year

Clarified. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've had a fairly large order dumped on me, so I can't get to Legacy quite yet. Tomorrow though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks much for your comments thus far; they have been quite helpful and I look forward to the rest! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• "and citing Moore's 1997 book The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" - is this really necessary for the running text?

Not its not; good point. Removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• During the 1970s, glam rock acts co-opted the use of alter ego personas and in 1977 it won Best British Album at the first Brit Awards. - the "it" here is unclear. St. Pepper? It doesn't really mesh with the first part of the sentence if that's true.

Nice catch. Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• The central theme of Goldstein's 1967 critique of Sgt. Pepper involves his complaints about substance overwhelming style, or in his words: "tone overtakes meaning". ff - didn't we already get an overview of the review? If so, is this really necessary?

Well, the review is quoted previously, but the overview is not that detailed. I felt like this was a good place to add a note summarising Goldstein's objections as they relate to Christgau, Marcus and Bangs' later critiques, which draw on the point that Goldstein's opinion – largely a minority view in 1967 – had gained some traction by the late 1970s and early 80s. This would seem out of sequence in reception, as its a point that deals directly with Sgt. Pepper's legacy. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Down Beat magazine published an unfavourable contemporary review - when?

Clarifed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• RIAA or the RIAA?

The RIAA. Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• In 2006 it was chosen by Time as one of the 100 best albums of all time. - why is this relegated to a footnote?

I thought that it was a bit anti-climactic to go from being ranked number one by Rolling Stone to one in a hundred by Time, but I've now restored the point in-line. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• undercoded, - What's with the italics? I believe quotes would work better here, since this is not a word as a word. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Evanh2008

Lead/infobox:

• I'm no longer capable of caring about this, but should "the Beatles chronology" be capped? Looks like it's starting a sentence, anyway, and other articles seem to cap it.

Well, if we cap it then it introduces one mid-sentence. One should be capped and one not, but the template doesn't allow for that. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm not sure how that's mid-sentence, though. It's not even part of a sentence, just the first word of a new line. We capitalize "Rock" since it's the first entry under the "Genre" line, even though that isn't part of a sentence. Shouldn't we do the same here? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I meant that if we cap it, then: "Studio album by the Beatles" would yield: "Studio album by The Beatles". Its six on one hand and half-a-dozen on the other, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I was just talking about capping "The" in "the Beatles chronology," though, not after "Studio album." We cap the one because it starts a line, and leave the other lowercase precisely because it doesn't start a line or a sentence. But, like I said, not a big deal. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My point is that there is only one place to enter the artist name, so that both mentions will have the same case. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ooookay, I see that now. Sorry for the confusion. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• "early example of a concept album" could just be "early concept album" - This sort of trimming for brevity perennially comes up in FAC.

Nice; done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• "liberal application signal processing" should be "liberal application of signal processing" (I think?)

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Background:

• "following which they permanently retired from touring" is redundant with the preceding clause.

Good point; done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Concept and inspiration:

• "Edwardian era" should be hyphenated.

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

* You can safely lose the comma after "bassist and producer".

Comma lost. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• The speaker in the sentence beginning "He added" is McCartney, right? Since Lennon is the last person mentioned (although not quoted), I would merge this sentence with the one preceding it, so something like: "to 'escape the influence' (ref), and added, "It's very cleverly done..." etc.

Great suggestion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Its very cleverly done" should be "It's very cleverly done".

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Recording and production:

• "dominate" ---> "dominant"

Wehwalt caught that one. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• "instruments such as flutes, strings or choirs" - Is a choir an instrument? Not sure if there's a better word you could use here.

Good point; fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• >I have a very minor quibble with nota bene 11. Namely, I think it's a bit weird and slightly confusing to list Revolver and Sgt. Pepper in reverse chronological order, and to refer to Pepper as the former. I would swap them (and call Pepper "the former," obviously).

I agree; fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure, but wasn't "When I'm Sixty-Four" in its entirety raised by a semitone? The present text seems to imply that it was just McCartney's vocals. I could be mistaken on this.

Clarified. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As a general comment, I noticed a few what are really non-restrictive clauses constructed as restrictive clauses. For example (non-restrictive clauses italicised): "Acquired by Lennon who also arranged for its delivery to Abbey Road" and "In November 1966, during a return flight to London from Kenya where he had been on holiday with Beatles' tour manager Mal Evans". It's not incorrect per se, but best style is to have a comma after "Lennon" and "Kenya." You can see non-restrictive clauses treated appropriately in sentences like the ones beginning "Inspired by the traffic warden", and here: "During the recording sessions for Revolver in 1966, ADT was invented especially for the Beatles by Townsend, who disliked tracking sessions and regularly expressed a desire for a technical solution to the problem." (comma after "Townsend")

Thanks for the reminder; I'll keep an eye out. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, the article is very well written as a whole and as thorough as anyone could expect, and your participles are all in order. Very nice work!

Hope this helps! More tomorrow! Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much, Evan! I think I've resolved the first batch. Its nice to see you around, but its even better to have access to such great advice. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ping. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! More in a bit. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Music and lyrics

• I have no huge problem with the text as it now stands, but maybe "Sgt. Pepper is a multigenre album that is a work of rock and pop" could be "Sgt. Pepper is a multigenre work of rock and pop"? Just thinking of brevity here, but I'm not sure that's any better.

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• My memory is fuzzy, but didn't Paul say that "Found my way upstairs and had a smoke/ And somebody smoke and I went into a dream" was a direct reference to cannabis? Or maybe that was George Martin's interpetation. I know one of them definitely talked about that. If it was Paul I would mention it, since he was the writer of the line, but if it was Martin I wouldn't worry about it.

There are several other supposed drug references that I think are more appropriate for the song articles, as adding them all here would get overly listy. Let me know if you find a good source for "and somebody spoke and I went into a dream". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I must be remembering something from the Anthology documentary, as a quick check via Google Books doesn't seem to be turning anything up. On second thought, it would probably be too much detail. Striking this one. I think it was Martin, though. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure where it would fit in well, but maybe it's worth mentioning Mal Evans' role in the composition of "Fixing a Hole?" Actually, I see now that this is no longer mentioned, either at Evans' article or the song's. Any thoughts on that?

That's for the song article, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Point taken. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Leary wasn't your run-of-the-mill psychologist, of course. I would mention his role as an advocate of psychedelic drugs and counterculture figurehead.

Good point. Clarified. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think "warming-up" should be hyphenated.

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• "illusion of the album as a live performance" - It might be my incurable pedantry flaring up again, but maybe "conceit" would read better than "illusion?" Feel free to ignore this point if you disagree.

I prefer "illusion" and that's the word that Martin uses. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• "communal and personal ... [its] touchingly rendered" - I'm not quite sure what the "[its]" is doing here.

I agree. Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly what is Lennon's response to McCartney's "It's getting better all the time?" It's quoted here as "couldn't get much worse." "Getting Better" has it as "can't get no worse." I hear "It can't get no worse" myself, but go with whatever the sources say, obviously.

Womack has "couldn't get much worse", but – as you pointed out – that's not right for every verse. The trouble is finding a good source that actually quotes the verse accurately. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, gotcha. Womack is good enough, though, and it's close enough for the article's purposes. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Is the "Scottish farmhouse" mentioned here the Scottish farmhouse (i.e., the one Paul ran off to with Linda in the second half of '69)? Not sure it should be mentioned; I'm more curious than anything else.

I'm not sure, but I assumed that it is the same. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I was going to suggest you wikilink Urtext, but that's a dab page and neither of the articles linked there looks particularly useful. There is another term that should have an associated article that could be linked in its place. I will remember it shortly...

I was thinking of vorlage, but at a second look it seems that's a technical term used primarily with regard to translations from one language to another. Feel free to ignore this one, or link it if you think it's a good idea; I have no strong feelings one way or another. You could also link the appropriate Wiktionary entry, but the definition there doesn't seem particularly amenable to the way in which Womack uses the term. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• "mixed-in" - extraneous hyphen

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• "there was a paragraph about 4000 holes..." - That's a really weird line, and I guess Lennon doesn't explain what the "holes" were? I seem to remember reading that they were potholes in the road, but I could be wrong. If you can find a source, you probably should clarify.

Clarified. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good! Nice fixes. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Cover artwork

looks good.

I'll try to get the rest of the article read later tonight, but definitely by tomorrow night. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, Evan! I appreciate your excellent suggestions. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Release

• I would change "After having finished Sgt. Pepper, but prior to its commercial release" to "After finishing Sgt. Pepper, but prior to the album's commercial release" - Simplifies the grammatical structure and removes any possible confusion as to what object "its" refers.

Great suggestion. Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• "In the opinion of the musicologist Tim Riley" ---> "In the musicologist Tim Riley's opinion" - less wordy

Another fine suggestion. Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Reception

looks fine also.

Legacy

• "In the opinion of the musicologist Terence O'Grady" - same fix as above.

I'll scan the article for that construction now and apply. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Is there an MOS reason there are parenthetical dates following "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver"? Looks like this is the only place in the article where that's done. If you're trying to clarify chronology, you could just say "the Beatles' two most recent albums, Rubber Soul and Revolver."

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• "through its focus on self-conscious lyrics..." could be "through its self-conscious lyrics..."

Much better; thanks! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• In the same sentence, I would place an "its" before "studio experimentation", to preserve the sentence's parallel structure.

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• "first art rock albums and Julien" ---> "first art rock albums, and Julien" - Comma. Fanboys and all that.

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• "album era" could be capped. The article title is, anyway.

Good idea. Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• "For several years following its release" ---> "For several years following the album's release" (or Pepper's release or something) - to clarify the subject, since "straightforward rock and roll" is the next subject mentioned.

I agree. Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• "and his engineer's creative" ---> 'and his engineers' creative" - since multiple engineers worked on the album.

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• An interesting counterpoint to Lewisohn's point about the album displaying "cohesion" would be the fact that Pepper was, as Ringo said, the album he "learned to play chess on." You have the bit by Emerick immediately following the Lewisohn sentence, but maybe some firsthand observations would be more illuminating? I'm not sure they ought to be in the "Legacy" section, but it's probably worth noting that Pepper was a thrilling and artistically expansive experience for, at most, two of the Beatles. George said some similar stuff to Ringo' comment, but no quotes are springing immediately to mind.

That Ringo point can be found in Recording and production. If you remember a source for a good Harrison quote I'll try to work it in. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Great summary of the concept album debate, by the way. Everything else looks good. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this detailed and insightful review, Evan. I'm glad to see you around and happy to take your sage advice. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Lede

• The laundry list of style borrowings at the end of the second paragraph seems to me to be overlong.

That its long is kind of the point, but I see what you mean. It demonstrates the album's diversity. I had recently removed all the styles and another editor complained that they were important. I'll wait to see what others have to say. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've decided that I agree with you, so I've trimmed it down a bit; hopefully that's enough. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• "and the ensuing three-month break from Abbey Road Studios" can this be phrased more clearly? Additionally, the entire sentence seems to cover too much ground, with the half after the above phrased having but slight connection with the first half.

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• The lede would end more strongly with the Kastan quote, if you can find a way.

Great suggestion. Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Background

• "proved to be the group's last, following which they permanently retired from touring." You are saying the same thing twice.

Good point; fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Concept etc.

• "tour manager" should be linked. I know what it is, thousands don't.

Linked. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• the McCartney and Martin quote that follows appear to be basically saying the same thing. Can one or the other be deleted or shortened?

Good point; I've shortened the Macca quote to avoid the redundancy. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• The Beach Boys paragraph seems to wander far afield before being tied back in as "inspiration". Perhaps you could lead the paragraph with some statement of why the rest of it is important.

Well, I'm not sure I agree with this one. Pet Sounds was the single biggest influence, so one paragraph discussing it does not seem excessive to me. The connection is made clear by the graph's fourth sentence, but if I can think of a way to introduce it with a good topic sentence I'll do that. It seems like the three sentences of background are needed, but maybe not. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Recording

• "who also arranged for its delivery to Abbey Road" I would cut, I"m not sure what this adds

I agree; removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Strawberry Fields Forever" using the flute setting.[37] "Strawberry Fields Forever" Can the usages be combined?

There were several models with varied abilities, but that's for the dedicated article so I've made this mention slightly less specific. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• " With the release the childhood concept was abandoned in favour of Sgt. Pepper" I'm uncertain that the reader will understand that what is meant is the fictional band motif.

Isn't this explained in Concept and inspiration? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• " took the opportunity to suggest" suggested

I've gone with "speculated" - they might well have just wanted to create a Beatles backlash to sell papers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• "By 1967 all of the Sgt. Pepper tracks could be recorded at Abbey Road using mono, stereo and four-track recorders." This sentence seems a bit confusing. Can you rephrase?

I've had a go at this, and trimmed it down. Really it's only the four-track stuff that sources highlight. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Side two

• "and points out that Goldstein notes the track as one of the album's highlights" awkward, centering around "Goldstein notes"

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• " Johann Strauss II" I doubt many people use the II. I would shorten to "Johann Strauss" or perhaps just "Strauss".
• "Lennon considers" The present tense is unjustified. You do this at least twice. Please check your references to Lennon.

I've had a look through these. I think one, which describes Lennon's recorded performance (not a living thing in itself) is still okay to keep in the present tense. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• "forty musicians culled" perhaps "selected" for "culled"

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)}

• "Together on cue" This reads oddly

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)}

• "assistant Mal Evans" You have described him as tour manager, and someone else as an assistant. I have no doubt he had multiple functions, I'm being picky here.

Per WP:LASTNAME this can just be "Evans" - he's the only one in the entire article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ritchie; it should be just Evans at this point. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• "repressed" should this be "re-pressed"?

Hyphenated; fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Recording

• "and that would have completely disappeared" "and that completely disappeared"

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

There is probably a need to source the rest of "Personnel" as you source part of it.

Will do. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I am somewhat taken aback by the sheer number of footnotes. Are all of them truly necessary? The Heritage Auctions one?

Well, each one contains information that is useful, but difficult to fit in the article without causing bloat. I'll look through them and identify any that can be dropped or integrated into the text. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That's about it. Very nice job.Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt; your comments were most helpful! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Images

I think one of the problems we might have with the article as it stands today at FAC is a distinct lack of illustrative images. I've put one in for the 4-track that was used to record the album to address the balance. It wonder if it's possible to take this Daily Mail extract as "fair use", which illustrates where a verse from "A Day in the Life" came from. I suppose a stock Geograph image of the Albert Hall could be combined with this and given a suitable caption. I'm not sure what else I could add other than fairly bland photos of studio equipment. Any other ideas? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333, we now have four images, including two of the Beatles, which is pretty good, IMO. Its too bad there isn't a PD image of the group circa 1967, but I doubt that one exists. This is a decent PD image: File:Abbey Rd Studios.jpg, but there isn't anymore room in the Recording section. Maybe we should move the Studer image to the recording paragraph of Legacy and add the Abbey Road image where the Studer one is now. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That picture of the Studer goes quite well with File:Abbeyroadtomswain.jpg. Nice work! I've also added File:Abbey road studios.jpg to the recording section of Legacy. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I still think we need more images to avoid a wall o'text which is offputting, especially when it's supposed to be the best quality work on Wikipedia. Also the Live 8 shot I found might raise doubts as to whether the inner gatefold is appropriate fair use. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

1) Never sandwich text between images. 2) There is in-depth critical commentary regarding the meaning and purpose of the inner gatefold image, so its infinitely more appropriate than the Live 8 one. 3) There are plenty of images currently in the article (six is enough); its not intended as a picture book. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think whether it's "sandwiched" would depend on your monitor resolution, and the mobile version of the Wikipedia app never sandwiches, full stop. As for the other two points, well you can disagree but other FAC reviewers might have a contrary view to yours too, so worth thinking about. I think one or two well placed images will help enormously with making the text flow. Joel Spolsky's guide to functional specs, which is designed to "trick" people into reading them, mentions this, stating that professional magazines will add a quoted paragraph, if nothing else, just to break up the flow of text and make it more readable. Remember, when you've written or copyedited large parts of an article, your brain will naturally pick out stuff far easier than somebody new to it. It's the same with programming. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm on a 20 inch monitor, which is arguably the most common sized screen for someone at a desktop CPU, so if its sandwiched for me then its sandwiched for many others. The gatefold FUR is tight as can be; since both McCartney and Inglis critically discuss its meaning and purpose – its the object of sourced critical commentary – there is no fair-use issue; my experience tells me that, but there is someone to disagree with almost anything if you ask enough people. I'm not opposed to adding an appropriate image or two; the ADT machine was nice if it didn't crowd the section. 6 images in 12 sub-sections means that there is an image in every other section plus two quote boxes. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Two things: sandwiching is related to number of pixels, not physical monitor size, and sandwiching gets worse as you increase the resolution (more text has to fill the same number of lines to avoid leaving white space). On my wife's 1024x800 (or something) netbook, there are screens of text in between some images, such as in #Side 1. My own laptop (13**x10**) has less whitespace, but still no sandwiching.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492, the sandwiching of which I spoke was caused by having one too many images in the Recording section, but its no longer an issue in the article. FWIW, including the lead there are 13 sections of prose that are illustrated with 6 images; so about every other section has an image. Side one has an image, so I assume that you meant side two, which doesn't have an image, but it does have two ogg files. I'd be happy to consider any appropriate PD images that are relevant to the article, but few are available. I'll keep looking. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm counting drop quotes (or whatever those boxes are called; sorry, I just woke up) as "images" for the purposes of sandwiching, since they can also cause it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Right, there are four quote boxes in addition to the six images. I think ogg files can also cause sandwiching and there are four of those as well. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Right. Anyways, that was just a quick comment. The current layout is okay. (TBH I'm not quite comfortable with the amount of fair-use audio/visual material, but I can see the argument for including it all. I probably won't do an image review at FAC owing to my conflicting opinions on the matter). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Music FAs are practically required to have two or three ogg files; I don't think four is excessive, but I wouldn't add another. The front cover is also practically required, so at the most there is an extra ogg or two and an extra image, which all have solid FURs. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I know it's common, and pretty well supported by the text (even the extra image). I'm just worried that my distaste for that many fair-use images may influence my review. How about I take a look at the free media only? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate any advice that you are willing to give me. I'm curious though, would you remove the inside image and all the oggs, or just one or two? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll take a look at the free images. Personally, if I were writing this, I'd avoid "The beginning of the first verse of "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"" (commentary is regarding lyrics, which can be reproduced as text; said text would still be fair use, to be sure, but more minimal) and I'd have to think about the inner gatefold. The other two OGGs are impossible to represent through text (free or otherwise), and illustrate two kinds of sound on the album, so I'd probably use them if I were writing the article. That being said, I don't expect issues at FAC with the fair use images. BRB with an image review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• File:Studer J37 4-track tape recorder (1964-1972), Abbey Road Studios.jpg - The text in the description is a copyvio. I'd blur the text in the image as well to be safe as well (I can do that).

I think that its best to remove for now, as blurred images are not the best, but I'll think about the other option so thanks. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If its not too much trouble, maybe you would go ahead and blur the copyvio. If it looks okay we'll include the image. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, will do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks; that looks great! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• File:Abbeyroadtomswain.jpg - This is setting off some alarm bells (Only upload, no EXIF data, technically rather sound) but I can't find anything predating the Wikipedia upload. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What's your best advice? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Go forward carefully. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• File:Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite - 2012 reproduction.jpg - Are we sure this is an exact copy?

George Martin includes a picture of the original poster in his Pepper book, and as far as I can tell the one we are using is identical. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Peachy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• File:Abbey road studios.jpg - Okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Crisco, when you get a chance, please take another look at the FUR for File:"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" by the Beatles 1967.ogg. Is it solid enough now, IYO? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• The FUR is fine. Contextual significance is determined by use in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Audio

This kind of follows on from above. I think it would be worth having a think about what the best audio samples we can use, which in my view would be things most difficult to describe in words. Two obvious candidates are the outro to Mr Kite, with all the cut up fairground noises, and the orchestral build up in A Day in the Life. Gabe, if you've got the 2009 CD, you'd probably be best place to do these - I only have a 1970s reissue LP and a 1987 CD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've already made the ogg files and I think that my choices were excellent. "A Day in the Life" and "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" are far more notable than "Mr. Kite". The "Sgt. Pepper" track is almost as obligatory as the Lennon oggs, and the "64" file demonstrates well the album's diversity of styles. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding a "Mr. Kite" ogg – we already have the reproduction image of the poster, which takes up two paragraphs worth of margin, leaving no room for an ogg file that would create an unsightly sandwich if added. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"I think that my choices were excellent." I don't! They're not bad, but it's not a question of what songs are notable (of course A Day in the Life and Lucy in the Sky are better known), but what bits of audio would be the hardest to explain in prose. Also better known tracks are more likely to be familiar to the reader, meaning the audio is harder to justify. Remember you're adding copyrighted material to a free encyclopedia, so you really should go out of your way to explain why a prose substitute is impossible.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The ogg files are absolutely justified based on the article's in-line critical commentary of the audio material – I.e., the audio samples are the objects of critical commentary, or in other words, I know what I'm doing. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not agree that these audio samples are essential. Remember, we are serving a reader who wants to learn about this album, and via this PR and FAC, we are trying to get it in a place that can take on every other published source that introduces the topic and beat them. You could write "Sgt Pepper (the track) has taped applause and a brass band" and people would have a reasonably good chance of understanding what you were talking about. You can't do that with the orchestral build up in A Day in a Life. Wikipedia is free content - pillar number three. Therefore you need to tread extremely carefully with audio samples. Improving an article to FA is not carte blanche to include copyrighted content because you feel like you can get away with it. I don't want to give a regretful oppose at FAC for a weak adherence to criteria #3, because that'll open a drama-fest, but if it's the only option..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This is based on my 15-20 FACs, BTW, but go ahead and oppose based on media files, Ritchie. The article will pass FAC anyway. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you are taking this too personally. Calm down, and read through everything else I said carefully, not the end sentence which is the least important part of the argument. I'd rather we worked together on this and at least understood each other's points of view. Digging your heels in won't win you any friends. I've got no problem with people writing FA quality prose as a personal exercise to better themselves as writers, and to show that it's possible to take on commercial authors and beat them at their own game, but most people in the world don't know, much less care, what an FA is, and it's worth putting that in perspective. Chill. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You threatened to oppose because I don't agree with your ogg suggestions and you're telling me to chill? I'm not taking it personally, Ritchie, but I'm also not at all interested in your FAC advice. BTW, I'm double-checking the sourcing now, and I've already found two false cites that you recently added. Would you care to explain why you've introduced false sourcing to the article? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Media review from Nikkimaria

• Nikkimaria, if you have the time, will you please consider doing a pre-FAC media file review here at this PR, so that when I nom the article at FAC I'll be better prepared? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• I can do that, but I don't know enough about the album to weigh in on the argument above. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, but don't worry about that. Just take a look at the audio files and let me know if you think their use is justified based on your knowledge of fair-use. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• You might be better able to address some of Ritchie's concerns by saying something beyond "Audio conveys different information than prose" to explain why the samples aren't replaceable with text. You've got content in the purpose section for all of the files that could be better suited to such an explanation.

• I think that the existing prose and relevant FURs do exactly that. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Another potential issue to consider is that three of the four songs represented by samples here have (different) samples in their own specific articles. This will affect consideration of minimal usage.

• 1) File:Beatles sgt pepper.ogg is 30 seconds long, which – per WP:SAMPLE – is more than twice the acceptable length for a song that's barley two minutes long, and 2) If that were an obstacle then any album that also had song articles with sound files couldn't have sound files and vice-versa. Remember that these are significantly degraded audio samples that do not in any way compete with the copyright holder's commercial interests. I mean, who's gonna pay for a 22050Hz and 64Kbps sample of less than 10% of a song with fades in and out? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• As a matter of style, I would prefer the content supporting the use of the samples to be more integrated into the actual article text rather than the current huge captions, particularly for the first sample. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• An arbitrary choice, IMO; six on one hand, but if you look closer you'll see both in-line and caption commentary regarding the ogg files. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would also like to invite J Milburn and Masem to comment on the article's current usage of non-free files. I'm specifically interested in their opinions regarding the strength of the FURs and the number of fair-use files. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional comments on media

• Crisco 1492, can you please give us your regarded opinion on the article's use of non-free files? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• As I said above, I think it shouldn't have much issue. I'm not familiar enough with the album to select the best clippings. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Are there too many oggs IYO? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• A quick comment on the audio: as each song is notable, and (though I haven't check) probably has sufficient commentary to support their own sample, I would focus on audio samples that specifically demonstrate the importance to this album, and letting song commentary on the special songs to be on the song pages (though obvious you are summarizing the ebb and flow of the audio as the album goes along, that's needed). So the intro to the main theme seems good since it presents the album with the injection technique as well as the concert feel to it. I don't know immediately on the other samples used but on my first read, some seem too narrow on the critical commentary about the song and not so much the album's flow/importance. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That's good advice, thanks! I'll make some copyedits to that affect, but in the meantime do you see any issues with having four ogg files in the article? I've never really heard what the consensus was on a "limit" for an album article, but the audio samples are barely a minute in total with fades and significantly reduced non-commercial quality. What do you think about the inner-gatefold image? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if 4 is right or wrong, and there's no hard consensus. Clearly, SPLHCB has had a lot of critical review, both as an album (back when albums were composed to actually tell some type of story) and as individual songs. My point is to consider what sound samples are more about individual tracks which would be better on the song article itself, and target for inclusion those that are noted to speak to the broader's album composition. Whether that thats 1, 2, 3, 4, or whatever, I don't know. I would think that you would have no issue with 3-4 carefully chosen samples as long as they fall in discussion of the album and not individual songs. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the great advice, Masem. I completely agree and I've already improved a couple of the FURs so that, as you suggest, the sample demonstrates a relevance to the album as a whole, which is not at all difficult to accomplish with the samples currently in the article; its just a matter of adjusting the emphasis. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Masem, do me a favour and take another look. I think that I've improved the FURs as you've suggested above, and I'd like to know if you feel that the critical commentary relating to the oggs is currently sufficient in that regard. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're in good shape here. You're far enough past the bare minimum of NFCC to be good, and I think the samples used present a good cross section of the album in discussion of its influence and direction. At worst, it will be an intelligent discussion at FAC as to whether there could be improvements. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, your advice was most helpful, so thanks much. What do you think about the inner-gatefold FUR, in cover art? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine since you've got commentary on the iconic nautre of that picture + some more. (Just as a note for the legacy section, and not to force this in, this album is only one of three that were fully included (between the game and downloadable content) in The Beatles: Rock Band - dunno if that's important enough to include or not but just a random thought here). --MASEM (t) 23:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be nice to include; it speaks to the work expanding into modern media. Can you provide me with a WP:RS? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

NYTimes prior to release, and Rolling Stone at the DLC album release. (RSs outside of video gaming). I'd add that, per what you should get out of the NYTimes article, the game includes visuals to match that of the album art with some of the songs in their "Dreamscapes" for this album. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

• "Regarded as an early concept album": Regarded by who, and perhaps more importantly, when?

Do you mean the earliest that someone called it that? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the lead has the word "rock" in several places, part of several genres. It gets a little repetitive, but I'm not sure there is a way around it.

I managed to remove one two, but I'm not sure the other three can be removed. Rock and roll could go from the styles list I suppose, but I could see others objecting to that. Any suggestions? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Following the Beatles' August 1966 retirement from touring and the ensuing three-month break from Abbey Road Studios, their work improved upon the production quality of their prior releases.": "Work" is slightly ambiguous here: their work on this album, or in general?

"their work improved upon" → "they endeavored to improve upon"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Is it worth adding anything to the lead on the album's immediate reception (other than chart position)?

Does "it was an immediate commercial and critical success" suffice? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• "the group had grown extremely cross with their manager": Is extremely cross encyclopaedic enough? Perhaps just "unhappy" is more neutral, but I'd lose the adverb at the very least.

Good point. Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• "When George Harrison was asked about their long-term plans after having returned to London he replied": Not keen on "after having returned", as it's a bit clunky. Would "...plans after returning to London" work better? Or even "When, having returned to London, George Harrison was asked about their long-term plans, he replied..."

Thanks for the suggestions; I went with the second example. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• "The band subsequently took a nearly two-month holiday,": nearly two-month is also a bit clunky. Maybe a number of weeks would be cleaner prose?

"nearly two-month" → "seven-week"

• "It also led him to develop a melodically-focused style of bass guitar playing": This seems a little vague! Not sure that much can be done, though.

Nice catch! I'll think about that one. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• "McCartney wanted to model portions of an album after the Beach Boys' approach": "model on" would sound more natural to me, but not a big deal and I'm pretty sure the current version is more than fine.

• "Sgt. Pepper marks the beginning of McCartney's ascendancy as the Beatles' dominant creative force. He wrote more than half of the album's material while asserting increasing control over the recording of his compositions. He would from this point on provide the artistic direction for the group's releases.": This is doubtless true, but reads quite strongly in WIkipedia's voice. Maybe attribute it: "According to [the author?] Walter Everett, Sgt. Pepper marks..."

I agree. Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Down to the end of "Side one" so far; some of the musical technical stuff loses me a bit, but this is a pleasure to read so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much, Sarastro! I appreciate your helpful comments. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• "with critics characterising the music as lacking "harmonic interest"" and "with Goldstein including the track as one of the album's highlights": "with [noun] [verb]ing" construction is best avoided.

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "In Moore's opinion, the recording's reliance on melody in favour of harmony is entirely appropriate for the genre": "in favour" does not really make sense used with "reliance" like this.

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Sgt. Pepper continued the artistic maturation seen on the Beatles' albums Rubber Soul (1965) and Revolver (1966), aiding the development of progressive rock through its focus on self-conscious lyrics, studio experimentation, and its efforts to expand the barriers of conventional three-minute tracks.": This is quite strong and opinionated for WPs voice, and should perhaps be attributed in-text to an author.

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• "It has been described as one of the first art rock albums and a "masterpiece of British psychedelia", and credited with marking the beginning of the album era": This always begs the question: by who?

Attributed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Third paragraph of "Legacy": We use "best-selling" three times in a short space; also, two are hyphenated, one is not.

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder if the legacy section is in the best order. It looks like we are doing a summary of the changing views of the album, but interrupt this with album sales at the start of para 3. Otherwise, it seems strange to list the reservations of critics, give the sales, then say how great critics think it is in all the greatest album lists.

Well, for one the section is roughly chronological; the last date in the first paragraph is 1977 and the first date in the second is 1979. The last date in the second paragraph is 1981 and the first date in the last paragraph is 1987. Also, I think its helpful to organize it this way because it demonstrates that the initial praise had faded a bit by the late-1970s, but that the legacy "rebounded" from 1987 to today. I could group the two "positive" paragraphs together, but that doesn't seem like an improvement, IMO. I think its good to go from positive to negative and back to end on a positive as it roughly mirrors the legacy timeline and it doesn't give the false impression that the legacy went bad and stayed bad. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing else jumps out, and this looks good to me, with the qualification that I am no music (or Beatles) expert, and that the music terminology loses me slightly. My only other query is do we need all 48 notes? Not a problem as such, it just seems quite a big number. Prose-wise and in terms of comprehensiveness, I can see no major issues. Let me know when this reaches FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO – because the notes are optional to the reader – including them causes no harm, but removing them reduces the total amount of information available. If someone said that they were cluttering up the prose I might reconsider, but I've never seen any FAC protests against having two citations following a sentence, which is all the space that the additional notes use. Before I nom at FAC I'll take a good look through and combine any I can and remove ones that aren't that helpful. IMO, there are so many tangential points that are notable and important to the overall comprehensiveness of the article that this is a superior solution to bloating the article up to 12,000 words or more. Thanks much for your excellent review, Sarastro1! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX

• "Released in June 1967, it was an immediate commercial and critical success, spending 22 weeks at the top of the UK Albums Chart and 15 weeks at number one on the US Billboard 200." would read better as something like "The album was released on 1 June 1967. It was an instant commercial and critical success, spending 22 weeks at the top of the UK Album Chart and 15 weeks at number one on the US Billboard 200."

I disagree; that would make two short and choppy sentences to start the paragraph, which I think flows pretty well as it is. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

At the very least, include the exact release date (which was June 1st) in opening paragraph. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• "By 1966 the Beatles had grown weary of live performance"..... go into how/why they had become so after this sentence.

I moved the Lennon quote up to follow the topic sentence. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• "According to the musicologist Walter Everett" → "Walter Everett wrote that"

I'll maybe substitute that phrase elsewhere, but I'm not a fan of it for this example. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Sgt. Pepper is a multigenre album that is a work of rock and pop"..... if this is suggesting that the album is primarily pop and rock, state that more explicitly.

Moore states only that it is a work of pop and rock; he does not go into which genres are primary and which are secondary. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Any particular reasons why both sound samples are aligned to the right in the "side one" section and both for "side two" section? I recommend having one to the left and one to the right (you can choose which to align where). As a general note, try alternating the alignments throughout articles.

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Per WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, user reviews from Sputnikmusic shouldn't be used. From what I can see in the ref used, this is a user review.

Nice catch; thanks! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

After these points are addressed, you shouldn't have much problem getting this to FA! I'm sure you'll make all Four of The Beatles quite proud. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

I was asked to comment on this review. Having seen the wealth of informed comment already provided, I don't feel I can add much of significance, but may I suggest a few tweaks to the lead? By all means ignore these if you think they are unnecessary:

• "Released in June 1967, it was ..." A similar prose formulation occurs also at the beginning of the second paragraph: "Regarded by musicologists as an early concept album, Sgt. Pepper continued...", and also later within that paragraph: "An important work of British psychedelia, the multigenre album incorporates..." While entirely grammatical, this form can clunk a bit when used repeatedly, and three times in half a dozen lines is a bit heavy. I recommend that you reword at least one of them.

That's a good point; thanks. Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• The sentence: "The group adopted an experimental approach to composition and the producer George Martin's innovative recording of the album's tracks, such as "With a Little Help from My Friends", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and "A Day in the Life", included the liberal application of signal processing and the use of a forty-piece orchestra" is overcomplicated (three "ands") and perhaps under-punctuated. Recommend split.

That's also good advice. Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• "The album cover was designed by the English pop artists Peter Blake and Jann Haworth from a sketch by Paul McCartney that depicted ." This might be clearer if reworded as: "The album cover, depicting the band posing in front of a collage of celebrities and historical figures, was designed by the English pop artists Peter Blake and Jann Haworth from a sketch by Paul McCartney."

I've adopted the suggested language; thanks. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Final lead sentence: This seems superfluous; the success and standing of the album is fully established by the earlier two sentences.

I disagree here; its important that we avoid making such a bold claim without a direct quote, but I'll think about it and maybe change my mind. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll consider these minor changes, but no great harm if you decide against them. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A few more comments (down to end of "Music and Lyrics")

• "they had decided to break-up" – no hyphen in this phrasing.

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "at the instruction of" → "under the instruction of"

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "timpani" is a plural noun; "timpanis" does not exist

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "He later claimed..." Not really a "claim" here, rather an expression of opinion. Why not "He thought that his constant playing..." etc

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Acquired by Lennon, the Mellotron's keys triggered one of three tape loops for flutes, strings or choirs, enabling its user to play in those three voices." The first three words render the sentence into a non sequitur. I would incorporate these words into the previous sentence, thus: "The first session saw the introduction of a new keyboard instrument called the Mellotron, acquired by Lennon. The Mellotron's keys..." etc

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• You can wikilink flanging. Also, it should not be in italics, since it's not a foreign word

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "called-off" – another unrequired hyphen

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Overlong, overcomplicated sentence: "For the album's title track, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", the recording of Starr's drum kit was enhanced by the use of damping and close-miking, which at the time were new recording techniques that MacDonald credits with creating a "three-dimensional" sound that – along with other Beatles innovations – engineers in the US would soon adopt as standard practice.". Needs subdividing.
• Maybe clarify that the production cost of Please, Please Me was £400

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see any point in the updated value of £25,000, especially with the entirely spurious accuracy represented by "£304,202".

Removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• A source of confusion is that the album and the first track have the same name. Thus, when you say: "McCartney acts as the master of ceremonies near the end of 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' ", there is a moment of muddle. Perhaps; "...near the end of the 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' track...",

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "that was comprised of" → "that comprised"

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "MacDonald describes the track as an "ambitious essay in cross-cultural fusion and meditative philosophy" that most commentators dismiss as boring..." The phrase "that most commentators dismiss as boring" is thus directly connected to MacDonald's comment; did he say that most commentators dismiss the track as boring, or is this a separate observation?

MacDonald states that "most commentators dismiss the track as boring". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Inspired by a television commercial for Kellogg's Corn Flakes, from which Lennon adapted a jingle as the song's refrain, "Good Morning Good Morning" utilises the bluesy mixolydian mode in A, which Everett credits with "perfectly express[ing] Lennon's grievance against complacency." A very difficult sentence to get one's head round. Part of the problems is the relapse into the prose formulation on which I commented on the lead. I think the sentence needs to be turned around and simplified.

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "As the last chord of the "Sgt. Pepper" reprise plays an acoustic guitar strumming offbeat quavers begins,..." – there must be some punctuation missing, somewhere, e.g. a comma after "plays"?

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "faded-out" – that hyphen again

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "As "A Day in the Life" ends a 15-kilohertz high-frequency tone is heard..." Definitely a comma needed after "ends"

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Why did Lennon wish to "annoy dogs"?

I'm not sure that any of the sources explain why. I don't think it was anything against dogs; I think he just found it interesting. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try and complete my reading tonight or tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much, Brian. Your comments are invaluable! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

My final comments

• "a postcard-sized portrait of Sgt. Pepper based on the statue from Lennon's house..." – what statue was this? In any case, shouldn't it be "a statue"?

Fixed.

• Sonny Liston an athlete? I don't think so. I'd describe him as a boxer, and Stubbins as a footballer. And I don't think "author" is an accurate label for Dylan Thomas

Good points. Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I love the line: "Adolf Hitler and Jesus Christ were requested by Lennon, but ultimately rejected." Only in Wikipedia...

Indeed! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• £46,104 – another rather pointless calculation that should be ditched along with the other.

Removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• "the Beatles brought an acetate disc" → "the Beatles brought an acetate disc of the album..."

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Should it be "the Jimi Hendrix Experience" or "The Jimi Hendrix Experience"? It depends on whether "The" is part of the band's name (which I believe it is)

I learn new things all the time on Wikipedia, but this much I know for certain: its a lower-cased definite article mid-sentence. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Sgt. Pepper was widely perceived by listeners as the soundtrack to the Summer of Love". I'd put "Summer of Love" in quotes (it was not an official designation). Odd, though, that the linked WP article makes no mention of the album, or of the Beatles.

This is not at all a minority view amongst the RSs. I think its omission from the SoL wiki article is a reflection of the quality of the SoL article, not the accuracy of the statement. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Sgt. Pepper's initial commercial success exceeded all previous Beatles albums, selling 2.5 million copies within three months of its release." Needs redrafting – not grammatical in its present form. A suggestion: "With 2.5 million copies within three months of its release, Sgt. Pepper's initial commercial success exceeded that of all previous Beatles albums."

A fine suggestion. Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think "Most contemporary reviews were positive..." is a mite cautious. You only quote one negative review, and that was apparently answered with volleys of further praise. The table on the right rather suggests that "The vast majority of contemporary reviews were positive", and I recommend you reword accordingly.

Yeah, I think that's what I used to have there until someone changed it. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• "For several years following its release, straightforward rock and roll would be supplanted..." → "For several years following its release, straightforward rock and roll was supplanted..."

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Possibly the second paragraph in the "Legacy" section should be a subsection on its own, entitled "Reappraisal" as this, rather than "legacy", is the subject of the text.

I see the negative appraisal and continued debate as part of the legacy. I also think it would be a big mistake to end on that paragraph. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The Reappraisal section seems to work nicely after Reception. Thanks for the great idea! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• "With its release, album sleeves were no longer..." etc → "After its release, album sleeves were no longer..." etc

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that, as a rule, we show conversions from one major currency to another (in this case, euros→dollars)

Removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I not sure I understand the title "Concept revisited", nor why this piece of commentary appears at the end of the article rather than with the other "Reception" comments.

The text in reception is contemporary to the album, whereas this is largely reflective hindsight that belongs near or at the end. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it to a sub-section of Reappraisal. Thanks again for the suggestions! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That ends my comments. A very thorough and informative article, important enough to deserve the extensive review attention it's had. Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this review, Brian. Your insightful comments have helped elevate the prose to new levels. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to take another look at the lead? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with your decisions concerning the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

This is a formidable article, and in truth I am scratching round to find anything to quibble at, but I'll manage. First comments, to the end of "Music and lyrics":

• Recording and production
  • First quote box – double quotes wanted, I think

    I always used to include them, but Ssilvers recently told me that they should not be included. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

    Are we at cross purposes here? I don't mean the big decorative quotes that are optional for quote boxes – I'm referring to the single quotes round Paul's 'You just wait'. Wouldn't we normally use double quotes there? Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong. Tim riley talk 21:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

    Ahh, I see; you are correct, as usual! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  • "basslines that complimented the song's final arrangement" – complemented, I imagine

    Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  • "(ADT), a system that uses tape recorders to create a simultaneous doubling" – I was surprised to see a link to "tape recorders" here, though it does no harm, I suppose

    Removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Music and lyrics
  • First quote box – double quotes wanted here too, I think

    Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  • "The BBC used this as justification for banning the track from British radio" – A bit of top-spin there! A more neutral phrasing might be, "On those grounds the BBC banned the track from British radio".

    Great suggestion. Language adopted. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  • "banned by the BBC because of the lyric that mentions "Henry the Horse"" – this is really a describing ("non restrictive") rather than a defining clause, and should, I think be "banned by the BBC because of the lyric, which mentions "Henry the Horse".

    Nice! Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Side one
  • ""Sgt. Pepper" was the first Beatles track that benefitted from the production technique" – does MacDonald really misspell "benefited"?

    Nope. That's my bad! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Pablo Fanque's Circus Royal poster – a brilliant inclusion!

    Thanks. I wish I could take the credit, but alas it was already there before I came along. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Side two
  • First para – excellent balance here with the differing critical views impartially set out.

    Thanks; this one I can take credit for! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

More soonest. Tim riley talk 20:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to help out, Tim. I always appreciate your astute insights! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Second and concluding lot of comments from Tim

• Release
  • "In the opinion of the musicologist Tim Riley" – Hold everything! Who is this impostor?

    Do you remember that I asked you if you were him about 4 years ago? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

    No, but then I am old and forgetful. Anyway, I'm not him and he ain't me. Incidentally (and no reflection on my namesake) Sir Thomas Beecham defined a musicologist as "A man who can read music but can't hear it." Tim riley talk 18:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

    That's a good one! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Reception
  • The Times's Kenneth Tynan described it as "a decisive moment in the history of Western civilisation" – I can find five different sources confirming this phrase as Tynan's but I boggle at the idea he wrote it in The Times. None of the sources say where he wrote it, but Tynan, theatre critic of The Observer, did not write for The Times (except as a co-signatory of occasional letters to the editor about political matters). I have checked The Times archive and there is no trace of his writing this in any 1967 or later issue. I think it would be safer to call him "The critic Kenneth Tynan" and leave it at that.

    Well, both MacDonald and Moore say it was in The Times, and a google search of a bit more text reveals a few sources that agree, but I'll take your word for it at this point, as its probably a mistake that keeps getting re-printed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

  • "In 2005 Rolling Stone placed it at number one in their list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, describing it as "the pinnacle of the Beatles' eight years as recording artists"" – I don't know if your source says 2005, but I have access to the Rolling Stone online archive (courtesy of Westminster City Library) and that phrase was used of the album in an unsigned article "The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time: 1 – 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band': The Beatles" in the Rolling Stone issue of 11 December 2003, p. 85. The URL is password protected but I can send you a copy of the text if you'd be interested.

    I use 2005 because the print source of the book that I cite to is copyrighted to 2005, but you are correct that this list was first published in 2003. Do you still think that I should use 2003? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

    I think so. As a statement of pure fact, Rolling Stone published the article in 2003, and that's what I think you should say.

    Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Recording and cover
  • "Although early analog synthesizers were available" – I'm not sure if the general British convention of adopting US spelling for computer matters (e.g. computer program rather than computer programme) extends to the hardware, but I think I'd have piped this as analogue synthesiser. I do not press this point, being unsure of my facts.

    I don't see any harm in piping like that. Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

  • "The idea was gradually forming of a record being a performance in its own right and not just a reproduction of a live performance" – sound of harrumphing from elderly classical buff: John Culshaw had this concept for Decca Records years before this. (Just making a point here – I don't seek to alter your text.)

    Very true, but I think Parsons is referring only to pop and rock here, though its admittedly a bit vague without the proper context. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

  • "Its lasting commercial success and critical impact is due in large part to Martin and his engineer's creative use" – we have heard of several engineers at various points in the article: should this be "his engineers' creative use"? Afterthought: and shouldn't "is due" be "are due" as we are talking of two factors?

    Great suggestion. Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Concept revisited
  • "In a May 1967 review published by The Times, the music critic William Mann" – if you agree with my suggestion, above, about Tynan, you'll want a blue link to The Times here instead.

    Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

  • "Nonetheless, the author Martina Elicker asserts" – you use the word "assert" nine times in the article, and – see WP:SAY – it occasionally strikes a very slightly sceptical note. Perhaps worth another look.

    Yeah, it gets a bit difficult when you are presenting so many opinions of critics and musicologists, but I think asserts is correct here, as many do have doubts about the albums designation as a concept album. Having said that, I'm certainly open to suggestions for alternatives, if nothing else to avoid repetition. Also, how do you count the number of occurrences of a word in an article? Is there yet another helpful script/tool that I am unaware of? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

    Depending which web browser you use, the generic "find" box (press Ctrl-F) while you're looking at a WP page will either show all the incidences of a word or phrase or will even obligingly tell you how many hits it has found. I was using Firefox, and just typed in "assert" and tapped through till I got to the beginning again, after nine taps. I have to say, however, that when reviewing I often copy and paste from the article page (not the edit page, which has too much code) into Word as unformatted text, and then run the spell check. You'd be surprised how often this throws up errors one has missed with the naked eye. Tim riley talk 18:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

    Thanks for the useful tip! Once again you've empowered me to become a better editor. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

That's all I can offer. This is a fine article, hugely readable and informative. Please let me know when it gets to FAC. – Tim riley talk 13:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. I appreciate your taking the time to provide these most helpful comments and suggestions. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

I will spend tomorrow reading through this and post shortly. Sorry for the delay. Cassianto^talk 19:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That's great, Cassianto. Thanks! Don't worry about the wait; patience is a virtue! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Background

Looks ok.

Concept and inspiration

Looks ok

Recording and production

Looks ok

Music and lyrics

• "BBC banned the track from British radio" – surely they cannot ban it from all radio stations, or was it just those managed by BBC?

Didn't the BBC enjoy a total radio and TV monopoly in the UK, in 1967? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to report that I wasn't around then ;) I think you maybe right. Cassianto^talk 18:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Side one

• Looks ok

Side two

• "After it was decided that "Only a Northern Song" was not good enough for inclusion on Sgt. Pepper..." – who decided this, Harrison, the Beatles or the label?

Clarified. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Which Formby are you linking to? Formby Sr. was firmly within the music hall era and was a huge name, where as Fomby Jr. post-dated music hall by about 20 years. Also, McGill was never a performer in music hall, which one can easily assume by the current wording. How exactly did the illustrator McGill influence the style?

The Wikipedia article, Music hall, has it lasting until 1960, but maybe that's not accurate. Which Formby has an annual convention of ukulele players in his honour? MacDonald claims the song reminds people of McGill's "seaside postcards". Good catch, though; I'll clarify the point. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The convention is most certainly in honour of Formby Jr. . Music hall became unpopular during WWI and evolved into variety theatre with the latter often, and inaccurately, being referred to as the former. Cassianto^talk 21:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So, we are linked to the right Formby, but you object to his description as a music hall performer? Even Alan F. Moore PhD calls him that. It looks like my sources treat this as a distinction without a difference. What do you suggest? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think what's happened here is that the musicologists are referring to Sr., which I'm conflating with the Beatles' well-known admiration for Jr. The link is wrong, because Moore is referring to 1920s music hall, which must be Sr. Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I suspected they were referring to Formby the elder. I doubt whether the Fab Four had even heard of Formby's old man. Yes, it does annoy me when Formby Jr, Gracie Fields, Stanley Holloway, Will Hay, Flanagan and Allen, Max Miller etc.. get referred to as "music hall artists" when it was impossible for them to be owing to the fact that they all post-date the era. They were, if anything, all from the variety era. Cassianto^talk 23:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Cover artwork

• We call them "cutouts" then later, "cut-outs" with a hyphen. Which is correct?

I think its cut-outs, but I profess no expertise regarding hyphens. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think hyphen too. Ping Rothorpe, what's the answer? Cassianto^talk 17:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Release

• "Beatles' press agent Derek Taylor..." – "The Beatles' press agent Derek Taylor..."?

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Reception

Looks ok.

Concept

• "Further, he suggested that indeed..." – redundancy of "indeed". Would this sentence work without it? I think it would.

Removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure of the rules with quotes, but does using a capital to start it with, mid sentence, constitute a grammatical no, no? I'm thinking here: "and "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!"

This isn't a quote; its a song title. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

• "It is regarded as having influenced the development of the counterculture of the 1960s." – by who?

Clarified. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• "It is one of the most commercially successful albums in the US..." – Sgt. Pepper right, and not Queen's album?

Clarified. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• The AmEng revolutionized →the BrEng revolutionised

I think we retain the Engvar of the quoted sources, versus adapting it to our style. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Recording and cover

Looks ok.

Tables

All look ok.

I see no other issues Gabe, this look like a an extremely watertight article and one which I have struggled to find much wrong with. This is easily the best album article on Wikipedia, if not the web and in keeping with the wonderful Beatles articles. Please let me know when you arrive at FAC! Cassianto^talk 17:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and helpful suggestions! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

---

List of currencies in North America

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as I withdrew the previous FLC, but I feel I have adequetly addressed the issues there, and brought the article up to a sufficient standard to be taken there again. However, I want a second opinion on the quality of the article. Thanks, Matty.007 18:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by llywrch

• I think your explanations of the words "currency" & "reserve currency" are unneeded. Both are familiar enough to most readers -- everyone except young children & people learning English as a second language -- that a link to the article ought to suffice.
  • Removed definition of currency and reserve currency. Matty.007
• But you are correct in taking the time to explain the role of some of these currencies. The US dollar does have a great influence -- some would say, too much -- in the economies of the rest of the Americas. And the world. You are also correct to explain the East Caribbean Dollar, although I would prefer to see a little more about its history. (That several independent countries agreed to share one currency is unusual, as is the fact that Barbados opted out of adopting it.)
  • Little more added. Matty.007
• Yes, "North American dependency currencies" should not include Saint Pierre and Miquelon -- or Greenland. But I think you need to explicitly state they are not included at the top, in order to minimize surprise to the reader.
  • Done. Matty.007
• The list of countries & dependencies at North America is not identical with the one at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in North America, & there may be a discussion which one will be made to agree with the other. Just a head's up.
  • The soverign states are the same, I excluded dependencies which are not internationally recognised, marked in italics on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in North America. Matty.007
• As for the tables, two thoughts:
  • I prefer tables & lists that have links to have them appear only for the first appearance of the term linked. The same with citations. In any case, it appears your style is inconsistent: some terms have a footnote with each appearance, some only on their first appearance.
  • Fixed inconsistancies. Matty.007
  • I like the idea that there is an entry for the "previous currency", but the fact some of these previous currencies haven't been used in a long time -- AFAICR, Canada has always used dollars, not pounds -- it would be helpful to add the year when the previous currency was replaced with the current one.

Otherwise, this list looks very good. -- llywrch (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • I think this would be very hard to find, finding the previous currency (with a RS) was hard enough, I suspect that although finding dates would be nice, they would not be reliably sourced. Matty.007
      • I took a look at some of the articles on the current currencies, & they provided dates for when those were adopted; this might be original research, but I'd guess that those would pass for the year the former currencies were replaced. :-) llywrch (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I remember now, I used to have years (either on this one and the Europe one, or just the Europe one), and the dates depended on where you cut off; do you cut off at re-issue, or at the beginning of the currency. Also, there were lots of unsourced/na ones, so I think this is best left out. Thanks, Matty.007 18:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this peer review Llywrch! Do you think the article is at/near Featured List level? Thanks, Matty.007 18:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had horrible luck with trying to get an article accepted as a Featured Article, so I don't feel that I can offer a valid opinion -- beyond saying it surpasses my standard for inclusion in Featured List. Might as well submit it & see if it passes; worst case is that it doesn't, & you get more feedback about how to improve it than you have at Peer Review. (Namely one person who is both pressed for time & forgetful.) -- llywrch (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

In the past I've had this and the Europe list both rejected as FL, so I know it's not the end of the world... Thank you very much for the in depth review. FLN now. Thanks, Matty.007 18:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

---

2013 Mudsummer Classic

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have intentions to nominate this page for GAN, and I can not seem to find anything else to add to improve this page.

Thanks, NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 20:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Royalbroil

• LCQ wasn't spelled out as "last chance qualified"
• I don't understand how NASCAR can classify Eldora as an intermediate track even though it's shorter that the Bristol short track. You've reliably sourced it so you should leave it.
• "dirt track ringer" should be defined
• (suggestion) I heard that Goodyear started with a dirt modified tire...You could research and attempt to substantiate
• lots of references need wikilinks
• How is the "Racing News Network" a reliable source? Same with Catchfence. SB Nation looks iffy in reliability depending on the writer. The rest are good.

Overall, very well done! It's looking good for a GA run. Royalbroil 01:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so here's what I attempted to accomplish today before hitting the hay for the night: ZappaOMati 04:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not too sure what you mean by that, but I presume you meant for put (LCQ) for "last change qualifier".
• Already covered.
• Replaced "ringer" with "specialist", since I assume most should know the latter's meaning much more than the former.
• I'll check it out later.
• I'll deal with that later
• Replaced the Catchfence one with the Jayski team chart, which, although it doesn't focus on the topic particularly, it does still mention Joe as Jennifer's father. I took a look at the Racing News Network one, but I could not find another source with Tom Gideon (director of safety) stating the track is fine, instead finding a NASCAR spokesman and Smoke's assurances that the track is fine ([6]).

• Catchfence reprints team press releases, so it's countable as a primary source - simple facts (such as the one that was cited here) can be cited using it, but not controversial ones. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• If that's the case, I'll just keep the Catchfence one in. Looking at the RNN one, meanwhile, it's written by Mark Aumann, a writer for NASCAR.com, and IIRC, this same ref was formerly on NASCAR.com, but I presume it was later transcluded onto RNN. Should the RNN ref stay? ZappaOMati 13:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• The big purge they did of NASCAR.com's back content when they dumped Turner Sports was atrocious. If you're certain that it was an article that was originally on NASCAR.com, putting "archived from...(etc.)" in the reference should work, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Luckily, I did manage to find it ([7]). ZappaOMati 00:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Looking better! If you want to keep the Mark Aumann article that's fine- but I'd mention it in the GA nomination that he wrote for nascar.com along with a link to prove that his writing has a history of proper vetting. Royalbroil 01:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  

---

An Enemy of the People

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because as part of my Theater History course we have been asing to pick an article and make a contribution to it. At this moment I have added an audio reading, a photograph and expanded the plot summary. Im working on revising the Lead and update the summary so is not as broad as it is now. Any suggestions on the article and what you would find helpful to see in it if you would be searching for information on this play, will be appriciated.

Thanks, BorreroFortier (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review

Lead section: The lead section is telling us a bit about this play. I think you can add up more in formation and you can move the information of film to adaptations section.

Plot overview: I think this is good. It has a lot of information so that readers can get the the idea about the story of this play.

Characters: That is good to know who are in this play, but i would be great if you can add more details of each characters such as their personalities...

Themes: This is helpful to understand this play.

Adaptations: This is good!

Audio: That's goot to putting here. Listening is really helpful to understand characters.

I think you are doing great job! my friend! Nossoju (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Review by llywrch

This is an important play by Ibsen, so thanks for attempting this. However, I encountered a major problem right off the bat: the "Plot overview" sections are large, difficult-to-read slabs of text. To be blunt, the phrase TL;DR -- "too long; did not read" comes to mind. Either shorten the summaries of each act, or use some paragraphing to make them more readable. Once you fix that problem, I'll take another look at this play, & see if I can suggest some ideas for secondary sources. -- llywrch (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• A Background section can be added to discuss the origins, writing, and performing of the play. Use secondary sources ([like this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1662831/?page=1] which discusses the background) to discuss the themes. There are other scholarly articles which discuss this play's portrayal of business ethics. maclean (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  

---

Augustin Daly

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as part of my graduate course in Theater History at Brooklyn College. As of today, Thursday 4/3/2014 the only improvements I have made is I've added the warning templates regarding the need for more historical information and improvements to the references section. As I move forward there are other items on my list that need to be expanded upon or added which will improve the articles quality and they are; Lead section, Images, Biography, Notable Works Chronology, Influence (Local Color, Melodrama, directing style, 'star-maker,' managing style, Theaters (Daly's London and NYC theaters). I may also subdivide existing material into more appropriate sub-headings.

Edits that have been made regard improvements I've made to the reference section. I've deleted a dead-link which has then been re-added and made live again by User:Sideways713. I also reformatted two reference correctly.

Thanks, Brian Kafel (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Gdirado

STRUCTURE

Lead section – While the lead provides a nice general introduction to the life and career of John Augustin Daly, it should be expanded so that it summarizes all the major points of the article.

Body – The body of the article is logically structured with helpful and appropriate headings. It provides valuable information, and the writing is, for the most part, clear and concise.

In-text links and "See Also" – This article includes many in-text links that are both useful and informative for readers. The “Biography” section is particularly thorough regarding in-text links. In the “Notable works” section, I would recommend linking realism and melodrama to the appropriate articles. There is no “See also” section in this article, so you might want to consider adding that.

External links section – The one external link included is excellent. I think this section could stand to be expanded further, but only if you can find other links that are applicable and add value.

Images – The article contains an image that is relevant to the topic and follows Wikipedia guidelines. If you can find some, it might be helpful to include images from productions of Daly’s plays.

CONTENT AND SOURCES

Information – This is article has solid foundation to build upon, but much of the information included in the “Biography” section is not sourced. Some of this information seems to be author’s opinion, and needs further explanation. I’m referring specifically to, “At the first of these, he gathered a company of players, headed by Ada Rehan, which made for it a high reputation, and for them he adapted plays from foreign sources, and revived Shakespearean comedies in a manner before unknown in America.” Sentences like these need to be verified by a reputable source, edited for clarity, and further explained. The “Notable works” section is appropriately sourced and represents clear, verifiable facts. The article is off to a good start, but I would suggest including a section that provides historical context and/or discusses Daly’s legacy. I also really like all of the proposed changes you listed above.

Sources – The sources included all appear to be formatted correctly and are from reputable, scholarly sources. Like I said previously, much of the information in the “Biography” section needs to be cited, and I think the article would be improved by the inclusion of a few extra sources.

Great job so far, Brian! I look forward to seeing your progress! Gdirado (talk)

Comments from CataVillamarin111

Hi Brian, thanks for clarifying what your edits were. Given that you haven't worked on the article's contents, these are some suggestions of how I would improve it.

Lead section – I would expand this section a little bit. As it is, it's too general. I understand, however, that lead sections get "richer" as the articles themselves get more content. But you have a good start there.

Structure – The "Biography" section has great information, which could be divided into sub-headers. There's a great deal on his career, so you could maybe add more information on his personal life, his education or his youth?

In-text links and references – I agree with Gina: this article has a lot of useful in-text links which are both interesting and relevant. However (and as you have pointed out), the article has a lot of statements that need a citation or to be referenced in order to verify them. If you can, before adding new information, you could hunt down fragments of books and articles and add them as references? I'm only suggesting this because, as your article grows, it will be harder for you to find you way around the edit page to do this.

Images – I like the image on the article, and would love to see some more! Is there a way for you to get images of his plays?

Sounds like you have a great plan for this article and I'm looking forward to reading it at the end of this semester! CataVillamarin111 (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Canoe & Kayak UK

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like an independent assessment of the article's quality with suggestions for improving the article for a Good Article nomination.

Thanks, Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Some comments

• "is the best-selling British" --> "is a best-selling..."
• What is a "canoeing magazine"? Link it.
• I think it's better if it's like "Canoe & Kayak UK is a best-selling British canoeing magazine. Published worldwide, it covers all branches of British canoeing and kayaking, but is primarily focused on sea, surf and whitewater paddling."
• Link that "sea" to "sea kayak", "surf" to "surf kayaking", and "whitewater paddling" to "whitewater paddling".
• In the infobox, fix the "sports magazines" link. Replace with "Sports magazine"
• I think it's better if the logo will be replaced by the mag cover down there because the cover, place down there, has no relevance. So it's better if it's in the infobox. After all, the logo is also there.
• History section is very short. Should be expanded.
• Regular features section is mostly unsourced. Back them up with reliable sources.
• And other sections are very short and has no sources at all. I think you should merge some sections.
• References also have problems. Ref 1 is dead and the rest are bare urls and have no footnotes. Fix them. Provide the author, date, accessdate, publisher, work, title, etc. See Template:Cite web
• The article, accord. to the talk page, is assessed as "B". I think this should be "Start" class because it's not that complete yet.

Those are my comments. Hope this helps! Thanks. 203.215.116.46 (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I've made changes based on some of them, some will take a bit longer though. I'll do more later. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved references to appropriate templates, removed and added some where quality of source was poor. I think that's the 'maintenance' fixes done, next is adding/expanding content.Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Concept musical

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is part of an educational assignment for the spring 2014 semester. I've worked to add a cohesive definition, a history regarding the origin of the concept musical, a discussion of the first concept musical, and a history of its development.

I plan on adding a section regarding more modern examples, and a section that considers Stephen Sondheim's impact on the genre. After filling out these remaining sections, I'm going to rewrite the lead section to be more thorough.

I'm looking for feedback regarding: what else could possibly be added, and any ways to connect this article more to musical theatre as its 'parent' genre. I'm interested in how the concept musical springs from and feeds into musical theatre's varying forms and popularity. Any other thoughts are of course greatly appreciated!

Thanks very much, Ashleybirdsell (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review

Lead section: It's simple statement, but it gives me the idea of what is concept musical! i like simple.

Definition: It has a lot of information. Personally, i was confused a bit, because it's me!. There are slightly different thoughts of concept musical by many critics in this section. i think if there was a definition that you think most right and explanation about what critics have thought about it.

History: This section is great. I can see the concept musical's history. Are you going to add up more of recent shows?

sorry for my poor review. It is good time for me to go over your article and i learned from yours. I am looking forward to seeing your final draft! Nossoju (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review by CataVillamarin111

Overall, I think you're doing an amazing job with this article, especially when the definitions for this subject are so relative. I love how maintain neutrality by citing and referring to critics. A really smart thing to do. These are some things that I liked and that I would suggest.

Lead Section

I like how short but concise it is, and how you mention some key dates without giving the full detail. THis will sound incredibly shallow, and I don't really know how to do this, but I would consider adding an image to this first section to make in look more attractive to readers.

History

This is a very thorough section with lots of relevant in-text links that certainly enrich the experience of reading through the article. I really like how you divided this section into decades: makes it look more polished, and easier to digest.

As for the Modern Examples section, my first guess is that you're probably still working on it, right? Because up until this point you have been really thorough and detailed and there's a lot of great information. In any case, I would encourage you to expand this section further (if this information is available) because you have done an incredible job with it so far.

I hope I had more suggestions to make, but I don't know much about this topic. In fact, I feel I have learned a lot from reading this article. I look forward to reading your final version (and learning some more with it).CataVillamarin111 (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note to reviewers

Instructions to reviewers, given here, state that level 2 or 3 headings should not be used to subdivide reviews, as these disrupt the WP:PR page. I have adjusted the ehadings in this review to level 4, which is OK to use. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

---

David Malet Armstrong

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because at some point I would like to nominate it for GA. I've been steadily working on the article over the last few years and taken it from this to what you now see. I nominated it for DYK at one point, but a paragraph of exposition wasn't sourced and I was too busy in real life to fix it, so the DYK was declined.

I have more sources to add: the section on 'Mind' needs expanding with some of Armstrong's criticisms of other theories and ideas in philosophy of mind, and the epistemology section needs beefing up with Armstrong's early work on Berkeley and perception and various other works.

My question for this PR are:

1. Are there ways I can make this more accessible to the lay reader? I have used this article as a pointer for graduate student level readers trying to understand some of the more technical parts of Armstrong's writing like the Principle of Instantial Invariance. I want this article to be useful as an overview of Armstrong's ideas for the lay reader as well as a useful and informative technical description of his ideas for a more advanced reader.
2. What do I need to do to get this to GA standard?
3. What other ways are there to improve this article?

Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Demi Lovato

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Since this article has reached GA, I am looking for input before I nominate this for FA. My goal is to have this be the "Today's featured article" for her 22nd birthday this upcoming August 20th. Any input would be appreciated. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• I regard the blog which is used to support the claim that she has a mezzo-soprano voice with a three-octave range as not reliable and unsuitable. Mind you, neither of these claims is particularly remarkable and I wonder whether the article would be better without it (and the corresponing category). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• For now, I'll just go ahead and remove that bit. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This is just an advice and you don't have to do this. Make sure you have archive back ups for every url in the article. The WayBack Machine will usually already have an archive page, but some pages aren't accepted by the Wayback Machine. In those cases, you'd use WebCitation. The last thing you want to deal in a FAC is broken link which, from my experience, occurs a lot. Erick (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Checklinks should help with that, thank you for the pointer. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Despicable Me 2

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA later if it meets criteria.

Thanks, Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Development of Grand Theft Auto V

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am looking to take this article to FAC at some point and would like some feedback on the prose, non-free content, sources and structure.

Thanks, CR4ZE (t • c) 13:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I have also sent it over to WP:GOCE. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

---

E.T. (song)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been promoted to a Good Article and I want to see how it can be further improved upon so that eventually it can be a Featured Article

Thanks, Giacobbe ^talk 18:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: while it would definitely not be appropriate for me to peer review, I will help along the way with getting this to FA :). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Pedro

• First of all, let me just say congratulations to you both for the work you did on this article. Amazing, considering how it was a year ago. I'm very glad to see this input to this song (it is one of my favorite Katy songs ever) and I think it could be improved even more. See Party (song), for example. It has two versions available (just like this song). Both were released as singles (here it's a little different, "E.T." [original] was released as a promotional single, nonetheless important just like "Walking on Air"); and both have relevant commentary and reviews, which probably is the case with the original version. I think if we work a bit into this, we can make something out like "Party"'s article, and I would definitely work on it if you don't mind it. prism^△ 21:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • One question: is there artwork available for the solo version? If so, that would make things easier. Also, I'm not sure how charts and such would be split. Thanks for the basis, though. There is also the Christina Aguilera remix of Do What U Want (though only takes up roughly 15% of the article rather than about half). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, there is. It was released in August 2010 exclusively to iTunes as a countdown single. The charts could be found by 2010 Billboard articles or by searching article history here (there must have been an article for it when it was first released). For Do What U Want there were some editors who thought an infobox was inappropriate for that case (which I don't really understand). Obviously the solo version of E.T. would take up a smaller portion of the article since it wasn't an international hit single (thus it didn't get much recognition worldwide, aside from the demo leaks etc.)... prism^△ 21:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I wasn't necessarily saying to have an infobox for Do What U Want. What I meant was that there is a section specifically dedicated to that edition of the song. Then again, Hot n Cold (which I reviewed and passed for GA) has an infobox for the "Woe, Is Me" cover and that edition doesn't take up much of the article..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor

• There are some external links that will need to be corrected.

• Interesting, I thought they had all been addressed when Zanimum passed the GAN..... though  Done

• All of the pictures used in the article should have alternate text.

• This actually never occurred to me before.....  Done

• In "Music video", all three sections could probably be merged into one because none of them are large enough to need a courtesy break.

• Perhaps, though I did this for if each subsection gets expanded

• In "Release history", I would suggest merging the two tables into one table, since the first one only has one entry.

•  Done

• In "Certifications", I think you should convert the existing two-column certifications into a three-column version (like "Roar").

• Can't seem to configure this :/, Giacobbe could you perhaps perform this?

• In "References", I recommend organizing the citations in columns of three instead of two as they currently are.

•  Done

• In "External links", it might be helpful if the MetroLyrics link for the track was included.

• With or without Kanye? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think it would hurt to include both, although if you have to pick one, I'd probably go with the regular album version. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Done XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is certainly in good shape, and is well on its way to becoming an FA! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: We could all work on User:Prism/E.T.! prism^△ 21:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Etchmiadzin Cathedral

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it as perfect as possible before nominating it for Featured article. I've been working on it since early November of last year and it passed as a Good article in December. I prefer an experienced editor to review this article. As you may have already noticed, English isn't my first language and I do make a lot of mistakes (both grammatical errors and simple typos), so it would be helpful to point them out to me or just correct them.

Thanks, Երևանցի ^talk 04:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

well, it might be ready, but I would ask someone who's good at copyediting to give the article a once-over. also, check all the refs, make sure they actually say what they're supporting. check the licensing on the images as well. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A copy edit would be helpful, but I'm a little skeptic about copy editors, because they often do more harm than good. I will review the article a few more times before nominating. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just been reading through it and making some changes. I feel the quality of the article is poor, and the references used are particularly bad (mostly general works for non-specialist readers). It needs a lot of work done on its content, and better references - preferably specialist books about Armenian architecture. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Flipnote Studio 3D

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it! That includes the possibility that there is too much information...I would like feedback on what information is too in-depth and unneeded for the article, as well as anything that's unclear, or anything that's incorrectly done, etc etc.

Thanks, Sforzando (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

• Would you be able to find reception for the game? Famitsu is a well-known Japanese reviewer. Additionally, perhaps Western media outlets like IGN and GameSpot have offered opinions on the game, even if not full-fledged reviews.
• Also, the more third-party (i.e. not by Nintendo) sources you add, the less in-question the article's notability will be.
• The level-4 subsections in the article (e.g. "Flipnote Gallery: Friends") are a little too detailed. Those bullet points really aren't necessary, and I'd prefer if all of those subsections were merged into "Online services".
  • Done. -Sforzando (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Three images may be a little much for fair use. I'd recommend removing either the second or third one, as they don't illustrate a whole lot about the app's features or general gameplay. (To put it in context, including the friends online would be like a Pokémon game article having a screenshot from the menus – apparently, even a screenshot of the overworld, a major and unique part of the game, is too much to ask, though.)
  • Done. -Sforzando (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• If you're trying to get the article to GA status, it may be ineligible while there are still plans for a Western release but it hasn't happened yet. That was how Pokémon Black and White failed its GAN, for example.
  • Well shucks. -Sforzando (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Tezero (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Flood (They Might Be Giants album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi! I'd really like someone with more experience than me to have a look at this article I've been working on. This is the first article of this length/thoroughness I've written for Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to move forward so I would appreciate any advice. Unfortunately, I can't get much more specific since this process isn't very familiar to me. One thing is, though, I'm not sure exactly which date format to use. I realized that my usual convention of dd-m-yyy for publication dates and yyyy-mm-dd for access dates might not actually follow MOS and I'm not sure whether I should be using an American convention or whether non-US is okay. My other concern is that, since I am fond of the band and the album, there could be lapses in NPOV, so any commentary on that would also help. I might want to nominate it for GA at some point, but that's another thing I know very little about, so any advice specifically toward that end would be great.

Thanks, ~ Boomur [☎] 23:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Richard3120:

Great album and the article is looking in decent shape too. I would probably look at splitting off 'Artwork' and 'Style and composition' into separate sections from the 'Recording and production' section (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide), and place 'Influence' after 'Critical reception' as it's more logical chronologically (I might also be tempted to rename 'Influence' as 'Legacy'). Regarding date formats, I'm British but I've always been of the opinion of using British date format for British articles ("9 April 2014") and American format for American articles ("April 9, 2014"). So I would choose either the "April 9, 2014" format or "2014-04-09" format, but keep it consistent throughout the references and don't mix the two (I prefer the first option myself, I think it looks tidier).

Regarding POV I don't think it's too bad: I think the pun on "flood" in the 'Influence' section may have to go, and to me the phrase "the quality of the album was augmented under the direction of..." in the lead section seems a little awkward.

Are you American or Canadian, or British? As is obvious from the chart performance section, the album and "Birdhouse in Your Soul" were sizeable hits in the UK. "Istanbul (Not Constantinople)" also made the UK charts, and I'm damn sure the album would have gone at least gold in the UK. I'll try and edit the article accordingly when I find the information tomorrow. If the GA nomination can wait a few months, I'll be back in the UK over the summer and will be able get a proper reference for the Q review and to dig out reviews from the UK's other major music magazines of the time (NME, Melody Maker, Record Mirror and Sounds) which can then be added to the critical reception section. Richard3120 (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Richard3120: thank you for your input! I've made preliminary attempts toward the changes you suggested, including changing "influence" to "legacy" (I think the latter clears up any confusion over whether the section refers to influences upon the album). I reorganized the sections somewhat, including merging style and composition, but I think that section might benefit from employing a subheading somewhere. I think I'm going to use the "April 9, 2014" format, as you suggested; even though I think 2014-04-09 is more logical, it's not as readable.

I am American, but the album came out before I was even born, so I don't have a great background for how it was received anywhere! I did find that "Istanbul" charted at #61 on the UK singles chart, according to TMBW. I'm guessing this is a reliable figure; however, obviously, other wikis are not RS. I think I remember that when I was writing the article, I couldn't find any online sources that listed weekly UK singles charts beyond the top 40. If you could add more info about UK charting and reception, or even just sources, that would be great. I'm in no rush to nominate for GA, in any case. Thanks for your comments! ~ Boomur [☎] 23:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you see, Flood came out during my first year at university, so I remember well just how much of a surprise hit "Birdhouse" was, reaching the UK top ten (I suspect that by now it's sold somewhere around a quarter of a million copies in the UK, which I'm sure few Americans, least of all the two Johns, can believe) – it's still fondly remembered and it gets played frequently on "oldies" radio stations. I've added citations for its position on the Irish charts and for "Istanbul" on the UK charts (both of these are "official" sources so they're Wikipedia approved), and also a certifications table: I was right, the album did go gold in the UK.

I should also mention that as far as I can tell, "Twisting" only ever came out as a single in the US, nowhere else in the world – perhaps you might want to mention this somewhere in the article. Richard3120 (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Holly Goddard Jones

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Leonce and Lena

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i need help to improve this acrticle. please be nice and tell me anything.

Thanks, Nossoju (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Gdirado

STRUCTURE

Lead section – The lead section is supposed to summarize the content of the article. As written now, it summarizes the history of the content of the play. All of this information is valuable, but should be moved to a section in the body of the article. I would suggest that you expand and properly cite this information in a Historical Context section.

Body – The body of the article is logically structured with helpful and appropriate headings and subheadings. I think that the article would be improved if you expanded the content of the some of the subheadings that currently appear quit short.

In-text links and "See Also" – This article includes many in-text links that are both useful and informative for readers. The Ponce de Leon link does not connect to an actual article, so you may want to correct this. As you add more content to the article, you should continue to be thorough with your links. This article currently does not have a “See Also section, so you might want to add one.

External links section – There is not currently an “External links” section, and I think the article would be improved if you added one. I would suggest finding websites that provide more historical context, or that link to information about productions of the play.

Images – The article contains an image that is relevant to the topic and follows Wikipedia guidelines. If you can find production stills or drawings, I think that might add to the quality of the article.

CONTENT AND SOURCES

Information – Last semester, Ssilvers told me the following regarding character sections: “The Theatre Project's article structure guidelines suggest that characters should be described, to the extent that they are important, in the Plot (sometimes called Synopsis) section, and so a separate character list section may not be needed.” Since this is the Wikipedia standard, I would suggest folding the “Character” section into the “Plot section.” I’m not sure what other sections you were planning on adding to the article, but like I said previously, I would suggest creating a “Historical context” section based on the content of the “Lead.” You might also consider creating a section that examines the themes of the play.

Sources – This is the section of the article that needs the most work. The entire lead section provides valuable information, but doesn’t include any citations. There is only one source included in the article, so your references section needs to be expanded to include multiple, reputable and scholarly sources.

Nice job so far Kyu! I look forward to seeing your work on the article! Gdirado (talk)

PEER REVIEW

Hello Kyu! Nice job on the article, you have giving it a head start from where it was. I would sugest the following:

The lead could use a bit more information on the author and on the when the play premiere.

The summary looks good, but it seems like a very fast plot break down, I would keep that because it gives a break down of what each scene is; but i would add a new section that is more cleary a plot summary and expand on what happens maybe by acts in general (intead of acts and scenes).

The character analisis is great! good job!

Maybe it needs a section on the themes of the play, and how the play represent the period in which it was written. Under what style does it fit?. You can probably do a section on that.

Also adding an area of performances of the play would be helpful.

Any other photos you good fine of a performance would be good, to give the reader a visual image of what this is.

Is looking good! Good job! --BorreroFortier (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note to reviewer: please do not use level 2 or level 3 subheadings, as they disrupt the {[WP:PR]] page. Level 4 is fine – I have adjusted. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  

---

Madison Paige

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a fairly new article, and I'd like to get it in good shape from the start. Tackling this article also moves me closer to improving coverage on Heavy Rain -- one of the more notable games and a rare AAA "interactive movie". The article is moreorless complete, though the "Character overview" section is short and the "In Heavy Rain" section a bit long, but I'm having difficulty figuring whatever I can cut, and could use an outsider's view (always hard to cut anything you wrote).

Thanks, – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Manuel I of Trebizond

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... well, I've put a lot of effort into creating a comprehensive article on a subject most references don't provide as much information. I'd like to think it could become a FA, but I doubt I have the patience to take it that far, so I'll stop if it reaches as far as GA. Anyway, I know there are points in this article that need polishing or improving, so I'm asking for input on the writing of this article, how well the information is presented. And if you happen to be an expert on the Empire of Trebizond -- although an esoteric portion of Byzantine studies, there are a few of them out there -- feel free to correct the facts or suggest further sources on Manuel Megas Kmonenos.

Thanks, llywrch (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. (Note that I'm just copying text without links.) This is my understanding of what reviewers are looking for at FAC; you're free of course to disagree. - Dank (push to talk)

• "was Emperor of Trebizond from 1238 to 1263": There's nothing in the lead to tell readers where that is. I'd go with: was Emperor of Trebizond, a small empire on the southeast coast of the Black Sea, from 1238 to 1263.
• "Michael Panaretos describes": Same here. Readers can click through, of course, but they usually don't, and we're trying to make things easier for the reader here, so: Michael Panaretos, a medieval Greek historian, describes
• "describes Manuel as "the greatest general and the most fortunate", and describes him "reigning well and virtuously in the eyes of God."": A rule of thumb is to avoid repetition when possible, and it's possible here. One option is: describes Manuel as "the greatest general and the most fortunate" who was "reigning well and virtuously in the eyes of God." Another is: ... and also says he was ... .
• "However, the only event he documents for Manuel's reign is a catastrophic fire striking Trebizond in January 1253": "However" has so many different senses that it's a less-than-useful term, but as the first word of a sentence, it generally means "The following counterbalances or negates the preceding". I don't see how a fire negates his status as a good general or emperor. If the contrast you want to set up is in the nature of "He describes Manuel as a great general and emperor, but gives no details of his military service or reign", then it would be helpful to say that.
• "Trebizond": You don't need another link to Trebizond (even though the first link goes to the empire).
• "in 1254, ... forty years before in 1214.": I'd go with: ... forty years before.
• The lead isn't quite long enough to summarize the article.
• I got down to the end of the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Overall it is a very good article, I found it very interesting. I do have one minor suggestion: in the section on Manuel and the Mongols, the second paragraph discusses his loyalty to one faction of the Mongols vs the other. However, the first paragraph indicates that he fights and then surrenders to the Mongols, without indicating which of the Mongol factions the fight and surrender were with. If that could be clarified, that would make the section flow more easily. 1bandsaw (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Matt Lepay

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because that's what you do.

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Night of January 16th

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was promoted to good article status a few months ago and I would like put it up as a featured article candidate. My request for peer review prior to GA got no feedback, so maybe the article is too perfect to be critiqued (LOL). But since I've never gone to FAC before, I thought I should give PR another pass at it first.

Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Placenta

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... this article isn't perfect, but I'd like to eventually get it to GA. I haven't edited this particular article much, and would like the input of other users on what areas need work to get it there, as it is sometimes easier to have a definitive list. Specific, definite and "actionable" points would be most appreciated.

• Ping to Flyer22, who has worked with me in the past on these reproductive system-related articles.

Thanks, LT910001 (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

• The article seems biased towards human placentas.
• Is there a source for the statement about the two plurals of the word "placenta"?
• Lots of short paragraphs around. Also short sections that may be better off merged together if expansion is not possible.
• Some unsourced statements as well.
• "Structure" in particular seems wanting of expansion.
• Similarly, "Clinical significance" should be retitled to something more representative of its contents, and should also be significantly expanded with regards to each disease mentioned.

Tezero (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'll try and get to these in the next week or so. --LT910001 (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

---

SM Lanang Premier

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I wanted to improve the article.. Thanks, Funbeta 15:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Slug (song)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed three FA nominations for being too short and not comprehensive enough, despite the fact that shorter featured articles exist. Myself and other editors have done extensive research on sources for this topic and we all feel that the subject has been extensively covered and would like to see it pass an FA nomination.

Thanks, –Dream out loud (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: As you're concerned with the length, I've listed some sources which could be used on the talk page of this PR. Not rich pickings, but there may be something of use there. They're all good, reputable publications, at least! J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and the review. I looked at the four sources you posted - three of them are already cited in the article and the fourth one just mentions the song but doesn't really say anything about it that I could include in the article. Just to clarify, I personally have no issues with the article's length and feel it is fully comprehensive. However, in each of the three FA noms, editors have shot it down solely based on that reason. A user at WP:MUSIC recommended that I request a PR to help it become FA. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Theatre of Cruelty

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am editing and improving the article as an assignment for a Theater History course at CUNY - Brooklyn College.

Thanks, Gdirado (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

I've made a few minor amendments – typos etc – which please check to see you're happy with them. Revert any you disagree with. This is a most promising article, and I'll certainly look in again shortly with substantive comments. Tim riley (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The article has been improved since Gdirado began work on it last month. I have a few suggestions for further improvement:

• Theory
  • First two paragraphs lack references. I suggest that if Gdirado thinks they are valid he/she should dig out citations; if they seem like an earlier editor's personal take on the topic they can be removed: all statements in Wikipedia need to comply with our key principles of verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view.
  • Not sure why "impossible theatre" is in bold. Looks rather odd.
  • The statement that Müller, Churchill and Bausch have been identified etc needs a citation to justify it. Who, in short, has so identified them?
  • Block quote at end of section: this was there before Gdirado began work, but I can't work out the strange bursts of capital letters, and the whole block needs sorting out.
• Empirics
  • I have no idea what "a conceptual heuristic" is. Can this phrase be put in plain English?
  • The para is mostly uncited. If the Walker ref covers all the para it needs to be repeated at the end. If it doesn't a suitable ref is needed.
• General
  • Quotation marks – Wikipedia's standard is double quotes, so that, e.g., another 'Artaud' and implies, 'untimely' should be tidied up.
  • Except in quotations, where the original spelling must be faithfully reproduced, the spelling of "theatre/theater" should be consistent throughout the article. As the title is "Theatre of Cruelty", that spelling seems called for.

I hope these few points are useful. Don't hesitate to let me know on my talk page if I can be of any further help. – Tim riley (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Kfurano1129

Overall, you have made great progress on this article, Gina - good work! Below you will find my peer review for our class assignment. Hope it is helpful.

• Structure, format & appearance
  • Lead section - Great use of in-text links in this section! In its current state, the lead provides a sufficient summary of your topic. However, I think it could perhaps be expanded upon slightly to provide a more thorough overview of the article that follows - perhaps a sentence or two about how this philosophy was put into practice on stage and its continuing impact. Also, I'm not quite sure, but I think there should be a citation for Artaud's quote (which is fabulous!).
  • Body - the body of this article is well-structured into logical sections, each providing valuable information on the topic. Great work on this!
  • In-text links and "See Also" - this article is an excellent example of valuable in-text links, which are present throughout and provide necessary insight on the topic to the user. The "See Also" section is also thorough and well-structured.
  • External links section - Good work here so far; the external links provide valuable insight. I think that perhaps this section could be expanded slightly, however. Perhaps you could include links to recent stage productions or more practitioners of this theatrical philosophy.
  • Images - this article currently contains a relevant image that adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. If possible, it might be beneficial to include an image from an Artaud production.

• Content and sources
  • Information - this article presents a comprehensive and accurate overview of the topic. The only suggestion that I would make would be to perhaps include information about the origins of Artaud's philosophy historically - who or what were his influences? It would be interesting to learn more about the historical context in which Artaud developed this theatrical philosophy - what was happening in the world that lead to this radical idea?
  • Sources - this article currently uses reliable scholarly sources that support the information provided. However, there are several facts that don't seem to have citations - particularly in the "Theory" section. I think that would strengthen the article as a whole. The current structure of citations and sources sections also doesn't appear to adhere to Wikipedia standards, as I understand them. I would replace the "Footnotes" section with a "References" section that lists all journal and news sources (fully cited), and that then refers to a "Sources" section that lists all books. I had both Tim riley and SSilvers give me this advise last semester, and it seems to more in line with Wiki common practice.

Keep up the great work and I hope this is helpful! Kfurano1129 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hello! I think the article is looking good, your improvements have made it a more informative article, and is easy to travel through the article. I would try go get some information about the relationship between the actors and the way Artaud approach the methods theatre of cruelty on them. Aside from that, you could expand on the section of people that use his methods and places that try to experiment with them in the 21rst century. Maybe as you find more information on the subject it can be more subdivided by how Theater of Cruelty affected each single are of the performance (actors, rehersals, experimentation, audience, design...etc)

Looking Good! --BorreroFortier (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Theodore Roosevelt

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a former FA that I'd like to at least get back up to GA. Feedback before GA nomination would be very helpful.

Thanks, XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Ian Rose

Hi, well done taking on the considerable task of improving this article. I just now took a very quick pass, mainly spotchecking for prose/style and referencing:

• Prose/style-wise, I tweaked a few things, and based on that would suggest that a decent copyeditor should give it the once-over.
• There are many unreferenced statements and paragraphs that need to be addressed before GAN, let alone FAC. A good rule of thumb is to ensure every paragraph ends with a citation (meaning the entire paragraph is sourced to that reference -- if more sources are involved, then several citations may need to be sprinkled throughout the paragraph, as well as at the end).

Those are just what stood out on a brief look, if I can return to offer more detailed comments, I will, but you should have something to go on with for a bit... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ian. I'll do some more work and reach you afterwards. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009

One of my favourite US presidents...!

• I was surprised not to see a bit more (possibly in footnotes) as to how different historians have interpreted Roosevelt in differing ways. He's a controversial figure, and views do differ, which doesn't really come through in the current text.

• I'm sure he sparked controversy, but am not able to find that many historians who speak of him negatively (although I personally ensured that the text in this article itself is neutral), only other politicians. Will search, though.

• If you've got access, have a look at "King Ted, the human dynamo", the review of Morris's book by Ernest R. May in the Times Literary Supplement (including its commentary on Pringle's biography) and Francisco E. Gonzaley's reply, along with May's collective review "Hero of a strenuous age". Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd echo Ian's points about referencing - there are a lot of gaps at the moment.

• Removed lots of uncited content

• The referencing needs to be made consistent - have a look at the reference list, and you'll see that there a whole range of different styles being used.

• I'll work on that

• Check that the references have page numbers - some which need them don't have them yet.

• Will work on that

• For web pages, ensure that all the relevant information is given (publisher, date of publication etc.) whenever possible.

• Will do

• Watch out for the stubby, one or two sentence paragraphs - they don't make for easy reading, and there are quite a few in the article at the moment.

• Cleaned those out

• Worth checking that all the sources are reliable and high quality - one or two look a bit questionable.

• Which ones?

• Examples (excluding dead links)
• Is Americanchronicle.com a high quality source for historical analysis?

• Apparently not as it is a blog. Will remove as soon as I can find it within the article.

• "Amberger, J Christoph, Secret History of the Sword Adventures in Ancient Martial Arts " - probably good for ancient martial arts, but is it a high quality source for Teddy's life?

• I'll check that ref, but will say this: calling him "Teddy" is essentially dishonoring him as he very openly hated being called that. Please point out where this ref is as I can't seem to locate it.

• melissagenealogy.stormpages.com? (which throws up malware warning messages on my system so some caution might be applied. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure why a genealogy site would give such warnings, but I'll look for something which should be less problematic. At the time, it was the only source I could find for some bits of ancestry.

• Check for deadlinks (I've found at least one).

• Shouldn't be a problem

• I'd consider doing a pruning of the external links. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Any specific ones you recommend removing? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• http://americanpresidents.org/presidents/president.asp?PresidentNumber=25 - doesn't seem to be adding much
• http://www.americanwriters.org/writers/roosevelt.asp ditto
• http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tr26.html - ditto, shorter and less detailed than this article
• http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=R000429 - a stub
• Also worth checking the primary sources linked here aren't duplicates of the primary sources linked above in the bibliography. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Removed all four. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Theodore Roosevelt/archive1 may have useful feedback for you. Reviewers at GAN and FAC will often look at previous article reviews to see if progress is being made.

• Thank you

• "businessman/philanthropist": See WP:SLASH.

•  Done

• "market - after": En-dash instead of hyphen (throughout). See WP:DASH.
• "and soon found a diversion to satisfy his gregarious nature - it came in the form of political discussions - which he encountered at Morton Hall": tighter and better would be: and, to satisfy his gregarious nature, soon found a diversion: political discussions at Morton Hall - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• "demonstrated Roosevelt as a scholar": demonstrated that Roosevelt was a scholar, or marked Roosevelt as a scholar
• "has ever seen": missing period
• I got down to Theodore_Roosevelt#First marriage and widowhood.
• Generally, the writing is quite good. - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  

---

Toothache

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

Prior to FA nomination.

Comments especially desired from:

• editors with knowledge of FA process
• editors with no specialist knowledge of the subject on how understandable the prose is (i.e. any jargon needing to be explained, etc.)

Thanks, Lesion 11:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Why are the paragraph lengths in the intro so wildly uneven? Tezero (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We are working on copyediting the whole article, which includes putting in normal length paragraphs. It is about 50% done which is why currently there are weird length paragraphs. Lesion 09:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh hey, just re-read your comment and you said in the intro. Currently the paragraphs are divided into concepts such as "causes", "treatment". The v short paragraph perhaps could be merged into another which might help this. Lesion 00:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001

As always very thorough! And a wonderful and interesting history section.

Some brief comments:

• Quite a few sentences that tail paragraphs lack sources.
• There are a lot of parentheses, which in my opinion makes it hard to read, although I recognise this is a matter of opinion! Some ways to get rid of these:
  • Creative use of wikilinks. For example: Pain is transmitted by pain receptors
  • Common description followed by technical term: Pain is transmitted by pain receptors (nociceptors)
  • Integrating parentheses into text, especially when they're at the end of a sentence: "which applies to any case where there is a collection of pus in the tissues (e.g. a periodontal abscess, pericoronal abscess or apical abscess). " --> " - for example, a periodontal abscess, pericoronal abscess... "
  • Use of {{efn}} and {{notelist}} for longer notes
  • Rewording from one to two sentences: "The pain pathway is mostly transmitted via myelinated Aδ (sharp or stabbing pain) and unmyelinated C nerve fibers (slow, dull, aching or burning pain), of the trigeminal nerve" -> "The pain pathway is mostly transmitted via myelinated Aδ and unmyelinated C nerve fibers of the trigeminal nerve. The Aδ fibres convey the sensation of sharp or stabbing pain, and the C fibres slow, dull, aching or burning pain..."
  • Removing if the words are just synonyms "Extra-dontally (outside the mouth), " -> "Outside the mouth, "
• Some paragraphs are very long, and separating into two sections might improve readability
• Some references with inline page numbers have different page numbers in text. For example this references (currently #18) in text is referred to with page 303: Hupp JR, Ellis E, Tucker MR (2008). Contemporary oral and maxillofacial surgery (5th ed.). St. Louis, Mo.: Mosby Elsevier. pp. 619–627. ISBN 978-0-323-04903-0.
• Have done a very small run-through to get rid of some parentheses at the end of sentences and hope that is OK.

Good luck! --LT910001 (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed feedback. Perhaps there are too many parentheses. Agree with your edits and these sections read better now. Regarding use of notes on this page, this might be good to reduce the overall length. Ian Furst, thoughts? Suspect there are many issues that will be raised with the refs at FA review. To get rid of all page ranges in reflist, and move them to inline citation by use of {{rp|XX}} might be the way forward... Something else that I noticed is that the authors' names are not given in a standardized format. E.g. we have B. Black; Bernard Black, Black, B. etc. Lesion 17:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Trouble (Natalia Kills album)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been meaning to make it FA-class for a while now and I'd like that to happen eventually.

Thank you for reading and don't feel obligated to comment, however I would appreciate it a lot! Thank you! :) prism^△ 15:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX

• Don't need the "exec" bit in producers field of infobox
• The info contained in the "background" section all belongs in the Perfectionist album page, not here. Find some info for this album if such a section is to be included.
• In "development" section, there is no need to mention people's nationalities
• In "artwork" section, just use ref#24 once at the end of the second paragraph per WP:OVERCITE
• More WP:OVERCITE in "composition" section- after ref#31, just use ref#29 once at the end of the second paragraph
• The Hall & Oates picture isn't really needed, if anything use someone who worked on any of the album's tracks
• In "reception" section, I strongly recommend removing Huffington Post (ref#56)- they're known for fraudulence in things like politics, science, and medicine.
• More WP:OVERCITE in "reception" section- ref#54 (AllMusic) should just be used at the end of the "rating of three and a half points out of five" bit. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor

• There are two external links that may need to be corrected, although if I'm not mistaken Amazon.com citations often have this "problem" even though the links go through smoothly. Long story short, it's probably not going to be an issue.
• All of the pictures should include altnernate text.
• I would link "studio album" in the introduction.
• Since the "Background" section is kind of small, you could probably merge them into one paragraph and add it to the "Development" section, which I would suggest renaming "Background and development".
• I would mention that the album credits are adapted from the liner notes of Trouble in the "Track listing" section, like how it is in the "Personnel" section.
• You might be interested in moving the "Release history" references into a separate column, although that is purely a matter of personal preference.

The article is definitely in good condition, and is well on its way to becoming an FA! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Woman Seeking Dead Husband: Smokers Okay, No Pets

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring this successfully through FAC as the first in what will hopefully be several featured articles in my Psych (season 1) topic. There is not too much to go on for this article. Only two major critics reviewed the episode, and there is not too much in the way of production information. However, this is probably the best article there could be with the provided info. My biggest concern is prose, since history has shown that I'm not the strongest writer. All comments appreciated.

Thanks, Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 00:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

General

• Your writing is repetitive in a lot of places. Something to look out for is variety in the way you construct your sentences. For example, take a look at the first para of Reception. The sentences begin "The episide was", "It aired", "The episode aired", "The episode was". See the pattern? Not a big deal for a GA but it will not pass for FA criteron 1 (brilliant prose).
• Here's an example fix: Instead of "The episode was rebroadcast by the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) on August 7, 2006, due to the network's struggling ratings.", you could write "Due to the network's struggling ratings, the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) rebroadcast the episode on August 7, 2006." That's an improvement not only because it introduces variety, but because I put the the subject of the sentence before the verb and object. Make sense?

I'm going to continue looking, but I won't make too many detailed prose comments since I think a lot of the sentences are going to have to be rewritten based on what I said above. You will probably have to work with a good copy editor. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Nanostim Leadless Pacemaker

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Thanks, Laurakoehler (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from EricEnfermero

I'm fairly new at PR but I am happy to leave a few comments.

• Should the article be moved at some point to Nanostim leadless pacemaker? It seems this is reflected in the company's literature.
• Per WP:LEAD, that section should summarize the body of the article. It shouldn't introduce significant facts omitted from the body.
• Are there independent sources that could replace some of the uses of the company's product information?
• I think that the article could benefit from some background on pacing before detailing the advantages of the Nanostim.
• The Advantages section doesn't list that many advantages. Maybe it's just a matter of titling the section differently.
• Check the article for redundant language such as "there still remains a considerable..." - WP:GOCE may be able to help.
• I would also try to avoid subjective language like "remarkable" and "unique", except maybe in direct quotes.
• "subjected to harsh environments and mechanical stress..." - not 100% clear on the harsh environments.
• There is extraneous punctuation in the Advantages section. Again, a GOCE copyedit may help.
• I would expect a History section to take a more chronological approach. I would start with the 1950s.
• "feasibility of these pacing systems has shown to be successful" - feasibility and success are different concepts.
• Because you talk about phases later, I would use a different term for the 1970 research.
• By "initial technical difficulties with intracardiac pacing", do we just mean the need for leads? That sentence needs a reference.
• How big is a traditional pacemaker? I'm assuming you mean the dimensions here.
• "catheter-based delivery system originating from the femoral vein" - imprecise; originates in a factory, not from a vein. May help to make those two separate sentences.
• Avoid the use of "currently" per WP:WTW; might use "as of" instead.
• Two references to Phase II trials. Should the second one be Phase I?
• I would like a little more specific information on risks of pacemakers and this device.
• There is no mention that Nanostim was its own company until it was purchased by SJM.

Good luck with this entry. It's a pretty fascinating topic! EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 09:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Penge

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the first time I visited it was a real mess - it lacked references and contained much anecdotal material. As I was born there I thought Penge should at least have an accurate Wikipedia entry and have done my best to improve it (with the help of other editors and despite the odd vandal).

I feel that it is now in reasonable shape and would like views on what needs to be done to improve it further. For a comparatively small area, is this article of excessive size or should the virtually unlimited space on Wikipedia keep being filled, as long as it is factual and referenced? Are there any omissions?

Along the way I have found that the Library at the House of Commons most helpful with such things as Ordnance Survey maps made for Electoral Boundary Redistribution which can fill the gaps between normal OS editions. Thanks, Bebofpenge (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at WP:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements for sections that have been missed, and it's probably worth your while to take a look at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing for style. To answer your specific questions, no it's not too long - Crystal Palace, London is double the length, but I would say that the Penge article goes into excessive detail in places whilst missing out whole sections elsewhere. For instance, the street name changes can go while the cultural references are excessive and could probably be halved at least. I know Penge is one of those places that attracts comment, but you need to think about quality over quantity, or "farming out" references to other articles. For instance, one scene of Buddha of Suburbia isn't worth a mention here, but might just about be worth mentioning in the Penge East railway station article. That applies to other aspects, in particular there needs to be some thought about the relationship with the Crystal Palace article. I know that originally it was all Penge, but there's no shortage of things to talk about and that area is well covered in the CP article so I'd concentrate on the bits that are more exclusively Pengian(?). Another thing is that the article is currently rather "listy" in places, I know it can't be avoided entirely but you should try to make the text more continuous. Le Deluge (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

• Lead should be about double the size. Select 3 or 4 of the most interesting/important facts and build the lead.

• Politics of area - labour or tory? embellish....

• Surely can enlarge Economy section?

• Take out the bullet points from Culture and community and Landmarks sections - should be able to write as prose.

• Need to cite Cultural references section.
  

---

Radial glial cell

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have completely redone the article. Minor fixes that may need improvement are fomating (commas, sentence structure) as well as wikilinks and flow. Please also comment on any content that you think should be added/changes.

Please also note that this is the first wiki page I have worked on, so any advice is appreciated!

Thanks, Anjely9 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Anjely9

Comments from EricEnfermero I notice that this request has been here for a while with no comments. I'm a nurse, and certainly no subject matter expert, but I'm happy to leave some comments. Mostly, I think that there are some opportunities to make the language a little bit more accessible to the non-scientist reader.

• Words like progenitor come up several times. I know you link to that term, but you might also explain in a few words, especially in the lead, where you're introducing the reader to the topic.
• Same thing for the use of unipotent and multipotent - may be better as "can divide into (one/multiple) cell types"
• "various varicosities or swellings" - is this a direct quote from Magini? Best to include an inline citation directly after a quote.
• "Additional early works that were..." - passive voice makes this a little confusing
• Functions section: I'm confused about whether Notch should be capitalized in this context.
• "first widely-accepted" - usually no hyphen after an -ly adverb.
• lowercase for glia in the Bergmann glia image
• lowercase for lissencephaly x 2
• See also: In most cases, we don't include wikilinks here if they've already been linked and discussed in the body.
• References: Some caps issues in the references. For journal names, each major word is usually capitalized.

These are some initial comments for at least a starting place. Strong work so far! EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Roku

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Just did a split on the article. Really need advice on clean up.

Thanks, Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

• Too many sentences star with "On date x,..." -see my tweaks

• I am not familiar with it and have no idea what it is at first read - it needs a description section of what it is before launching into the timeline.

• Is there any review/feedback/criticism that can be added? Any models/upgrades that worked better or worse than expected?

Good luck...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

---

COBOL

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would eventually like to nominate it as a Good Article. I've added a lot of content to it since the start of this year, but have had little interaction with other editors. A peer review would help find awkward passages and missing content.

Thanks, EdwardH (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

---

2013 NFL season

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback on changes I have recently made to the article and with an eye toward eventual nomination of this article as a good or featured article. I have made substantial changes to the article's structure which diverges from the pattern established by other NFL season articles (e.g. 2012 NFL season and 2010 NFL season). I feel that these changes enhance the article's coverage of its topic, but I would love to hear opinions from others. I have asked for comments from the NFL WikiProject, but have so far gotten no responses.

Thanks, — DeeJayK (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Shudde I have a few comments, these are only very brief, but if you want to nominate the article for GA I think they'll be useful.

• I'm not sure about having the article start with a list of tables. If it were to remain as is, I think I'd have an introductory paragraph for both Standings and Postseason giving context to the information. As it stands it will not be widely accessible.
• The lead could be expanded as per WP:LEAD
• In general, the article seems to be a collection of lists or bullet points. If this were in a print encyclopaedia would it be presented this way?
• I'd do your best to reduce things like jargon and geographically-biased terms. Even something like "4pm ET on March 12" makes little sense to a non-American. ET? What is that?
• How were things like "Notable events", "Scheduling highlights", "Major trades" decided? If there is a reason for the list of Major trades for example, then maybe say what the criteria are in a sentence or two at the beginning of the section.
• I think the article could do with a large multi-paragraphed prose section that would incorporate the major points from Notable events and Records and milestones. This would be a lot of work, but would make the article more encyclopaedic.
• I think some fancruft could be culled, and some of the more crufty material split off into separate articles. At the moment the article is > 200kb so this may be warranted as per WP:SPLIT.

I've got no doubts the article is well sourced and covers all the material it should. But like I said above I think it could do with a substantial prose section and some culling of the lists and bullet points (or the conversion of the bulleted stuff into paragraphs). Looks like a lot of work has gone into this, and is quite impressive, but just think a large prose summary of the season will make it bit better. Hope this helps. -- Shudde ^talk 03:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Response from DeeJayK

Thanks for reviewing the page and providing your feedback. These are all excellent points and I will work on implementing your suggestions into the article. I've got to admit that I find this article a bit tricky simply because so much of what is included is (or should be) covered in much greater detail in another article. For example, the individual team season articles, like 2013 Denver Broncos season, would be expected to have much more detail on the seasons and games of each team, the 2013 NFL Draft article covers the draft in more detail, the 2013-14 NFL playoffs article covers the playoffs and the Super Bowl XLVIII article covers the championship game. Because of this, I've had a hard time determining what really belongs in this article and in how much depth things should be covered. In some ways, this article really functions more as a hub from which readers can drill down into the more detailed coverage in these other article. Hence the over-reliance on things like lists. I guess a more thorough re-thinking of the structure is in order.

I've got some questions with regard to some of your more specific points:

• Re: jargon and geographical terms like time zones - when time zones are used I've made a point to link the time zone at least the first time it's presented in each paragraph. I'm not sure how one presents times without including this info. If you have any specific suggestions on what changes you would make, I'd love to hear it. Was there any other jargon that gave you pause?
• Re: fancruft - Can you be more specific on what you would consider "fancruft"? I assume you are referring to the rather long list of records and milestones. I agree this list is rather comprehensive — perhaps this is something that could/should be broken out into it's own article? Do you feel like that section could stand on it's own? Perhaps the list of awards should also be broken out? Are there any other sections that you feel contain trivia not worthy of coverage in this article (or at all)?

Again, I want to thank you for sharing your opinions. Once I have a chance to implement your suggestions would you mind if I reached out to you again to have you take another look? Thanks! — DeeJayK (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right that those other articles cover a lot of material in more detail, but that actually gives you the freedom to be selective in what you include in the article. It's going to be a summary of the season, and the quality is going to depend more on what you exclude than what you include. With 32 teams and 256 matches, you've obviously not going to be able to mention every match, and maybe not every team! My advice would be work backwards from those sides that progressed further in the season. A summary of the season would obviously include more information on the Broncos or Seahawks than say Washington. I would decide on what kind of length you want in the prose section, and then work from that. You may want to go into a little more detail than you'd like and then cull back, but that all depends on your writing/drafting style.

• Regarding more specific concerns, something like say "Awards and Statistics" (this should be "Awards and statistics" btw) could be split off, and a paragraph summarising it added. Some of the tables could remain, but only those you'd deem most notable.
• Just be careful of jargon, have a look at things like MOS:TIME for how best to present this information -- it just adds significantly to accessibility.
• Fancruft is just the material that only the die-hards would really care about. Things like "Schedule changes" -- is that 'The Texans–Chiefs game was moved from noon CDT to 3:25 pm CDT to accommodate "regional broadcast patterns" ' really very notable? Many of the things in "Records and milestone" would be pushing it as well. It's just about distilling down the things you think would be most broadly notable, and then splitting off the rest into a more specific article or list.

My main point is that you want to delist this article as much as possible and replace the lists with prose. It's a lot of work I admit! But it's my honest opinion that this would be the best way to improve the article. I'd be happy to have a look at the article in the future and offer further advice. -- Shudde ^talk 03:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Shudde:I've expanded the lead per your suggestion and I've also added a dozen-or-so paragraph prose section covering the highlights of the regular season. Some of the info previously included in lists has been worked into this section. The article remains a work in progress, but I'd like to get your opinion of the direction I am heading. Does the length of the lead strike you as appropriate? Do you approve of the tone and scope of the regular season section? etc. Thanks. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I've been inactive this week. I'm having a quick read at the moment. Regarding the lead:

• The prose could use a bit of a polish, but the material itself is not too bad.
• You may still want to try and reduce the jargon in the lead a little bit, although it's not too bad.

Having a read through the Regular season section:

• Be a little careful regarding the tense that you use. For example you say "Under the NFL's scheduling formula, each team plays each of the other three teams in their own division twice." But would it not be better to say "As per the season's NFL scheduling formula, each team played each of the other three teams in their own division twice." -- there are other instances of sentences like this.
• Also take a little care regarding regionalism. There is little point mentioned broadcasters outside the US (just as a WP:WEIGHT consideration). But rather than "The game was broadcast on NBC" would it better better to say, "In the US the game was broadcast on NBC" ?
• " put on an amazing show" -- this is a little WP:PEACOCK, and not very encyclopaedic -- "show"?)
• Check WP:UNITS regarding whether metres should be added after the use of yards (and other imperial to metric conversions)
• Ah, as you mention games outside the US you should definintely take a little care with regionalism, and probably should add conversions for units.
• Convensions such as " on the season at 0–3 " will not be familiar to all readers (that 0-3 means zero wins, three loses). I'm pretty sure there is a template ({{abbr}} maybe?) that can be used for this.
• Some of the information in this section may not be particularly notable. The Chargers and Raiders played an unusual late night game in the season's fifth week on October 6. The game, originally scheduled to start at 1:25 pm PDT, had to be moved to the evening to accommodate stadium schedules — Major League Baseball's Oakland Athletics, the Raiders' co-tenants of O.co Coliseum, had hosted the second game of the 2013 American League Division Series the previous night and stadium crews needed nearly 24 hours to convert the stadium from a baseball to a football configuration.[17] O.co Coliseum was only multi-purpose stadium which hosted both an NFL and an MLB team in 2013.[18] Although the stadium conversion was complete by 3:30 pm local time, an 8:36 pm kickoff was necessary to avoid conflict with NBC's Sunday Night Football, where the 49ers hosted the Texans at Candlestick Park across the San Francisco Bay. The Chargers-Raiders game was the latest game played on the west coast in league history and was broadcast nationwide on the NFL Network.[19] probably does not warrant an entire paragraph.
• " was the emotional return of Broncos quarterback" -- a bit editorial, not very encyclopaedic. Need to be careful of this, it's common in sports articles, but needs to be culled.
• Going into the final day of the season on December 29, eighteen teams remained in contention for the twelve available playoff spots. All sixteen of the week seventeen games (all of which were intra-division matchups) were played on Sunday and thirteen had playoff implications. All four division winners in the AFC had been determined, but all four NFC divisions were still up for grabs. -- this is the kind of thing that is very important and notable. It's a good summary of a single weekend of matches, as you can't discuss them all individually. I like it.

Finished reading the section. Like the lead it's got pretty good material but the prose could use a polish. But I'd worry about polishing after you've decided exactly what content you want. It's a great start, and I definitely think the article is heading in the right direction. Good work! -- Shudde ^talk 08:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Shudde: Thanks again for the thoughtful critique. No need to apologize for the delay, I understand how it goes. These are good points to consider. I was aware as I was writing that some of the prose was a bit flowery, but I wanted to get the gist down and figured I would come back and polish it up once the scope of the article was established. Thanks for keeping me honest on that. Also, the use of jargon is a difficult one, for a couple of reasons: 1) I'm so familiar with the game that I sometimes don't notice some of the terms may be unfamiliar, and 2) I'm hesitant to make the article a constant series of digressions into the terminology. Do you think it is sufficient to link to articles on some of the more obscure or obtuse terms the first time they are mentioned? I feel that an overwhelming majority of readers who reach this article will have at least a cursory understanding of American football terminology, and I want to be mindful of making the article too pedantic for them. How does one find the correct balance?

The only thing I might dispute is your suggestion to convert units to metric. Although I understand yards are not widely used outside the US, the measurement is integral to the sport (the field is 100-yards long, it is delineated every 10 yards, a team must gain 10 yards for a first down, etc.) Because measurement is so integral to the game, I believe that even outside the US Imperial units (primarily yards) are used exclusively and the measurement is widely understood by those who follow the game. The game's reticence to switch to the metric system may be one factor that limits its international appeal. All that said, I'll do some research into whether metric conversion is used by those who play or follow the sport outside the US. I presume you're a Kiwi, are you aware of any American football being played in your area? — DeeJayK (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that you replace imperial units with anything, rather that in some cases it may be worth having the metric in brackets afterwards. I'm sorry I wasn't clear about this. For example you may use {{convert}} to say 25 yards (23 m) rather than 25 yards. I think the main benefit of this is just to give people unfamiliar with imperial units some idea of what distances are being discussed, so I don't imagine it would ever have to be a very precise conversion. But have a careful read of WP:UNITS and follow whatever it says there -- I could be wrong about all of this. I'm a Kiwi yes. There is a little American football played in NZ but it's pretty rare -- people are a little familiar with it though, mainly because of American television etc. -- Shudde ^talk 23:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I understood your suggestion and I'm generally a big advocate of using the "convert" template to convert units to metric where appropriate, but I question whether such conversion is appropriate in the scope of an article concerning American football. I haven't seen any examples on WP of such conversion. I did look into British press coverage of the game and could find no examples therein where distance in yards were converted. I just think that in this particular situation, adding conversion would do more harm than good. I'm willing to be convinced, but I just don't think there's any precedent for that sort of conversion. Thanks. — DeeJayK (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Union Films

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to try and bring this to FAC and would like as much feedback as possible. Please note that I have been unable to find documentation on the actual business aspects of this company, and per Biran (2012) none may actually still exist.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cass

I have quickly skimmed through and this is what I have found on first glance.

• "...were established.[1] One of these was Union Films, established..." – Established/established
  • Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• "The fledgling company's first film..." – New para, new name.
  • Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• "It received positive reviews; the journalist Saeroen, for instance, wrote in Pemandangan" – redundancy of "for instance" IMO
  • Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• "marked the feature film debut of Djoewariah" – we are getting a lot of "films" or "film" words in this para.
  • Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Taking advantage of the growing intellectual movement by casting young doctor" – a young doctor?
  • Or "the", but I've used "a". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• "This April release..." – why, how many other releases were there? "This", I feel, is the wrong word to use.
  • Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Hu, however, remained with Union." "However" indicates a continuation of a previous sentence, but this is the start of a new paragraph?
  • Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• "forced to close shop" redundency of "shop".

The problem with this, it is echoing "closed" in the next sentence now.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Reworked to avoid both. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I am trying to think of a better way of wording this sentence: "In a period of two years, Union released seven films. All were feature length, black-and-white works, receiving wide releases in the Dutch East Indies." I just don't think the ending – "All were feature length, black-and-white works, receiving wide releases in the Dutch East Indies" – works well. How about "In a period of two years, Union released seven films; all were feature length, made in black-and-white, and received wide releases in the Dutch East Indies."
• Would Singapore qualify under WP:OVERLINK?
  • Both done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

All very minor, a nice little read. Cassianto^talk 08:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing. It may be a little read, but its already more detailed than any single source elsewhere. I really wish more documentation had survived. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've always been impressed with your work on these Indonesian articles. You do a great job with what little there is! Cassianto^talk 08:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Lede

• "in 1940, it produced seven black-and-white films between 1940 and 1942" to avoid the repetition, you could say "then" or "its founding" instead of the second invocation of the year.

• Tried reworking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

History

• The third sentence of the first paragraph could well be split.

• Tried reworking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• " in which a rich man leaves his community to suffer while a young couple try to make their way" This makes no sense to me.

• It is, admittedly, a somewhat complex plot and this summary is an oversimplification; I'll use the summary from the article proper. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Taking advantage" there's just too much loaded on the front end of this sentence.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• "follows a womaniser who abuses his status to gain women's trust" his status as ... a womaniser?

• Well-born (rich uncle). Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• "targeted the intelligentsia" As customers, or did they mock them in the film?

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• "had become concerned with the possibility of an invasion " this seems a bit long-winded

• Simplified. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Generally

• Is there any RS that speaks to evaluate the film company? Was it an artistic advance?

• "Artistic advance" seems to have been the favourite buzzword of reviewers. Almost every review I've read has been "x film shows positive developments in the Indies film industry", with a few examples. That Union attempted, early on and consistently, to target educated Native audiences was unusual, and possibly an indication of a nationalistic ideal which Biran claims was first shown in Darah dan Doa, but none of my sources discuss this. Asmara Moerni is part of the journal article I'm working on, but you know how long publication can take, and thematic discussions are best left in articles on the films / writer anyways. Very little has been written on the studio as an entity, from what I've been able to track down, and critical commentary on its role in the development of the Indonesian film industry is even more lacking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems very nice as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for reviewing, again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

• "When the Empire of Japan occupied the Indies in March 1942, Union was closed": As written, this implies that someone closed it. Maybe make explicit?
  • Pushed it in that direction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Production increased": "Film production"? It may be worth specifying this as we have just mentioned the Great Depression.
  • Give it a try. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• "and established to "improve the quality of Indonesian art"": Is this a quote from the company or from somewhere else?
  • Press release cited in Biran. Made explicit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• "who convinces a stingy hajji to be more charitable": Is stingy suitably encyclopaedic?
  • Tried "miserly". It's pretty much his defining character trait for most of the work: he accumulates wealth, but never spends any of it for the betterment of his fellow villagers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Djoewita was no longer acting for the company at this point. As such, the studio hired Raden Soekarno for the leading role of this late 1941 release.": I don't think "as such" quite works here.
  • Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Union was closed, never to reopen.": Like the lead, this reads as if they were forced to do so. Could this be clarified?

• Biran isn't quite explicit about who closed the film companies, although considering his use of collocation, the Japanese occupation's censorship, and their treatment of ethnic Chinese, I don't think there's much doubt it was the Japanese forces. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm assuming from your opening comment, and the reply to Wehwalt above, that there is very little other information that exists. We seem quite light on details, but as usual I don't see this as being a problem as long as we have covered everything that is known. And as usual, it reads very well and looks good. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• When I was at Sinematek Indonesia, the only internal documentation they had was from Java Industrial Film; this was recovered from the personal documentation of The Teng Chun. This is, sadly, not unexpected; the first attempts to document the early film industry and preserve early films were in the 1970s, whereas the documents from Union and other companies had to survive a world war/foreign occupation, four years of the Indonesian national revolution, and 30+ years in a hot, humid climate which has almost (some sacred manuscripts are well treated, but that's about it) no tradition of archiving. I'm not ruling out something surviving, but there's no indication where this could be, nor is there anything which cites such material. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

History

• "directed by new hires": is 'new hires' encyclopaedic?
  • I'd argue that it is, as it succinctly yet neutrally replaces "two recently hired individuals" or another more traditional phrasing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Jo An Djan having left": would "after Jo An Djan left" work a little better? (Your call, no bis deal one way or the other)
  • Tweaked, although I took a third option. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• Image caption: "A Dutch-language ad". I think "ad" may be a bit too informal for an encyclopaedia
  • Good point. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• "The film, in which of a young man who convinces a miserly hajji to be more charitable,": needs a tweak or two here
  • I'll admit it, I chuckled. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• "marked the debut of Djoewariah": acting debut may be useful?
  • Film debut would be safest, as it was quite common for stage actors to enter cinema at the time, and the fact that she had stage roles soon after the occupation began suggests she had previous stage experience. However, repeating "film" would be terrible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Djoewita was no longer acting for the company at this point": had she left? If so, perhaps, "Djoewita had left the company by this point" may be a little more clear (I initially thought she had moved into a non-acting role)
  • Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing more: as usual a high-quality, specialist article which will deserve its gold star shortly; please drop me a note when you go to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  

---

Lee Si-young

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm not sure what it should be start or higher.

Thanks, ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 16:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Dylan Thomas

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would eventually like to push the article forward for FAC status in time for the centenary of Thomas' death in October.

Thanks, FruitMonkey (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It is an excellent idea to prepare this as a featured article in time for Thomas's centenary in October (you mean of his birth, not his death). I hope to find time to review it properly; in the meantime here are a few points for consideration:

• I think that an writer of Thomas's stature needs a complete, rather than a "selected" list of works. This I think should be in a subarticle. What I would do is transfer the present partial list to List of works by Dylan Thomas, and then build it up to a full list.

Done. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• The present "Critical Reception" section looks very thin

Beefed up the Critical reception section. I will continue to read more into this. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Footnote content needs to be referenced as though it were text. Only one of these notes carries any citation at present.
  • Not sure how to do this with web cites, as you can't embed a normal wikicite inside a wikicite. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• In the references, David Thomas and Caitlin Thomas should be differentiated by initials. I could also find no citation to Caitlin's 1957 book, although it is listed as a source.

Done. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Back when I can; meantime congratulations to you and others on your excellent work to date on this article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

---

John Tyler

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
John Tyler was the unlikely 10th President of the United States, the first person to succeed to the presidency as a result of his predecessor's death. Wehwalt and I intend to take this to FA, and we'd appreciate your feedback.

Thanks, Designate (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutralhomer comments

According to Checkuser, there are a few references that need updated URLs. Refs #88 and #99 need access dates. Ref #139 is showing up as a deadlink. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, Elizabeth Tyler redirects back to the John Tyler page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, got those I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good on the reference front. The rest are just changes from "http" to "https", which the prefered is "http", so no worries there. Support; will leave the rest of the article up to the history buffs. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. This is my imperfect understanding of what reviewers are looking for at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)

• "led him to alliance": not wrong, but "led him to ally" and "led him to an alliance" are more common.
• "no attack came. and he dissolved": typo?
• " locally-generated funds": locally generated funds, per WP:HYPHEN.
• "Congressman's": congressman's
• "seats. and served from December 1823 to December 1825.": Personally, I'd delete the sentence fragment.
• "The office of governor was determinately powerless": The office of governor was powerless
• "By that time of Tyler's election": By the time of Tyler's election
• I got down to Presidential election, 1836. The writing is generally quite good. - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. —Designate (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton

 Doing... – in stages, over several days. A couple of minor points to be going on with:

• "Her husband elected to the House of Representatives of the Confederate Congress." Incomplete sentence in the Post-presidency section
• Tyler's no. 1 presidential ranking could be cited direct to Eland: Eland, Ivan (2009), Recarving Rushmore. The Independent Institute, Oakland CA. ISBN 978-1598-13022-5. Pages 14 and 77–82
• I think the "Legacy" section would be better placed before the family details, following on naturallly from the account of his death
• Link within Seager quote at end of article: we do not normally use wikilinks within quote, and the "Tippicanoe and Tyler too" link is given earlier in the article anyway.

I guess "just in case" the reader hasn't gotten the reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've only skimmed the article thus far; more considered comments will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I've done those to date except as noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

First main batch

Infobox

• I realise that presidential articles have a more or less standard format for their infoboxes, but is it really necessary to list all 15 of Tyler's children here? The general WP policy on infoboxes is that they contain brief, essential information concerning the subject; I don't think the children's names qualify as that, especially as they are listed again in the main body of the article. Why not summarise: "8 sons, 7 daughters"?

I've collapsed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• Suggest "notably" rather than "famously" in the first paragraph
• Third para: the words "on the death of the incumbent" are redundant (Harrison's death mentioned earlier in sentence)

It's not totally redundant, as J. Adams, Jefferson, and Van Buren (and later, George H.W. Bush) each succeeded by being elected president while vice president. Rephrased.

• "forstall" → "forestall" (unless there is a US variant not in OED)
• Redundant "still" in 2nd line para 4
• Last sentence requires a date: "In 1961 he sided..."

Early life and law career

• At the start: "John Tyler" → "Tyler"?

I tend to start from first principles at the start of the article body.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• "was born" repeated in first line
• Suggest delete "proudly"
• "Six rooms" doesn't suggest a "mansion" – especially on a 1200-acre estate.
• "went on to study law" → "studied law"

Start in Virginia politics

• Second para: the hostilities with Britain can't really be described as "in addition to" the infoghting over the national bank – they are unrelated problems. "As well as..."?

U.S. House of Representatives

• "Although he regarded slavery as an evil, and never attempted to justify it, he felt the federal government lacked the authority to abolish it, and never freed any of his slaves." A somewhat puzzling sentence: although he thought the federal government lacked the authority to abolish slavery, he could presumably free his own slaves; if he thought the institution "evil", why didn't he do so?
• "Tyler voted against the Missouri Compromise, which admitted both Missouri and Maine, and forbade slavery in states formed from the northern part of the territories." My knowledge of US history is insufficient for me to work out from this whether this means that Missouri was admitted as a slave state, or not.

Return to state politics

• "killed his proposal" – "his" needs clarification (Crawford last person mentioned)
• "he was considered in the legislative deliberation for the 1824 U.S. Senate election". This is too abstruse for the general reader. I guess it means that the legislature considered him in 1824 as a candidate for the US Senate; if so, can this be stated more plainly?

U.S. Senate

• Shouldn't it be to "re-elect" Randolph, since he was the incumbent?

He was appointed, and it looks like he served about a year and three months.

More soon Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Done down to here. Will respond to more later. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Next batch

done to end of "US Senate"

Democratic maverick

• "Opposing the nominations of a president of his own party was considered "an act of insurgency" against his party." Was considered by...?
• "He was particularly offended..." needs to be "Tyler was particularly offended" (the later "Tyler" can be "he")
• I would omit the "Still" which opens the fourth para

Break with the party

• I am getting muddled. Tyler was a firm opponent of the Federal Bank. When Jackson decides to abolish it, Tyler votes for its continuance because he didn't agree with Jackson's way of abolishing it? How did he think it should have been abolished? And why did Jackson's action create a threat to the economy, when the principle of abolishing the Bank presumably didn't? I am beginning to suspect that Tyler was an oppositionist, who found reasons for opposing even the measures that he agreed with.

Presidential election, 1836

• "Taylor remained at his Williamsburg house..." Tyler, I presume? And, unless I've misunderstood something, he didn't move to Williamsburg until the fall of 1837 (see next section)
• "but for the only time in American history, the vice presidential election was thrown into the Senate": why was this so? And "thrown into the Senate" would be clearer, to those unfamiliar with US political terminology, if reworded as "decided by the Senate"

National figure

• The content of the section does not really accord with the title. The main thrust of the section is Tyler's return to Virginia state politics and his unsuccessful attempt to recover his Senate seat. I'm sure a more appropriate heading could be devised.

Adding Tyler to the ticket

• Referring to Harrison as "General Harrison" might confuse; he was previously introduces as "William Henry Harrison". Why not just "Harrison"?
• It's some time since Clay was introduced as the Kentucky senator. To avoid "...Clay. "Clay..." you could reword: "Many northern Whigs opposed Clay..."

General election

• "This could not entirely be done..." There is a need to clarify "this" – the immediately preceding text refers to something else. Also, "done" needs to be followed by a full stop, not a colon.
• "In his journey of nearly two months..." – it took two months to travel from Williamsburg to Columbus?
• In the last sentence of the first para I would place "entirely" either just before, or just after, "avoided".
• (aside) I tried playing "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" on the piano – couldn't see how the words fit the tune. But I am a terrible pianist.

More to come. Great stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Third (penultimate) batch

Vice president

• I notice, up to this point, that both "Vice President" and "vice president" are used. Is there some point of principle that determines which of these applies? (I see that both versions continue in the rest of the article)

"His Accidency"

• "He considered the Presidential oath redundant to his oath as Vice President, but wished to quell any doubt over his accession." I am interpreting this as meaning: "He did not consider that taking the Presidential oath was necessary in addition to his existing oath as Vice President, but took it to quell any doubt over his accession." If I'm right, I think the present text needs a little clarification.
• To whom did he deliver his de facto inaugural?

Economic policy and party conflicts

• "its final version was not" → "its final version did not" (did not meet Tyler's objections)
• It's not clear to what "This practice..." refers
• "Secretary of State" should be linked at its earlier mention

Tariff and distribution debate

• I think some kind of note needs to be added to explain the circumstances in which Congress can override a presidential veto. (I see that an explanation is given in the next section, but I think it needs to be brought forward)

Impeachment attempt

• My understanding is impeachment of a president requires misuse of office – "high crimes and misdemeanors". What "crimes", as distinct from policy differences, was the Whig Congress attributing to Tyler?

Administration and cabinet

• No issues in this section

Foreign and military affairs

• "Tyler's difficulties in domestic policy were matched by adept accomplishments in foreign policy" – "matched" gives the wrong impression. Perhaps: "Tyler's difficulties in domestic policy contrasted with his adept accomplishments in foreign policy"?
• "drew the praise of" → "drew praise from"
• "Before such acts, Rhode Island had been following the same constitutional structure that was established in 1663." This reads as though Rhode Island was not under the US Constitution – some clarification necessary

Judicial appointments

• Polk has not been mentioned since the lead, so I would give him his full name, and a link

Will complete Friday or Saturday. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Last instalment

Annexation of Texas

• "Secretary Webster, opposed, convinced Tyler to focus on Pacific initiatives until later in his term." Does not read as a full sentence. Needs "who was" before "opposed".

Early attempts

• Where was Gilmer's letter published, and by whom was it well received?
• "...as his new Secretary of State, and nominated Gilmer to fill his former office." Confusion arises from "his" and "his" applying to two people. The second should be "Upshur's" – although this will create some repetition.

Princeton disaster

• "For Tyler, any hope of completing the Texas plan before November (and with it, any hope of re-election) was instantly dashed". I think you need to specifiy that it was the deaths of Tyler's political allies that delayed the completion of the Texas plan before the 1844 election, thus thwarting his re-election chances.

Ratification and 1844 election

• I can just about follow the politics – a fascinating series of plot twists. I don't think, though, that Polk was all that obscure; as a former Speaker and a former state governor, he knew his way around, and must have been a well respected figure in the party. Unexpected as a presidential candidate, though – I understand he received no convention votes at all in the first eight ballots.
• The section ends with an uncited statement.

Post-presidency and death

• A date or year for the Clay memorial speech would be useful.
• "...which eventually jointed the Confederacy" – I imagine this is a typo for "joined", but I'm never sure with AmEng (in BritEng, "jointing" is what butchers do to carcasses)
• "he made plans to return to Sherwood Forest for the 18th" – I'd say "on the 18th", to avoid the impression that the 18th was the date of some specific event.
• Slightly strange that you move from last words to burial; his death needs to be specifically mentioned. Perhaps "It is believed that he then suffered a fatal stroke".
• The information about the proximity of Madison's grave might be more usefully given in the image caption

Legacy

• I'm sorry to pursue the Eland theme, but in view of the marked discrepancy between his assessment and everyone else's, would it be wise to add an explanatory note, to the effect that Eland's rankings were based on his own interpretations of the concepts of "peace, prosperity and liberty"?

Family and personal life

• Some fascinating detail here: his daughter was alive after the Second World War! And two men alive in 2014 have a grandfather born in the 18th century, during Washington's presidency! Remarkable. I don't, however, see the relevance of the information added concerning Lincoln and Buchanan, and this could go.

Explanatory footnotes

• Unless providing mere clarification, these require citation in the same way as text.

That's all. A truly informative article, which gives an excellent context to the career of this little-known but undoubtedly interesting president. I look forward to the article's ongoing progress. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like Designate implemented many or most of your suggestions. At this point, I'm going to close this and nominate at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The Wonder Years

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is my personal favorite tv show, and yet, this article seems to be poorly written. Parts of it look like they were written by a sixth grader (the Setting section, in particular, is just godawful, particularly the last sentence which frankly makes very little sense). It also seems to be quite lacking in a few areas. For example, there is little to no info about what went on behind the scenes, how actors were cast, etc. This article needs a thorough overhaul if we want to see it get to a good article status. Basically, all I am looking for is for someone more experienced than me (I am new to Wikipedia) to review the article, identify the problem areas of it, and get it to the attention of whatever group(s) (ie. Wikiproject Television) can fix the article in the near future, hopefully ASAP.

Thanks, Twyfan714 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Twyfan714: The peer review system (like the GA, A-class, and FA-reviews) are meant to have other editors tell you what you need to fix. Don't be surprised if no one pitches in to help you.

Comments from Chris troutman

This is from WikiProject Television:

• The article meets the six B-Class criteria:
  • The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional, but not required.
  • The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  • The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  • The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.
  • The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  • The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

My comments to that end:

• I agree the long section about the final episode/epilogue should get chopped down considerably.
• I disagree with the comment you left on the talk page about spoilers; see WP:SPOILER
• Article needs to adhere to MOS:TV
• Huge sections of the text are entirely unsourced. An encyclopedic study of the show has to come from secondary sources. It should never be what is gleaned from watching the show.
• I would consider moving the "supporting cast" section to a "List of Wonder Years characters" type article or cut it off entirely.
• There should be more discussion of the show's impact, etc. I know it got made fun of in an episode of the Simpsons.
• Per WP:LEDE the lede should ideally have no sources at all, since the lede should summarize material already in the body. Hence, some of the current lede should be in a "Background" paragraph in the body. The lede will need to be rewritten as you better balance and develop the body, anyway.
• You have only three sources and a couple disparate sentences talking about the use of music in the show's soundtrack and the subsequent editing since the TV execs are too cheap to pay royalties. There should ideally be more discussion of that, especially since this show is likely affected more than others. (Imagine doing Miami Vice without Jan Hammer.)
• You have only two pictures. There's nothing else that is public domain or fair use?
• You have no discussion of the show's production or direction.

It sounds like you want to get this article to B-class, and nominating it for GA after that. It's going to take gathering every publication that ever talked about this show to get it there. Hope that helps. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I just want to clarify that I didn't necessarily make huge sweeping changes to this article. Rather, I wanted to get a review so I (and others) could get a good idea of where to start. As for my comment about spoilers: I was unaware of the Wikipedia guidelines in that regard. I simply was confused over the inconsistencies in TV show articles. Anyways, I'll try and see if I can edit some things, but as you pointed out, it's going to take a LOT of work! I'll try and do my part though. Thanks again! One last thing: What did you mean when you said, "The peer review system (like the GA, A-class, and FA-reviews) are meant to have other editors tell you what you need to fix. Don't be surprised if no one pitches in to help you."? Did I not follow the correct procedure for a peer review? Twyfan714 (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Twyfan714: Your request is fine; no worries. I mention it because typically editors ask for a peer-review because they don't know what else they can improve and they want a "freebie" review ahead of a formal submission to the GA, A-, or FA reviews. It also sounded like you were more interested in seeing the improvement made rather than doing it yourself. It does occur to me that you might try the reward board. You can post a request (like "get this article to B-class") with an max expiration of one year, and promise a barnstar or something like that. It's essentially the only permissible way to hire help. Good luck. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Thanks for the response! I suppose I'll do what I can to edit the article but also submit it to the reward board as well. That does sound like the only solid way that this article can get improved effectively, because right now it is pretty poor. In the meantime, I will edit what I can do (ie. I have already chopped down the summary of the final episode, and plan on putting in some background info of the show with reliable sources), and I'll see if this article can be saved. Cheers! Twyfan714 (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

---

China, IL

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on nominating it as a good article. I originally planed to do this much sooner since I had expanded it, but chickened out and sort of left it alone. While I'm confident the article is expansive enough regarding the show's production and reception, the prose and summarizing of quotes may need some work, as is evident in the "Production" section.

Thanks, Whisternefet (t · c) 04:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

---

List of Bleach chapters (1–187)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback about changes if this article need some cause I would like to nominate it for a featured article.

Thank you for your time, (Nightwolf87 (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC))

Comments by DragonZero

• Remove leading zeros
• deadurl=no for archive links
• Update Viz links to live versions
• Put the chapters in single column. Depending on zoom, seeing chapters take more than one line is very very ugly.
• Update with 3 in 1 edition and digital volumes. Make an extra table for it. An example would be like List of Rozen Maiden volumes#Shinsōban.

Take this advice for the other chapter lists and close the request for PR all but this one. The only difference would be prose, which I don't feel like checking right now. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Lucia Black

• Online versions of the same volume is practically the same one. Shinsoban/3-in-1/Onnibus editions are collected versions, hence not the same thing as 3 separate volumes. Lucia Black (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  

---

Proteus (video game)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been at Peer Review twice already, receiving no comments either time, and has recently been at FAC. The FAC received a limited response and was not promoted; I'm requesting a peer review with the aim of the next FAC going smoothly. My main concerns currently are that of quality of writing, but I would also like comments on other aspects of the article.

Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• FAC

Did you address all of J Milburn's and Masem's complaints? Tezero (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe so. I've added a link to the FAC above. Sam Walton (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Well, I fell off a cliff there, didn't I? Sorry for the extreme delay, but the good news is I didn't have much to pick at. It's a solid article, I think well on its way to FA class. Some thoughts:

• Given the FA criteria for high quality verifiability, I would strongly suggest manually archiving or appending autoarchived links for all the online refs (Archive.org, webcitation.org, or… another one that escapes me for pure text). Better to do it now than before it gets difficult!
  • ON the same vein, add publishers to the cite webs.
• …commenting on how it guided them through the game— feel like this could use a little more, maybe a quote from one of them… how did the music guide them? It's not thoroughly explained in the gameplay section so I feel like we need some background here.
  • I've reworded this, the previous wording made it sound like the audio guides the player from A to B though it doesn't. Sam Walton (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Images are freely licensed wit the appropriate info and licenses, look good.
• I went through and performed some light line edits.

Other than that I didn't find much to fault. Coverage seems broad and comprehensive, didn't see any issues with the selection of sources used. Haven't had a chance yet to perform a spot-check to make sure sources are being used appropriately. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Digor people

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just made some translations from ruwiki. I need a general review regarding the grammar and other issues.

Thanks, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

llywrch writes

I've given the article a copy edit for grammar & fluency; it wasn't that bad before, so I hope my edits improved it. There are a few statements, though, that I expect would be flagged as needing citations. -- llywrch (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley Miles

• "in USSR was considered a separate language until 1937" - what happened after that?
• The census numbers the Digor in hundreds and estimates 52,000 - why the discrepancy (and why does the Digor dialect article say 100,000?
• The article is short of references, particularly on the crucial last two sentences of the first paragraph and the first three sentences of History.
• An interesting short article but needs more work on clarification and references. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  

---

1998 FA Charity Shield

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The 1998 FA Charity Shield was played between Arsenal and Manchester United, two of English football's well-documented clubs. I'd like to nominate this article at FAC, hence why I've listed it for a peer review. Any sort of comment would be welcome, particularly to check if the summary reads 'encyclopedic'. Thanks, Lemonade51 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments –

• "The match saw United captain Roy Keane start his first competitive game, since damaging his cruciate ligaments 18 months ago and defender Japp Stam making his competitive debut for the club." First, the comma should probably be removed, and second, "making" should be "make" so that the tenses of that and "start" match.
• Minor, but the space before the reference in the match detail table could stand to be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Giants2008, have made corrections. Lemonade51 (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Shudde:

• " the winners of the previous season's Premier League and FA Cup competitions" -- can probably cut "competitions" is clear from context that's what these are.
• "It was contested by Arsenal, who won a league and FA Cup double the previous season, and Manchester United, who finished runners-up in the league on 9 August 1998" -- at the moment this reads like Man U finished runners up on 9 August, rather than that the Charity Shield was played on that date. How about -- "It was contested on 9 August 1998 between Arsenal – who won the League and FA Cup the previous season – and Manchester United – who had finished runners-up in the league." Or something like that.
• "between the top professional and amateur teams of each season" -- "of the season"?
• "initially contested between the top professional and amateur teams of each season" -- this isn't supported by the reference. Rather it seems to have been between the Southern and Football League winners.
• "Wembley Stadium acted as the host of the Shield." -- this needs a little expansion/clarification. Have they always, or only in 1998?
• "with the first game in midweek" -- English
• "He nevertheless relished the match" -- this is not very encyclopaedic -- cut it or find a quote
• "whose attempt forced David Seaman to clear" -- might want to clarify that Seaman was the Arsenal keeper, just makes that whole sequence a little clearer
• "ball first time past Schmeichel" same here. Without this it's not even clear a goal was scored.
• "showed that Arsenal had what it takes" -- "had what it took"

Generally the prose seems pretty good, but I'm not the best person to give feedback on that. An overall concern I have with the article is that is does not really give a clear historical view on why the match was important -- or what lasting notability it had? Nearly all of the references are from 1998/1999, but it's been over 15 years since the match -- do people ever write about/talk about it now, or is it just forgotten? So outside of the context as a bit of a warm up for the 1998-99 season, the article doesn't make clear how important this match was. -- Shudde ^talk 00:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Shudde. Charity Shield matches don't tend to be memorable; the press consider it as a 'glorified friendly' and managers treat it like a warm-up to the league season. This wasn't a notable affair, there's next to nothing written about the game today, and it had little bearing on United or Arsenal's season. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro:

• "The match saw United captain Roy Keane": I never like this construction, as the match can't see anything, and it is sports-speak.
• "Manchester United began the game the better of the two, but conceded 11 minutes before half time through Marc Overmars": The first part of the sentence is clumsy (Maybe "began the game more effectively"?) and I can't see the second part making much sense to non-footballers. What about "but Arsenal took the lead when Marc Overmars scored 11 minutes before half time"? And should half time be hyphenated?
• "good play from Overmars and Anelka found Christopher Wreh to put the ball into an empty net at the second time of asking.": This is sports speak again, and who says it was good play? POV?
• "when Anelka evaded Stam in the penalty box to shoot past goalkeeper Peter Schmeichel.": And more sports speak.
• "Arsenal's win marked the first time a southern club had won the Shield outright in 36 years.": And I can see this being meaningless to the general reader, or to anyone outside the UK.
• "Arsenal manager Arsène Wenger described the scoreline as "unexpected" and felt the result was a psychological boost for the coming season, whereas Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson admitted his team were beaten by the better side on the day.": This is crying out for a comment on how the season transpired for both teams, and I'm not sure that "whereas" is justified here.
• "a winning streak of nine matches ensured Arsenal won the title, culminating with a 4–0 win over Everton on 3 May 1998.": How can they win the title culminating in a win? Should this be "a winning streak of nine matches, culminating in a 4–0 win over Everton on 3 May 1998, ensured Arsenal won the title."
• "He felt the contest with Arsenal would get his "players' sharpness up and provide plenty of benefit" for their upcoming matches.": Something wrong with the punctuation here.
• "Dennis Bergkamp partnered Nicolas Anelka upfront.": Sportspeak?
• "Manchester United began brightly": Hardly encyclopaedic.
• "with their midfield coping well against Arsenal's pair Patrick Vieira and Emmanuel Petit": Try to avoid the construction "with [noun] [verb]ing"
• "having partaked in France's successful World Cup campaign.": Should be partaken, but not sure this is the best word anyway. Why not just "taken part"?
• "Vieira chipped the ball over the United defence, which met Bergkamp": Did the ball or the defence meet him?
• "A shot by Keane from "25 yards" prompted a save from Seaman, three minutes before the break.": Why does this need quotation marks?
• The whole summary section reads uncomfortably like a newspaper report, and the use of quotations for short phrases is a little jarring.

Generally, the article is serviceable, but as you say above, the game was not a big deal at the time or later. The competition is one of the more pointless ones, and that even comes across from the comments made at the time and reported in the article. Through no fault of the writer, this atmosphere of "so what?" permeates the article, and makes it a slightly dreary read. And I'm not too sure there is much that could be done about that. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at the article Sarastro. I've made adjustments, in particular removed quotations from the summary and some short quotes in the post-match section. It was an dull game, but I do think this is worth a shot at FAC because I do feel there's nothing more to add in terms of coverage -- it's just prose that lets it down. I'll try to pick a more interesting topic for you and others to review next time. :) Lemonade51 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Clark Kent (Smallville)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to take this to a featured article review. I want to know if there are any glaring confusions about the page, as well as any suggestions for improvements that could help the FAC process go smoother. It has been a long time since I nominated an article for FAC.

Thanks,  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Russo-Georgian war

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article describes the event that was the first significant military crisis in Europe since the Balkan wars. I've mostly rewritten the article, condensed the very long sections, fact-checked with the sources and changed the formatting. The article is almost ready to be nominated for FA review, but any constructive comments will be welcome that will make it even better.

Thanks, UA Victory (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think commanders section in infobox could use some cleaning. Ranks and position titles should be removed. Also too many politicians, C-i-C + Defence Minister should be enough for politicians, so I would remove Gurgenidze, Lomaia, Merabishvili, Putin and Barankevich. Finally military commanders selection seems also messy, for example I have some doubts about Yamadayev being important enough to deserve a spot then 19th division commander is missing.--Staberinde (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed the ranks. As for the politicians, I checked and except Gurgenidze, all of them took some part in the war. --UA Victory (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone who takes part automatically deserves a spot in infobox. Its purpose is to be short and informative, not include everyone involved. Template:Infobox military conflict: For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. Currently Russian side has 14.--Staberinde (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed Putin (not militarily involved) and Yamadayev (not major commander) from the commanders' list. Now there are 7 important Russian leaders listed. As for Abkhazian and South Ossetian commanders, they are regarded as separate combatants for the statistical purposes.--UA Victory (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

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

• "with Georgian, North Ossetian and Russian Joint peacekeeping force present": with a Georgian, North Ossetian and Russian joint peacekeeping force present
• "Increasing tensions escalated": Tensions escalated
• "as early as August 1, thus drawing": as early as August 1, drawing
• "during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, in ": the night of 7 August in
• "August, in an attempt to reclaim the territory. ... Georgia successfully captured most of Tskhinvali within hours.": August, and recaptured most of Tskhinvali within hours.
• "It stated": Journalists generally avoid calling people "it" (even though that's the logical pronoun to substitute for "Georgia"). Who stated that?
• "Russia reacted": I acknowledge that "reacted" is commonly used on Wikipedia and elsewhere to describe how a conflict unfolded, and I'm not saying it's wrong here ... just be careful not to say "A did this, B reacted, A did that, B reacted", because that appears to assign all the blame to A (which is of course fine ... if all your sources assign all the blame to A).
• "Russian naval forces allegedly blockaded": "allegedly" is a tough word to use correctly, and it's probably not the best approach here. Given what the sources say, do you personally believe that they enforced a blockade? If so, you might simply remove "allegedly", or you might attribute the statement, if the statement is controversial (but probably true, as far as you can tell).
• "were able to enter uncontested Georgia and temporarily occupy the cities": temporarily occupied the Georgian cities
• "by the French presidency of the European Union": by the President of the European Union (or: by X, President of the European Union)
• "mostly completed pulling most of its troops out of uncontested Georgia.": pulled most of its troops out of Georgia. (or: ... out of Georgia proper.)
• "to be occupied by Russian military.": to be occupied by Russia.
• I got down to the end of the lead section. I don't know since I haven't read past that point, but this probably isn't ready for FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I did correct everything you suggested. But you should take into consideration that when I was working on the article, I mostly paid attention to factual accuracy rather than just copy-editing. --UA Victory (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

And there's nothing wrong with that ... many writers do a better job when they don't think about copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Abbey Road

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like further feedback on how to improve it before considering nominating it as a Featured Article Candidate.

Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Hinukh people

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just made some translations from ruwiki. I need a general review regarding the grammar and other issues.

Thanks, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Since they only live in two villages in Dagestan, it would make sense to give the names of these two villages.--Pharos (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I notice there is an article in The Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire that focuses on the history of one of the villages [8], indeed the one that shares its name with the ethnic group as a whole. Perhaps this source could be used somewhat. Also, does this mean that one is the "original" village, and the other is a later settlement?--Pharos (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The first one is the parent village, and its name in fact is the name of the group (with mispronunciation in Russian). Second settlement was founded in the end of the 18th century and its population consists of Avars, Hinukhs (which are still considered to be a subgroup of Avars) and Dargins. But unfortunately I could not find any written source about when they resettled there. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

---

North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been drastically overhauled in an attempt to reach GA and eventually FA ratings. I would appreciate a peer review to help identify any opportunities for improvement to the article

Thanks, Educatedblkman1914 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Drakengard

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the article seems in a good enough state to consider as an FAC. But I wish to have other editors comment on what the article might need before that point, or if it can be upgraded at all.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from CR4ZE

I reviewed the article's GAN and it was an easy pass at that level. I do, of course, have a couple of suggestions.

• Drop the Distribution field from the Infobox if it's not notable or ambiguous. (see Template:Video game reviews#Guidelines).

• Oops. I meant Template:Infobox video games#Syntax guide. "Use this field (media) for games where at least one of the platforms it was released on uses several types of media (e.g. Windows, MSX), or leaves the method of distribution ambiguous." CR4ZE (t • c) 07:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the lede is all plot but no gameplay.
• Try to reduce instances of "the game". "It" will often suffice. There are six instances of "the game" in the last paragraph of the lede, for example. Plenty more throughout the body of the article.
• The only thing that I feel the article is missing in terms of content is some more on its reception in Japan. I'd be trying to track down something from Famitsu, for example. Surely they would've run a review on the game?
• The two-line paragraph about the mobile phone port in Gameplay is a little awkward. I'd be looking at ways it could be merged into another paragraph (is there somewhere in Development?) or expanded to a three or four line paragraph.
• Gameplay could use more wikilinks, particularly for things like level cap, experience points and other game terms.
• The last paragraph on the alternative endings of the Story could do with a little snipping.

That's it really. Running the article through a copy-edit wouldn't hurt, but otherwise it's a well-written article that wouldn't fare too badly at FAC. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I've got a lot of them cleared up. Anything else? Do, please do, point anything out. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It didn't click to me that the first paragraph of the lede had covered the gameplay. Although, it probably fits better in the second paragraph anyway. The other changes look good, too. I'd say that the article would do well at FAC and I'd be moving to support. I'll continue to go through the article and look at how to keep the prose squeaky-clean. I'd keep this peer review open for a little while longer to get some feedback from other editors first, of course. Overall, it's a great article. CR4ZE (t • c) 08:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

---

2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm aiming to eventually get it to GA status and require input from others to achieve that aim. Currently the structure and the specific statistics seem to be correct but I would be grateful for any comments on the grammar, language and attribution improvements.

Thanks, => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 22:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Following a quick scan, I like the use of sourced prose in the article in addition to listing results. However, I am concerned that it is heavily reliant for sourcing on either Norwich's own website or the BBC. No issue with either of these being used, but the season must have been covered in detail in other sources? Fenix down (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with the mixture of sources for the main text of article as they're a mixture of BBC, Sky, local media an others. The reason the BBC and The Pinkun is used so heavily for the reports are that they provide more info including the attendance etc. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 09:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Oldelpaso

The article does a reasonable job of telling us what happened over the course of the season. What it doesn't tell us much about is why things happened, or why any of it mattered. By which I mean to say there isn't much wider context. Norwich were coming off the back of their highest finish for 20 years, and embarked on a spending spree without precedent in their history. To me this is a story of heightened expectations that were quickly dashed, and turned into the desperate struggles of the relegation-bound. That doesn't always come across.

• Division names are proper nouns and should be capitalised.
• The season has finished, so the past tense should be used.
• "with only a period in September and October in the relegation zone" and May...
• I'd be tempted to start off with a short paragraph about what happened last season to help set the scene.
• Grant Holt had finished the preceding four seasons as Norwich's highest goalscorer. The reasons for his departure deserve more explanation.
• The bit about Lambert should be reworded to explicitly name him as the former Norwich manager, the current wording kind of assumes we know this.
• "The rebuilding task for the 2013–14 season" do you rebuild while on an upward trajectory?
• By Norwich's standards, this was an extraordinary spending spree, including club records. This merits some comment.
• "Hooper signed for £5 million a figure that was less than was offered in January 2013" What offer? Would be better worded as something like " Norwich first attempted to sign Hooper in January 2013, but Celtic rejected the offer. (needs reference, and the perhaps the value of the offer) Six months later Hooper moved for a lower fee, £5 million."
• Almost every paragraph from Premier League Season starts "(month) started with (result)", and ends "(month) finished with (result)". This gets repetitive.
• Hull aside, the explanations about European qualification on the snippet of the league table are irrelevant.
• Did Norwich field weakened sides in the cups, or a full team?
• There must have been some analysis of the team's strengths and weaknesses over the season. Even if its just superficial stuff like worst attacking record in the division, or a tendency to get tonked when away to big clubs. It might be worth looking through Michael Cox's tactical columns for The Guardian, to give one possible source.
• Can you find any suitably licensed images from during the season? If you're desperate I took a couple of low quality photos from our end when we visited [9].
• I wouldn't regard caughtoffside.com as a reliable source.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It does, a lot. I've still got to take a look the items including the repetitive wording onwards. I'm struggling for images though. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 10:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

---

From a Basement on the Hill

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This article has neither quality nor importance rating, and as other pages about Elliott Smith are at Feature Article Status, there should be enough ongoing interest from the user-editors to review this article. Suggestions on everything from content, layout, NPOV, background would be appreciated-- a few friends and I have made basic edits to start the process of improving this article, but we would like to see where it could go, so that there is accurate and relevant information available to those curious about Elliott Smith's last album. Page views are not phenomenal. I'm hoping this will increase traffic, as well.

Thanks, Raespecs (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Richard3120:

Hi Raespecs – firstly I would change the order in which the sections run to something like Background > Production > Track information > Release > Critical reception > Track listing > Personnel > Chart positions. This would more closely follow the album article style guide and it would flow better. I would then think of perhaps merging the 'Production' and 'Track information' sections to one section perhaps titled 'Recording and production', I'm not sure there's enough to warrant a separate section for 'Track information'.

• End of lead section and also critical reception section, where the same sentence is repeated – "such as the incorporation of instrumental passages, as well as...": there should be a comma after "passages".
• Second sentence – change to simply "Recorded between 2002 and 2003,..."
• 'Background' section – check all the quotation marks and apostrophes in this section, some of them look non-standard to me. Also take out the spaces between the references at the end of the first paragraph in this section.
• Second line of 'Background' section – The Reykjavík Grapevine is a publication so should be written in italics.
• Third line of ' Background' section – "Coast to Coast" has no dashes in its title.
• Second paragraph of 'Background' – "It is a well known fact...": I am certain that other reviewers will ask for a source for this fact (not denying that it is true, just that it needs to be sourced).
• First paragraph of 'Production' section – the track is called "Ostrich & Chirping", not "Ostriches & Chirping".
• The critical reception section will probably need to be expanded. I am assuming (forgive me if I'm wrong!) that you are American: I am British and may in a month or two be able to get hold of the reviews from the two British publications cited, NME and Mojo, in order to get some quotes from them. I am certain that Q would have reviewed the album as well, and that's the UK biggest selling music magazine, so it's an important addition.

Hope that helps, for starters: then we might be able to see where else the article needs improving. Richard3120 (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the speedy and thorough evaluation! I've applied your suggestions to the article, I really appreciate your help with this. You assumed correctly (good ol' Midwestern U S of A) and perspective from across the pond is very much appreciated!! I'll try to keep a closer watch on this page, sorry for the delayed response. Raespecs

No problem – like I said, it'll be June at the earliest before I can take a look at those past copies of UK music magazines, so I'll get back to you then if I find anything. Richard3120 (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, I've now added some reviews from various music papers: if anything, I might have made this section too long now, but it can always be edited down. I think the 'background' section needs to be amplified a bit: I have information regarding the album's recording, and I think the Under the Radar interview provides some interesting background as to Smith's intentions for the record. Richard3120 (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

---

United Airlines

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article seems to need some help, so the article can become a GA, as the old GAN was not successful. Thanks, WooHoo! • Talk to me! 01:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Armenian Genocide

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the centennial is coming up (April 24, 1915). I think it's a good idea to have it looking nice until then.

Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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

• Have the issues identified in the old FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armenian Genocide/archive1) been addressed?
• "The word genocide was coined in order to describe these events.": According to the cited source, Lemkin coined the word to describe the Holocaust. Most readers would take "these events" to be the events you're describing in that paragraph.
• "grouped together under the name Armenian millet (community)": In what way were they grouped?
• "There, the Armenians were subject": Where?
• "system held up in Muslim countries": "held up" isn't the phrase you want here.
• "if we want to appreciate what uncontrolled Turkish rule meant, alike to Armenians and to Greeks. It did not mean religious persecution; it meant unutterable contempt... They were dogs and pigs; and their nature was to be Christians, to be spat upon": Does this provide actual and relevant information about the treatment of Armenians? If not, then the tone isn't encyclopedic.
• "... by Christians and Jews was inadmissible in courts of law; they ...": Does "they" refer to Christians and Jews, or just Christians? - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the extensive review. I'll make some adjustments accordingly. I'd also appreciate it if other users, such as Armen Ohanian (talk · contribs) and Diranakir (talk · contribs) to have a look at this and provide their two cents as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dank: I made the necessary changes. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Justin Bieber

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because before renominating GA, I would like other users' opinion on the article.

Thanks, Shane Cyrus (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Amy Rose

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Wisp (Sonic)'s current FAC isn't looking promising, and I'd like to work on another potential Sonic character FA in the meantime. I first began working on this in February, put it aside for a while to watch Sonic X, then began work a few days ago, nominated it for GAN a couple days later, and saw today that it had passed. Anyway, life story aside, I'm wondering particularly about the following issues, though as always, all comments are appreciated.

• The GA reviewer suggested I trim down the "In video games" section. A little seems reasonable, even though Amy's a decently known gaming character who's appeared in numerous plot-driven games, but I'm not sure what would best be taken out.
• Awkward wording? This is a rather nitty-gritty issue, so I'd be happy even with only a few pointers of glaringly bad writing, if applicable.
• A couple of times in "Conception and visual design", I refer to images when I cite information about Amy's past coloring/design changes. Is this WP:OR? If so, how much of that can I leave in?
• Is "In animation" too long? If so, what seems excessive?

Tezero (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I really don't like Patricia Hernandez, but could this be useful? Tezero (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give a basic rundown:

• I don't know about trimming so I can't comment here and I'm not terribly good at prose either.
• Here are some I think could use improvements:
  • Instead of: "Her name was given inconsistently in previews of the game: variously as "Rosy the Rascal", "Princess Sally" (actually the name of a character from the Sonic the Hedgehog TV series), and "Amy". Amy's design was changed to its current state in Sonic Adventure, now incorporating a red dress and red shoes" how about "Her name was given inconsistently in previews of the game such as "Rosy the Rascal", "Princess Sally" (which is the name of another character from the Sonic the Hedgehog TV series), and "Amy""?
  • "Without playability, Amy has had roles in numerous other game plots." I'd go with "Amy has had roles in numerous other game plots as a non-playable character."
• You can also request a copyedit if you are concerned any other awkward writing.
• I can't quite put my finger in it, but I do feel the animation part is too long, perhaps it's because Sonic X isn't canon. I feel same way about comics so I guess "In other media" would be appropriate? It's your call.
• Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Kotaku's reliability depends on the author. So in this case, I would check Patricia Hernandez's background to see if she constitutes as a reliable source or not.
• Other than that, I would use Master Chief (Halo) as a point of reference since it's the only FA-class video game article about a fictional character.
• The disambig links tool found one link to an article that needs to be disambiguated.
• There are two dead refs according to the external links too. Use the WayBack Machine to see if there's an archived page or look for an alternate source for the information the refs are supporting.

• There were three, it seems. Removed one, archived one, and am looking for a replacement for the last. Tezero (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope the reviews has been helpful. Good luck on your FAC! Cheers! Erick (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to fix these up today, except for the copyedit, which make take longer. Thanks! Tezero (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Mine Is Yours

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel like this could have a chance at being a possible GA but many things keep it from it. The "Background and Recording" and "Music and Lyrics" sections seem to harm it; as far as how much detail I should put into it and if I should put quotes and pictures in it. This is the first article I've written with much detail and time put into it and I would love to hear your opinions on what more I can do to improve it.

Thanks, DepressedPer (talk) 29 April 2014, 08:37 (UTC)

I'll probably have to do this a bit now, a bit later (I'm in class). This will be some first impression things.

• The "Deluxe Edition" cover seems like ambiguous fair use. The cover doesn't differ significantly from the primary cover, and doesn't really add anything to the article.
• Lead is good. Opening sentence might need to be broken up. I'd end it after "...indie rock band Cold War Kids" and reword the release information. Further, there shouldn't be a "the" before Cold War Kids if that isn't the name of the band (which it doesn't appear to be).
• "Background and recording" could definitely use some expanding, but what is there now is good.
• "Music and lyrics" could be a good spot to throw a picture or two in.
• Still on "Music and lyrics", "differ strongly" seems unnecessary and sounds weird. I'd suggest dropping the "strongly".
• Noting that the interview was with 'Spin feels unneeded, just cut that opening and start with "Willett explained that Cassavetes'..."
• "men-women relationships:" Why does this end in a colon and not a period?
• "Many critics noted that the production throughout the album was reminiscent of bands like..." Yet only one critic is sourced for each example. I'd say find more critics that say this, or remove it.
• "Singles" is solid, but I don't like the YouTube reference for Louder Than Ever's music video. Surely there's a better source for this.
• "it at a Pioneertown concert on November 5". Which November 5? Year should be specified.
• "several appearances in music festivals and talk shows" Should be "at musical festivals..."
• The list of all touring locations needs to go. It's just clutter. If the tour is notable enough for its own page, move it there, but it doesn't belong on the album page. Also, if there are photos from this tour, get them in here.
• "who we're divided by the change". This should be obvious.
• "a normalised rating out of 100". This is an American band, isn't it? Should this be in American English?
• "He also said that the album will divide fans saying '[So] there’s a give and take at work on Mine Is Yours, one that fans of their earlier work will either love or hate.'" Unneeded quote, end it after "divide fans", or say that he believed the album would be divisive or something. No need for more quotes than are necessary.
• "'Longtime fans are apt to be disappointed by the change in direction, which for sure renders the band less unique.'" First half of this is redundant, second half could easily be paraphrased. "Mikael Wood of the Los Angeles Times also commented on the divisive take the fans will have with the album, as well as its removal of the band's uniqueness" or something similar.
• Heather Phares review can also be paraphrased. "Heather Phares noted the album's newfound polish and maturity differing from the band's previous releases", for example.
• "From a negative perspective" ---> "In a negative review." Establishes that the rest are bound to be negative.
• "'Mine Is Yours? You can keep it, thanks.'" This quote needs to be changed to reflect why she didn't like the album, not just show that she didn't.
• "18,000 copies in its first week, 4,000 less from before." Weird wording. Maybe something like "in the same position as their previous album despite selling 4,000 fewer copies."
• Whole "Critical reception" section seems to compare it to their previous album too much. Suggest removing, or condensing it to one blanket sentence.
• Track list looks weird, shouldn't be in separate columns. Use {{Tracklist}} instead. Make deluxe edition and bonus tracks collapsable when you do.
• Personnel contributions don't need to be capitalized (ex. Lead guitar)
• Refs look good (other than the aforementioned YouTube).

That's all I got for right now, I'll comb through it again when I get home. All in all, this article is looking pretty good. Not sure it'll be quite ready for good article (short on info and pictures) but you're definitely doing some good work. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions you made. As far as the suggestions you made, the pictures for the Music and lyrics section I might add but the Critical reception section, I don't know how well I can rearrange the reviews that only talk about the album that's being reviewed and not compare it to the previous album. DepressedPer (talk) 2:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

---

I Need to Know (Marc Anthony song)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if can be improved further for a possible featured article nomination.

Thanks, Erick (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

• Might go a little too in-depth into the album in general, via Background. I mean, the section has literally one sentence on this song out of three paragraphs.
• "It fuses the sound of contemporary R&B and incorporates Latin percussion instruments the timbales, congas, and the trumpet" - Mediocre grammar/usage; I'd change it to "It combines the general air of contemporary R&B and the Latin-centric sounds of the timbales, congas, and trumpet".
• "titled it "Dímelo"" - remove "it"
• Citation #10 ("Marc Anthony (Media notes). Marc Anthony. Columbia Records. 1999.") needs a page number or other specification.
• "Barry Walters from Entertainment Weekly gave the song a B+ rating, and said the music "flaunts—rather than disguises—its mambo moves" and called it "radical pop waiting to happen."" - Two "and"s to join three clauses in a sentence isn't good form.
• "but lost to "Livin' la Vida Loca" by Ricky Martin" - Minor, but this same wording is used two sentences earlier. Could you rephrase it somehow?
• I don't feel like going in-depth into the sources as I'm not well-acquainted with which are considered reliable for music articles, but nothing major stands out.

Feel free to ask for further clarifications if you'd like them, and I'd appreciate comments at Amy Rose's peer review. Tezero (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: I'll see what I can do for your peer review. I can make no promises and it's been a long time since I got involved in a video game-related article. Erick (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you can give helps. Thanks. Tezero (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Israel the Grammarian

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA and I would like to nominate it for FA. Advice on getting it to that standard gratefully received.

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. This is my imperfect understanding of what reviewers are looking for at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)

• See WP:DASH.

I find this very complicated. If I understand correctly, en-dash should be used for page ranges such as 21–30 and compound words such as tenth–century, but hyphens should be used for compound names such as Charles-Edwards. Is this right, and is there a tool for this?

It's "tenth-century poet" (as an adj) but "in the tenth century" (as a noun). Personally, I stay away from the dash wars. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Flodoard's 'Israel Britto' "can be pressed as meaning 'Breton'",": FAC reviewers aren't likely to go along. The quote doesn't seem particularly trenchant, so don't quote, just use double quote marks for Britto and Breton.

Done.

• I got down to Æthelstan's court and couldn't find any words I wanted to change, looks very good. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Just beginning read-through. Only one query about the text: does Foot (ref 20) really spell "rarefied" as "rarified"? More soonest. Tim riley talk 18:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No - corrected. Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Background
  • "Michael Wood's view" – probably should link to Michael Wood (historian)

Done.

• • Does the citation to Wood at ref 3 cover the direct quote in the previous sentence?

Yes. Separate citation given to clarify.

• Sources
  • If you agree that Wood should be linked at first mention, you'll want to remove the link at the end of this section.

Done.

• Early life
  • Here, and later, I recommend blitzing all the "Michaels" in front of Woods and Lapidges. Just the surnames will do nicely after first mention. See WP:SURNAME.

Done.

• • "He was a disciple" – theoretically ambiguous. Safer to write "Israel was a disciple", perhaps.

Done.

• • "Wood's view is rejected by Æthelstan's biographer" – does Foot specifically address Wood's hypothesis or merely advance a different one?

Foot says "he was not, as some have tried to argue, Jewish, nor an Irishman". In a footnote she says that Wasserstein's Jewish theory has been invalidated and mentions Wood (without comment) as suggesting Israel was Irish. I have clarified that she mentions Wood's view. I have not mentioned the Jewish theory at this point as it seems to fit more naturally in the next section. The theory is only about the identity of the inventor of the gospel dice game, not the scholar, so Foot's remark is a bit misleading.

• Later career
  • consistency of capitalising: you have "Archbishop of Trier", but "bishop of Aix-en-Provence".

Fixed

• • "whereas Wood dates it before the 967-8" – wording has gone off the rails here. I think perhaps the definite article has sneaked itself in and should go. Also, the WP style for date ranges is 967–68, with an en-dash and two numerals for the end date.

Fixed.

That's all from me. I enjoyed this article and learned a good deal. Please let me know when it gets to FAC. Tim riley talk 08:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your very helpful comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Lymphatic system

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this page is sub-optimal. Despite this, it is viewed over 72,000 times every month and is amongst Wikipedia's 10,000 most popular pages. I'd like some feedback on what sections of the article could improve, and would invite any editors to help out in improving this article, which is substantially below-par in terms of its coverage, layout, and sourcing.

Some of my own thoughts:

• Flesh out 'spleen' section
• Flesh out 'clinical significance' section
• Integrate hatnote into article main

Thanks, LT910001 (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

---