Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/November 2008

< Wikipedia:Peer review

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

Burger King products edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after working on it for several years, I want to bring it into Good Article status like its siblings Burger King and Burger King legal issues. I need an outside eye to critique it and tell me what needs to be done to improve it.

Thanks, Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - per WP:LEAD this should have a 3 or perhaps 4 paragraph lead. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. *The article may need fewer sections / header too, and the headers do not meet WP:HEAD, for example "Chicken & Fish" or "Chicken and fish" Some expansion done, now 3 paragraphs.   Done--Jeremy (blah blah) 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are huge numbers of fair use images in the article - even the pictures of the food products that show logos could be problematic. See WP:NFCC removed.   Done --Jeremy (blah blah) 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a large number of sections that are very list-y and should be converted to prose.   Done --Jeremy (blah blah) 06:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure abbreviations are defined before their first use (for example BK)   Done --Jeremy (blah blah) 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biggest problem I see is that the article needs more references, for example almost none of the products are referenced. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.   Working
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V   Done --Jeremy (blah blah) 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
How I haven't been to this page, once an FA target of mine, in quite some time. And with my new Bellflower obsession on the rise, I haven't even got the time any more. I'll try to see if I can improve it with whatever comments you can provide with below. This time, I'll make it a GA at most.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This article has a couple of big problems and some smaller ones. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I agree with whoever added the "too long" tag above the plot synopsis. I wonder also about the source of the synopsis. If this is your personal description of the plot, it might be regarded as personal research. It's doubtful that a professional reviewer would describe the plot in this much detail. Please see WP:NOR.
  • You'll have a hard time justifying the use of three fair-use images in this article. I see that one is flagged for deletion, and I doubt that more than one will survive scrutiny. Mr suggestion would be to use only the one in the infobox.
  • The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated. I ran a script to unlink the dates in this article. Please see WP:UNLINKDATES for the recent changes to the guidelines.
  • I'd recommend deleting the word "unexpectedly" from the phrase, "before disappearing unexpectedly from the box-office charts". If you leave it in, it needs a source.
  • In the "Release and reception" section, it's not clear what the phrase "wide break" means. Does that mean the movie's rise or its fall in the charts?
  • The link to the Vincent Canby review is dead. You might substitute this one in the citation.
  • The Maltin citation includes an access date but no url. Should it have an url? If you are citing a book in print, the print version would have no access date.
  • Citations 7 and 8 lack urls.

If you have questions about any of these comments, please ask. I'll keep a watch on this peer review page. Finetooth (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see this article get to featured status before the 40th anniversary of the book's publication in 2009. This article has gone through an extensive rewrite and expansion. It has been through a FAC before, but it was recommended that after some more work, that it go through a peer review. I believe that this article needs a thorough copyediting more than anything else, and I'd appreciate the input for its improvement.

Thanks, --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The prose is not yet at a professional level. If I have time over the weekend, I'll try to help out. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As one of the initial FAC reviewers, I am extremely impressed with how much this article has improved. I agree with the Figureskatingfan's assessment, though, that a thorough copyedit is needed. I would recommend Dank55. Awadewit (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, A. I have worked very hard on it. I think I've added everything the initial FAC reviewers asked for, and then some. Thanks for the kind words, and for the recommendation. I've asked for his help as you suggest. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And he turned me down! Too busy. So I'm still waiting for some help. Anyone? ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try Scartol. He's a little busy right now with an FAC, but if you don't mind waiting a week or two.... :) I would love to help, but I'm in the middle of two peer reviews myself, plus lots of off-wiki stuff. However, if we can't find anyone else, I'll see what I can do. Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and thanks again. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Do the titles of the other five volumes need to be in the lead? Is the fourth paragraph needed - could the sentence I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings is the first in a six-volume autobiographical series, covering Angelou's childhood and young adult experiences. just be part of the third paragraph?
Done as suggested.
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE the poem needs a ref in The title of the book comes from the third stanza of the poem "Sympathy", by Paul Laurence Dunbar: ... My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Done! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that this article needs a photo of Maya Angelou - it is about her and her autobiography after all.
Added the book cover illustration of the paperback version. If it's not acceptable, I'll replace it. It's too bad there's no free image of Dr. Angelou when she wrote the book.
  • I think the film version should make it clear in the first sentence that it was a made for TV movie (not a "theatrical release")
Done, clarified.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It helps a lot! Thanks. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of African countries and dependencies edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I (through a suggestion from User:Sunderland06) think it is probably worthy of Featured list status.

Thanks, Chris_huhtalk 11:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I like this overall and it looks close to being ready for FLC, but there are a few things that need work first, mostly references.
  • Is there any reason the maps column is sortable?
    • It was sort of a test to see if something like that would work. It just means that it will sort the countries from North-west to South-east, which may be useful to some people.
  • I think the entries on dependencies might be clearer if they identified the parent nation in the table row somewhere, not just in a note - the flags already do this to some extent. Or I think more people have heard of Western Sahara than its current official name...
 YI have added the parent country in brackets after the name, the only problem is that with the other countries the official name is in brackets, but they are in italics. So it might be clear enough. I also switched Western Sahara around with Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
  • Is there any reason inline citations are not used? There are numbered refs at the bottom, but they do not link to the entry (can't click on a number and go to the place in the article where the ref is used).
    • This was originally because i was using these for notes, and didn't have time to use the other notes tags. I will look into doing that.
      •  Y I didn't realise that they had finally brought in a group parameter for the ref tags. Brilliant. this is done now.
  • Biggest problem is lack of refs - in the lead in 61 territories, it accounts for about 14% of the world's human population. The continent is surrounded by the Mediterranean Sea to the north, the Suez Canal and the Red Sea to the northeast, the Indian Ocean to the southeast, and the Atlantic Ocean to the west. needs a ref
    • I'll look into adding these.
  • The dependecies need refs - there is none for the French overseas departments that I could find, for example.
    • That too.
  • See also should be listed by full article name, i.e. List of African countries by GDP, not by GDP
 Ythis was just left over from the old version of the page, i have fixed this now.
  • WOuld it make sense to have a large map of Africa at the bottom showing the whole continent and location of all 61 places? I like the maps used, but they make it harder to get an overall picture of the continent.
    • Mmm, that might help. I will look around for a map.
      • I have found this map which has the countries names on it, but it isn't very clear. I don't really know if it will fit in very well either as it would cause a lot of blank space, unless a lot of text is also added.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TNA Bound for Glory edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been told that it would be alright for GA and that it needs a copyedit and a peer review before hand. If I get word that it will fall under FL then I'll take it there, but first lets make sure it is a good article before I go ahead. Also I will not be nominating it until after Bound for Glory IV.

Thanks, WillC 01:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Article needs more references, for example Two notable facts about this event are: It was TNA's PPV debut in the Atlanta area and was the fourth TNA monthly PPV event held outside of the Impact! Zone. needs a ref. Two of three paragraphs in "Total Nonstop InterAction" have no refs either. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
    • It is hard to find sources for somethings. Though they are needed in the article. I'll try to find somemore.--WillC 01:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article needs a copyedit to clean up the prose, for example in Bound for Glory has been regraded to be a very successful event thus far. With each year marking in at a high rating. the last "sentence" is really just a phrase, not a complete sentence. Or in The predominate main event pitted Christian Cage against Samoa Joe with Matt Morgan as Special Outside Enforcer.[8] I think "predominant" is meant.
  • Any chance for some images of the matches, or the arenas, or the wrestlers involved?
    • I guess I could add one or two.--WillC 01:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article contradicts itself / needs to be updated in places - see There have been a total of three events under this name to take place as of 2008.
    • Another event under the name just took place and I have not had the chance to update it.--WillC 01:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance for more info in the Reception section? WOuld it make sense to put the amount of money grossed in here? Does the gross include PPV and ticket sales? See The event grossed $45,000.[5]?
    • Well TNA does not release how much money was made from each event. They do not have an obilgation to do that. The 45,000 I just found at pro wrestling history.com. That is where most of that type of information comes from.--WillC 01:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, though I need to update the article, alot of activity has come across since yesterday since the BFG IV took place. Also the fan fest is hard to ref. Not many sources are useful. I have alot more to add to it. I'll get on your comments here in a few. Thanks again.--WillC 02:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu edit

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it changed greatly since its last Featured Article review, and I think its an article worth of FA and close to the perfect article.

Thanks, FixmanPraise me 22:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pride & Joy (comics) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to help make turn this article into a brilliant source of information. I've added multiple amounts of sources and (I won't lie) I'd like the GA nomination. ;)

Thanks in advance, A talk 01:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi there! Okay, here's a garbled PR. I'm sorry, I'm not very by the books with my peer reviews, so bear with me. Firstly, I like the article. I like that it's very to the point, but there's an issue with some basic fluff language and unnecessary talk. Using terms like "very first" is cool if you're talking casually (and bear in mind, while I'll talk like this here, I wouldn't in an article). The whole Lead does need some expansion and depth. Typically, any article over a page long (depending on your browser size) ought to have two or three paragraphs. No more than 4 or 5, and even that many is a massively exceptional case. See WP:LEAD. I'm going to whizz through and make some basic suggestions, but I'll explain why in here. You don't need to duplicate the cast list reference for every single character in the characters section. Once is plenty. The next area is really the sticking point to me. Its language is far too in-universe and you need to be more detached than you are. Also, I'm not a fan of summarising each of the books in their own section. That, to me, leads to individual issue articles, which I'm not ruling out, but it's not quite appropriate for this article. Basically, a plot section should summarise the various following points in an essaic format: This is how it started, what the characters were like and their character was established as such, these are the major and key points that occurred within the middle and this is how it ended, how the characters were affected etc. Next, you have a vastly undersized production section. This section's weight should ideally be about the same as the size of the plot section, which is currently about twice as long as I'd give a GA for. The cultural references is huge. Check out WP:TRIVIA. These items are informative, but really ought to be on the Marvel Wikia, but are a bit crufty to be on Wikipedia. I'll chop out the things I think don't need to be there, and put how I think it ought to be. If you don't like it, go for it. Ummm.... oh yeah, the reception section needs to be fille dup some more. You ought to have some broad responses. There are plenty of people who review comics, but I'd expand it into "promotion and reception" so you can include the promotional paraphernalia that was published, the articles in Wizard and whatnot preceding its release. Also, you note that it was so successful that its tenure was extended into an ongoing from a miniseries. That's definitely a reception matter. Anyway, see what I do and if you have any comments, let me know on my page. I don't watch any articles so that's the only way I'll know. If you jump on in the next little while, it may take me a couple of hours. Bear with me. --rm 'w avu 10:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I've   Done it, and I realise how unliked I'll be, but trust me, voluminously, it's looking much more how it ought to. Now you need to expand on the base I've given you. Good luck! I'll continue to keep an eye on how things go. --rm 'w avu 11:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Dana boomer

In response to your query on my talk page, here are some suggestions for the improvement of this article. Please bear in mind that I have never reviewed a comic book article before (I don't really have all that much interest in them), and so I'm not really up-to-date on WP:Comic guidelines (if there are any). I know you said that you would like to go to GA and possibly FA with this article, so I am completing the review with that in mind. Now, on to the suggestions:

  • The Production and Reception sections need to be expanded. They should include as much information as you can find on these issues. In WP, these sections are generally considered more important than the plot itself.
  • The lead sections should be a summary of the entire article. At the moment, it contains quite a bit of information that is not contained in the body of the article, and it is referenced nowhere in the article. For example, you go into more detail in the production and reception in the lead then in the individual sections.
  • In your references, titles should not be in all capital letters, even if they were that way in the original source.
  • The Setting section reads too much like a disunited list of trivia. Try to take out some of the less important things, combined them, or just reference them generally. For example, rather than listing individually with different sentences all of the TV shows that they mention, say something like "The books reference various popular TV shows, such as Sesame Street, The Prisoner and Batman".
  • Because the lead is supposed to be a summary, it should have no original information and therefore shouldn't need references. What you can do is make sure that all of the information in the lead is repeated (not verbatim, but the same general concept) somewhere in the body, and move the references to the body of the article.

Drop me a note on my talk page if you have any other questions. Like I said, I don't work on comic articles, so I probably won't do the GA review of the article when you nominate it, but I hope the suggestions I've given you here help with the review when it does happen. Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Mattisse

I would echo the comments made above by Dana boomer. (Like him, I am not very familiar with comic articles, so I can't add much specific advice.) I'll add the following comments.

  • You did well by eliminating the content that the first peer reviewer suggested.
  • Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. They have lots of good suggestions. They have a list of Comics editorial guidelines and Comics layout advice.
  • Your list of characters is formatted in a way that leave only one character in the third column which looks strange.
  • The Comics layout advice is particularly good and describes how you should layout Characters.
  • Check out Comics - Outstanding content you can get some good ideas about what a good article on comics should contain. For example, Newshounds, although about a web comic, has a typical Characters section. Kevin and Kell shows another way of presenting Characters.
  • Be sure to take the all caps out of the titles in your references.
  • Check out theMarvel Comics work group. There is a list of other editors who are interested in Marvel Comics plus a list of resources.
I wish I good be more helpful at this point. If I were you, I would follow the Comics layout. I would also find some comic articles that are of good quality and on a topic similar to mine, and then model my article on those. Feel free to contact me again. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Road (stadium) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that the content of the article is as comprehensive as it is going to get, given the available resources, and that it could get to GA status with a few minor changes.

Thanks, – PeeJay 10:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs) edit

  • "However, the football club split from the railway company they were run by" - shouldn't end a clause with a preposition, maybe try "However, the railway company, which held a controlling interest, broke off its connection with the football club"
    • I've changed it to "However, the football club split from the railway company by whom they were run", as the company had not been introduced in the text until that point, except in the club's name.
  • Wikilink "stand" and "pub", which might need explanation for those in some parts of the world
    • Can't find an article for "stand", but I've linked "pub".
      • "Stand" is the same as "grandstand", is it not? I've just noticed that you have grandstand wikilinked further down, maybe you should link the first usage of "stand" instead.....
        • Yes, you're probably right there. The reason I didn't think to link to grandstand is that "grandstand" conjures up an image of something a bit more grandiose than a simple stand in my mind. Nevertheless, I shall link to grandstand. – PeeJay 16:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink "friendlies" too
    • Done
  • And "reserve team"
    • Done
  • "with Newton Heath signing their first professional players in the summer of 1886" - apparently this use of "with......ing" is grammatically incorrect, try "and Newton Heath signed....."
    • Done
  • Any reason why 3d is shown as a number but sixpence as a word?
    • Seemed like a good idea. Changed to "6d" now.
  • Refs 8 and 2 appear the wrong way round just after the bit about the Deans and Canons
    • Fixed ref order.

Hope that helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful. Thanks. – PeeJay 12:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs) edit

  • Is there an earlier OS map available showing the ground's location more clearly?
    • If I find one, I'll let you know. I'm not sure where I can find really old OS maps though.
      • The local library for the area in question is always good (that's where I got the maps for Fulfordgate), but can be tricky if you don't live in that area. (I know there are plenty of United fans in Manchester so please don't think I'm making any assumptions here!) If that's the case though, you could leave a message at WP:GM, maybe someone there could get a copy of the relevant OS map from that era for you. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've left a message at WP:GM. Hopefully someone there will be able to help me. If not, I hope it won't hinder this article's progress too much. Thanks. – PeeJay 09:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "new wage bill; a problem" - should be comma not semi-colon. Semi-colon would need something like "; they overcame this problem by..."
    • Done.

Overall I think you've done a very good job with the article, especially considering that the club only spent a short time at the ground and that there's probably not that much material to go on given the era. --Jameboy (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers man. I'll be taking this to WP:GAN once this peer review is over, so that all three of Man Utd's homes will be at GA status or above. – PeeJay 21:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs) edit

I've not got much to say, it all looks very good. However, do you know what happened between the club moving out and its destruction? It simply says "The stadium no longer exists", without saying when it was destroyed, whether it had any use after Newton Heath's exit, what the pitch was used for, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know. I'm hoping that User:Oldelpaso might have a contribution to make on that front, as he has a couple of books about the history of football in Manchester that I don't have. I'll have a word with him. – PeeJay 23:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1956 FA Cup Final edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Or as most people know it, the game where the goalie broke his neck. Myself and Struway2 have been working on this article, to the point where it is now a GA. We're now looking for comments with a view to bringing it to FAC in future. Comments from non-football fans particularly welcome. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Jameboy (talk · contribs)

Consider working in a link to FA Cup 1955-56 (which is effectively a parent of this article, and I can't see a link to it). This could maybe fit in in the lead e.g. "...was the final match of the 1955–56 FA Cup competition", and/or in the "Route to the final" section (would be good as a see also section hatnote here). I have other wiki-stuff to catch up on but will try to have a thorough read-through of the article sometime in the next few days. --Jameboy (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added the hatnote for now, the lead needs expanding so it might well end up in there. Sorry didn't respond sooner, for some reason (incompetence, presumably :-) this PR wasn't on my watchlist. Struway2 (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement - it looks very good to me, so these are nit picks. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead seems a bit short to me, I think it could be expanded a bit.
    • being worked on...
  • Not everyone knows what the FA stands for, perhaps spell it out.
    • spelt out the full official name of the FA Cup
  • Nowadays seems a bit folksy in The match is best remembered nowadays for the heroics of Manchester City's goalkeeper, Bert Trautmann...
  • Explain why these somgs had resonance and which for which team in As the teams prepared in the dressing rooms, the crowd was led in communal singing, including songs with resonance for each of the two teams, "She's a lassie from Lancashire" and "Keep right on to the end of the road",[25] and the traditional hymn "Abide with Me".
    • Significance of "Keep right on" is explained in the Route to the final section; explained and ref'd "Abide with me"; "She's a lassie from Lancashire" I'll have to leave to the ManC half of the editorship.
      • There's not much to add other than that Manchester is in Lancashire (or at least was in 1956). Oldelpaso (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of a fair use photo of the match or team(s)?
    • I wondered whether a pic of the Trautmann incident might be justifiable as fair use, worth thinking about.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the trouble to comment, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)
  • I think the lead is a tad on the short side per WP:LEAD. It includes nothing from "Route to the final", "Build-up" and "Post-match" sections.
    • was hoping the ManC half of the editorship would return from internetlessness and expand it, as he writes rather better than I do, but might have to have a go at it myself...
      • update: have started expanding it
  • If you're heading for FAC, ensure all numerals and units are broken by non-breaking spaces, e.g. 10 seconds. I've done a couple, but there may be more.
    • done one or two more, the 3s 6d was the bad one I'd missed. Though as far as I can tell, the MoS only requires the nbsp between number and abbreviated unit or symbol, or to avoid confusion at a line break, not every time there's a number; does FAC view it differently?
  • "Blackpool took the lead after only 10 seconds (their fastest ever goal)," "their fastest ever goal" is probably worth removing from brackets for such a fact.
    • done
  • "Further controversy followed in the semi-final against Tottenham Hotspur, when, with the score at 1–0 to Manchester City, Tottenham were denied a penalty after goalkeeper Bert Trautmann grabbed forward George Robb's leg." Possibly worth saying the game finished 1-0 in the text.
    • thinking about how to word it
  • "Against Arsenal on a muddy pitch, after first-half goals from Gordon Astall and Murphy, Birmingham went 3–0 up through Brown with 20 minutes left; two minutes later, Arsenal scored from 30 yards, Birmingham were unsettled, and Merrick needed to make a fine save from Vic Groves." Maybe add it was the sixth round to improve the flow.
    • done
  • It could be worth splitting the "Route to the final" into two sections; one for each club; since that is the way it is written.
    • thinking about have split, but haven't decided whether I like it :-)
  • FWA Footballer of the Year; probably writing FWA out in full. I know it's wikilinked but it's best to keep people on this page rather than clicking away if you can help it.
    • changed to just Footballer of the Year, there only was the one award in 1956 (i think)
  • "The system involved using Don Revie in a deeper position than a traditional centre-forward in order to draw a defender out of position, and was therefore known as the "Revie Plan"." Could do with a reference.
    • moved relevant reference to end of paragraph
  • "However, Trautmann, dazed and unsteady on his feet, insisted upon keeping his goal. He played out the remaining minutes in great pain, with the Manchester City defenders attempting to clear the ball well upfield or into the stand whenever it came near. Trautmann was called upon to make two further saves, each of which caused him to reel in agony." Could also do with referencing.
    • Done, with slight rewording to fit the ref more accurately. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three days later, an examination revealed that Trautmann had broken a bone in his neck." As widely known as it is, again could do with a reference. Ah, I see a post-match section with more details, so should be fine!
    • done anyway; should be ref'd here as well

Hope this helps. Peanut4 (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for taking the time and trouble to review it. I've dealt with the quick and easy bits; the Trautmann bit presumably comes from one of Oldelpaso's books, so that will have to wait till he's back. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will give this a small copy edit and review when I have the time. But I just thought I'd let you know I have an old video about the F.A cup final (which I've already used in the 1923 final's article) where they talk briefly about this final. So I can add some info from that if you want. BUC (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your video has anything useful to add in areas where you think we need more info, then it would be much appreciated. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to your copyediting, some of it read better before your changes, so those bits I'm going to restore or rewrite as appropriate, but you've certainly flagged up some places where it did read awkwardly, so thanks for taking the trouble!! Particular thanks for the push and run link, I was worried about using the term "one-two" with neither link nor explanation, and for rearranging the Arsenal match/keep right on paragraph into a sensible order. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article covers an important era in the development of Kannada literature. I've listed this article for peer review because I believe a PR will help improve the content, grammar, presentation and style. The article is already well referenced.

Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire/archive1.

Trey Lewis edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what can be done to help improve the article and want to see how the article currently ranks.

Thanks, - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 00:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD.
  • Any chance of a free image of him? Have you checked on Flickr?
  • Spell out abbreviations before their first use, for example ACL in the lead.
  • The flow of the article is broken up by the many one or two sentence paragraphs - I would combine these with others or perhaps expand them
  • Avoid the use of words like "currently" as the situation will change with time. Instead say things like "As of October 2008..."
  • The {{Rquote}} template is a variation of the {{Cquote}} template and should not be used for quotes that are not pull quotes, per WP:MOSQUOTE
  • I think if the title of the article is in English, the assumption is that the article is too (no need to add "in ENglish" to the ref)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arad, Israel edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After rewriting the lead section of this article, I finally feel like having completed all the applicable tasks set by the previous peer review. For the time being, I'd mainly like to know if the article passes A-class criteria (and if not, why), but of course comments for FA status are important and appreciated.

Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 03:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Economy and Services do not seem to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs more references, for example the neighborhoods section has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • There are several one or two sentence paragreaphs and sections that should either be combined with others or expanded to improve the flow of the article.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should generally be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower. The panoramas can be set wider, but it seems to me that the article has too many images as it is.
  • A model article is often helpful for ideas and examples to follow - there are a large number of Geography FAs on cities at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places that may be helpful as models

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruhrfisch! Thanks for reviewing the article Arad, Israel. I have a few questions regarding the review:

  1. Referencing: Are there any major unreferenced points other than the neighborhoods section? If so, I'll start working on that before tackling the neighborhoods. The problems with that particular section is that it can pretty much be verified by any Hebrew-speakers by looking at a map of Arad (such as the one I created for the article). However, the fact that these names were actually pre-planned cannot be verified in that method, and I sent an e-mail to the municiaplity to confirm what is already seen from a map - and it was confirmed that indeed these names were pre-planned. However, I have not been able to find a published source talking about this. I cannot imagine that this would warrant the deletion of the entire neighborhoods section, as again, all of them and their street names/meanings can be seen on any map. What do you suggest should be done?
  2. Ref formatting: A while ago I spent some time properly formatting all the references, including all the known details about them. Are there are particular refs you are concerned about?
  3. Merging paragraphs/sections: What exactly do you have in mind? I merged the music festival section, and another section heading before that (following initial GA review). However, everything else seems OK and while there are some short paragraphs/sections, it would be strange to merge healthcare and law enforcement, for example. Moreover, AFAIK FAs for cities require sections like that for comprehensiveness. Are there any specific examples you can give for certain merging?

Thanks again for the review!

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was BOLD and copied your comment here from my talk page.

  • In reference to your questions, as I see it, Places without refs follow:
  1. The coloring of the emblem may vary, but it is generally accepted to have the outline colored light blue, and the inside - orange.
  2. The historical site of Tel Arad and the Arad Park (also known as Ran Grove) can also be found within its municipal area, west of the urban core. Arad also has a commercial landing strip located slightly to the south of its urban core. Arad's municipality nearly borders Kuseife to the west, although the urban cores of the towns are not nearly as close.
  3. They are completely dried-up all year round.
  4. In light of the dwindling population in Negev towns (Arad, Dimona, Yeruham and Mitzpe Ramon), the Ministry for the Development of the Negev and Galilee initiated multiple projects to advance settlement in these towns. However, most projects were never materialized.
  5. Gan HaHamisha (Garden of the Five) - a memorial park for the five residents of Arad who were killed in action in the Six-Day War. Includes a monument for the soldiers, as well as a stone structure called Amud HaBulbusim (lit. Pillar of the Potatoes, because of its shape), which marks Arad's place in the desert and their residents' control of the territory according to Bedouin tradition - designed by Yona Pitelson.
  6. Arad does not have a hospital, but there are numerous medical clinics, including Clalit, Leumit and Maccabi. Emergencies are handled by the single Magen David Adom station, located in the municipal compound. This is also an example of a two sentence paragraph - why not combine it with the following paragraph?
  7. Arad's station also serves the Sodom area.
  8. The whole Religion section has no refs.
  9. It is not clear wht the refs are for the table of elected officials and the table of bus lines.
  • Problem refs - I picked one ref at random, current number 12, which reads "Visitor's Card". Arad Municipality. It has no date retrieved information. It is in Hebrew, but does not say this (as several other refs do). Read WP:CITE for the info needed in each internet, book, journal, etc. reference.
  • I pointed out one possible merge above (hospitals). While it sometimes makes sense to have a short paragraph, often it can be combined or expanded. Print the article out and read it with a red pen - mark each paragraph that is two sentences or less, then ask if it needs to be that short or if it can be combined or expanded. I do not see any sections now that seem overly short.

Hoep this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review
  1. Suggestion: Convert the emblem to SVG. It should be simple.
  1. My original version was in SVG, but IE sometimes has trouble with this format so I avoid it. I'll try it out again. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:SVG Help might help you out here. Zithan (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The second sentence needs to be split. It's too wordy.
  1.   Done -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Bible should be in upper case
  1.   Done -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The sub sections of the History section are too small for second level headings. Remove those headings.
  2. What is a "pre"-planned city?
  3. How much is 50,000 liras worth today?
  4. Arad began absorbing – anthropomorphism, avoid this
  1. While I disagree with this, what do you suggest? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
people from xyz began to move to Arad Zithan (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. olim – Context is needed so that a reader does not click a link to figure out that they were Russian Jews
  1.   Done -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Too many images, please reduce some of them.

Zithan (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican footballers playing outside Mexico edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to FL status. Can you guys give me ideas of what to write on the paragraph above the list and anything else to improve the list. Thanks, BlueRed 23:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MeegsC
  • A couple of things you might add to the introduction: Who was the first Mexican footballer to play outside Mexico? When? What has been public reaction in Mexico to players leaving their homeland—pride or disapproval? Are growing numbers of players moving elsewhere, or are numbers dropping? Overall, how many have played elsewhere? How many now? Do most players return to Mexico to finish out their careers?
  • Nowhere in the lead do you currently wikilink to the association football article. Don't assume every reader in the world will automatically know which sport you're referring to (for example, see football)!
I'll add "association football". BlueRed 03:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also need to explain the list a little more. Are you only including players who are currently active, or any Mexican player who ever played outside Mexico?
only currently active. BlueRed 03:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest adding a "Years" column to the table. When did these guys play for the team?
  • You'll need to cite references for all of your statements in the opening paragraph if you want the list to reach FL. For example, you say Mexico is one of the richest football leagues in the world—prove it with a reference that backs it up. Otherwise your submission to the FL folks will get bounced.
I didnt write that part. BlueRed 03:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once you've written the lead, have someone else do a good copyedit for you. Right now, the lead has some sentence fragments (rather than complete sentences) and some awkwardly worded lines. Feel free to "ping" me for help if you can't find someone else to help!

MeegsC | Talk 11:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Foundation Player Award edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is too short at the moment to become a FL, but I would still like to improve it as much as possible.

Thanks, Scorpion0422 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • In the infobox, "1997-98 NHL season" needs an en dash.
  • Per WP:COLORS, use symbols with colors in keys.
  • "The winner is given a grant of $25,000 to further causes the winner supports" Specify which type of dollars, Canadian or US. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, done and done. Thanks a lot for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 17:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the See also section, what is the significance of a link to the List of NHL statistical leaders in an article about an award for community service and teamwork? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure, some random user keeps adding links to it. Removed. -- Scorpion0422 18:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Horn (legend) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I thought this page could use an objective pair of eyes. The ref list has become a series of footnotes that has out grown the actual text of the article.

Thanks, Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,
the first thing that I noticed is that the article's lead lacks a clear definition of its subject: the name "Red Horn (legend)" makes me think it's about a legend, but the first two sentences of the lead refer to "his" adventures, meaning the lead defines a character. The lead should not contain any information not found in the article's text: it should be a mere summary (see Wikipedia:Lead section). At the moment, it contains some sentences that cannot be found in the text, and does not serve as a good summary. For someone who is unaware of Native American folklore, it does not provide a clear introduction to the subject. It's like a rough jump straight to the facts.
The article seems to be a retelling of the legend itself rather than an encyclopedic treatment of it: of the entire text, only about 1/3 is not the story itself. I believe the article can be better divided into sections too: the current names are a bit unclear to an unaware reader. The "Wikipedia links" section should be renamed to "See also" too.
As for the wall of references, that's easy to solve: list your sources under "Bibliography" or "References" and use shortened names for the footnotes themselves (e.g. "Radin (1948), pp. 115–136." instead of "Paul Radin, Winnebago Hero Cycles: A Study in Aboriginal Literature (Baltimore: Waverly Press, 1948) 115-136."). The full bibliographic data will be readily available for the reader while at the same time it won't appear in every footnote: that's not necessary and clunks up the section (which might be renamed to "Footnotes").
As a whole, you've done a good job with the referencing, but the article has some minor formatting issues and probably some minor grammar problems too (I noticed an "it's" instead of an "its", before ref 16). More serious problems are the unclear definition of the article's scope and subject, the non-summarizing lead section, which makes the article hard to understand for the average reader (me :P) and the unfavourable ratio of retelling to encyclopedic treatment.
The article has WP:GA potential, but it's got some pretty big issues to be dealt with. All the best and good luck! Todor→Bozhinov 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Listing for PR as this short list is part of an existing featured topic on National Hockey League awards. While this article was assessed A class at the time of the initial FTC, subsequent changes in the FT process now require a peer review be complete. Thus, I open the floor to all comments and suggestions. Resolute 02:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • In the infobox, "1999-2000 NHL season" should have an en dash in the year range.
  • Images that have captions that are not complete sentences should not have a full stop (period) at the end.
  • Per Wikipedia:Colors, use symbols with colors for accessibility.
  • "It is named"-->The award is named...
  • "$25,000 USD"-->US$25,000.
  • In the 2004–2005 season row, use em dashes instead of hyphens to ease readability. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All comments should be addressed. Thanks, Resolute 17:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that I have significantly improved this article to a good standard (not FA, but still pretty good) and I'd like to know where I can improve this article, what's good and what's bad in the article, and also what grade it is.

Thanks, Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I will admit that I know very little about Eurovision.

  • Is there a reason why there is not an image in the upper right corner (presumably above the infobox)? Is there any way to add an image to the infobox?
  • The lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • This needs a ref: Promoting his song, Meneguzzi later went on a Eurovision TV special on Maltese television in April 2008. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • There are some short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which should be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve the flow of the article.
  • I think it might help to provide more context to the reader - see WP:PCR. For example, a sentence or two on the Eurovision contest would help, or explaining in more detail the history of how the I Swiss pick their song and performer.
  • I think it could be made clearer that the singer is an Italian speaking Swiss citizen - I was confused at first and thought he was an Italian citizen.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid Prime 3: Corruption edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FAC eventually. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Metroid Prime 3: Corruption/archive2.

Grand Theft Auto clone edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Archive

I'm nominating this article for peer review in hopes that I can cross the bridge from C-status to GA-status. I think the article is pretty well-researched. A controversial area will be the name of the genre, but a careful read of the research will show that there is no consistent name, and that popular names and definitions are problematic. Really, the main thing I want to see is if there are any major omissions or errors in this article as it stands now. I'd like to correct it, expand it, and take it to GA nomination. Randomran (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not to be snarky, but the tagged and unsourced paragraph at the bottom might be something to work on :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I left that in there because I was curious if anyone thought it was anything other than patent OR. I was tempted to just remove it, but wanted to put that out there. Randomran (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you get sources, it's not. Currently, it reads like it. Also, a big hole in the article is how a GTA clone could have come out before GTA III (Body Harvest)... you should probably explain this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. I just scrubbed it. I tried to clarify the point about Body Harvest in the lead. It's explained in more detail in the Origin section. Is the problem just the lead, or is it still unclear in the origin section? Any advice on the wording? Randomran (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should explain why it's called a GTA clone instead of Body Harvest, since Harvest came first (I'm assuming it's the popularity...) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified that part in the Origin section, and summarized it in the lead. Let me know what you think. Randomran (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit of a tweak. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to make this article more clear, and/or comprehensive. Randomran (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to a thorough review... at some point :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Randomran (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any comments over the page, but I would like to point out that I have edited the lead a little bit and would like to know how it sounds now. --- Fantasy Dragon (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I just made a couple more tweaks. I imagine this will be refined as the article works its way up the evaluation chain. Randomran (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Someone another

  • Open World is linked twice in the lead.
  • To be honest I find the use of the abbreviation 'GTA clone' irritating, I'd much rather it was eliminated altogether.
  • The article uses the title, supposedly a genre, which is a strong statement in itself, along with 'GTA-style games', which is inconsistent and undermines the argument that this is a distinct genre as opposed to mere similarities.
  • "Naming difficulty" Not 'arf, could you find a more appropriate section title?
  • "which was developed by Rockstar North when it was formerly called DMA Design." DMA Design needs wikilinking, I think it would be better structured if DMA Design was mentioned first and the transition from one software house to another was explained.
  • "The genre has also evolved to refine the aiming and shooting mechanisms." This isn't actually saying anything, everything is tinkered with as time goes on, could you explain how these game mechanisms have evolved?
  • "A market analysis in early 2006 found that the marketplace was grim for any direct competitors to the Grand Theft Auto series.[10]" Grim doesn't read well and could do with replacing. Again, what is this sentence actually saying? Is the market saturated? Are competitors too late to cash-in?
  • Are there details out there about why developers chose to copy GTA, other than the obvious which is the game's success? I get the feeling that there's some interesting nuggets of information out there.
  • Apart from the statement that they are considered an evolutionary step in gaming, there doesn't seem to be any discussion of the impact of these games, how they have evolved gaming etc. The subject of the article is well explained, the history is good, but some more details about where these fit into the wider picture would be good.

Thanks for working on the article. Someoneanother 01:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I tried to address all your concerns. Take a look and tell me what you think, particularly the "origin" section that talks about how GTA3 influenced games, and the "recent history" section that talks about the challenges facing new games in this genre.
The only thing I couldn't address was why. I'm going to try to keep an eye out. But I suspect you won't find many developers willing to even admit they copied GTA, let alone why they did it. If they had cynical or monetary motives, you probably won't hear them talk about it. If they had artistic reasons for doing the game they were doing, they won't admit they're following a formula. But I'm just guessing. Maybe something will turn up in the future. Thanks again! Randomran (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking really good, thanks for considering my suggestions. As for the reasoning in copying the game, it can also come from third parties rather than just the developers of these games, it's one of those things which may never get mentioned or one day could suddenly appear on Gamasutra. If you'd have told me that magazines and intellectuals would be discussing gender roles in Resident Evil, for instance, I'd have said pull the other one, but the level of discussion and breadth of coverage have expanded massively and anything's possible. Here's to GTA's ungodly legacy. :) Someoneanother 14:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed up my strategy and tried one more dig. Didn't find anything specific about why. But did find a funny anecdote about people constantly pitching "... <insert license here> and turn it into a Grand Theft Auto clone for us please". Also, interestingly enough, some people thought Saints Row was better than all the GTA titles to date. Those are both kind of interesting, and seem worth mentioning. I'll get around to it, and keep an eye out for more. Randomran (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

The citation scheme is, shall we say... unique. It might be better to source one publication per ref tag. Also, you've got some references duplicated. (More to follow) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A Grand Theft Auto clone refers to a game genre made famous by Grand Theft Auto III in 2001." - wouldn't it be more straightforward to say it's just a game?
  • "But other reviewers" - there's redundancies such as but you have to get rid of.
  • I'm concerned about using Games Radar is a source. How does it meet WP:RS? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. The reference scheme was something that was featured in the 4X article for claims that involve "some" or "several" games, or just facts that are more contentious. Otherwise, refining the references and grammar will take some time. I see that games radar has a full editorial staff, but it's not quite clear. Randomran (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayumi Hamasaki edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article, currently a Good Article, failed its last two FA candidacies because of prose issues, so I'm looking for a thorough (and brutal, if necessary) critique of its prose. Other minor issues, such as MoS errors, reliability of sources, and fair-use rationale, were cleared up in the FA/GA candidacies.

Thanks, Ink Runner (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Looks better than the last time I reviewed it. Here are some fairly nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • I would ask for help with copyediting at WP:PRV (those in the top section are willing to do copyedits). Another useful trick is to print the article and read it out loud, listening for errors. I would then ask those who commented at the most recent FAC to take a second look.
  • I checked one ref at random Because of her constantly changing image and tight control over her artistry, Hamasaki has become a "trendsetter" and an "icon of fashion" in Asia;[5] ... where reference 5 is [1]. This article only mentions her twice: once in a list of commonly seen celebrities No matter what channel you watch or which magazine you read, you'll see the same faces — Aya Ueto, SMAP, Yuko Takeuchi, Ayumi Hamasaki, ... and once here Both Namie Amuro and Ayumi Hamasaki were serious fashionistas whose ever-changing looks had a huge impact on their teen fans. NEITHER of the apparent direct quotations "trendsetter" or "icon of fashion" are in this ref. In the body of the article, ref 103 does call her a trendsetter (but not an icon), but only in Japan (not all of Asia). The other refs that seem to back up trendsetter and fashion icon were either not online or in languages I do not read or read well. If direct quotes are used in the lead they need to be referenced per WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:LEAD and this ref does not back up these appparent direct quotations.
    • Okay, I removed the direct quotes (since I couldn't find in the sources anything that specifically said she was a "trendsetter" or "icon" in all of Asia) and changed it to "Hamasaki has influenced fashion trends in Asia".
  • I think this sentence is misleading as written: Her singles have set records: she is the Japanese female artist with the highest singles sales, most number-one singles, and most million-seller singles.[fn 2] and would change it to something like Her singles have set records: she is the Japanese female artist with the highest singles sales and most number-one singles, and is tied for most million-seller singles.[fn 2]
    • Changed, per your suggestion.
  • This needs a ref Her modeling career did not last long; SOS deemed her too short and transferred her to Sun Music, a musicians' agency. Using the name "Ayumi", Hamasaki released a rap album, Nothing from Nothing, on the Nippon Columbia label. When the album failed to chart on the Oricon, Sun dropped Hamasaki. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
    • Fixed.
  • Refs are generally in numerical order, so fix ...Hamasaki spent much of her time shopping at Shibuya boutiques and dancing at Velfarre, an Avex-owned disco club.[11][10] and other examples
  • Needs a ref per WP:MOSQUOTE (direct quotes): The tracks, composed by Yasuhiko Hoshino, Akio Togashi (of Da Pump), and Mitsuru Igarashi (of Every Little Thing), were "cautious" and "unassuming" pop-rock songs.
    • Fixed.
  • There are five fair use music samples and a fair use album cover image - this seems like a lot, does it meet WP:NFCC?
    • I guess the sample of either "Evolution" or "Boys & Girls" is redundant, since they are both dance tracks. I'll remove one.
  • Avoid one or two sentence paragraphs like On September 10, 2008, Hamasaki released A Complete ~All Singles~, a compilation album that includes the A-sides of all her singles along with previously unreleased footage from her A-nation concerts.[84] - combine them with others or expand them
    • Fixed.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for looking this over! I'm currently reviewing an article (or two), so I'll look at the backlog when they're done. Ink Runner (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karma in Hinduism edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a good article that needs improvement.

Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead does not summarize the article completely, there is lot of new info in the lead, the quote should be moved.
  • I have never seen a sentence as a section title "Bad karma can be mitigated."
  • References
    • 5 : "Editors of Hinduism Today. What is Hinduism?" needs date, pp. no
    • 8, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 28, 38, 39: NOT really WP:RSs
    • 6, 7, 40-45 : page nos needed, with publisher info, date
    • 21: Verses 4:14, 9.22 and 18.61 text name???

The review is incomplete, just went through lead and ref.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Vedas tell us that if we sow goodness, we will reap goodness" "karma literally means "deed or act" and more broadly names the universal principle of cause and effect" This info is repeated in the same section twice.
  • Sanchita (accumulated), Prarabdha (fruit-bearing) and Kriyamana (current) karma, this info is discussed twice in two diff sections
  • Give dates of scholars or theologian, whose views are referred to. e.g. 1520–1593 CE found to be given in context of Appaya Dikshita
  • Views of some people are given, do they encompass the views of the whole branch? e.g. do views of Appaya Dikshita imply views of Shaivism in general?
  • "Relation with caste" has WP:OR . Krishna talks about duties, NOT karma. So this does not approve or disapprove "many interpret the caste system in accordance with karma, as those with good deeds are born into a spiritual family, which is synonymous with the brahmana caste." Also, the sentence needs a reference, who says "many interpret". --Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part related to "Axel Michaels" in the lead... can it be merged with the main body? ideally the lead should provide a brief overview. see WP:LEAD.
  • " Bad karma can be mitigated." consider changing the title. Let the "mitigated" part be described in the content, not the tile.
  • "Gita interpretations and role of Guru" , I think the title should be "Gita's interpretation and role of Guru"
  • "Some interpretations of certain verses in the Bhagavad Gita" is a weasel word, consider rewording for clarity.
  • "Relation with caste" , this should be "Relation with varna", note that caste system is different from the varnas as described in Gita.

Will go thru in detail when I get time, Thanks. — Nvineeth talk 13:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many portions of the article were not written by me, so please correct.

Thanks,

Raj2004 (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition of death edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping to build this article up to good article status. All outside feedback and input is welcome and appreciated.

Thanks, Anthøny (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Comments: [reply]

This is the first time I have heard of such a law, outside the urban legend that no one is ever declared dead within the boundaries of Walt Disney World. Clearly, forbidding death is ridiculous, and a thorough discussion about why these governments decide to pass such logic-less laws needs to be included. I think you need to find reliable information on the reasoning of the laws, the process of passing laws, and the sociological implications of them.
Antiquity should appear first. After that, the locations of recently passed prohibitions.
Right now, the article reads as a nutty look at a nutty set of laws. It could read - and this is where you may be eligible for GA status - as a sociological study on why these places find it necessary to pass such laws, or what they were trying to accomplish in doing so. I just did a quick search in a legal database and in world publications within the past 2 years on "prohibition of death" and "illegal to die", and I didn't find much more than what there is here. Perhaps some more reliable sourcing, but nothing that was any deeper analytically. You may not be able to get this to GA right now. --Moni3 (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Karina (2008) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like opinions of other editors on this article and to try and get an A-class rating. I know featured is highly unlikely considering the immense effort put out by Juliancolton for the small article, Tropical Storm Erick (2007), to become a FA.

Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: All tropical storms are interesting, even one this short-lived. I'm not sure how far you can take the article, but I'm certain it can be improved. Here are a few suggestions.

  • The "Meteorological history" section seems too long to me. You could improve the article by omitting some of the detail and by using more direct, forceful prose. The prose in the lead and in the final section is more direct and more fun to read.
  • Here and there you switch verb tenses in a puzzling way. A sentence in the "Meteorological history" section says, "... a tropical cyclone formation alert was issued... ", which is straightforward reporting. The next sentence says, "However, strong upper-level easterly wind shear would limit development, if any were to occur." This jumps from the past tense reporting of the previous sentence to a conjecture about the future. This is odd, because it's possible to continue reporting about what happened, and there's no need to form conjectures about things that didn't happen. I think you are telling two stories; one is the story of the storm, and the other is the story of how the forecasts changed over time. The problem in this particular case might be fixed by changing the second sentence to say, "However, weather forecasters thought that strong upper-level wind shear would limit development." In other words, you need to make clear you are still reporting something that happened in the past and not making a general observation from your own knowledge of tropical storms.
  • A top-to-bottom copyedit would be a good idea. I see problems such as this one in the lead, "peak intensity of 40 mph (65 km/h) 1000 mbar (hPa; 29.54 inHg)". Something seems to be missing between the wind speed and the barometric pressure.
  • Numbers bigger than nine are generally written as digits unless they start a sentence. In the lead, "Karina was designated a tropical storm for only eleven hours... " would be "11 hours".
  • Digits modifying units should be held together by no-break codes to prevent line-wrap from separating the pair on various computer screens. Please see WP:NBSP.
  • In "Meteorological history", "nearing cooler waters" is used in the second sentence and repeated in the fourth sentence. Saying it just once would be part of the prose tightening I'd recommend throughout this section.

I hope these brief suggestions prove useful. It so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog. Finetooth (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick III, German Emperor edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like this article to be improved overall as much as possible with the eventual aim of FA in mind. It has already been through a GA Review and A Class review and I want to give it a thorough review from some fresh eyes before submitting it to FAC.

Thanks, Banime (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Extreme points of Sweden edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review becuase I am try to get it to Featured List status. I was looking at the FL candidates and found Extreme points of Bulgaria, and from that article I found this one. Any suggestions would be good, because this is my first time working with an article of this type.

Thanks, TheLeftorium 22:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are the extreme points for mainland only? Circeus (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Added! --TheLeftorium 19:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I enjoyed reading this. I especially like the details about the merging of the two islets and the melting of the glacier. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • Rounding 2.41 m to 8 ft looks strange. Since you rounded the metres to the second place after the decimal, the feet should probably be rounded that way too. You can do this by changing the rounding parameter in the conversion template from |0 to |2, which will give you 7.91 ft. This problem occurs in the lead and again in the "Elevation" section. It also occurs in the table that accompanies the "Elevation" section, where 2.41 is rounded to 7.9. I'd make them all 7.91. Alternatively, it might be that 2.41 metres is overprecise. If 2.4 is more reasonable, you could change all three instances to 2.4 metres (7.9 ft).
  • The Manual of Style (MoS) advises against repeating the words of the article title in the section heads. I changed "Extreme elevation" to "Elevation" to fix the problem.
  • The MoS suggests spelling out the primary units in metric-imperial conversions rather than abbreviating them both. I'd suggest removing the |adj=on parameter from the conversion templates.
  • I'm not sure what the "Almqvist & Wiksells stor-atlas" note is attached to, and citation 18, when clicked, hops back to it. This is confusing.
  • The MoS advises against sandwiching text between parallel images on the left and right. You have such a sandwich in "Latitude and longitude". It would probably be better to stack the images on the right.
  • I did a bit of minor copyediting. It was easier for me to change a few very small things than to explain them.

I hope you find these comments to be helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! I think I have addressed all of your concerns. Please check the article again though to see if you think my edits were good. Cheers, TheLeftorium 17:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Yes, the changes look good. While checking, I noticed one new nit-picky thing. The word "Kebnekaise" in the map runs over the right edge of the map on my screen. I tried adjusting the width to 200, but perhaps that makes the map too big in relation to the other images. I also wanted to eliminate the extra space between "Extreme points of" and "Sweden" in the caption, but I did not figure out how to do it. I guess what I am saying is that the map is functional but not beautiful, but I don't know how to make it beautiful. Maybe moving the word "Kebnekaise" to the left would help. Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Kebnekaise. Not sure about the extra space, though (it's not there on my resolution). Is it still there for you? --TheLeftorium 20:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kebnekaise looks fine now. The extra space is still there, but it's a truly minor matter. Finetooth (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll close the review now. I'll probably FL nominate the article soon. --TheLeftorium 21:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Crean (explorer) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed Tom Crean for peer review because I believe it is very close to Featured Article quality. The purpose of the review will be to make improvements necessary to move it to FA status. Prose, images, and sources need to be reviewed.

Thanks, Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I think this needs a comma, otherwise it makes it sound like it was the first crossing of the island without maps (not just the first, period) Upon reaching South Georgia, Crean was one of the party of three which undertook the first land crossing of the island, without maps or proper mountaineering equipment.
Fixed
  • I would link public house in Here, in his home town of Annascaul, he opened a public house with his wife Eileen called the "South Pole Inn". as North American English speakers may not know this without a link.
Now linked
  • Would it help to give his place in his family (oldest of ten children, third, youngest, whatever) if this is known?
Smith's biog doesn't give Tom's place in the order of children, saying merely that the ten children were born during the 1860s and 1870s. Given Crean's birth year of 1877, this would suggest that he was among the youngest, but unless Zatoichi has another source, I don't think this information is known. Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, Smith's book does not give this information, and I don't have any other sources. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs usually come after punctuation unless there is a very good reason not to, so why not change The ship landed at Hut Point[7] on 8 February 1902, ...
Fixed
  • Did they use sled dogs or did the men pull the sleds? Make this clearer (in harness) in Crean soon established himself as one of the most consistent sledgers in the party, with only seven of the 48–member party logging more time in harness than Crean's 149 days.[8]
Changed "sledgers" to "man-haulers" and wikilinked it to Manhauling. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs come after punctuation, so fix things like It is clear that Captain Scott held Tom Crean in high regard[14][15], and so Crean was among ...
Fixed
  • 35 miles on the ice alone on three biscuits and a bit of chocolate - this was the age of heroes, simply amazing.
Definitely - another unbelievable moment was when, getting weak and needing to get to their next food cache, and facing a long circuitous route around an icefall on the Beardmore Glacier, Crean, Lashly and Evans decided to get on their sledge and "sled" down the heavily crevassed glacier. They ended up gaining a couple thousand feet in a few minutes... amazing they did not die at that point. Anyway that is an aside, unrelated to peer review! Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...but it could be a good insert into the article, perhaps? Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added this story in the 4th paragraph. Interesting, with modesty characteristic of all these men, Lashly simply wrote "so we decided on the descent into the valley" and "this proved a difficult task". (understatement of the year) Smith writes a more colourful version by piecing it together from Lashly and Evans' diaries. Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make clearer how they knew Scott et al. had died before At Cape Evans the winter of 1912 was a sombre one, with the knowledge that the polar party had perished.
Do you think this point is necessary? After all this is a Crean biographical article, not meant to go in depth on Scott's last expedition. If you feel strongly about it I can incorporate that. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know they did not have portable radios or other means of long distance communication, so I assume that they knew they had perished from the Scott party's failure to return? If so, could it be something like At Cape Evans the winter of 1912 was a sombre one, with the knowledge that the polar party had failed to return and so had perished.? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable so I've done this. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the transition would be clearer if it read something like The [Shackleton's] ship, the Endurance, was beset in the pack ice on 19 January 1915, ...
Agreed, I changed to "Shackleton's ship, the Endurance, was..." Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not put the image Image:Tom Crean2b.JPG in the middle of a sentence. Perhaps break the paragraph into two ... after practically took Tom Crean, aboard the Endurancecharge as Hudson was breaking down psychologically.[39][40]
Fixed
  • I would attribute this (who described it) The journey has been described as one of the most extraordinary feats of seamanship and navigation in recorded history.[43]
Attributed to Alexander.
  • Is it possible to expand or perhaps combine this short paragraph: Upon returning to Britain in November 1916, Crean returned to naval duty. He was promoted to the rank of Warrant Officer in recognition of his service on the Endurance,[47] and was awarded his third Polar Medal. Perhaps move it to the start of the next section (as it fits there better)?
I moved it to Later Life, I agree it fits there better. This screwed up the position of "Later Life" heading a little, I tried moving the photo a couple of times but it just ended up making the text a mess. Brian or Ruhrfisch, maybe you know how to fix this..? Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit to the text and the heading's position is OK now. Brianboulton (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These need refs: He and Eileen opened up a small pub in Annascaul called the South Pole Inn. He had three daughters, Mary, Kate, and Eileen, although Kate died when she was four years old. and Crean was buried in his family tomb at the cemetery in Ballynacourty. He was commemorated in at least two place names: Mount Crean (8630 feet, 2630 m) in Victoria Land, and the Crean Glacier on South Georgia. (who named these two features?)
    • Re. the mountain and the glacier, the wiki article on the glacier says it was named by the UK Arctic Place Names Committee (UK-APC). On this organisation's website is a link to a "gazetteer" page which looked promising - but it appears to be a dead link. If this page can be accessed it might have the information we seek. Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Later) I have accessed the gazetteer and it is unhelpful - doesn't list any names in the sectors relevant to Crean. So for the present the answer is, we don't know who named them - possibly Scott the mountain and Shackleton the glacier, but this is conjecture.Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added citations from Smith for all the items above. Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch overlinking - Polar Medal is linked way too many times - I try to link only twice (lead and first mention after)
Fixed Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of ibid in refs is discouraged - what if someone else inserts another ref between these, then it looks like the ibid refers to this.
Fixed Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some routine fixing as indicated above. Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that addresses all the suggestions above. Thanks Ruhrfisch for your input - very helpful. Brian & Ruhrfisch do you have anything else to add, and do you think it is ready for recommendation to FA status? Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before it goes to FAC I would like the images to be looked at by one of the image reviewers. I have found it very helpful in the past to get images issues out of the way, if possible, before FAC. I have asked User:Elcobbola to do this, but he is not responding to requests at the moment - he is probably away. I could ask another, but looking at the FAC page, image reviewers seem to be few and far between at he moment. I suggest leave this for a couple of days and then reconsider. In the meantime I mean to do a last-minute prose check in search of redundacies, repetitions, passive voice, weasel words etc. But subject to those factors, I think the article is pretty well ready. Brianboulton (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(You will see I have started this. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note re distances A couple of the mileages, length of James Caird voyage (800 miles) and distance to the pole when last support party left Scott (146 miles) are given in nautical miles, which makes the km conversions wrong. The rest of the distances seem to be in statute miles. We should be consistent throughout, so I have altered the nautical distances to their statute miles equivalents, and added an explanatory footnote (I got into trouble with the Nimrod Expedition FAC for not doing this. I have also adopted the convert template to get the most accurate kilometre readings. Brianboulton (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an image expert, or I would try to help. Looks even better, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel of Bulgaria edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because WikiProject Bulgaria is aiming to bring it to GA or FA status. I believe the article is very thorough and well-referenced and the illustrations can hardly be any better. My main concerns are the formatting and the grammar and style: it was written by a non-native speaker (User:Gligan) and edited by a non-native speaker (myself), so in order to meet the prose criteria it might need some native speaker assistance ;)

Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 12:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've begun making various minor copyedits to improve the use of English. My major nitpick concerns the citing of sources: you mention the name of books with their authors etc. in the citation, while they should be brought together in the "References" section. Please see WP:CITE on listing and formatting sources & cites. Furthermore, you mention several medieval writers, e.g. Scylitzes or Stephen of Taron, with page numbers. Which edition/language/year do these pages come from? Sources must be clearly given, so that one could verify them. Also, it would be good to include more English-language sources and citations (as this is the English WP, they would be easier to verify). Oh, and the tone of the article is a bit too anti-Byzantine at places. I'll try to make it more neutral. Otherwise, good work. Constantine ✍ 11:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of FA Cup winners edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is close to FL standard. But please let me know of any tweaks I may still need to make.

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)
  • I think it would be reasonable to link to all of the final articles as well as the season articles, particularly as you have a list of finals. Could you link each scoreline to the corresponding cup final article perhaps? There may be another way to do it, by adding an extra column say, but this would seem the most efficient.
  • "Until 1999 a draw in the final would result in the match being replayed, since that date the final has always been decided on the day." -- I think the middle of the sentence should be "replayed; since then" or "replayed, but since then". Also I would add something on the end like "...with extra-time and penalties if necessary" to help explain that in some cases that was what was required to settle it on the day.
  • Can we distinguish the finals that went to extra-time or were decided in extra-time? I assume all the finals requiring a replay did (though I may well be wrong), but those decided in extra-time could also be marked out.

--Jameboy (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)

I don't have much to say, and the one thing I was going to say, Jameboy already has. So I will echo his first bullet point. My suggestion would be to link the score, as in his suggestion, or perhaps add a second link underneath the season link, to say "Final details" or something similar. I think the first option would look neater. Peanut4 (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the comments gents, I'm back after a little unscheduled Wikibreak over the weekend, so I will get onto them later today.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)
  • I definitely think the list should be sortable, seeing as this is part of the criteria of Feature lists now
    • I'll get on to that
  • I think you might need to include references for the matches, this si what I did for the European Cup winners lists anyway, so it would be advisable
    • Each column has a ref at the top which covers the entire column, isn't that sufficient? I think it would look a bit silly to have the same numbered reference repeated 127 times........
  • A key would make things a little clearer instead of the information being listed as it is now
    • Other than the asterisk for extra time, what else is there to cover with a key.....?
The bold for double winners and italics for teams from outside the top division NapHit (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about everything being centrally aligned, it does look nice, but I thought only figures were centrally aligned
    • Again, I'll get on to that....

Hope this helps NapHit (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York Knicks seasons edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this to become a featured list. Any suggestions for the lead would be particularly helpful. Please note that the number of red links in the Knicks seasons column will be reduced significantly while this is here.

Thanks, Giants2008 (17-14) 16:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I do not write sports articles usually, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are no basketball season list, so I note there are several American football (NFL) seasons FLs. See as one example Chicago Bears seasons.
    • There actually are two NBA season FLs - Los Angeles Lakers seasons and Chicago Bulls seasons. Some of the formatting is based on these lists, but I've tried to design the lead a little differently. The Lakers list has one huge and one small paragraph, while the Bulls list has a seperate section for team history, which I'm not a fan of. I did like the all-time win record from the Lakers list and added a sentence to the lead of this. While I'm here, I should say that the Bears list recently passed an FLRC with issues that were left unaddressed; there's still a cite tag in the notes. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would help to have the lead more in chronological order - start with the founding of the team and work forward (as the Bears article does)
    • The recent trend for season FLs is to have a definition of the team as the first sentence, with facts on conference and division alignment and current stadium in the lead; some also give all-time records. After that comes the general history. Since that appears to be the current standard, I'd like to follow it if possible. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, shouldn't the first sentence have something about the seasons in it, and shouldn't the name of the article be in bold if possible - see WP:LEAD
    • Actually, list names in bold are now discouraged at FLC. The first sentence of most new FLs, as I said earlier, is a straight definition, just like a regular article. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like the lead does this pretty much already, but anything not in the list that is in the lead needs a ref.
    • I checked this and think I got everything that needed a cite. The sentence I added has one as well. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note b Before the 1970–71 season, the Eastern Division was renamed the Eastern Conference and split into the Atlantic and Central divisions. probably needs a ref
    • After an unsuccessful Internet search for a good reference, I put in a request at the NBA WikiProject. Unfortunately, I don't have any books on this. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No response yet, but I managed to find two cites for it, from the league and team websites respectively. Changed the note a bit too. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems OK to me otherwise - agree that the lead needs work.
    • Thanks for the review! Once a reference is found for the one note, I think this is ready to be nominated. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Alamo edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've just finished a large revamp of this article. I've consulted a great many sources and believe that the article now reflects current scholarship. I hope to nominate the article soon for an A-class review and then FAC. There are still several images that I plan to add soon, and the article still needs a final copyedit. I am most concerned right now that the information flows well, that it is not confusing to people who are unfamiliar with the topic, and that it is appropriately neutral (not favoring one side over the other). I welcome any comments to improve the article. Thanks, Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. I also looked at prose flow and neutrality and some copyedit things that jumped at me!
    • First sentence, suggest replace the second "in" with "at" to avoid repetition.
    • Last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead feels very tacked on, perhaps reword it to include the information in the previous sentence?
    • Suggest culling a bit of the detail in the lead, such as "divided into four columns" and other details. You want to summarize the whole article, not necessiarly give details on the exact dispositions of the battle. This level of detail in the lead trips the reader up and interupts the prose.
    • Definitely needs a copyedit, prose feels choppy. The sentences flow from one to the other, but they are often choppy.
    • Background section - For those who did not suffer through Texas History in school, suggest explaning that San Antonio de Bexar is present-day San Antonio.
    • Background section - Name the governor who was impeached?
    • Background section - 18-lber? I think you mean 18 pounder (grins)
    • Seventh paragraph of Aftermath - first sentence .. missing something?
    • As far as balance, it seems pretty balanced to me, except how is this covered in Mexican sources, for the Legacy section? Suggest that that is an aspect that should be covered, also any Mexican historian's accounts.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 20:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit (talk · contribs)

  • Image:Jimbowie.jpg - The source indicates ambiguity about the author of the painting. This should be reflected in the image description.
  • Image:San Antonio 067.JPG - We don't know who the "me" or "I" is for this image - is it the uploader? We don't know if the uploader has the ability to release the copyright.

I'll add more on the words later. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found the first two paragraphs of the lead slightly confusing - I had to reread them about three times to make sure I understood the timeline. I wonder if a sentence or two describing the battle to come would help - give the reader a roadmap so that it is easier to follow all of the details?
  • Would it at all be possible to explain in a few more sentences or even a paragraph why there was a Texan Revolution and to explain, for example, that Texas was not a US state? I feel that this battle is so well-known that, ahem, quite uninformed people might read the article.
  • The second paragraph of the "Background" section begins by talking about an invasion of Mexico, but it was not clear to me why these men decided to invade Mexico.
  • I was a bit confused by the heading "Investment" - is that because I'm not a military history buff?
  • Overall, there is a lot of detail in this article, particularly in the "Prelude" and "Siege" sections. Honestly, though I wanted to learn more about the battle, I had to wander away from the article a few times and come back, so that I could concentrate. However, this could just be my lack of interest in things like how far shacks were from the Alamo walls and when precisely each hut was burned. :)
  • What do you think about adding a timeline to the article (see, for example, Panic of 1907)? It would have helped me follow the detailed narration a bit better.

These are just general thoughts, not a line-by-line review. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldag07 peer review edit

Take it or leave it. I just saw your message on the wikiproject texas page, and figured id give my 2 cents:

Much shorter intro would be nice. I think it could be halved

Needs more images. maybe something of the modern site. Image:Mission San Antonio aka Alamo.jpg

Here is a good map that could help you. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_texas/ i am pretty sure it is free for educational purposes.

I think the "fall of the alamo" image would be a better looking picture in the infobox

Popular culture- mentioned several times throughout seasons 6-7 of star trek deep space nine as a holosuite program. http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Alamo

Maybe a Battle of the Alamo in Popular Culture page page could be started. the current section is kind of long. See: Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture

See other battle featured articles as a point of comparison

Best of luck Oldag07 (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Science Festival edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has recently been named a good article, and I'd like to put it up as an FA candidate. In preparation, I'd like to put it up for peer review – any and all feedback, whether on the writing or on the content, is greatly appreciated.

Many thanks, Markus Poessel (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Awadewit edit

What a change from general relativity! :) I did a little copyediting. Perhaps one more sweep would tighten things up even further.

  • The inaugural festival took place from May 28 to June 1, 2008, the first instance of what is planned as an annual event. - There is some redundancy here, with "inaugural" and "first instance".
  • the two decided that a similar festival in New York City would be a worthwhile science communication project - "science communication project" is a bit vague
  • That sentence was a hard one for me. Somehow, it either comes out too much like festival PR copy, or awkward like this. I've given it another try; please take a look. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greene serves as the foundation's chairman; on the board of directors, he is joined by Alan Alda, Columbia University president Lee Bollinger, the foundation's president Judith Cox, Tracy Day as the festival's Executive Director, and New York University president John Sexton. - This sentence is awkward - it lacks parallel structure.
  • The first paragraph of "Festival events" becomes a bit listy at the end - is listing all of the names of those scientists without any context really necessary?
  • I'm not sure - my main reasons that all those names have wikilinks, and I'm all for cross-linking Wikipedia as densely as possible. I've de-listified some of the events, and left some names out. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make sure we are being vigilant - was there any criticism of the festival?
  • All reviews by reliable sources that I'm aware of are on this page. The one that has some worries about science elitism and boosterism is the SciAm blog entry from April 3, long before the festival. The published reviews from people who actually saw the festival were all positive. The closest they come to criticism is mention of rumors of instances of organizational turmoil before the festival. Should the critical reception get a section of its own? My worry is that such a section, if praise and criticism were represented in faithful proportions, would look too much like advertising. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little reception section might be a good idea. It is worth pointing out that the reviews of the festival were overwhelming positive. :) Awadewit (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - I'm away for the Columbus Day week-end, but I'll get on to it on Tuesday. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's now a smallish "reception" section, which includes the cautious remarks about organizational glitches featuring in some of the articles. Markus Poessel (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great - looks like this review is done, then. Thanks! Back to Jane Austen. Markus Poessel (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My roommate went to the festival - he said nearly everything was sold out. Bigger next year? Awadewit (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not much bigger next year. And, in fact, all events were sold out in 2008. Many thanks for your review! Markus Poessel (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Rio discography edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that this list has FL potential. I have been working hard on this, and I'd like comments as to what to do on it so it can become FL one day.

Thanks, Xclamation point 06:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yay, still nothing after 2 days. Anyway, I think the only point of concern here is verifying that Can't You Tell wasn't released. It's not on their website and it's not on Allmusic, so I would think that would be proof enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Brevity edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been worked on extensively and there is, as far as I am now aware, very little in the way of new information to be added. I am now looking to get the article to FAC standard and would appreciate any pointers and help in doing so.

Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some pretty nit-picky suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • While it is OK to have refs in the lead, in theory they are only needed for direct quotes or perhaps extraordinary claims (since the material and refs should be in the body of the article itself).
    • The refs were placed there after the lead got a bunch of fact tags slapped all over it - i could remove them; as you have said everything in the lead is covered by the main text of the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I would hope that everyone would know this, would it help to mention German in Operation Sonnenblume reinforced the Italians with the [German?] Afrika Korps, commanded by General Erwin Rommel, and comprising the 5th Light and 15th Panzer divisions.
  • Refs should be in numnerical order, so change and without risking the force committed to the operation.[8][4] as one example. I would be consistent on where notes appear - some are at the end of numerical notes, some before.
  • The scale on the map in Image:Operation Brevity.jpg does not have units on it - since you made the map, could this be added (miles?)?
    • Nope because i have no idea the exact positions of any of the German or Allied forces. I will make the change soon regarding the scale.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a Scale at the top of the map (labeled Scale) with "0 1 2 3 4" beneath. It seems to refer to distance on the map. If the distance is not known, then remove the scale. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I misinterepted what you meant, yes i can add the unit in and will do.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok i have just uploaded a new version of the map with the issue sorted--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems a bit awkward The squadron lost five tanks when it was engaged by 20–30 German tanks supported by anti-tank guns, concealed in hull down positions behind a ridge, but pressed on and forced the Germans to withdraw.
    • I have rewrote this portion, hopefully reads better now--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear what destination is meant here - orginal or subsequent? The regiment arrived at its destination, where it had set out two days previously, at around 0230 hours on 17 May.[9][47]?
    • I have replaced destination with the name of the town.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent on spaces after footnotes and before the ref - some have a space, some do not.
    • Could you point an example out please, i have looked through the article and cannot spot any although am sure they are since you have highlighted this.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
      • These are all in the Footnotes section: for example there is no space after the period and before (Jentz, p. 101) in ^ a b Only ten British tanks were lost due to enemy action; the remaining losses were caused by breakdowns and lack of fuel.(Jentz, p. 101) but in Footnote three there is. I think it reads better with a space. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps.

Thanks allot!: )--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bellflower Bunnies (season 2) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Two seasons down...and one more to go by tomorrow. Again, this may be as comprehensive as the season in question can get, but I might be able to add in a little more.

See also the PR on the first season, and the FLC on the main episode list, if you are checking over this.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 10:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this is the third time I have reviewed this material (since it used to be part of the larger list). I hope I can still keep critical distance to review it well, and I do think it is much better. I will also review the Season 3 list and some the comments may be very similar. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There are still some places that need a bit polish on the language - I think getting someone to copyedit before FLC would be very useful. Just a few examples: Co-production partners for this season included France's TF1, Euro Visual,[3] Big Cash,[1] and that country's department of Walt Disney Television.[1] why not just say something like " and the French department of Walt Disney Television"? Or in Left alone by Bramble and Zinnia, the five young rabbits decide to make fried doughnuts. why not use the word beignet (which seems to mean the same thing) and link it?
  • Is there any way to make the table internal divisions all the same size / width? The lines between the title and the air date vary considerably on my computer and would look much nicer if they were always in the same place (formatting)
  • This season runs approximately 500 minutes in length. The first nine episodes are based on original Beechwood Bunny Tales, and the rest are written by Baranski. probably needs a ref. It is more usual to indicate the length of a typical episode (I think), as well as the total length.
  • The italics in "Based on Le Noël des Passiflore (ISBN 2-7459-0495-7)." and the other book titles seem oddly italicized to me - usually the title is in italics, so "Based on Le Noël des Passiflore (ISBN 2-7459-0495-7)."
  • In the note Numbers to the right refer to their positions in this season. could an example be added, something like "So for Bunnies on the Case "O 6/2" means this is officially the sixth episode of the whole series and the second official episode for this season, while "B 8/4" means this is the eighth episode in the series in broadcast order and fourth episode broadcast this season." Probably can find a way to say it more concisely.
  • Could the two one-sentence paragraphs in Awards and merchandise be combined to make one paragraph?
  • Why does the Region 1 and 2 DVD list Epsiodes on the disc by official number, while the German table does not include this information (it is in the intro instead) and the Hungarian table uses English titles? Be consistent.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bellflower Bunnies (season 3) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Now that I'm done with the season lists, I might be finally off to editing the main book and show pages for the Passiflore franchise, as part of my plans for a featured topic on it.

If you are checking over this, please see also:

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this is the third time I have reviewed this material (since it used to be part of the larger list). I hope I can still keep critical distance to review it well, and I do think it is much better. I have also reviewed the Season 2 list and some the comments may be very similar. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There are still some places that need a bit polish on the language - I think getting someone to copyedit before FLC would be very useful. Just a few examples: The title card for Season 3 as it appears in English (also used for Season 2). Characters from left to right: Poppy, Violette and Periwinkle. why not just say something like The title card for Seasons 2 and 3 as it appears in English. ...? Or At the beck and call of a jealous badger, Poppy must build a machine to lift out a sacred treasure from a lake. I am not sure about this, maybe something like Poppy must build a machine for a jealous badger to lift a sacred treasure from a lake.??
  • Some places seem to needs refs Returnees included director Eric Berthier, producer Particia Robert, writer Valérie Baranski, executive co-producer Paul Cadieux, and executive producers Yves Pont and Franck Algard. or This season runs approximately 580 minutes in length. Except for "Les Passiflore à la mer" (based on an original Beechwood Bunny Tale), the episodes are based on original scripts by Valérie Baranski. No English titles have been supplied for them.
  • Is there any way to make the table internal divisions all the same size / width? The lines between the title and the air date vary considerably on my computer and would look much nicer if they were always in the same place (formatting)
  • This season runs approximately 500 minutes in length. probably needs a ref. It is more usual to indicate the length of a typical episode (I think), as well as the total length.
  • In the note Numbers to the right refer to their positions in this season. could an example be added, see Season 2 review for a suggestion.
  • Could the two two-sentence paragraphs in Episodes be combined to make one paragraph?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Lord of the Treasury edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

First Lord of the Treasury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm aiming for   Good Article status, and would like some constructive feedback on how this article could further improve—to the extent that it meets the GA criterion. Anthøny (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr pda:

  • You need to show the source for each statement in the article, through inline citations.
  • The dates in the table no longer need to be linked.
  • The article doesn't really say what the First Lord did, before the position became a sinecure.
  • The article is quite short; so are Second Lord of the Treasury and Lord of the Treasury (the latter of which is not linked from the article). It might make sense to merge these three into one article, say Lord of the Treasury.
  • The link for commission in the first sentence goes to Government agency, which is not really the meaning intended here; I would just drop the link as it is explained in the first paragraph of the body.
  • Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer don't need to be bolded in the Lords of the Treasury section.
  • It might perhaps be instructive to mention that the office of Lord High Admiral was similarly exercised by a commission.
  • The term ministry should be defined.
  • The footnotes should be in a separate section to the references. Also, the two books currently quoted as sources are missing information such as publisher, location, date etc.

Hope this helps. Dr pda (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Golden Age edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article contains many scientific claims which need to be ascertained by a neutral, 3O party, preferably someone familiar with the history of science worldwide.

Thanks, Cesar Tort 21:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This article covers a highly complex set of events and is quite interesting. I don't know enough to address the specific points about content that are under discussion on the article's talk page. Even so, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead is much too short. The lead should adequately summarize the main text. A good rule of thumb is to try to include at least a brief mention of the central ideas in each of the main text sections. Please see WP:LEAD.
  • The sea of blue wikilinks is fairly amazing. Common words like "artists", "engineers", "scholars", "poets", and so on should not be linked. The number of words that should be unlinked in this article may run into the hundreds. Please see WP:OVERLINK.
  • The article has many sources, but some sections remained unsourced. For example, the "Architecture" and "Arts" sections are unsourced, and the first half of the "Philosophy" section cites no sources. A good rule of thumb is to consider giving at least one source for each individual paragraph. Direct quotes need a source, and the reference tags for these should be placed immediately after the punctuation at the end of the quote.
  • Generally, the prose flows nicely. However, some of the sentences are quite long because they include so many examples. For example, the first paragraph of the "Astronomy" section consists of two sentences, the second of which contains about 200 words. The sentence is clear despite its length, but I think it would be more effective if it listed only the main things and not every possible thing. Shortening the list could also be accomplished by tightening the prose in places such as "the development of universal astrolabes, the invention of numerous other astronomical instruments", which could be compressed to "the development of universal astrolabes and other instruments". It could also be accomplished by leaving out parts of the list such as "the first elaborate experiments related to astronomical phenomena", which is a vague claim at best and one that might be difficult to verify.
  • To prevent digits and the nouns they modify from being separated by line-wrap on computer screens, it's customary in Wikipedia to add a no-break code between the two. Examples from the text are "10th century" and "700 mosques". I see lots of other examples. Please see WP:NBSP.

This is nothing like a complete review, but I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If you find them so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Reborn! chapters edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because to see if it needs some copy-edit or some parts need to be easier to understand.

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If chapters are referred to as "Targets", why is this not reflected in the chapter list? I did this with Tramps Like Us, where chapters are "Rules". Could "one hundred and ninety-five" be 195 per WP:MOSNUM? -Malkinann (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Tintor2 (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Another thing you might want to look at is your use of commas - one sentence, one idea! -Malkinann (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)
  • "This article shows the chapters of the manga series" - FLC no longer likes lists to have things like that. Would recommend just saying something like "The manga series Reborn!, written and illustrated by Akira Amano, is comprised of X chapters—called "Targets"."
  • The first two sentences of the second paragraph should be in the first paragraph before the plot summary. The sentence on the anime can go after the licensing.
  • The sources need clean up as they have excessive stuff in the title. For example:
{{cite web|url=http://books.shueisha.co.jp/CGI/search/syousai_put.cgi?isbn_cd=4-08-873680-X&mode=1|title=家庭教師ヒットマンREBORN！／1｜天野　明｜ジャンプコミックス｜BOOKNAVI｜集英社|publisher=[[Shueisha]]|accessdate=2007-11-22|language=Japanese}}
should be
{{cite web |url=http://books.shueisha.co.jp/CGI/search/syousai_put.cgi?isbn_cd=4-08-873680-X&mode=1|title=家庭教師ヒットマンREBORN！／1 |publisher=[[Shueisha]] |accessdate=2007-11-22 |language=Japanese}}
  • The Amazon refs need clean up - should not have the referer part or other excess
  • I'm not sure about using flagicons for the titles, but can't think of a better way to handle it.
  • The ELs section is probably unnecessary; the first two repeat the references and the ANN doesn't add extra content beyond that (if kept, the English tags are unnecessary)
  • Other than that, a general copy edit and should be good to go for FLC.

Hope that helps. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems the user Darkangel made some things you said.Tintor2 (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You might want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). Right now the flags are without the country name. I would actually just name the country and remove the flags from the article per the same guideline. Garion96 (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Tintor2 (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester and Bolton Railway edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would appreciate constructive feedback on where to go next. I'd like to take it to GA status, its a fairly narrow subject so I don't anticipate much interest from other editors, as specific knowledge is required on this subject.

Any comments on grammar, referencing, layout, content - much appreciated.

Thanks, Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and should be more than one paragraph per WP:LEAD. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
- Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs are usually in numerical order, so fix ... to become the "Company of Proprietors of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Navigation and Railway Company".[3][2]
- Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused - how did the first Act of Parliament not allow them to build a rail line so that In 1832 this company obtained an Act that allowed it to build the railway.[4]?? This needs to be clarified.
- Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another confusing passage A difficult section of the railway was the two tunnels at Farnworth. Each single-bore, and 295 yards (270 m) long, the bore on the down line is slightly larger than on the up line - a feature that remains to this day.[9] Difficult in what sense (presumably to construct)? Are there dimensions of the two bores (so the reader can learn the size of each)? Presumably these were drilled / excavated by hand - wouldn't it be usual for them not be exactly the same size? I am also not clear what would be down vs. up on such a line - towards Farnworth or away? Down is downhill presumably?
- Difficult in that tunnelling at that time in history was labour intensive, and probably quite dangerous. I would hope the reader would infer this from the era the railway was constructed in. No explanation is given for the tunnel bores, so I cannot expand on that. Its just a curious feature. I have inserted wikilinks to up and down lines. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now expanded upon this. I plan to go into more detail when I find better sources. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several one or two sentence paragraphs and a few very short sections that break up the flow of the article. I would combine these with others or perhaps expand them. Does "Services" really need its own two sentence section? Could this be part of Fares and services?
- Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a reference: On 11 June 1838, a new pricing structure was introduced, with first class costing 2s, 1s 6d, and 1s. Passenger's tickets were taken while travelling, presumably by a ticket inspector. Presumably sounds like the dreaded WP:NOR
- I'll have to get back to you on that reference (could take a while as I would need to revisit the library which is quite far away), I have removed the ticket inspector line. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Found the reference and moved it - it now encompasses the paragraph, since all that info is on the same page of the source material. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the company's lines still in use today (sounds like it from the tunnel quote). Could a photo of the tunnels be included?
- That's a good idea, I cycle there regularly so will try and get a shot of the northern end. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an image here but it isn't great. You can see the difference in sizes though. I'll get a much better photo than that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is pretty close to GA. Would definitely need a copyedit for FA.
- Ok, let me know what you think of the changes and if you're happy, once this review is closed I'll ask for it to be copyedited. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Extremely helpful thanks :) Considering I only created it to help get the canal article to FA I think its quite heart warming that someone else considers it a possible GA :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Phua edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is about a Singaporean politician who focuses on the disabled and special needs communities. Since I am doing a project about her in junior college, I decided to write an article about her. I would like the article checked for prose, MOS (or MOnSter), NPOV and BLP issues before I nominate it for GAN in early November. (Do point out other issues that may prevent the article from attaining GA status.)

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of universities in Alberta edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive suggestions on how to improve the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, same suggestions for expansion as the Manitoba list. The prose could use a little more copyediting here. Sentence structure comes across as a bit simple. DurovaCharge! 05:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have copyedited it a bit further. I'll look around for some more information to add. Gary King (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • The University of Calgary is the only university in the province located in Calgary, the province's most populated city. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Gary King (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from SRX (talk · contribs) - Like you told me earlier, not FL quality yet, but I see no prose problems, but why not just write out "Established" and the other words versus "E".SRX 20:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Won't fit on a 1024x768 screen. Gary King (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in Manitoba edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it does not have enough items to become featured, so I'd like to at least receive any suggestions that I can get to improve it as much as possible. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting, illustration, and citation are all very good. Prose is straightforward although not brilliant. Could there be more facts to be listed about these universities? For instance, the ages of all institutions and their graduate divisions. Perhaps sizes of faculty, student body, and campus land area? DurovaCharge! 05:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have copyedited it a bit further. I'll look around for some more information to add. Gary King (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • and they are all under the responsibility
  • "Both the University of Manitoba and the University of Winnipeg are in Winnipeg, the capital and largest city in the province." I think it would sound better if it started Two of these universities, or something like that.
  • Spell out lesser-known abbreviations in the sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Gary King (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gary King (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - same thing that I said with the other one, no prose problems but maybe write out Established and others versus one letter. I also feel that the lead could be expanded somehow, it is relatively short.SRX 20:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's written out it will be too long for a 1024x768 screen. Gary King (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in New Brunswick edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is too short to become featured but I'd still like to receive feedback on how to improve it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautifully done, might be expandable per my comments at Manitoba and Alberta. Very good formatting, illustration, layout, and citation. I'm thinking in terms of utility: if a reader were considering studying or working at one of these places, what would be the basic information they'd want to know? DurovaCharge! 06:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks, I will look around a bit. I've also copyedited the lead a bit further. Gary King (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "and they are all governed"
  • I'm a bit concerned about your use of a tertiary source http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=AboutThisSite&Params=A1 to reference another tertiary source.
  • Spell out lesser-known abbreviations in the citations.
  • "is the only university in the province to not offer graduate-level programs."-->is the only university in the province that does not offer graduate-level programs.
  • "University student enrollment" Who else would be enrolled at a university? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done Gary King (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Spell out abbreviations in the references.
  • Otherwise, sources look good.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done Gary King (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - same thing as I said in the others, spell out the key and expand the lead.SRX 20:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in Saskatchewan edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is too short to be featured, but I'd still like to receive feedback on how to improve it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautifully done, might be expandable per my comments at Manitoba and Alberta. Very good formatting, illustration, layout, and citation. I'm thinking in terms of utility: if a reader were considering studying or working at one of these places, what would be the basic information they'd want to know? Plus a bit more on the First Nations University--it's an interesting part of the Canadian higher education system. DurovaCharge! 06:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've copyedited a bit and also added a bit more on the First Nations University. Gary King (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "This Agreement allowed FNUC to become an independently administered university-college that served the academic, cultural, and spiritual needs of First Nations students." Sounds promotional.
  • "the statute outlines"-->these statutes outline.The previous clause refers to "statutes", so keep it consistent.
  • Spell out lesser-known abbreviations in the citations. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I should have caught the promotional material one. Gah. Anyways, all done. Gary King (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Spell out abbreviations in the references.
  • Otherwise, sources look good.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done Gary King (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - same thing as others, expand lead and spell out key.SRX 20:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Shaw (actor) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This has been peer reviewed once, but it is currently a Good Article nomination, and I've been advised to seek one more copy edit. Would be very much appreciated.

Thanks, Hunter Kahn (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's my comments on the lead:
"he made his Broadway debut in 1929, when he created the role of one of the two murderers in Rope's End." He created the role? Was he also the director? This needs to be clarified.
"He appeared in his first film, Caste, in 1930 and quickly began to create a name for himself in motion pictures, primarily due to his good looks." 'Create a name for himself' is peacock language and the claim it was due to his good looks need to be referenced. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed both. Is that better? And will you be reading the rest of the article as well? -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula's Daughter edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it a great deal over the last few days and believe that it is close to if not at good article status. I would appreciate review comments with an eye to leading to a successful GA nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Great work on this article! I have a few suggestions; some are pretty nitty-gritty but keep in mind I'm not a film person but a literary person.

  • In lead, first mention of Universal - My assumption is that "Universal" is a shortened version of the full name; why not say "Universal Studios"?
  • In plot summary, this may sound pedantic, but it does not say that Dracula's daughter was a vampire before she's trying to be cured of vampirism. For absolute clarity, and for boneheads like me, it might be worth being more explicit. Later in that paragraph, I'm not sure the word "mesmerizing" is accurate. See mesmerism. You may also want to break up the plot summary into two or three paragraph for easier readability. Towards the end, some of the sentences get a little long and hard to follow; you might want to break them up too.
  • The Production section could also be carved into a couple paragraphs and reorganized. I suggest, for exapmle, a paragraph right before "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer", and reserve that first paragraph for info on the source story, then go into the Universal vs. MGM thing. In fact, this is probably the only significant reorganization/rewriting I'd recommend. I don't think it's major but it would substantially improve things. The section is also severely low on citations. Maybe add a few more footnotes? A couple long, hard-to-follow sentences in this section too, notably: The script included scenes that implied that Dracula's daughter enjoyed torturing her male victims and that while under her control the men liked it too, along with shots of the Countess's chambers being stocked with whips and straps, which she would never use on-screen but whose uses the audience could imagine.
  • Director section starts with another overwhelmingly long sentence. This section is probably the best as far as citations so good work there.
  • Universal script section could use another footnote here and there if you can cite further.
  • The section on the lesbian overtones of the film was fascinating (I have yet to see another quote in a Wikipedia article along the lines of "impressive Euro-butch dyke bloodsucker")! It might be a bit weighty but it doesn't bother me. I'm not sure it's in the ideal order though; it's sort of sandwiched between Reception and Influence. On the Entertainment Weekly quote, it might be worth putting the date of that quote in the prose (I think we suddenly jumped a couple decades). Same thing with the Celluloid Closet film; it might need a date too. The other quotes seem okay ("reviewers of the day") but it's interesting to know the time differences. The second to last paragraph there is also only two sentences; typically, I recommend aiming for minimum of three per paragraph. Either split up a sentence (Maybe the last sentence could be "She is finally interrupted by the arrival of Dr. Garth" or something) or splice it back into the paragraph above.
  • Influence section is a bit short. I might suggest moving this into the reception section, possibly under the heading "Reception and influence" - with one exception, the note that it inspired homoerotic vampire fiction should definitely stay with the lesbianism section. It might solve my little question about the order of the Lesbian implications section.

I hope my notes have helped. Feel free to ignore ones you deem irrelevant. I think it has a good chance of passing GA status, especially once the long sentences are addressed. Good luck! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S. A. Dange edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish this to be considered for FL class Thanks, Weblogan (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First impressions:

  • Too long, too many subsections.
  • No References and Notes sections as per WP:LAYOUT.
  • I am puzzled why is it considered for FL, do you mean WP:FA? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shogi edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm not going for FA, but am looking for advice on getting this to GA. Yes, I know it requires thorough referencing, but what I'm really looking for is a basic outline of what else is needed, since I'm not familiar with the expectations of game articles. (I posted at GAN, and they suggested that I come here, since it would have been quick failed for the lack of inline refs.)

Thanks, kwami (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Discusses main aspects of the subject, fulfills that criterion of WP:GA?
  • Too many subsections in Section 1
  • Strategy and tactics - needs more inline references.
  • Lead is too short

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! kwami (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been cleaned up and polished, and I just want to know what everyone thinks of it after all this time it has been worked on.

Thanks, Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 02:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A very nice article—I especially liked the plot section's prose. I did a readthough of the page and you may wish to review the changes. My only problems are with the "reception" section, to which I added a couple 'needs source' tags. "Despite an overwhelmingly positive viewing response, the same could not be said criticially." Okay, you have Metacritic and a bunch of "critical" reviews, so the latter part of the sentence is fine. But where is the first part backed up? You mention four reviews that were positive, but surely these do not represent the general public, nor are they written by less formal individuals than the negative reviews. And if a review is written by a fan and someone whose job is to professionally criticize television and/or film, does that not fail our guideline for reliable sources as self-published? I have not taken the time to review each source, but I am automatically skeptical of the credibility of the sources that do not have Wikipedia articles. Later, it says "The cameos by Quentin Tarantino and Kelly Osbourne received mixed to negative response" and you go on to talk about two reviews that commented on the cameos. Are these the "mixed to negative response"? If so, that introductory sentence should be removed. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks better after the changes, but there is still one more sourcing issue. Twice in the article, it says that it premiered to higher ratings than expected, but there is no citation to back up this claim. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is it? In the first paragraph of the reception section, one part reads "Despite a better-than-expected viewing response". What was who expecting? –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be expanded with a plot synopsis and details on reaction. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myst V: End of Ages edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to get this to FA at some point, so comments on all aspects (images/sources/grammar) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS
Lead
  • "After Myst's release" – "After End of Ages's release"?
  • "copies by 2007" – "copies by 2007" – so by January 1, 2007? Or December 31, 2007? It'd probably be better to say "By the end of 2006" then.
Gameplay
  • "series, where" – "series where"
  • "carved into using" – "carved using"
  • "mouse, creating shapes" – "mouse to create shapes"
  • "If a player wants to climb a ladder, for example, he or she will have to leave the slate behind." – "For example, the player must leave the slate behind before they can climb a ladder."
  • "End of Ages features several features" – "End of Ages has several features"
  • "to aid on completion of puzzles" – "designed to help the player complete puzzles"
  • "a player journal" – "a journal" – or expand on it a bit, like "a journal that the player can access" to clarify that this is not in the game's universe
  • "Player's interactions" – "Player interactions"
  • "via an encounter journal" – "via another journal" – "encounter journal" I assume is what it's called but it has no meaning for us

If I've got more time I'll go through the rest later. Gary King (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snappy response, I like the service around here :P I'll get on the above, thanks! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "series sold" – "series, sold"
  • "the switch " – "The switch "
  • "realtime" – "real-time"
  • "was generally seen" – How can it be general with only one reference?
  • "A few reviewers, such as Charles Herold of the New York Times," – "Charles Herold of the New York Times"
  • "compared the prerendered" – "when compared to the prerendered"

Gary King (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few more refs to the statement, it looks like you got the others. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jappalang's brief comments from a quick glance
  • You are going to give Tony fits with "with missing pages appearing translucent", "with the player responding", etc ("noun plus -ing")
  • "the player's view remains static at all times.": Does this mean that throughout the whole game, the screen never changes (i.e. the same text, pictures, etc).
    • I would say that "fixed" is the same as "static". The problem is that the context is "Myst V: End of Ages is a first-person adventure game"; hence, "player's view" can be taken as the screen display (and not the "player's point of view" I presume it is supposed to mean). The explanation of the Classic Myst's navigation scheme should be clearer. Note also that "where players travelled across Ages by clicking on pre-rendered environments" could perhaps be moved away from the earlier mention and used as the explanation for Classic movement. I am not too certain if by Classic movement, does the display scroll along (update) with a fixed point of view as one moves forward by clicking on pre-rendered environment (something like classic Wizardry); or by clicking, the screen updates to the location instantly with a pre-rendered view of the location.
      • Suggestion: "Myst V: End of Ages is a first-person adventure game. Players travel across several worlds known as "Ages", solving puzzles and gathering clues by reading books or observing the environment. Unlike earlier games in the series, End of Ages offers three navigation modes to explore the Ages. The first, "Classic mode", uses the controls of Myst and Riven. Each location of interest (node) is represented by a two-dimensional picture, which is pre-rendered and static. Players move to other nodes across the Ages by clicking on spots of entries on the picture. The "Classic Plus" mode uses the controls of Myst III: Exile and Myst IV: Revelation. Players again can only move from node to node; however, each node is represented in the three dimensions (3D) and players can look around in any direction, albeit from a fixed reference point. In the final navigation mode, known as "Free Look" or "Advanced" mode, the game world is fully represented in 3D. Using the WASD keyboard keys, players can move in any direction and travel among the nodes and their connecting spaces. Players can also change their point of view by using the mouse." What do you think of this? I am trying to bring out the concepts of travel, but might have some of them wrong and be too technical on others. Not entirely certain of the language in my suggestion too...
  • Last paragraph of Reception: "[...] Cyan announced the layoff [...] the employees a few weeks later." How does this relate to the game in question? Why did they layoff the staff (we know by common sense it would be financial difficulties, but without stating so, one is left to wonder if there were exceptional reasons in play here).
    • It might be more relevant in Development-Release, but it still has questions unanswered. We do not know why Cyan Worlds let go their staff, and why hiring most of them back later would be "[pulling] a rabbit out of a hat". A greater context is needed here (I would hazard details of the financial situation of Cyan Worlds are in order) to make sense of those statements. It would also be best if that context is related to Myst V, such as the company's reliance on the game to sell in large numbers to improve their situation, or the game's cost was so high that it crippled the company, etc.
      • Definitely better.
  • Some terms might need explanation even if they are direct quotes of the sources. For example, we have "environmental effects linked to the slates offered urgency to puzzle-solving and a "liberating feeling" of unlocking areas of exploration." as the last sentence now; so, what are environmental effects and how would they increase the urge to solve a puzzle or make a player feel relieved on unlocking an area? Note also "unlocking areas" is a jargon that has not been explained earlier.
    • Dave, "Gamespot found that the slate puzzles offered urgency to solving and was a positive addition." is more puzzling... If GameSpot does not adequately explain how the slates make players feel that way, perhaps a full or partial quote is in order (let the readers figure out what Kasavin is trying to say).

Just a quick review. Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get going on the removal of the ing stuff. As for the last paragraph, I moved it to versions and renamed it to release, since it's more relevant there. How does it look now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented on the changes inline following my above opinions and added one more. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a stab at contextualizing your gameplay and release points: take a look? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Made further comments inline as above. Jappalang (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I went through and rewrote the section to the equivalent of what you said above, removing some errors that didn't make sense (but you haven't played the game, so I wouldn't expect you to know :P) The prerendered-rendered distinction wasn't really helping clear up anything in gameplay, so I left it to development to explain the distinction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems all the issues I raised above are resolved. Jappalang (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of men's major championships winning golfers edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the list is the parent list in a featured topic attempt based on major winning golfers, the list is factually accurate, and hopefully any issues can be raised here and dealt with. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This seems like a well-produced list; I haven't checked it for accuracy but assume you have taken all appropriate care. I have heavily copyedited the lead text.

I have a couple of points which you may wish to consider:-

  • Choice of photographs: Both the choice, and the order of presentation, seem a bit odd. You have included single major winners such as Tom Kite and Tom Lehmann, but not multiple winners like Gary Player, Ben Hogan, Nick Faldo. Any particular reason for your choices, and for the order in which they appear?
There are no pictures for the three players that you mentioned, and I wanted to include players who had only won one major to avoid bias towards those who have won more. The order in which they appear is based on the amount of majors they have won NapHit (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date information: I believe that the main table would be improved by the addition of a further column showing the date range for each player's victories. For example, Jack Nicklaus's range would be 1966–86, Ballasteros 1979–1988, and so on. This information would enable us to see what eras the various players were playing in, and this could be particularly useful for some of the lesser known players. I realise that the entries for current players will require amendment, should they win more majors, but I assume that you will keep the list up-to-date anyway.

That's it for the moment. If I get any more bright ideas I'll let you know! Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dog edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article is currently undergoing a major improvement and update, and I would like to list it as a GA nomination. However, I know that a lot more work is required. Since this is a largely popular topic, I am sure that I will receive a response.

Thanks, Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor 18:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dana Boomer

Here are some concerns that I found in the article on a quick run-through:

  • resolved Please make sure that the discussion regarding naming is completed and the decision is finalized with consensus one way or the other before you nominate for GA status.
  • There are two citation banners in the article, both for lack of inline citations, and both were placed there several months ago.
  • resolved There are several sections in the article (Working, utility and assistance dogs, Show and sport (competition) dogs, Dangerous substances) that are composed almost completely of lists. MOS discourages lists in articles, so these should be turned into prose as much as possible.
  • There are a lot of short sections in the article. For as many of these as possible, please either expand them or combine them with other sections.
  • resolved There shouldn't be external links in the body of the article as there are at the end of the Ancestry and history of domestication section. Instead, these should be turned into references, moved to the external links section, or removed altogether.
  • The article needs quite a bit more referencing. For example, in the Ancestry and history of domestication section, six out of seven paragraphs are completely unreferenced.
  • Make sure that all of your web references have publishers and last access dates. Also, please make sure that you are actually using the publisher, and not the work. For example, with current ref #41 (The Case for Tail Docking), the publisher should be Council of Docked Breeds, not cdb.org.
  • resolved References that are in English do not need to be marked as such. References that are in any language other than English do need to be marked.
  • resolved Current ref #70 (Wolf at my door) deadlinks.
  • resolved The Australian National Kennel Club external link deadlinks

I didn't go through the article line by line, so there are probably things that I missed. The above are just fairly big issues that jumped out at me on a quick look through the article. Also, I was recently involved in bringing Horse (another article about an animal with significant human interaction) to GA status...you may want to take a look there to pick up some ideas about layout, referencing, style, etc. Drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions, and good luck on your quest for GA. Dana boomer (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dana. I've fixed some of these problems, and noted it above. --Thesoxlost (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meshuggah edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is an article about a Swedish experimental band. I want to know what does the article need to be fully ready for a FAC. Every suggestion or comment is welcome. Thanks everybody, who helps with this!  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reception history of Jane Austen edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
In our efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Jane Austen, Simmaren and I started with a Timeline of Jane Austen. Our second project has been this article, which we have worked on with Maria. We plan to take it to FAC, so please review accordingly! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Herbert Greenfield edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm considering bringing this article to WP:FAC, so I'm interested both in suggestions for improving the article and in assessments of whether it's worth bringing to WP:FAC in anything resembling its current form. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First section:

  • In the lead, Greenfield has a middle initial, W. Surely this should be mentioned at the beginning of this section?
  • Done.
  • I don't believe so.
  • "before immigrating to Canada in 1896" Should be emmigrate, since we started in England.
  • Done (though with only one M).
  • Don't need to have multiple copies of the same ref - just put one at the end.
  • In my experience, a one-footnote-per-sentence approach, as I've taken here, is better for a Wikipedia article because there's less danger of material sneaking in that isn't referenced. If I put one reference at the end of a paragraph, it would be easy for somebody to come along and put new material into that paragraph, and that material would appear to be supported by the reference even if it wasn't. This is especially true in articles like this one, in which I use primarily offline sources that a reader is unlikely to have ready access to. In any event, I've been unable to find any style guideline that mandates less frequent use of footnotes.
  • "During his first year in Alberta" You haven't said when he moved there yet.
  • "In 1904, Greenfield went west for economic reasons and homesteaded near Edmonton."
  • "While still living in Ontario, Greenfield had married" Try to keep it chronological.
  • In my view, a thematic grouping is more appropriate here, keeping all of the material about his family together (be that at the end of the section or elsewhere).
  • Any birth years for their children?
  • Not that I've been able to find.
  • "In 1922, while Greenfield was Premier" Again, when did he become that?
  • This is covered in the lead and will be covered again in the appropriate section. I didn't see the need to cover it in this section as well, because it deals with his pre-political life. I thought it was worth mentioning incidentally that he was Premier when his wife died, though.
  • "leaving him devastated" No kidding, his wife died! Is it really necessary to say that?
  • On reflection, no; his devastation is mentioned in the section as Premier, where it's more relevant. Removed.

Saving. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e's comments

Random stuff:

  • I can still see an "immigrate to" in the lead.
  • Done.
  • "farmers lobby organization" should be "farmers' lobby organization"?
  • Yep.
  • "that was in the process of making the transition to political party" Better as "that was in the process of making the transition to being a political party"? Or even "that was in the process of becoming a political party"?
  • Both of your wordings are better than mine; I prefer the second one, and have implemented it.
  • As a UK reader, I don't know what a caucus is; the term's not really used politically over here. Can we have a brief explanation or a link?
  • It is linked at one point in the article, along with a bit of an explanation ("UFA members also objected to the concept of a caucus, in which MLAs from one party debate policy behind closed doors."). I've thrown a wikilink in to the first mention of the term in the lead, which I think is probably sufficient.
  • I suggest moving that brief explanation further up the main article to the first mention of caucus - I hadn't got as far as the explanation before running into the concept multiple times. 4u1e (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the jump back in time from the second to the third paragraphs of 'Early life' a bit disorientating, since his wife is mentioned in para two; you could experiment with reversing their order.
  • HDYTTO agreed with you above, so I've concluded that I'm probably wrong in my affection for the original arrangement. I've rearranged it somewhat; let me know what you think.
  • "He remarried in 1926, to Marjorie Greenwood Cormack who had two children of her own" As in she already had two children of her own, or she had two children with him?
  • The former, as I've now clarified.
  • For those of us not familiar with Canadian political organisation, it would be helpful to have a very brief indication of the role of the Alberta govenment in relation to the national one.
  • I'm leery of providing too much background (my assumption is that this article would be of very little interest to anybody not at least passingly familiar with Canadian politics), so what I've done (which is hopefully satisfactory) is link Premier of Alberta in the lead, where the desired background can hopefully be found.
  • OK. My personal choice would be to provide something in the article, but I think perhaps that's a matter of taste. 4u1e (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Calgary meeting of the UFA caucus", perhaps clearer as " A meeting of the UFA caucus in Calgary"? I clicked on Calgary just to make sure that we were talking about the place, and not some unknown (to me) type of political meeting.
  • Absolutely; thanks.
  • " selected Greenfield as its choice" Redundant? Can lose "as its choice".
  • Yes.
  • "won the riding of Peace River for the UFA" What's a 'riding' in this context? I'm sort of familiar with the term as designating an area (West Riding of Yorkshire); does it have a more specific meaning here?
  • It does, and I've now provided a wikilink. Apparently this is a uniquely Canadian term for an electoral district; I had no idea.
  • "Once in the legislature, however, Greenfield faltered in his leadership of his caucus" Not sure what the 'however' here is contrasting with. Am I being dense, or can it be made clearer?
  • It's intended to contrast with the previous sentence, which talks about his easy election to the legislature (i.e. getting in was easy. However, things got harder once he was there.). I've left it as is for now while I mull it over a bit.
  • "proved nearly impossible to whip" I do know what this means, and the link is provided as well, but I wonder if the sense could be made clearer in the text.

More later. Hope this is helpful. 4u1e (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC) More follows:[reply]

  • "seatmate"?
  • Clarified.
  • "Many UFA backbenchers, however, wanted to see it repealed all together, though, because of their objection to caucus discussions, Greenfield was not aware of this by the time his amendments came to the floor of the legislature" Clearer with 'but' instead of 'though', and probably without the comma after?
  • Definitely.
  • "They passed through the house with little debate..." It, rather than they? There's only one Act being discussed here, I think?
  • "They" refers to "[his] amendments" from the previous portion of the sentence.
  • "blind to the optics of paying.." More cross-Atlantic confusion, no doubt, but optics in this context is new to me. I'd expect to see something like: "blind to how paying [the money] would appear to the electorate".
  • Reworded somewhat.
  • "...the last of these was the source of chagrin for MLAs..." a source of chagrin?
  • Yep - fixed.

More later.

  • "these continued until June 7, whereupon Brownlee returned home" I think you do mean "when Brownlee returned home" here.
  • I don't think I agree. The OED defines "whereupon" as meaning "immediately after which", which seems to capture the intended meaning.

OK, that's me done. Overall, a well written and structured article. As a general comment, I'd say perhaps just perhaps run your eye over the article again with a view to keeping the language as simple as possible, and consider that some of your readers may not be familiar with the context. Well done. 4u1e (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediocre (album) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked on it a little, and I feel it's almost ready to be upgraded to B-class status.

Thanks, – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 09:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are a large number of Featured Articles on music albums at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music that may be useful.
  • Okay, I will take a look. Thanks. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 01:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazon.com is not a valid source for critical reviews - anyone can review there.
  • "No Vuelvo Más" is currently on both the "Los 40 Principales" and "México Top 100" charts, so the statistics may change every week. needs a ref or two, and articles should avoid words like "currently" (this may change tomorrow or next week). Use as of October 2008 or something similar.
  •  Y Removed. It doesn't seem like it's going to get any higher anyway. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 01:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Critical reception section abuses block quotes - see a model FA article on how to do this better.
  •  Y Fixed. I took only the most important parts of each quote and pieced them together. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 01:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing sections / information - needs Recording and production, Style, other information, probably others, see a model article or two again
  •  Y I'm not sure there's much information regarding recording and production. I'll start working on the style section. Thanks! – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 01:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Y I have just added a musical style section. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 01:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Y I have also added a personnel section. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 06:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nunavut general elections edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because due to a change in the featured topic criteria, the Canadian election timelines featured topic has 3 months to satisfy criterion 3.c. by getting a peer review done for this article. Thanks, Tompw (talk) (review) 10:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.
    In order...
    1. Lead length: this has been reworked, but can't really be made any longer without woffle
    2. Link density: All links are definately useful and needed... this will be always be a link-heavy article.
    3. Lack of images: Two added.
    4. No image top right: Done
    5. Lack of infobox: None suitable
    6. Article length: Can't really expand - this is a list primarily.
    7. Reference formatting: done
    8. Copyediting: Done.
Tompw (talk) (review) 20:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The 2008 election column is confusing as now shown - since the first entry is "Cancelled" I thought the whole election was cancelled
  • Spell out abbreviations before first use, so MLA in On 20 August 2008, Evyagotailak stepped down as the MLA.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I think The election in the Akulliq riding was cancelled 7 October 2008 due to an appeal by Jack Anawak over his residency disqualification.[12] needs more explanation.
  • There is a one sentence paragraph in the Lead - could this be expanded or combined with the preceding paragraph?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In order:
    1. 2008 column: dealt with by filling it in properly, now the 2008 election has been held :-)
    2. MLA spelt out.
    3. {{cite web}} applied as much as needed (I think I've 'got em all)
    4. Lead issues: Reworked things somewhat.
    Thanks for your suggestions, all of which have been most useful. In a way, this wasn't the best time for a peer reveiw due to the rcent election. Anyway, I've included all your suggestions. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Chris Brown edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this list to Wikipedia:Featured lists, but before that, would like this article to be thoroughly reviewed.

Thank you, DiverseMentality(Boo!) 03:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JD554 comments: This is looking pretty good and I shouldn't think it will take too much to get it through FLC. I have a few comments/suggestions:

  • It's greatly frowned upon at FLC to start lists with "This is a comprehensive list of awards and nominations won by Chris Brown..." Simply start with "Chris Brown is an American R&B and pop singer-songwriter..."
    Done.
  • Don't overlink. One example I've seen is Billboard Hot 100 which is linked twice in the first paragraph. There may be others examples.
    Whoops, I usually don't overlink, fixed.
  • RIAA should be Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) the first time and just RIAA subsequently. There are other examples of this such as Black Entertainment Television (BET).
    Done.
  • A re-release of the album, entitled Exclusive: The Forever Edition, was released on June 3, 2008. Could do with re-wording to reduce the use of "release".
    Fixed, hopefully it's better.
  • There should be a space after reference #5.
    Got it.
  • The album was certification double platinum by the RIAA. Should be "certified"
    Fixed.
  • Use semi-colons between the different award ceremonies in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Eg, ...including Viewer's Choice for "Yo (Excuse Me Miss)" at the BET Awards, Male Artist of the Year, New Artist of the Year and Artist of the Year at the Billboard Music Awards, Outstanding New Artist at the NAACP Image Awards, Choice Breakout Male at the Teen Choice Awards... should be ..including Viewer's Choice for "Yo (Excuse Me Miss)" at the BET Awards; Male Artist of the Year, New Artist of the Year and Artist of the Year at the Billboard Music Awards; Outstanding New Artist at the NAACP Image Awards; Choice Breakout Male at the Teen Choice Awards... This is because the list already contains commas: ...Male Artist of the Year, New Artist of the Year and Artist of the Year....
    Done.
  • No need for Overall in the last sentence of the second paragraph.
    I've removed it.
  • After referring to him as Chris Brown the first time, Brown is sufficient the rest of the time.
    Fixed.
  • Wikilink the actual award where possible. Just one example is Best New Artist, there will be others.
    Linked.
  • I would separate the actual award for each nomination. Eg, In the BET Awards table Viewer's Choice should be listed separately for Kiss Kiss and No Air.
    Fixed.
  • Don't wikilink common terms such as United Kingdom.
    Yes, sir.
  • In the Teen Choice Awards section: ...as voted on by teens aged 13-19. Would be better as ...as voted for by young people aged between 13 and 19.
    Fixed.
  • Expand IFPI to full name.
    Done.
  • In the references you should only italicise when the publisher/source is a published source such as a newspaper, magazine or book.
    Fixed.
  • Wikilink the first instance of the publisher source in the references. Eg, Billboard should be wikilinked in reference #1 and then not subsequently. The same for Allmusic and others.
    Done.
  • Is About.com a WP:RS? (I don't know the answer to that one)
    It should be, but I'll ask.
  • The publication date should come after the publisher/source if there is no author.
    Fixed.

Good luck for the FLC, --JD554 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark of the Year edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I listed this article for Peer Review once already and after all the problems were fixed, I nominated it for FL status. I believed that candidacy was closed prematurely and during that time I have not received the proper feedback on whether or not this article has attained FL. I'm re-listing this article for PR once more, because I wish to fix all the issues once and for all. This article is of high quality, comprehensive and I'm quite adamant to get it to FL. Any feedback would be invaluable.

Thanks, Flewis(talk) 08:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I read the article / list, the previous peer review and the FLC. I do not know about AFL and do not normally edit sports articles, but here are some suggestions for improvement. My first two concerns are with copyright abuse.

  • Per WP:NFCC how are you able to justify nine fair use images (the logo and eight mark images)? This seems excessive - what do all of the images of marks add to the article to justify fair use?
These pictures within the article are all unique historic images that highlight a historically important [Australian] event. Also, as has been mentioned multiple times in PR and FA, this topic is largely unknown amongst the non-Australian population, and the supporting images convey the actions and visual identifications which words cannot describe. (Also please note: Each of the pictures are also embedded within the articles of the respective footballers that they display, as a means of identification, along with the enhancement of the prospective readers' encyclopedia experience.) --Flewis(talk) 07:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me I see 8 images of players catching balls. I am not sure most people could identify the athletes from the images used. Please see NFCC 3a "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." This may be a concern at FLC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also concerned with the large number of references to YouTube. Again the concern is that the videos are almost certainly not posted by the copyright holders, and linking to copyright volations is not allowed. I watched two videos and both appeared to be taken from television broadcasts, but the poster seemed not to be an official network. This was raised as a concern at FLC too. Is Australian copyright law different?
Yes, the Australian copyright law is different is some respects. The Australian copyright council states for film and media that people can reproduce TV and radio programs for purposes, such as research or study. However I failed to find an exact copyright pertaining to synthesis of sport broadcasts. The question mainly lies in whether the internet is considered private or public domain, as one generally accesses the content in private. From my immediate knowledge, the only Australian regulations dealing with internet + copyright are the "Internet censorship laws in Australia" [2], and these are mainly in regard to ISP's and internet censorship --Flewis(talk) 07:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will leave that to people more knowledgable on copyright law than I am. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this needs a copyedit to clean up the prose in spots. For example, just the first sentence of the lead The Mark of the Year[1] (officially known as the Toyota AFL Mark of the Year)[2] is an annual competition run by the Australian Football League (AFL) that celebrates the best Australian Rules Football mark (where a player cleanly catches a kicked ball that has travelled more than 15 metres without anyone else touching it or the ball hitting the ground) of that particular season through the annual Mark of the Year competition.[3] is too long and a run-on sentence, and needlessly repeats annual competition. There are also typos like a missing space in which recognizes the best the best goals kicked in the VFL[ ](Victorian Football League) /AFL during that season.[2] It should be "Victorian Football League (VFL)" too - spell out the name first, then give the abbreviation.
See below comment --Flewis(talk) 08:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea which comment is meant Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the lead meets WP:LEAD. It could probably be two paragraphs instead of one. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but the definition of a mark is only in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - check this. Please see WP:LEAD
I've revamped the prose, and split the majority of its information into a new section. The prose now serves a general summary and introduction for the article. --Flewis(talk) 08:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem sentence The winner of this competition is usually the most spectacular high mark, known as a 'specky', but occasionally it is awarded to courageous, one handed or diving marks. needs a reference. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. This is also a one sentence paragraph that should be combined with another or possibly expanded.
Still no ref, still a one sentence paragraph. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the article expalin why there was no Mark of the Year in 1971 or 1972?
I'm not sure whether or not this would be a block to FA status, however I simply cannot find any info on this whatsoever. Back in the 70's, this competition was largely informal, and may not have been recorded down as such.--Flewis(talk) 07:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is going for WP:FLC (not WP:FAC, isn't it? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the name / sponsorship is a more recent development - what was it originally called, when did Toyota become the sponsor?
  • This is an Australian article, so the spellings should follow Australian English spelling rules (regardless of what Google hits say on common spellings). This was also raised at FLC.
  Alerted prospective editors [3] --Flewis(talk) 08:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who knows almost nothing about this sport, I think there could be a bit more background about the mark. See WP:PCR I would also watch out for jargon - many of the names in the table make little sense to me (they are linked, but again perhaps a brief section explaining the various kinds of marks (instead of just linking over and over to Spectacular mark). See WP:JARGON
These are all covered by their respective articles along with Mark_(Australian_Football)#Types_of_marks --Flewis(talk) 08:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once this is cleaned up, I would ask the FLC reviewers to look at it again and see if their concerns have been addressed. It is an interesting article and fairly well done, just needs some polishing to meet FLC criteria.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This still has many (7 or more) short paragraphs of one or two paragraphs that break up the flow of the article and should be combined with others, or perhaps expanded. Several of these also have no refs. Looks better, but still seems to need work before FLC, see my comments above too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raging Bull edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know if my contributions have been of any benefit.

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs

Images:

  • Too many fair use images; see WP:NFCC and FA-class film articles for examples of proper fair use rationales and of how to use nonfree images sparingly.

Layout and structure:

  • The plot section, at around 800-some words, is a tad long. It might be better to slim it down slightly.
  • If the cast section is just going to be a bland table, perhaps merge it with casting as seen in Alien (film)?
  • The article needs a thorough copyedit. In particular, the use of commas needs to be audited, for example: "A couple of years later, in the middle of a photo shoot, Jake LaMotta surrounded by his wife and children, tells the journalists he is officially retired and that he has bought a new property" should be "Years later Jake Lamotta, surrounded by his wife and children, tells the journalists he is officially retired and that he has bought a new property" for clarity, as well as not leaving clauses hanging.
  • I've never watched the film; is it in black and white? Otherwise its confusing to see everything in monochrome.
  • Issues with Manual of Style compliance: for example, no left-aligned images under level three headings (see Raging Bull#Principal photography
  • Another example of bad prose rendering the article incoherent: "However the events surrounding John Hinckley Jr's assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan trying to impress Jodie Foster the way that the character, Travis Bickle put his life on the line in the film Taxi Driver hurt the film's chances" --whaaa?
  • I'm concerned that information such as critical opinions and reception is sourced to books instead of the actual reviews themselves, and that much of the article is based on just two or three sources.

Overall, I think most of the content is there. But it needs major massaging and some reorganization. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic ritual abuse edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because now that an agonic and extremely long edit war is finally over (with the main contributors burned out), 3rd opinion is desirable as to how to improve the page.

Thanks, —Cesar Tort 04:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber edit

  • Oh great, another controversial article, but seriously I am placing this as a placeholder and will add notes as I go. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, articles of this size would have a rather substantial lead of 2 or 3 paras. I'd add a line on the most notable cases and media portrayals for starters. I will think of more as I go.
I know some other people (psychiatrists) more experienced in the field than me here in oz and may ask them.
I am not a fan of seealso sections at the bottom with a list of pages with varying levels of connectivity. I prefer the:

{{seealso|xx}} or {{main|xx}}

under the appropriate subheadings in the body of the article to give it context, or otherwise just be satisfied with a bluelink (I have found some articles where one is needed, mainly astronomical, but pretty rare). Do we assume everyone can CTRL-F these days? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the DID section, this is where it gets really tricky but I suspect someone must have written a treatise on it somewhere. As it stands, the section is descriptive, but I wonder whether a more of a psychological synthesis on trauma is needed --> traumatic memories are often intense, intermittent and do not follow a chronological flow, and may be misinterpreted. However, diagnoses like DID, BPD and (obviously) PTSD are highly correlated with early trauma as well. I have only skimmed it and need to read it in more depth. Gotta run.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carcharoth edit

  • No time for any substantial comments, I'm afraid, but from a brief glance I see the following problems:
    • (1) Lead is not long enough or comprehensive enough (but this is best tackled after the rest of the article has been improved).
    • (2) Contents list is fairly long, probably too long. This may indicate that more summary-style presentation is needed, with broader, more general section headings and details in subsidiary articles, but it might also be indicative of an article with lots of short, stubby sections, where section headers have been used instead of paragraphs.
    • (3) In general, the sections are too short and stubby. Have a look at some featured articles to get an idea of what an article with longer sections and paragraphs looks like.
    • (4) Are there any non-controversial pictures that can be used?
  • That's about it for now. Hope others have time to comment in more detail. Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a former FA candidate and I would like to see it reach FA status as soon as possible. I know there is some work to be done on the article, such as expanding the legacy section, reception and possibly creation of the film, as it's one of the most important horror films of all time. I am also open to any other suggestions for improving this article.

Thanks, EclipseSSD (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but the filming temperatures are only in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • References need work - they should follow punctuation (no space) so fix things like The low speed 16 mm film required four times more light than modern cameras. [3] The refs should be in numerical order, so fix things like ... due to the violent nature of the video game and sold poorly because many game stores refused to carry it.[62][60]
  • Avoid direct external links in the text - convert to refs (the two block quotes)
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. So fix things like current ref 13 which is now just "Gunnar Hansen FAQ". Retrieved on August 21, 2008." and needs a publisher - also what makes this a Reliable source? See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Look at some film FAs and use them as a model for ideas and examples to follow. I think this needs a copyedit to polish the prose.
  • Since this has had a FAC, look at that as a very detailed peer review and double check that all issues raised there have been addressed. Treat examples cited as just that (examples) and check that there are not more such problems. If you think everything is fixed, ask some of the FAC reviewers to please take a second look at the article.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niobium edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am wondering weather there is anything missing in terms of content in order to become an FA. Nergaal (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to read-up on this before I can give a complete reply but so far I do see some MOS and V issues that will come up in a FAC:
  • Images should not be left-aligned at the top of sections and should not interfere with section titles.
  • Single paragraph sections should be avoided.

In addition, we have already established in other FACs that the below references should not be cited:

  • van der Krogt. Instead, consult what he cites to confirm facts and cite those publications directly.
  • WebElements.com
In general, I think more can be written about this but I won't have specifics until I consult my references. Oh, and the ==Characteristics== section should come before ==History== per our own standards. But it may be time to look at those to be sure they are what we want. --mav (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review edit

  • I got rid of WebElements and van der Krogt will go tomorrow!
  • Got all of them!!
  • With the images I am not very good but to shovel them arround is not a big iisue.
  • The single paragraphs will get a look soon!
  • I have also plenty of references and you can writte a lot, but most of it makes no real point any more. But it would be great if you find something good!

I want to nominate it,but not befor I got imput from the elements project people.--Stone (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the more I think the more I realize that all the element articles tend to be a bit thin on the chemistry part. Most of the times (as here also) the only mentioned compounds are the binary ones. Sure the oxides and halides are the most obvious ones, but for each transition metal compound there should be an organometallics paragraph too, or at least something about ligand complexes. Also, about the history/characteristics order I would argue for history first, at least for the less common elements (i.e. those discovered in the past few centuries). Among others, this allows for a nice sequitur from occurence into productions, then applications, then hazards. Nergaal (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pi Kappa Phi chapters edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it reach FL status. This is the first time I've used this feature on Wikipedia and, to be honest, I'm not sure if this is technically a history-related article. Currently, I'm having trouble finding third-party sources for this article, since most of the information contained in it is only recorded by the national organization. However, any advice will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance, — ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 04:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to WP:FLC

  • Since the title of the article includes the word "chapters", I would try to get this word into the first sentence of the lead, per WP:LEAD
  Done - Added "chapters" to the first sentence.
  • I would also add the United States to the first sentence or possibly change 36 states to 36 U.S. states
  Done - Changed "36 states" to "36 U.S. states"
  • Avoid words like "currently" as they become out of date quickly - so change There are currently 129 active chapters, 12 colonies, and 92 alumni chapters.[2][3] to something like As of October 2008, there are 129 active chapters, 12 colonies, and 92 alumni chapters.[2][3]
  Done - Removed "currently" and "presently" from lead.
  • I am unclear on the difference between "active" and "alumni" chapters (the word alumni is used once in the lead, and then not used again to describe the national fraternity chapters). This is an example of providing context for the reader - I imagine the authors know exactly what this means, but an interested reader without fraternity experience would not. The table should also clearly indicate the difference between chapters (my guess is these are inactive chapters). See WP:PCR
  Done - I changed "alumni chapters" to "non-collegiate alumni groups." Also, an alumni chapter is different from an inactive chapter, but do you think I need to mention this given the new wording of this sentence? I have also listed the inactive chapters with an "*", but perhaps I should find clearer way to indicate this.
Would it be possible to have a table of the alumni groups in the article? Also would it make sense to mention the number of inactive chapters here too (to avoid confusion)?
  • Similarly, say where the first chapter was in the lead (you already identify the location of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chapters)
  Done - Added location of the first chapter to the lead.
I tweaked this - the first chapter did not spread to other campuses, the fraternity did. Revert of you don't like my tweak, but it was incorrect as I read it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - Internal link is now directed towards University of California, Berkeley article.
  • Since a later table shows 13 chapters were added in the 1930s and 1940s, change the verb in however the growth of the fraternity was halted [slowed?] during the 1930s and 1940s by the Great Depression and World War II.
  Done - Changed "halted" to "slowed"
  • Direct quotes need a ref, so add one for ... establishing chapters across the South, strengthening its position as a "southern fraternity." See WP:MOSQUOTE
  Done - Removed quotations.
  • Problem sentence The fraternity experienced unprecedented growth during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, founding over 100 new chapters and establishing a West Coast presence while further strengthening its position in the South.[5] Why not say "from 1970 to 1999"? Since one of the very first chapters was at UC Berkeley (and it is still active), didn't they already have a West Coast presence?
  Done - Fixed both issues.
  • Watch overlinking - West Coast and South are linked twice in one paragraph.
  Done - Removed repetitive links from lead.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM generally numbers 10 and below are spelled out, above are given as numbers
  Done - Changed "9" to "nine"
  • Any reason not to include the city as well as the state in the table (wide enough on my monitor to show it)
In progress - Thanks for the suggestion. I will work on adding this, though it may take some time since there are 211 cities that I have to look up.
  Done - Added all cities to the table.
  • Could you add the year a chapter went inactive to the table as well?
Question - Do you think I should add a new column for the closing date or would it be better to simply add the date in parentheses underneath the chartering date? Most of the chapters are still active so a new column may not be necessary. What do you think?
I would try it for a few cases and see whuch you think looks better and go with that (perhaps in a sandbox). This might be one way to differentiate inactive chapters. I owuld keep the asterisk, but you could also change the background color of the cells of inactive chapters in the table. Also do a different color for colonies. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In progress - I'm working on looking up these dates.
  • The dots in the tables in the Statistics do not add anything (the numbers are also given) - why are they there?
Question - They were meant to offer a visual representation of the trends in growth of the organization (i.e. the first peak in growth, followed by the slump during the Great Depression and WWII, followed by the peak in growth experienced from 1990 to 2000). Is there a graphing function on Wikipedia? Or do you think I should simply remove the table?
Makes sense explained that way, perhaps you could aks for a graph to be made at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
  • Why are only five states of 36 listed in Charters by state? Since the main table is sortable, is this really needed?
Question - Should I remove the table in its entirety? It was meant to show the five states with the most chapters, but it does seem rather redundant.
COuld the information be added as text - "The top states by number of active chapters are ...."? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last part of the Otterbein COllege section needs a ref. Not sure the header for this section meets WP:HEAD
  Done - Changed heading from "Pi Kappa Phi of Otterbein College" to "Otterbein chapter."
  • All of the refs are from the fraternity itself - the article needs more independent third-party sources to establish notability
Question - This has been an issue that I have tried to address at the Help desk. I've been having trouble finding third-party sources because most (if not all) of the chapter information is recorded by the fraternity. Do you have any suggestions as to where I might find third-party sources? I was thinking about referencing the individual university's IFC (inter-fraternity council) page for all of the active chapters. Do you think that would be a worthwhile endeavor or is there another approach I should take?
With so many chapters I can see where that would be a pain - perhaps be ready to that in or explain that in WP:FLC if the issue arises, but don't do the work unless asked to there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
  • Why is Erickson, Evan; Sullivan, TJ (2002), The White Diamond of Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity: A Guide to Brotherhood, Charlotte, NC: Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity listed as a ref - it is not cited anywhere
In Progress - I will add a citation to this reference shortly.
  • Why is "National Fraternity" capitalized?
  Done - Fixed. Removed caps: "National Fraternity" -> "national fraternity"

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Messier Leadership Award edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Listing for PR as this short list is part of an exsiting featured topic on National Hockey League awards. While this article was assessed A class at the time of the initial FTC, subsequent changes in the FT process now require a peer review be complete. Thus, I open the floor to all comments and suggestions. Resolute 02:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Provide context to the reader - the article does not spell out National Hockey League in the lead and does not even link it anywhere in the article that I could find.
    • Done.
  • Needs more information - for example: Why were there five monthly winners in the first season it was awarded and none in the second? Is the monthly award given the same name? How did the first year winner not in it any of the five months?
    • No clue, haven't found the reason for doing so.
  • The apparent direct quote in the infobox (criteria for winning it) needs a ref.
    • Done.
  • WHy was the award established? Why does Messier get to decide it? WHat is Cold fX?
    • a. Can't find it. b. yes, it's in the article, c. added.
  • Any chance for a picture of one of the winners?
    • Done.
  • I do not think the topic should be promoted with this article in this quality - it needs some work.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I've been away for over two weeks, and I'm still pretty busy, but I'll hopefully address your comments within a few days. Maxim(talk) 00:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thanks for the comments. I've also been too busy to do anything more than vandal reverts for the past little bit, but your comments will be addressed. Resolute 14:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed the concerns as well as I could. Maxim(talk) 22:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments by Ruhrfisch:

  • The History section has no references at all and needs them.
  • Ref (Luongo shares Moose boost) is used as a ref for two monthly award winners but does not specifically say who won which month. Just Googling Lecavalier and Messier and Award finds this ref - try looking for a better ref for Niedermayer too.
  • Ref 1 explains that the first season at least there was both a monthly winner and a year winner - this should be stated in the History.
  • Ref 2 is dead

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot; I fixed everything up. Maxim(talk) 22:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sum 41 edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i've braught the article from a c class to a Good article, and want to know how well the article is.

Thanks, - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sum 41/archive1.

Maggie Gyllenhaal edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature article status. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nigel (Bishop of Ely) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC (as a break from Canterbury... ) and would welcome any and all suggestions/comments/copyedits/complaints in my attempt to get it in better shape. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I can't help with the content, but I have a few suggestions for improvements related to style.

  • Some of the sentences that are in passive voice would be better in active voice. Active isn't always better, but it often is. In the lead, you write: "After rebelling, Nigel was eventually reconciled with Stephen, but when Stephen died Nigel was returned to the Treasurership by Stephen's successor King Henry II of England, in order to restore order to the treasury. He was succeeded in office by his son, Richard FitzNeal, who he had trained in the operations of the Exchequer, or treasury of England." This would be punchier if written something like this: "After rebelling, Nigel eventually reconciled with Stephen. Stephen's successor, King Henry II of England, made Nigel treasurer again in hopes of restoring order to the treasury. Nigel's son, Richard FitzNeal, trained by Nigel in the operations of the Exchequer, or treasury of England, succeeded him in office."
  • Speaking of FitzNeal, I'm confused. The lead says he succeeded Nigel, but the "Death and legacy" section says Adelelm succeeded Nigel.
  • The word "invested" in relation to castles probably needs to be linked or briefly explained.
  • If Nigel had more than one brother, the phrase "Nigel's brother Alexander" in the lead is correct. From the main text, though, it appears that Nigel had only one brother. In that case, "Nigel's brother, Alexander" is correct. I see another similar situation in "Stephen's early reign", where "Stephen's rival the Empress Matilda" needs a comma.
  • Treasurer sometimes appears in the text with a capital "T" and sometimes with a small "t". Except where you use it as part of a formal title or to start a sentence, I'd go with small "t". Ditto for "treasury".
  • To catch other small errors, you might have yet another editor do a copyedit. I see quite a few sentences that have unneeded commas. It would be difficult to list these, but I'll give an example. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead says, "As a royal servant, Nigel served as Treasurer of England under Henry I, before being appointed to the see, or bishopric, of Ely in 1133." The comma after "Henry I" makes the reader slow down for no reason.
  • It's generally a good idea to position groups of footnote superscripts in ascending order. I see two places in the "Treasury under Henry I" section " where the order is reversed.
  • I'm used to seeing the footnote parts separated by punctuation. Your footnotes are consistent, so maybe using no punctuation is OK, but this format looks unusual to me. For example, "Brett The Church Under Henry I p. 110 footnote 4" might be more readable as "Brett, The Church Under Henry I, p. 110, footnote 4".
  • You are probably planning to change the hyphens in the page ranges to en dashes with a script, but I thought I'd better mention them.
  • The head, "Stephen's later reign and under Henry II" is a bit awkward. Maybe to keep the heads parallel, you could use "Treasurer under Stephen" instead of "Stephen's early reign" and then use "Treasurer under Stephen and Henry II".
  • In "Stephen's later reign and under Henry II", "lone Pipe Roll" should be "lone pipe roll".
  • In "Death and legacy", I'd suggest re-writing the sentence, "The bishop spent most of his life in debt to various moneylenders, only managing to clear his debts in the year he died with the help of his son." His son probably didn't help him die, and the sentence has other problems. Maybe this would do: "The bishop spent most of his life in debt, but in the year he died he managed to clear it with his son's help."

I hope this helps. If anything I've said doesn't make sense, please ask. I'll put a watch on this peer-review page. Finetooth (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e's comments.

Random stuff:

  • Third sentence of 'Early life' - surely there must be a neater way to ref this sentence! Do none of the four refs contain more than one element? Could you combine several cites into one cite that combines more than source?
  • Same para - lots of probablys, can this be varied?
  • Same para - second to last sentence: two 'held's. Can this be varied?
  • You might need to give a little bit of context to the 'Anglo-Norman kingdom' at this period to give background to Nigel's roles in England and Normandy. Most readers will of course know about Billy the Conquerer, but they may not have joined up the dots to realise that the King of England also ruled a large chunk of modern day France.
  • What form did Nigel's revolt in 1139/1140 take?
  • I take it Nigel regained his bishopric as a result of the papal bull?
  • A rare slightly awkward sentence: "It may be that the survival of the lone Pipe Roll from Henry I's reign, that of the year 1130, owes something to the fact that it may have been Nigel's own copy, which he brought with him to the Exchequer when he returned under Henry II." I appreciate we are speculating here, but I think there's one layer too many of uncertainty introduced! Although we don't know which, the pipe roll either is Nigel's or it isn't, so it can't really "owe something to" that fact. How about "The lone Pipe Roll to survive from Henry I's reign, that of the year 1130, may be Nigel's own copy, brought with him to the Exchequer when he returned under Henry II."?
  • "His uncle Roger also had at least one son, Roger, who was chancellor for King Stephen" Whose Uncle Roger? Presumably Nigel's, but given the construction of the paragraph it could also be William or Richard. As there are also two Rogers (father and son) there's definitely potential for confusion!
  • "Besides his uncle, cousins, and brother, another relative was" The first part of this is redundant - just say "Another relative was..."
  • " defenses" Presumably the article should be in UK English per WP:ENGVAR, so "defences". That one caught my eye, I haven't checked the rest of the article.
  • "recovering lands of the church that had been lost" How and to whom?

OK, I'm done. Hope some of that is helpful. Contact me where I've been unclear! Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, thank you! I got busy with RL so it'll be a bit before I can get to all of these, but I thank you very much for the detailed review, it's going to be a great help! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electron edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Greetings! I've been expanding and referencing this vital-rated article, with the goal of eventually taking it to FA. My philosophy was to present a fair level of detail about the electron at the particle-interaction level, then use mostly summary-style for higher-level interactions such as atomic orbitals and conductivity. The only section I haven't fully tackled yet is "Applications"; I'll work on that in the days ahead. I'm also thinking about adding a "Hazards" section to cover the effects of beta radiation.

I hope the content is at least moderately accessible to any educated person (i.e. a non-specialist like me); please point out where the descriptions seem confusing. Some quality copy editing would also be much appreciated!

Thanks, RJH (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Beyond Good & Evil 2 edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review with the intention of promoting it to Good Article status. Any critical commentary about the article is appreciated.

Thanks, MrStalker (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, thanks for all your input. I've revised the article trying to address everything you've pointed out. Please take a look at it again and check if there's anything else. Thanks. --MrStalker (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giggy
  • "is the long-awaited and much-rumored sequel" - NPOV issues
  • Magazines like Nintendo Power (check everywhere) need italics; MOS:ITALICS

Giggy (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashnard
  • "Beyond Good & Evil 2 (working title) is the sequel to the critically acclaimed 2003 video game Beyond Good & Evil". Echoing Giggy's concerns. Its predcessor's critical acclaim should have no bearing in the lead, and especially not in this context.
  • "It is designed by". Grammar: "it was designed by" or "it is being being designed by". Same with "is published". Make sure the amendments are still compatible with the tense of the "developed" part.
  • "It was first unveiled". Doubt that something can be unveiled more than once in an industry covered heavily by the press. Redundant.
  • "Michel Ancel had stated that he wrote the story to be longer, but because of the poor sales of the original game, Ubisoft was reluctant to invest in a sequel." Probably best to change "had" to "has" here. As I interpret the sentence's meaning, you should clarify that the "story" is the extended one covering a trilogy, and not that of the original game.
  • "Michel Ancel first gave a hint about Beyond Good & Evil 2 in an interview with Nintendo Power, where he confirmed that he was working on a new project that means a lot to him." Will need a source. However, if the source does not itself interpret this as a reference to BGaE, then it will have to be discredited as original research.
  • "Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot also confirmed that Michel Ancel is currently working on several unannounced projects, as of March 2008". Such sentences don't have value as they could only possibly be of use in a speculative nature towards an unconfirmed game. As it has been confirmed, it is superfluous. Same for the proceeding sentence. I'd question having "Pre-announcement" as its own heading.
  • "where he stated that the game has been in pre-production for a year, but is yet to be approved by Ubisoft" The tenses are shifting again. Fix other examples, ie. "it is confirmed".
  • "recorded entirely in-engine". Link or explain jargon please.
  • "the game was presented only as the next project of Michel Ancel and Ubisoft Montpellier, no specific details, release date or title was announced." Comma splice after "Montpellier".
  • "The trailer depicts a hovercraft, resting off to the side of a road going through a desert. The trailer also showed Pey'j, a character from the prequel, as well as a woman in the background." It would be best to present the information in the context of what is known, as opposed to merely stating observations from a short trailer.
  • Having a link to a single trailer does not qualify as an appropriate external link.
  • The lead should be expanded to include useful info, including anything that can be gleaned about plot and gameplay.

Okay, this article has started off nicely, with decent sources. Just make sure that quality can be maintained as more info becomes available. Cheers. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Wainwright discography edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is a quality article, but I'd like to get feedback regarding how the page can be improved even more, if needed. As far as I know, this article contains all of Rufus Wainwright's releases, and I believe each work has been cited appropriately.

Thanks, Whataworld06 (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of awards and nominations received by Rufus Wainwright edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is a quality article, but I'd like to get feedback regarding how the page can be improved even more, if needed. As far as I know, these are all of the awards and nominations Rufus Wainwright has received, and I believe each one has been cited appropriately.

Thanks, Another Believer (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "nominations by the" – "nominations from the"
  • The references all need publishers.
    •   Done Thank you SO MUCH! I appreciate the assistance. Please let me know of any other changes that need to be made, or what the next step is... Another Believer (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scene7 edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to eventually bring it to WP:FAC. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both references replaced Gary King (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brianboulton comments: I have carried out a copyedit. If I have inadvertently altered a meaning, or injected some unwelcome Brit-English into the prose, please revert. I also picked up a few points:-
    • In the lead, I'd specify that the $30m received was venture capital
    • Also in lead, I think I'd say relaunched rather than launched
    • In the Company section, second para, should "on November 9" be "from November 9"?
    • Third para: you've linked "e-commerce, but it has been mentioned several times earlier - should be linked on first mention
    • What does this mean: "to power the company's media platform"? This was one of the few business jargon phrases in the article.
    • Last sentence of this section is unreferenced - but do you actually need it? It adds nothing to what's already been said about zooming and dynamic interaction.
    • History section: The company was sold "along with 40 developers". If these were company employees I suggest you say "The company, with its software development staff of 40, was sold..."
    • Any more details about the "six firms"?
    • "Engage is the parent company..." I think should be "was"
    • Acquisition section: Try to reduce the repetition of "services" in the sentence beginning: "Scene7's services..."

I hope these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit and the comments! These are all done now. Gary King (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Wild Wild West episodes edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it to be a needed addition to Wikipedia's attempt to make a comprehensive guide to television programs. At current time I think it offers a considerable amount of information to make it worthy of a peer review. Further comments by me can be found in the article's discussion section.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The article needs a copyedit - "there" is used for "their", "broadcasted" is used where "broadcast" is meant, spare brackets [, etc.
  • The language of the lead is either too POV or too in-universe, or perhaps both - dastardly villains etc.
  • I would put the DVD releases section last (chronological order), not first
  • The table on guest stars who were also on Star Trek seems very much original research - why should this be in this article?
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are a large number od episode lists at Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Media
  • Should the Will Smith movie version be mentioned?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion King edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because alot of work has gone into this article within the past several months and I am going to make my final attempt at getting this article to FAC status. Feel free to provide any suggestions that you may have and I will address them in a timely manner. I will leave the review open until the other major contributing editors that have helped me with this project all agree that it is ready for a FAC nomination.

Thanks, DrNegative (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement, looking at from an FAC viewpoint.

  • Lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
    • Expanded lead a little to include notes on reception and revenue since these were notable. DrNegative (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 8 fair use images - how does this meet WP:NFCC?
  • Article needs more references, for example When adjusted for inflation, however, it is the fourth top-grossing animated film (after Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, One Hundred and One Dalmatians and Fantasia). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Some of the refs used seem like they might not meet WP:RS - for example IMDB is a problematic source in some cases, or what makes lionking.org a RS?
  • There are a fair number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and also several short sections - can these be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve the article flow?
  • Songs as a bullet list seems choppy too - can it be made into prose (de-list-ified)?
  • The prose could stand some polish - can you find a copyeditor or print it out and read it out loud?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tree: A Life Story edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to refine it and make it FA worthy. It passed its GA at Talk:Tree: A Life Story/GA1 and failed its FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tree: A Life Story/archive1. I would like to pursue a second FAC but I'm looking for corrections to make beforehand. Any comments regarding the article are welcome.

Thanks, maclean 04:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I owuld look at the FAC comments very carefully and try and address all of them, then ask the editors to take a second look at the article and see if they feel their concerns have been addressed. Language concerns seem to be the biggest issue - you can ask for a copyedit at the last section in WP:PRV. Sentences like Before these chapters there are sections titled Acknowledgments and Introduction, and afterwards sections titled Selected References and Index. could perhaps be cleaned up to something like The book opens with Acknowledgments and an Introduction, and closes with Selected References and an Index.
  • Would it make sense to add an image of a Douglas-fir (there are some nice free ones in the category for the tree in Commons)?
  • Would it make sense to add the chapter titles to the first sentence of each paragraph, so some thing like The first chapter, "Birth", begins with lightning starting a forest fire.
  • The Publication section is very short - could it be expanded or combined with another section?
  • Would it make sense to add Canada and Australia to the lead sentence, so something like Tree: A Life Story (or Tree: A Biography in Australia) is a Canadian non-fiction book written by David Suzuki and Wayne Grady, and illustrated by Robert Bateman?
  • The book has also been reviewed by Publisher's Weekly and Booklist, see Amazon here

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I have incorporated your suggestions. I already have the Booklist source and I previously saw that Publisher's Weekly blurb but I have never been able to trace it back to an issue of the magazine. I have searched through all the issues around the time the book came out but only see it in the 'coming soon' list with no blurbs. -maclean 04:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from jimfbleak

  • solicited Grady to help write. Isn't write transitive?
  • Based in Ontario, Grady wrote as Suzuki provided the research, framework, and some original writing. Together they went through five drafts. reads clunkily to me
  • I'm surprised that termites occur at this location, since it's an island and quite far north. jimfbleak (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar & Spice (Picket Fences episode) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because although it's brand-new and on the short side, I believe it fulfills or comes close to meeting the good article criteria. Since I'm the only one who's worked on the article, I wanted to get some new eyes on it before nominating it. Comments in the context of the GA criteria would be most helpful. Otto4711 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, seems pretty good for what is there. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would label the lead image caption to make it clear why the image is so dark.
  • I am not sure "dramedy" is a word most readers will know - you could link comedy-dramedy to comedy-drama perhaps.
  • Looking at some model FA articles on tv episodes, I see they usually have a production section and a reception section - I think the current controvery section could be split and most of the controversy could be in a reception section.
  • Is there more info on reception at the time - what did TV critics then write about the episode? Or what kind of social commentary was there (if any) about the article?
  • Has the episode been released on DVD? IS there DVD commentary or special features available that would be pertinent?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movieland edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Among other things, I recently got this article up to good article status. I had to do many adjustments to get it there, but my goal is to get this to be a featured article. Am I on the right track? Got any ideas? Also, before you go all "find positive coverage of this site", its pretty much impossible because every source I've found is about Movieland's malware and such. ViperSnake151 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: SOunds like a really slimy company. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There are at least two direct quotations in the lead that need refs per WP:MOSQUOTE
  • There is an excessive use of bold text - the WP:MOS says not to overuse bold, but the name MediaPipe is bolded, as are the six bullet points under Alleged violations of law
  • Try to avoid most lists in the article by converting them to prose
  • There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and the Washington settlement section is only one sentence. This is choppy and interrupts the flow of the article - these should either be combined with others or perhaps expanded
  • WHat makes StopBadware.org a reliable source? See WP:RS
  • Any estimates of the total number of "cutomers" they had?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - only thing I'm seeing on a quick run-through is that the district court in which the FTC filed its complaint should be identified, along with the judge who denied the FTC's preliminary injunction. Otto4711 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Fry's Podgrams edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been promoted to GA, and I am hoping it might be possible to promote it FA as well. One thing that was mentioned in the GA nomination was that it was difficult to find a current list of the most downloaded podcasts on iTunes. If anyone knows a one that is also a reliable source, that would be very helpful.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr pda: On first glance the article seems reasonably solid, though I suspect it probably wouldn't be promoted to FA as it currently stands, since there's not really that much to it. (It is only 3/4 of the length of the current smallest FA). Specific comments:

  • The statement that they were first made downloadable on 20 February 2008, made in the lead and repeated in the infobox, is not cited to a source.
  • Ditto the statement that the podgrams are hosted by The Positive Internet Company.
  • I'm not sure that collective thoughts in reference to an individual makes much sense
  • The podgrams are one of the most downloaded podcast series on the internet: again this claim in the lead is not cited, or indeed mentioned elsewhere in the article.
  • The article could probably do with a brief description of who Stephen Fry is. Once again the sentence in the lead (British comedian, author and polymath Stephen Fry) is not in the body of the article, or cited. Per WP:LEAD Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article...This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body
  • Is there any explanation for the name podgram?
  • The statement Stephen Fry's Podgrams have been well received by critics at the start of the reception section is not supported by the reference at the end of the paragraph. In fact you only quote three critics; if the series is so popular shouldn't there be more critical commentary? Also, are there any critics who don't like the series?
  • The Good Web Guide reference gives further examples of Fry recycling content for his podgrams, so should perhaps be cited in the section where this is mentioned. Does current reference [6] (the Broadcasting podgram) support the statement The material is usually original for each podcast, but he may revisit topics that he has previously discussed.?
  • In the references to the podcasts, why do you only give the url http://www.stephenfry.com/media/<nowiki>, and not the url of the podcast page, e.g. <nowiki>http://www.stephenfry.com/media/audio/1/episode-1--broken-arm/?
  • Current reference [5] (http://www.stephenfry.com/media/) doesn't support the statement that podgrams are published as blessays.
  • The information in the tables does not appear to be cited. Also date linking is now deprecated; in addition the date format used here is inconsistent with the 20 February 2008 which appears in the lead.

Hope this helps. If you find these comments useful, please consider peer reviewing an article yourself, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Dr pda (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Panic! edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I need this article to get a peer review to get it ready for FAC. It recently passed a GAR, and is much better than what it was even a month ago, but a lot of work still has to be done for this one to get a chance at it's second FAC. I am aware that one of the major issues at this point is a thorough general copyedit, too. Thanks, 十八 07:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tintor2 (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are some things I noted, I recommend you to use Tokyo Mew Mew as an example:
  • Per Wikipedia:Lead section, try not to add references to the lead, since it is all referenced in the article. Make a short mention of the reception in the lead givng a general overview from reviewers.
  • The plot should give a description of the series until the end; it does not need references unless it confirms a something that was not explained in the series. If not create a theme section with the aspects of the series.
  • The characters seem a bit overdetailed to be the main article, I would suggest to see if you can merge the character section in the plot and add a see also template with the List of Strawberry Panic! characters article.
  • The last sentence of Internet radio show needs reference.
Are both of the PS2 covers needed? -Malkinann (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I suppose not; the original (limited edition) cover'd be kept in that case. And I don't see how the characters can be overdetailed when at most there's 2 sentences to a character, leading to about 6-7 lines per school, or 20 lines in all just for the characters; is that really too much?--十八 10:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out Wikipedia:Accessibility yet? That's something that's looked on well at FA level. -Malkinann (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Since is only thorough peer review in April, Virginia has twice been turned down for Featured Article status. The criticisms focused largely on the quality of the sources. If you can help identify any problematic sources that would be appreciated. Others have criticized the prose, citing comma usage. My other reason for requesting a peer review is for help determining if it is too long (at 123k), and if so, where to branch off the article, which is now longer then New York City but slightly shorter than Jesus. Thanks! --Patrick «» 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement

  • FAC has gotten more stringent recently, especially about sources. I would treat the failed FACs as two very detailed peer reviews and look at all the points raised and try to address them. The two major concerns are sources and language. I would get book or journal (print) sources for as many things as possible - for example History, but also things like Geology. Even sections with historic information like the Politics and Goivernment section certainly have book sources that could be cited.
  • The prose is still a bit choppy - I would ask for help with a copyedit. The bottom section at WP:PRV lists people willing to do this.
  • The lead is too short for an article of this length - see WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • Some things seem a bit oddly placed, for example Coal supplies half of the state's electricity, with another third from two nuclear power plants.[27] does not really seem to belong in the Climate section.
  • A few places need refs, for example The Chesapeake Bay, while not a national park, is protected by both state and federal legislation, and the jointly run Chesapeake Bay Program which conducts restoration on the bay and its watershed. The Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge is protected by both Virginia and North Carolina. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • I would think the article should be a general overview of the commonwealth and talk about the most common things - not sure what prickly pear has to do with the most common plants. I think this is where it could be pared a bit.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia national football team edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of multiple suggestions at WP:FAC. Currently a Good Article, this article has failed FAC 4 times now because of new issues every time. I managed to fix up most of them, but the most vital of such is the prose. I admit myself there are many problems with some of the prose wording, solely because the other editors and myself are second-speakers of English. Additionally, there may be some other minor visible issues which may prevent this from being a Featured Article. I'm mainly looking for prose problems, but if you can find anything else then please don't hesitate to arouse your critical comments.

Thanks, Domiy (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Croatia national football team/archive2.

WarCry (band) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because in my opinion it has reached a good status within the Spanish metal music, and since the article's previous FA nomination it's been significantly improved.

Thanks,  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 22:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and should be expanded to 2 or 3 paragraphs. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Since this is the English Wikipedia, I would provide translations of the Spanish titles (album names)
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • There are two fair use images and five fair use song samples - how does this meet WP:NFCC?
  • The Style and lyrical themes section needs more references, my rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The article could stand a copyedit for language - generally OK, but this needs a comma for example Instead of touring in support of WarCry[,] the band began working on new songs so that they would have a larger repertoire to perform.[2]
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow and there are several FAs on bands - Radiohead is one.
  • I would look at the failed FAC as a very detailed peer review - look at all the comments and make sure they have been addressed, treat them as examples and look for other instances too.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart family Grand Tour edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a new article, in the Mozart biography genre, which deals with a period in Mozart's early life which was of seminal importance to his development as a composer. Comments invited on all aspects.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maxwell's equations edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems a well-written and informative article on electromagnetism that deserves recognition.

Thanks, Twin Bird (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I am not sure what the goal of this PR is (recognition?), but here are some suggestions for improvement as if it were going for WP:GAN or WP:FAC.

  • Please see WP:LEAD as an article this long should have a lead that is four paragraphs long. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the article probably needs fewer sections / header too
  • Biggest problem wit the article is a lack of references - Conceptual description has no refs for example. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so fix as one example ... the units commonly used are Gaussian units (based on the cgs system and considered to have some theoretical advantages over SI[2]), ...
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author and date if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. For example Current reference 36 "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Fourmilab.ch. Retrieved on October 19, 2008. should give the author (Einstein) and date written (1905). See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The Headers do not meet WP:HEAD - for example "The term Maxwell's equations" could just be "The term" or perhaps even better just "Name" (do not repeat the title)
  • There are a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and some short sections - these should could be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • The See also section has way too many items. If a term has already been linked in the article, it generally should not be here.
  • Article does not seem to have an encyclopedic tone in several places.
  • The article is written at a fairly difficult level for the non-expert to comprehend. Would it make sense to have some sort of brief overview at a simple level to help introduce the article?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, this is a pretty good article. In general, it is well-written and detailed. There are several points to criticize, which I would recommend working on before going to GA nomination. (I'm not a physicist, so I cannot check the validity of physical statements made. Also, I didn't attempt to follow the blue links).
  • The lead is way too short. Roughly, any section should show up in the lead with about one sentence or two.
  • Lead: "these equations are used to show that light..." ? How can equations "show" (in a mathematical-proof-sense) something? Don't you need an experiment?
  • The "Conceptual description" is probably your best section. Perhaps you could open up with a short mentioning that there are two concepts electricity and magnetism involved, with one or two brief examples for both effects.
  • Same section: you say "tend to" pretty often. This could be more precise.
  • You sorely need illustrations. I bet there are tons of images of a magnetic dipole and its field. That would be really enlightening.
  • What is an hydroelectric dam? Perhaps give a more everyday example?
  • "as are X-rays, radio waves, and others" I would remove "and others"
  • Citations: for GA and even more so for FA, you absolutely have to provide more references. For example "Maxwell's equations are not unchanged in other unit systems." would be tagged with [citation needed]. An easy and generally useful rule: the first sentence in the paragraph should have some ref.
  • "General formulation". What does "SI" mean? (you explain the abbreviations somewhere below, move this up there). Also the section has a bit of repetetive wordind (used 2 times). Also, in general, you use parentheses pretty often. I would try to minimize that.
  • The whole organization of the formula-content is not optimal. Your tables with the formulae are nice and handy, but prose text incorporating the stuff would be better. Even more disturbingly is the fact that the reader has to scroll back and forth between the equations and the explanation of the terms. Thirdly, I (a non phys-guy) don't understand why you devote so much space to the units (a whole column in the table!). From the article it seems that it is just a linear rescaling. Unless you make somehow clearer the impact of the units, this is a bit uninteresting.
  • When comparing Table 1 and 2, I wondered about the relation of E and D. You explain that under "Bound charge and current", but the question arises at that point. I would move the "Bound charge and current" section (which is really well explaining the difference, which I didn't understand before) up.
  • Two more examples (out of many) where a citation is needed: "generally an intractable problem", "which vary wildly on a micro. scale..."
  • The History section is pretty unorganized. You succeed to make clear that there is more than Maxwell, but do so in a very repetetive way. I suggest organizing the stuff in a more chronological order, trying to mention the content of M's paper at one spot, and not dispersed over the whole section.
  • What does EMF mean? (History section)
  • General formatting problems: be sure not to use "--" or "-" where endashes or emdashes are appropriate. Also, I personally find links a la see this book pretty ugly. Reformat this using a footnote. Likewise the formatting of the see also note in "Maxwell's On physcial ..." is a bit ugly. Scientific papers should be formatted in italics. Sometimes you missed that.
  • The mentioning of "equation (56)" and the like is IMO overly detailed. If you want to give this information, I'd take a footnote.
  • "when Lorentz was still a young boy" - awkward wording and unclear meaning.
  • Repeating the notation H, J etc. is not necessary (unless there are differences, which I didn't see)
  • In the several cases (e.g. "Case without magnetic or dielectric materials"), the discussion is a bit repetetive, insofar that the formulae are practically identic. I would try to write down the formula only once, and explaining the different meaning of μ and ε depending on the context.
  • "If further there are dependencies on:" is an extremly long sentence.
  • With magn. monopoles section: "has never been seen and may not exist" needs a citation (both parts of the statement)
  • "Classically the question is "Why does ..."" is awkward wording.
  • "An entire physical apparatus ... has developed" should be "has been developed"
  • Historical developments of SR: "he motivated his theory by nothing that a..." --> nothing but that a
  • "By Helmholtz's theorem..." -- is this a consequence of Stokes theorem?
  • "These equations appear more complicated..." -- to whom? citation!
  • The el. and magn fields are now jointly described by a 2-form F in a 4-dim. spacetime manifold" -- do you refer to Minkowski space here? Perhaps single out a simple example case (as opposed to general relativity).
  • "Conceptual insight" - remove underlining of text.
  • I didn't read the "Curved spacetime" section, but this should already be a bit to work on :) Ping me if you want me to reread it after some improvements. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nousernamesleft (talk)

  • The "introduction" to the first section seems a bit awkward to me. Could it be eliminated, and the first two sections merged?
  • An explanation why the equations are changed when expressed in alternate systems of units would be helpful.
  • Perhaps the legend should be located before the formula tables? Also, a brief explanation of the closed line integral would be helpful to make the article more accessible.
  • "Controversy has always surrounded the term Maxwell's equations concerning the extent to which Maxwell himself was involved in these equations." - this sentence doesn't really make sense. The controversy over the naming was caused by the extent, but not "concerned" with it.
  • Not a concern, but the irony in the introduction to "History" made me laugh.
  • "See pages 110–112 of Nahin's book" links to page 113 for some indiscernible reason.
  • "The fourth was a partial time derivative version" - more explanation would be nice.

I'll have more comments later when I get around to finishing my read-through of the article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have as of late become interested in the Middle East, and would like to know where the article could be improved.

Thanks, Master&Expert (Talk) 09:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aude - I've made a bit of contributions to the article, some time ago, but holding off for now as I know it's a significant time investment to bring it up to FA quality. Getting it to GA quality seems feasible in the short term.

The key thing with a topic like this is that so much has been written about the Middle East. Thus, I really doubt that several of the websites used as sources are really the best sources available, for example, this European Jewish Congress webpage [4], the Progressive Policy Institute [5]. I would argue that the CIA Factbook [6] is also insufficient as a source. Maybe it would work for general facts/statistics like population, but it's definitely not suitable where it gives a historical or economic overview, since much better sources are available. The article cites a number of books and scholarly journal articles, which is good, and the article needs more of that. Though care is needed, since there is garbage out there in book form too. Books published through reputable publishers would be good.

The other thing is that the Middle East article needs to be a summary of the various subarticles, per WP:SUMMARY, and if the subarticles are a mess or poor quality, than I don't think summary style can be followed very well. I suggest looking at the subarticles, such as History of the Middle East, and also work to improve those at the same time the History section of the main Middle East article is improved.

A general comment is that I think there are too many pictures, in relation the amount of text. I would get rid of a bunch of them and take the gallery out. --Aude (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do you know of any particularly reliable scholarly books? Master&Expert (Talk) 16:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For suggesting something specific, Juan Cole has a short list [7], including Albert Hourani's A History of the Arab Peoples and Jonathan Berkey's The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800. That our article on the Middle East does not cite Hourani's book is definitely a problem. Certainly the Middle East article is one of the most important on Wikipedia, so it would be good to see improvement.
On specific countries, detailed bibliographies are available from the Library of Congress, as part of their Country Studies series (e.g. Egypt). The Middle East Institute has detailed bibliographies on some countries (e.g. Iraq, Algeria, Pakistan ...) and topics such as Islamism [8], but I don't see anything that's a general overview/list for the "Middle East". But, within those lists, I think there are some items listed that are more general.
The other thing I would do to find scholarly sources is look around on the Internet for course syllabus from universities known for strong programs in Middle East studies, and see what they are having students read. For example, this from the University of Michigan, though what that lists seems again to pertain to specific countries. Also, some universities (e.g. their libraries, or individual professors) have posted lists of references. (e.g. Cornell [9] or U. Michigan [10]). --Aude (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On that related note, I removed several images from the article recently, as per one of your suggestions.[11] Master&Expert (Talk) 18:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks much improved. Once the article is expanded, of course, some images can be re-added. --Aude (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why of course. This could take awhile... (check the history and you'll see an even bigger obstacle than the disarray the article's in - but such is to be expected of such a topic.) Master&Expert (Talk) 20:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the recent reverts. Aside from that, the article has been remarkably stable. I think getting the article more solidly sourced with the highest quality sources helps keep articles stable. The issue of concern now is what's the definition of the Middle East. Of course, there is no single definition. I suggest maybe reordering the sections and move the "Territories and regions" section up so it follows the "Etymology" section. And, the "Territories and regions" needs some explanation more than just providing the table. The problem is that the Regions of the Middle East subarticle is a stub, completely unreferenced, and I think totally unhelpful. Getting that subarticle into decent shape might be a good starting point. Along with improving the subarticle, a brief well-sourced, summary can be added to the main Middle East article. Once the article explains what the Middle East is, then it makes sense to go on to talk about history, geography, economy, etc. --Aude (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally define the Middle East as a region in Southwestern Asia and Northeastern Africa, south of the Caucasus Mountains and west of the Indian subcontinent. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recently paid a visit to the local library in search Hourini's book - I couldn't find it, unfortunately. I did, however, manage to order a book known as "A History of Islamic Societies", which I feel will cover the subject in some amount of depth, at least to fill a few sections. (as a side note, though, I did manage to find myself a book on Irish history :D ) Master&Expert (Talk) 22:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This Is the book I managed to order. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That book looks very good. I do have Hourani's book, and should offer more help for the Middle East and related articles. But there is only so much time for Wikipedia, so don't know how much I can quickly do. Being such a broad topic, I think an article like this needs a few users helping. --Aude (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, yes, it most certainly does. But, how to do we bring them to the Middle East? Master&Expert (Talk) 01:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • A number of other users have been discussing things on Talk:Middle East, but not sure how much they can/want to help. At some point, I suggest getting input on the history section from WP:MILHIST (they have task forces for specific regions), and there are other wikiprojects that are relevant (e.g. Category:WikiProject_Middle_East, Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab world, WP:ISLAM). And, while it helps to have a few users helping, having too many can cause difficulties. --Aude (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I notified 2 users - User:FayssalF (Arab World Wikiproject) and User:Jagged 85 (military history, Middle East branch). Master&Expert (Talk) 03:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That sounds good. I do think the history section needs a great deal of improvement, and any input or guidance would help. For example, it does not mention the Crusades and just gives passing mention to the rise of Islam, and a brief mention of the Ottoman Empire. Also, the Byzantine Empire is not mentioned. --Aude (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • This could take a while. But Jagged 85 looks like he'd have a good understanding of Middle Eastern history, hopefully. In the meantime, I'll do what I can do. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Williamson edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because one more set of eyes could point out things that I may have missed.

Thanks, Neonblak talk - 08:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

  •   DoneThe article could use a copyedit - for example in the lead During this time, he played for three different teams, the Indianapolis Blues of the National League for one season, the Chicago White Stockings, also of the National League, for 11 seasons, and one season for the Chicago Pirates of the Players League. could probably be changed to something like He played for three different teams in his career: the Indianapolis Blues of the National League (NL) for one season, the Chicago White Stockings (NL) for 11 seasons, and the Chicago Pirates of the Players League for one season. (parallel construction and tighten prose)
  •   DoneTypos too - ...and nine home runs.[2] in 1888, his batting average dipped again, to .250, but did finished fourth both in RBIs with 73, ... new sentence does not start with a capital letter (but follows a period) and should be either "he finished fourth" of "did finish fourth"
  •   DoneYou can ask for help with a copyedit at the last section of WP:PRV
  • I would include his death in the lead - even in his era dying at 36 was unusual
  •   DoneThe Late career and Post career sections are both very short. Could they be combined and renamed, perhaps "Late career and death"?
  • Any idea when he contracted tuberculosis? Or why he retired so young (are they related or was it just his knee injury?)
Without a specific source, I cannot say he "retired", or stopped playing due to his knee, although that is the most likely reason.Neonblak talk - 11:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any more personal life details - parents names, siblings, did he marry opr have children?
As far as I can gather, he was married, and I think I could incorporate at least that much, other than that, it appears that he didn't have any children, but nothing saying yes or no, and of course, nothing found on his parents, ancestry, lineage.Neonblak talk - 11:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your comments are very helpful, I will use your suggestions, and be finished with the changes my mid-week.. I'm pretty booked for the next few days.Neonblak talk - 13:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed most of what you suggested, and will look to add more personal information as I come across it. Thanks again for taking the time.Neonblak talk - 11:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid Prime 2: Echoes edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FAC soon. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gary King (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The format of the references look good. Due to my slow computer, I haven't been able to check the reliability of each source, so I'll try to get to that soon. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They all look good except for the japanese game charts, is that reliable? Also, the setting and plot sections are unreferenced, which they should be. Otherwise, double check the text and get it on its way to FAC! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm not so sure about that reference myself. I removed it. The Setting and Plot sections don't need to be referenced. Gary King (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's always nice to source them if possible though. Generally if it's just transcripts citations I don't bother, but if you have secondary sources it can't hurt to add them. Just a suggestion, not really anything beyond preference. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Kirkcaldy edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to see what status it would be able to achieve to start off with.

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Boulton comments: I will do my best to get round to this in the next day or so. In the meantime, can I suggest that you move one of the images, perhaps the harbour, up to the lead? The article looks strange without a lead image. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are comments on the first few sections:-

  • Lead
    • The lead, apart from needing an image, is under-linked. The following terms should be linked: royal burgh; burgh of barony (not "barons")—this term is linked later, but should be linked at first mention; Bronze Age; cist; linoleum; flax.
    • Some stray commas: commas are required after "landscape" and after "12th century". Commas should be deleted after "cist burials" and "nail making"
    • The word "nonetheless does not seem necessary
    • The statement that "The town's history begins as a villa" is troublesome on two counts. First, the town's history does not begin as a villa; it might begin with a villa. Secondly, the statement is too terse, without any explanation as to what a villa is, in this context. Possibly "a single dwelling". But a little further explanation is necessary
    • You need to rephrase the sentence beginning "Although Kirkcaldy benefitted greatly...", indicating how the town benefitted from the products which you name.
    • Overall, the lead is a little short. This may not be too much of a problem for GA purposes, but if you have FA as a goal, the lead will definitely need expansion.
  • Early history
    • "later", in parentheses, is uninformative; can you give a date approximation?
    • The whole formulation in the parentheses is awkward: (later a 4mi/6.4 km). "mi" is not used when miles are the principal measurement. Personally, I would rephrase the whole sentence, avoiding brackets altogether except to indicate the metric equivalent.
    • We have the unexplained villa description again. Assuming that a villa is just what it sounds like, why was reference to Kirkcaldy as a villa an indication that it was regarded as a town? The opposite indication seems more likely.
    • The sentence which begins "In granting this right, a year later, the kin though..." reads a bit clumsily. Try dropping te comma after "right" and losing the "though" altogether.
    • In the sentence beginning "Kirkcaldy therefore now had the right to trade..." I suggest dropping "therefore" and bringing forward the "for the first time" clause, so that the sentence begins: "Kirlcaldy now had, for the first time, the right to trade..."
    • The word "whilst" is disapproved by Wikipedia because "in American English...it can seem pretentious or archaic" (see Whilst). Personally I see nothing with te word, but there are plenty who do.
    • "...playing a part to boost Scland's economy" would be more grammatical if amended to "playing a part in boosting Scotland's economy"
    • David II seems rather improbably long-lived. We have him devising charters in 1128 and 1130, then he is apparently requesting a regality charter in the late 14th century! Were there two David IIs?
    • "feu-ferme status" should be linked thus: feu-ferme status.

I will comment on the rest of the article a little later.Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Note: I'm happy to continue the review, but would like first to see some response to my initial points.) Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gantz chapters edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has been put forth to bring this list up to FL status. When the efforts began, it was at a low C at best. Please make any suggestions you see fit that will help us better the list if it is not deemed up to FL status.

Thanks! –m.f (t • c) 13:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I've never reviewed a similar list before and that I'm using List of Claymore episodes as a kind of guideline on how these lists have been done at the FA level. Your list seems to be generally clear and complete. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • I couldn't help but see the big "needs copyediting" tag at the top of the page. This tag is correct, although the errors should not be hard to fix. In the lead, for example, a sentence begins "The manga chapters have been published in the Japanese-language magazine Weekly Young Jump since 2000 and is still ongoing... " The word "chapters" is plural, but the verb "is" is singular. You could fix this by replacing "is" with "are", or you might prefer to say "and the series is still ongoing". I see other grammatical errors or typos such as the echo "a" in the phrase "tall alien attacks Kato making him fall from a a bridge" or misspellings such as "inivisible" that a copyeditor would most likely catch and fix.
  • The prose could be tightened and made more clear. "Kurono is attracted to Kishimoto and asks if they can have a sexual relationship, but she rejects him. Kato becomes angry while remembering how the little green alien died and attacks a bully from his school. During the following days several people die and appear in the building in Tokyo along with the previous survivors. Kato tries to explain to them what is happening. A gangster tries to use a gun on Nishi but he is able to survive and kills him." A tighter re-write might say, "Kurono asks Kisimoto if they can have sex, but she says 'no'. Angered, Kato, remembering how the little green alien died, attacks a bully from his school. Later, several people die and join the group, and Kato tries to explain to them what is happening. A gangster tries to shoot Nishi, but Nishi kills him." The original version uses 82 words; my version uses 55. I think this kind of tightening of the plot summaries is possible throughout.
  • In addition to eliminating redundant words, you might consider making the plot summaries no longer than four or five sentences. This would involve deciding which details could be left out without damaging the summaries.
  • I think the first paragraph of the lead might include a sentence that explains a little more about the rules of the "game". The characters have to die to join the game, but they can come back to life and die again. Magic?
  • What is tankōbon format?
  • In the first summary, you use the characters' first names, Kei and Masaru, on second reference rather than their last names, Kurono and Kato. The Manual of Style recommends last names on second reference. In other summaries, you use last names. I'd recommend changing the exceptions in the first summary and looking through the other summaries to make sure there are no more exceptions.

I hope you find these brief comments to be helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Port of Constanţa edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want see oppinions about the article because i've made many edits and improved it substantially.

Thanks, Mario1987 21:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr pda:

Looking at the changes since last peer review in June, it appears that the only things which have changed are adding an infobox, changing Other links to See also, removing the {{main}} links to not yet existing articles, and fixing a couple of links. Most of the changes I suggested then have not been implemented. These include major items such as citing the article (see WP:V, WP:CITE), and some paragraphs which are copyright violations (see WP:COPY). I also provided some suggestions for expanding/improving the article.

In addition to these, you might like to use {{Infobox Port}} rather than the table you made yourself, and Image:Port mangalia.jpeg may also be useful. Dr pda (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warhammer 40,000 edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to get some strong criticism on the way to FA. The GA review was an excellent step, giving me some feedback from a non-player and I'm looking for more info like that. Does the article flow properly? should it be longer? Should the plot/background section be longer? More images? Fewer? Thanks for the help.

Thanks, Protonk (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance by Jappalang

You need a copy editor. A few quick notes on sentences:

  • "Warhammer 40,000 is a tabletop miniature wargame in a science fantasy setting produced by Games Workshop."
Not a good sentence... I am not enamoured with "a game in a xxx setting". Furthermore, the sentence is ambiguous. It can be read as a wargame made by an unknown is set in a science fantasy world produced by Games Workshop.
  • "Warhammer 40,000 [...], sharing many of the same game mechanics with periodic expansion sets."
40K shares many of the game mechanics with these periodic expansions (Note: "Andrew, please share your toys with your brothers.")?
  • "The additional rules and goals are read from the main rulebook."
point of this sentence??? It seems to me the paragraph that details the scenarios is a bit scrambled in its contents...
  • "In the movement phase, a player will determine which direction and how far her units will travel."
"her"? I would not accept that as a gender neutral pronoun. Use "his or her" if you must. Seeing as it appears only twice, "his or her" is acceptable.
  • "if the unit could actually look past an obstruction."
Would "if the unit has an unobstructed sighting of a target." be better?
  • "Victory is determined either simply by mission objectives or victory points, with points awarded for objectives and eliminated or damaged enemy units."
Suggestion: "Victory is determined based on the completion of mission objectives or by the amount of victory points accrued through completion of goals and damage inflicted on the enemy units."

Content-wise,

  • Assembling and painting miniatures is interestingly enough, not a rule of 40K. The rules themselves allow for "stand-ins"; games can be played with G.I. Joe or Star Wars action figures, or even with cardboard cut-outs. Official tournies dictate the use of fully painted figures and "WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get)" and lesser tournies are less strict than the official.
The key point is presented as is, the lead gives the impression that figure collection is the key point of the game. That is not the truth. It is the wargaming (despite the fervour that surrounds attempts to match and field the "Golden Demon" figurines). Figure collection (and painting) is a vanity (that can be incredibly self-rewarding).
  • The background is simply too dry. The 40K universe is indeed driven by the Imperium of Mankind. Plot-wise, it is the Imperium that is the centre of all stories; the other races serve as the villians and busybdies. The seduction of Horus and the schism between the Space Marines (loyalist and Chaos) should be in very brief detail here. As it is, the background is a ho-hum "40,000 years in the future, many races fight for domination in the Milky Way galaxy." It is not undue weight to focus the Background setting to the Horus Heresy as it is the primordial event that launches the whole "In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future, There is Only War". Just make sure it is very brief, without going into miniscule details of whos and whats that starts, goes on during, and happens after the Heresy. As a rough guide, the first two paragraphs of the Background can be doubled to handle this.
  • "Unlike some wargames, Warhammer 40,000 is not played on a hex map."
Actually most tabletop wargames are played without a grid- or hex-map. Generally, it is the boardgames that come with those maps.
  • Expand on Benjamin Fox's thoughts. His is a critic's opinion and an evaluation of the game. Explain how the interaction reflect a performance and why each conflict is different. This helps to establish the article as that of a product that is judged (not as one that solely explains how a game is played).
  • I am not that certain the History requires quite that much details of differences between versions...
  • "Warhammer 40,000 has proven very lucrative for Games Workshop."
No longer true... the company's revenues have been falling and in 2007, it was suffering losses.
  • You might want to consider The Video Game Explosion by Mark J. P. Wolf — the author claims "it is widely believed" that WH and WH40K inspired WC and SC, respectively.

Just a few comments. Jappalang (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luan Da edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is quite a bit longer than in the FAC - thanks to Jappalang - and also contains some different facts. It's not because I made errors (well, it's mostly not because I made errors) - it's because the secondary sources and the different translations of the primary sources contradict one another. I now present to you, O great peer reviewers, a changed conman; nearly ready for FAC (hopefully!). Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "becoming very influential and marrying one of the daughters of the emperor." --> "became very influential and married one of the emperor's daughters." - sounds better? Giggy (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the third peer review for this article. The purpose of this PR is to hear all comments that could help this article reach FL status, or at least be FLC ready. All comments and contributions are greatly appreciated. *SIGN* 04:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2)/archive3.

Art Deco edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to get this article up to GA status and would like to know what still needs to be done. Any feedback or constructive criticism would be welcome.

Thanks, Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a most interesting text, generally well-written, and I like the images as well. Here are a few suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead of a Wikipedia article should be a summary or abstract of the main points of the whole article. Ideally, it includes at least a brief mention of each of the sections in the main text, and it includes nothing that is undeveloped in the main text. Your existing first paragraph doesn't mention anything from "Decline and resurgence" or "Surviving examples" and it includes terms like "Bauhaus" that don't appear in the main text. Please see WP:LEAD.
Seems like I've got this sorted. I've put in a bit of information about the decline and resurgence.
  • Other encyclopedias such as 'Encarta (citation 18), travel sites such as southbeachhotels.com (citation 26), and personal web sites such as www.vintageperiods.com/artdeco (citation 10) are relatively weak sources. As you work on the article, you might want to replace these with stronger sources.
I've kept Encarta as a reference for now, but have removed the other references from the text.
  • Single-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon. To solve the problem, you can expand them or merge them with other paragraphs. "Decline and resurgence" consists of two paragraphs. The second one is a sourced orphan (one-sentence paragraph), and the first one lacks a source. You might merge the two paragraphs and add a source or sources for the other material in the section.
Fixed this section up with a quick merge and removal of unsourced statements.
  • You have used the "cite" family of templates for most of the citations, and that works well. However, some of the citations are incomplete or arranged incorrectly, and many of the incomplete ones do not use the cite family. In particular, citations 23 through 29 are irregular and should be fixed. Other citations lack data that should be added. If possible, include the author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date for on-line sources.
They're looking a bit better now; I've fixed them so they all use cite web templates, and have added in the title for one of them that was previously lacking one.
  • The last section lacks sources. Generally, it's a good idea to source each paragraph as well as any claim involving statistics, quantities, or ideas that might be questioned.
No more available online sources for this section, and I can't find any written sources, so I've removed the unverified info and fixed up the section header.
  • Images of Art Deco structures in Cuba, Brazil, or the UK would be nice if you can find ones that are free-use.
  • The Durham Western Heritage link in the bibliography is dead, and the Oklahoma Art Heritage page has moved. You can check the links at any time with the link checker at checklinks.
  • The Manual of Style advises against repeating the words of the article title in the section heads. For that reason, I'd suggest dropping the "Art Deco" part of subhead 4.1 and using something like "House design in the UK".
Done.

I hope you find this brief review helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen, New Netherland edit

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

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

It presents an overview of 17th century history of what would become (a part) State of New Jersey and attempts to present it w/o too much reference to contemporary civic boundaries/structures. In other words, the chronology is taken more from the perception of the inhabitants of the period, placed into a somewhat wider context, rather than municipal histories (such the "The Histoy of....., or "The Story of....) common to town/county historical societies. Both text and images support a balance between specific and broader reasons why region developed as it did.

Text is fairly straightfoward information, comprehensive, generally well-referenced, and with no apparent grammatical/spelling errors. Without regard to the "importance" of article, what is required to change the rating to a GA?


Thanks, Djflem (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting piece with nice illustrations and maps. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be a summary or abstract of the main text. Ideally, it should at least mention the main idea in each of the main sections, and it should not include material that is undeveloped in any of these sections. The existing lead says nothing about Halve Maen, the Lenape, and other sections, and it discusses the name origin, which is not mentioned in the main text. Please see WP:LEAD for more ideas about how to re-do the lead.
  • Section headings don't normally include links. I'd suggest unlinking Halve Maen and the rest of the linked heads per WP:HEAD.
  • Image:Perzik.jpg needs a caption.
  • Per MOS:UNLINKDATES, dates in the main text are no longer autoformatted. I ran a script to unlink them.
  • The citations have problems. Some of them use the "cite" family of templates. This is a good idea, and I'd suggest using those templates for all the rest of the citations, many of which are incomplete. If possible, you should try to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date for the on-line sources. Please see WP:CIT.
  • A top-to-bottom copyedit would probably catch and fix small errors. For example, a sentence in the lead says, "Some say that it so called for any of number of towns in the Netherlands or the city in Norway" This sentence seems to be missing a word or two, and it lacks a terminal period. A bit further on, "prompted by the settlers return" should be possessive, "settlers' ".

This is not a complete review, but I hope these few comments are helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon-14 edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is a very interesting article. The important fact all appear to be well referenced. The subject is quite interesting because it has some good links to other articles such as radioactive contamination. Finally, the footnotes and references appear well located. I would like to see this as a featured article.

Thanks, CyclePat (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments ErikvDijk

  • In lead: "The activity of the modern radiocarbon standard[4]is about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram carbon [5]." Is this sentence really necessary in the lead? I don't understand what it means without further context.
  • Last two paragraphs in "Origin and radioactive decay of carbon-14" are only one sentence long.
  • In "Carbon-14 and fossil fuels" there is a something wrong with the partenses in the sentence "... to match the 10-15 14C/C measured[8])".

ErikvDijk (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article about an isotope that most people have heard of but probably do not understand and could not explain. It would be great to have an encyclopedia article that explained it so clearly that most readers would comprehend the basics. Here are a few suggestions of a general-reader sort. You might seek further comments from specific editors listed in the natural sciences subsection of WP:PRV.

  • The lead should be a summary or abstract of the whole article. Somebody in a hurry should be able to read the lead by itself and get the gist of the article. The existing lead does not summarize the article. Ideally, the lead should include at least a mention of the ideas developed in the main text sections, and it should not include material that is undeveloped in the main text. Please see WP:LEAD.
  • Much of the article is or appears to be unsourced. For example, it's hard to tell at first glance whether citation 6 covers the whole "Origin and radioactive decay" section or only the last sentence. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph and every claim that might be questioned. This would include quantitative claims. Where do the numbers come from?
  • In the "Fossil fuels" section, it's not clear why contamination by bacteria or uranium might be important. Maybe what is lacking is a statement saying that carbon dating of fossil fuels is fraught with uncertainty because..."
    • Much later, I remembered this second sentence of mine and thought it made no sense. I added the strike marks today. Finetooth (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see lots of possibilities for expansion. For example, most people will be familiar with tree-ring dating, but they are unlikely to know anything about cave-deposit dating. You could explain this. You could also say why tooth-dating only works for people born after 1943 and not, say, 1942. Ditto for lens-dating and 1950. The connection between a seafood diet and lens-dating is not obvious. You could explain it.
  • The MOS frowns on orphan paragraphs consisting of only one or two sentences. You can fix the problem by combining short paragraphs or expanding them. This has the nice side effect of sometimes reducing the number of citations you need to consider adding.
  • The Manual of Style (MOS) recommends against using words in the section heads that "explicitly refer to the subject of the article". I'd suggest dropping the "Carbon-14" parts of three section heads and simply using "Origin and radioactive decay", "Fossil fuels", "Nuclear tests" and "Human body".
  • Dates in the main text are no longer autoformatted. I ran a script to unlink them in this article. Please see MOS:SYL.

I hope you find these comments helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Please add a history section (even if it ends up being short)
  • Discuss/present the nuclear spin
  • perhaps say something about the occurrence vs sunspot cycles
  • are there any other uses outside the radiocarbon dating?

Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet forum edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to see how it can be improved.

Thanks, ffm 16:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: The instructions for submitting an article for peer review say, "Articles with major cleanup banners in place can not be submitted for peer review." Alas, this article has a big cleanup banner at the top, and it correctly points out that the article violates WP:V in many places because it lacks citations to reliable sources. Please make sure the information is sourced before re-submitting. Finetooth (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced, banner removed. ffm 17:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments: I don't think that what you are writing about is something that's easy to explain, and I can see that you have put a lot of time and effort into it. Alas, although the "citation needed" tags are now gone, verifiability is still a big problem in this article. Large blocks of material are still unsourced, and even when sourced, the sources do not necessarily support the claims. It seems to me that a fair amount of what is being stated as fact in the article stems from the personal experiences of the contributing editors rather than from reliable outside sources. It violates WP:V and WP:NOR simultaneously. For example, the section called "Discussion" is completely unsourced yet makes generalizations about Internet forums such as "Personal opinion is commonly more dominant than informative opinion or documented one; often expressing personal opinion over other forms is encouraged or implied. Because of their volatile and random behavior it is not uncommon for nonsense or unsocial behavior to sprout as people lose temper and try to fight each other." It's doubtful that this accurately describes all Internet forums. For example, does it fairly describe the Math Forum at Drexel? Does it fairly describe the Undergraduate General Chemistry Forum? My suggestion would be to re-examine all of the unsourced generalizations in the article and to remove any that are not directly supported by reliable sources. Finetooth (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that a few more editors (content editors rather then maintenance) would pop up at some point and there could be a discussion on the articles place in the encyclopedia and more importantly how the topic should be approached and what in the topic should be approached in the article (I am really a newbie to wikipedia so do not want to risk being too bold). The article should obviously presume the reader is unfamiliar – dare I say clueless – with popular forms of Internet communication, like for example what would be the case for a reader from a undeveloped country (but normal cases can not be excluded as I have had to explain the subject again and again annoyingly numerous times), but, to what extent should a encyclopedia go on such a partially unscientific and volatile topic is nothing I can figure out or decide on my own. Concerning headings such as "Discussion" I am tacking small lazy steps in moving/transclusion-ing parts of the article into their own article (pruning if necessary), it is nice to know I have some moral support (from you) on this idea. Currently, I have done nothing to that extent – still proof-reading checking/fixing some parts of the current version, and waiting – but I have placed a small to do in the talk page suggesting it if anyone is interested in helping.
Concerning your reference to the forum @ Drexel (I can not properly google the other example), it appears to be a hybrid of what I see as a discussion type electronic mailing list rather then a forum; this is a really good example of my point with the need to discuss the articles orientation, currently it makes any form of asynchronous messaging (blogs, mailing-lists and so on) a forum and also in some parts disputes they are. It's very complicated, the opening sentence should probably be reworked. Currently a Internet forum can be one and only one of the following: (there may be other possible truths)
  • (one of the) web equivalents of the old modem bulletin board system. The article on BBSs doesn't dispute this (i.e forums are related), it just says "there has been confusion with the term bulletin board system"; although the statement is unfounded and I've seen sources identify forums as descendants of BBSs which basically challenges the claim (i.e Internet forums are a re-invention rather then a evolution). Many popular software implementation seem to suggest they consider themselves Internet BBSs.
  • a subset of asynchronous messaging technology. This is (at least for me) the current status in the article. But the article doesn't treat it as such. This would also imply that being a "Internet forum" doesn't imply it's a "forum on the Internet"
  • a set of principles and concepts applied to form a type of online community. For example: would a support service where customers can only ask questions to a professional consultant, and are only aware of their questions, considered a Internet forum? Is a social network where individuals have conversations by posting on each others profiles a Internet forum? (to name just the obvious vagueness directed at the reader in the current article)
These are some of the hypothesis I contemplate when researching. The more I look into them the more come up and sources are rare and rarer (reliability is also a big issue). Do you have any suggestions that can help?
7ghost (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking the problem down into subsets might help. I was thinking that it would be easier to verify the technical claims than the social claims. You can probably find sources for definitions of terms like "troll", but it might be impossible to find a source that would quantify troll activity. Poking about on the Internet, I found a couple of books that might be used as sources: Managing Online Forums by Patrick O'Keefe and Building Forums with Vbulletin by A. Kingsley Hughes. I don't know what's in them or whether you'd find them useful. Anyway, best of luck with the project. Finetooth (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The O.C. episodes edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some input on what needs doing to get this to FL status. The first three seasons are FL's with the fourth currently FLC. This list is roughly based on List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes.

I have taken a new approach to the series overview, to save duplicating things like DVD release dates. I would also like to see what might need adding to the lead. I would also like opinions of whether it is justified to go to FLC with missing viewer figures. I would argue it is, as these numbers are not available in reliable sources (or unreliable for that matter). It may be worth noting that season 1 was promoted without any viewer numbers and I would argue that it is not so much missing three as having an additional information for 89 episodes.

Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is generally good but it needs some things:

  • There should be a short paragraph in the Lead describing the main plot of the series.
  • A picture of the OC poster on the top of the article.
    • ✗ Not done, all posters would be non-free content and as such would fail the criteria for 3a. Minimal usage and 8. Significance. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short summaries of the seasons would be helpful with posters of each season.

That's it I don't find anything else wrong with the list. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed or responded to comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did a few minor edits. Not much else to do, since there isn't that much prose. Gary King (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Lauderdale, Florida edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to have this article reviewed to bring it to an WP:FA status. Thanks, Canyouhearmenow 15:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is looking good. It seems to cover the major aspects. There are a few [clarify] tags in the demographics section regarding numbers with unclear units. Something else that is unclear is the term limits in the governance section - first it says 3 term limit, then it says the mayor is serving his 6th term. That the city is governed through that Charter may be worth mentioning. On the first sentence I would avoid the comparison to another city and go for more of a definition (ie. essential/defining characteristics) of Fort Lauderdale. The History section struggles to keep its focus as it wanders around Native American/Seminole and Florida history. Try and keep it focused on Fort Lauderdale. The article's principle weakness is probably the quality of the writing. This topic does not lend itself well to brilliant prose because it tries to lay down a lot of data, facts, and information.
    • The History section could have better flow, like On January 6, 1836, Seminoles attacked the farm of the local Justice of the Peace, William Cooley, while he was away, killing his wife and children, and the children's tutor.
    • "The city does experiences cold fronts from November through March."
    • Try "On January 6, 1836, Seminoles attacked the farm of the local Justice of the Peace, William Cooley, while he was away, killing his wife and children, and the children's tutor."
    • "Local bus transportation is provided by Broward County Transit (BCT), the county bus system. BCT provides for connections..." - ease off the "provides". Try Broward County Transit (BCT) operates the local bus service...". Maybe term 'public transportation' would be better?
    • Before submitting the article to WP:FAC, ask one of the regular reviewers there whether they think the prose is ok. --maclean 03:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the review and will work on those suggestions. Thanks again Canyouhearmenow 05:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard K. O'Neill edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This was recently promoted to GA status and I am interested in improving it further. Areas in particular need of improvement are the introduction and the childhood/education paragraph. I would also appreciate feedback on readability, NPOV issues, reliability of sources, and anything else I may have missed.

Thanks, Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:


Brianboulton comments: I am reading the article and find it of absorbing interest. It is in pretty good shape; here are some points arising in the earlier sections.

  • Birth, education etc
    • The date (or at least year) of his first cross-country glider flight would be useful
      Done, April 1973. Wronkiew (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He was chased on the ground..." What does this mean - she ran after him, or what?
      Couldn't find any more information on this, so I changed it to "assisted". Wronkiew (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • High energy physics research
    • "His letter entitled..." Is "letter" the right word? Or was it a paper?
      "Letter" is the accurate term. Does the distinction need to be clarified in the article? Wronkiew (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really an issue. However, you could possibly remove the "two page letter" description as this is a bit redundant, and just say "This theorized that..." Brianboulton (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "That year,..." - I'm not sure what year we're in at this point.
      Specified the year. Wronkiew (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the last sentence, "eventually" is redundant
      Removed. Wronkiew (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Space colonisation (preamble): Is it possible to distribute the multiple refs at the end of the second para, to bring them closer to their relevant sentences?
  • Origin of the idea
    • Is this the best title for this section, which appears to extend well beyond an account of the origin of the idea?
      I split the section. Wronkiew (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder if the information regarding O'Leary is really relevant to this article
      Trimmed out some irrelevant detail. Wronkiew (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence beginning "O'Neill's interest in space colonisation..." is a virtual word-for-word repeat of the first sentence under the "Space colonisation" heading
      Edited both sentences to reduce duplication. Wronkiew (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "inside-out" is not properly explained. In what sense "inside out"?
      Now explained. Wronkiew (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The paragraph beginning "Looking for an outlet..." looks a little under-cited.
      The paragraph was supported by the single reference, but I added some more specific notes. Wronkiew (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd like to consider these. I will comment on the remaining sections shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:-

  • NASA studies
    • To avoid repetition, combine 2nd and 3rd sentences: "...presented papers, amomg whom were Keith..."
      Done. Wronkiew (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After the conference, Carolyn arranged a meeting..." - sounds too informal. "Caolyn Hanson" would be better
      Done. Wronkiew (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Udall wrote a letter of support for O'Neil's work, and asked the Hansons to publicize it. Can you clarify whether "it" refers to the letter of support or to O'Neil's work?
      It referred to the letter. I rewrote the sentence to be more clear. Wronkiew (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could also combine last 2 sentences of first paragraph: "...the L-5 Society, everyone on O'Neill's mailing list and to all those who signed up at the conference."
      Combined. Wronkiew (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Jan 19 the next year,..." - easier for the reader if you give the actual year
      Year added. Wronkiew (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is "summer studies" in quotes?
      Some readers might have recognized the term, but I deleted it because I didn't have enough references to properly define it. Wronkiew (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There'll be more: got to deal with a sudden emergency. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all is well.

  • Private funding
    • Where did SSI get its funds from? It arrives rather suddenly and immediately starts to hand out money, but it's not clear where this money came from.
      Done. Wronkiew (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some explanation required of jargon-ish terms, e.g "bucket", "520 feet (160m) of track"
      Rewrote the sentences to eliminate these terms. Wronkiew (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing career
    • "honorary doctorate degree" is a rather clumsy formation. Suggest either "honorary doctorate" or "honorary degree".
      Done. Wronkiew (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since 2008 is finite, and will soon be over, I suggest you say "remained", not "remains" (in print as of 2008)
      Done. Wronkiew (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entrepreneurial efforts
    • The opening of this section is a bit magaziney in tone, and should perhaps be expressed in a more impersonal fashion
      Magaziney statements eliminated. Wronkiew (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As of 2008 Omnispread continues..." As per above, suggest should be "continued".
      Done. Wronkiew (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death and legacy
    • "...three men as opposing models for space advocacy". Not sure about the word "opposing" when there are three (you could use it if there were two). Perhaps "disparate" might be a beter word.
      I just removed "opposing". Wronkiew (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give a year for when the Gerard K O'Neill Award was inaugurated?
      The paragraph says the first award was in 2007, is that what you mean? Wronkiew (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, a couple of general points. First, I found the article quite easy to read, though in terms of prose style there is a tendency to overuse of short staccato sentences, some of which I have highlighted in the review. Perhaps a copyeditor could give the prose a quick going-over; there are no serious issues. Secondly, referencing and citations. There does seem to be some confusion here. You seem to have used a variety of citation templates, not always correctly - for example, "cite book" does not have access dates. It would be very helpful if the lengthy list of sources was subdivided between books, magazines, journals, web sources, etc, so that one gets a clearer idea of the nature of the sources being used. I also found the in-line citation entries confusing. Again, there is no indication as to whether it a book, article, website etc being cited. Page numbers are not clearly given - I presume the final number of each entry is a page number, but is there a reason for not saying so, e.g. by "p. 98"? Note [2] appears to have 15 citations to a single page of Dyson - can this be right? I think this is an area that needs looking at generally.

For the general points, I combined some sentences, fixed up the citation templates and changed the reference format to add "p" before page numbers. I don't think that the large number of references to Dyson indicates an over-reliance on that source, just that details from it are used throughout the article. Wronkiew (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, most interesting. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Itub. I was invited to comment on this peer review. The article is very interesting and readable, but I know little about the topic so I can't comment on whether it is accurate and comprehensive in general (although it certainly seems so). I'm also not a master of copy-editing, but I agree with the comment above about the "staccato sentences". Perhaps some sentences need to be connected more, to make paragraphs flow better and feel more cohesive. I felt this especially near the beginning of the article, but I don't know if it was due to a change in style or because I got used to it as I read on. Just one nitpick: I don't think it is accurate to call Scientific American a "journal". Its wikipedia article describes it as a "popular science magazine", which I think is more accurate. Similarly, Physics Today is not really a journal either, as its article describes. I'm not sure if Scientific American has reviewers; I think it more likely that his article was rejected by the editor. I think this distinction highlights the difficulty of publishing speculative articles about space exploration in mainstream science journals, but I'm not sure exactly how the point could be put in the Wikipedia article without looking like editorialization. --Itub (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review. I believe I have addressed the issues you have brought up. I went through the article and combined related and short sentences. I noted that some publications were not journals. I could not find any description of Physics Today being a journal, but maybe it got lost somewhere in one of my edits. Thanks again! Wronkiew (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article recently recently passed GA. Suggestions are needed to improve the article to FA status. Or is it already ready for FA?

Thanks, Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and nicely illustrated, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There are some places in the article that do not make sense to me. Two examples:
    • Krishna (कृष्ण in Devanagari, kṛṣṇa in IAST, pronounced [ˈkr̩ʂɳə] in classical Sanskrit) (3228 BC - 3103 BC)... The dates without further explanation in the lead are confusing - it makes it look like Krishna is a mortal. Also this 3103 BC date is only in the lead, and not repeated in the article for further clarification (which gives the end of his life date as 3102).
    • Or this Krishna is often depicted in murtis (images) as black, and is generally shown in paintings with blue skin. He is often black but generally blue - which is it? Can this be said more clearly? This needs a ref, see below.
  • If this were at WP:FAC, the biggest problem I see is a lack of references in some places. For example In this form, he usually stands with one leg bent in front of the other and raises a flute to his lips, accompanied by cows, emphasising his position as the divine herdsman, Govinda, or with the gopis (milkmaids). or this following paragraph The scene on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, notably where he addresses Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, is another common subject for representation. In these depictions, he is shown as a man, often shown with typical god-like characteristics of Hindu religious art, such as multiple arms or heads, denoting power, and with attributes of Vishnu, such as the chakra or in his two-armed form as a charioteer. all need refs - My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The other main concern I see if this were at FAC is the language - one of the hardest criteria for many articles at FAC is professional English. I would get a copyedit.
  • There are multiple places where more context could be provided for the reader, see WP:PCR. Two examples:
    • The name Krishna is also the 57th name in the Vishnu Sahasranama and means the Existence of Bliss, according to Adi Sankara's interpretation. [10] although Adi Sankara is linked, I still think it would help be clearer to explain in a few words who this was. Also note that refs should immediately follow punctuation, not have spaces between.
    • I like how dates are given in some places like Narayana Tirtha's (17th century CE) Krishna-Lila-Tarangini provided material for the musical plays of the Bhagavata-Mela by telling the tale of Krishna from birth until his marriage to Rukmini. Tyagaraja (18th century CE) wrote a similar piece about Krishna... but this should be done elsewhere
  • Refs need to be consistent - for example is there a space between p. and the page number or not? Or in Satsvarupa dasa Goswami (1998), The Qualities of Sri Krsna, GNPress, pp. 152 pages, ISBN 0911233644 pp. is used for multiple pages but only one page number is given, then it also says "152 pages" - is it the page number for the ref or the total number of pages in the book?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review:

  • Removed dates.
  • Image:Krishna with flute.jpg : The image besides the sentence "he usually stands with one leg bent in front of the other and raises a flute to his lips, accompanied by cows" shows him in this state.
  • Image:Avatars of Vishnu.jpg : shows "The scene on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, notably where he addresses Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita".
  • Paintings in the article show him blue. "Krishna is often depicted in murtis (images) as black, and is generally shown in paintings with blue skin"
  • So are references needed for these, please add [citation needed] tags, if possible. Will add dates for references and work on consistency of ref. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My thought is that if the statement were something like "this painting shows Krishna with blue skin / playing the flute / advising Arjuna" then it would probably be OK without a ref. As it is though, these are general statements about depictions of Krishna in all art - one example is not a good ref for "usually" or "commonly" etc. I would think this would be relatively easy to reference (any sort of published description of Krishna in art would probably have suitable statements to use as refs). As for fact tags, I will add a few, but just reread the article - if a paragraph ends without a ref, add one. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another thing is that refs generally come at the end of the sentence, so ... Jagannatha (literally "Lord of the Universe")[13] in eastern India. should be ... Jagannatha (literally "Lord of the Universe") in eastern India.[13] There are several examples of this, see He may be alone, or with associated figures:[16] his brother Balarama and sister Subhadra, or his main queens Rukmini and Satyabhama. too. I stopped adding fact tags.
    • I also note inconsistencies in some spelling and italics - for example is it "Jagannatha" or "Jaganatha" (and watch overlinking). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Bourdon edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article about former NHL player Luc Bourdon, who died in a motorcycle accident back in May. The article passed the GA process back in July, and I've recently expanded the article in hopes of an FA nomination soon. Particular attention to the prose, one of my weaker aspects, would be most appreciated.

Thanks, Kaiser matias (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good job with the article, took a quick look but will look closer into it soon. Only suggestion I have right now is that you write a playing style section, it could considerably increase your chances at an FAC. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 02:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a brief mention of what type of defenceman he was near the start of the playing career section, and that is about all there is written about him. There wasn't that much written about his playing style, and his career was a little short to provide some major depth in describing it. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton writes: I will do a full-length review as soon as possible, hopefully within next 24 hours. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done my best to read through and to understand what I was reading. A problem with most sports-related articles is the need to use terms unfamiliar to those who are not acquainted with the sport or its organisation and structure. Though many of these terms are unavoidable, the article needs to be written with an awareness that it is for a general encyclopedia readership rather than for a knowledgeable sports readership. This is particularly so early in the article, or the reader will be put off. I had difficulty, in the lead, in understanding what "third overall in the 2003 (QMJHL) draft" meant, and the following sentence: "The Canucks drafted Bourdon with their first pick, tenth overall in the 2005 NHL Entry draft" - I found incomprehensible. Words like "pick" and "draft" obviously have specific meanings in ice hockey circles, but as these were unexplained, I began the main article in a sense of confusion.

Some specific points:-

  • Lead: I believe this needs to be expanded, partly by clarifying of some of the jargon. More dates are needed, to establish a clearer chronology.
  • Early life
    • "francophone" should be linked (I've done this)
    • "bantam" and "midget" presumably relate to hockey played at early ages. Could we know what sort of ages we are talking about?
    • Give date, or at least year, that Bourdon turned professional
    • Some explanation is required as to how an 18-year-old had $10,000 that he could anonymously donate to the local hockey association. Was it his money?
    • Clarify that this is Canadian dollars.

Need to take a short break here. Will return in a while.Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Note: I'm happy to continue the review, but would like first to see some response to my initial points.) Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Sorry for not responding, I've been out of the country for the last week and have had limited internet access. I will return home on the 8th, and will go over everything then. I greatly appreciate that you've taken the time to go over the article, an don't want to leave the impression that I'm totally ignoring this review. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And everything should be taken care of. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More review comments

  • Still no date for his turning professional, nor information as to how a teenager had C£10,000 to give away - surely unusual, and worth explaining?
  • The article still feels as though written by a hockey enthusiast for other hockey enthusiasts, to the exclusion of the general reader. There are (see below) jargon-laden sentences that need to be rewritten in more accessible prose. At the very least, much more use should be made of linking at first mention, to provide some explanation of terms used. Examples:-
    • draft - link to Draft (sports)
    • points - link to Point (ice hockey)
    • playoff
    • assists - link to Assist (ice hockey)
    • defencemen - link to Defenceman (ice hockey)
    • traded - link to Trade (sports)
    • shootout - link to Shootout (sports)
  • The following are examples of incomprehensible (to non-hockey fans) sentences or phrases that need to be rewritten to extend the appeal of the article:-
    • "...a fourth round pick QMJHL draft and a first round selection in 2008..."
  • "Bourdon was regularly mentioned in rumours of trades for more offense at the forward positions". These are examples - there are other instances. The habit of writing in exclusive sports shorthand should be avoided.
  • Other points:
    • North American skaters - presumably Skaters
    • Numbers below 10 should be written, e.g. eight, seven in first sentence of Playing career. Other instances further on - obviously, this does not apply to scores.
    • As mentioned before, the lead needs extending to comply with WP:LEAD

Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I felt somewhat out of my depth with this article, due to a lack of specialised knowledge. Good luck with it, anyhow. Brianboulton (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bamsefar75 writes: Just made a quick read of the article. Mainly I noted that...

  • The sentence The Canucks drafted Bourdon with their first draft selection in the 2005 NHL Entry Draft, the tenth player selected in the draft. contains not less than four (4) occurences of the word draft/drafted.
  • The phrase the rookie-maximum might need to be clarified (I'm not very familiar with the general contract business terms of the NHL). Is this significant or unusual for a player, and is it the NHLPA that sets a limit, and maybe the term rookie needs to be linked...

--Bamsefar75 (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should all be good. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • I see the age groups for bantam and midget hockey have been added per request above. As a thought, might it not be simpler to state that "Bourdon played his minor hockey with the Peninsule Acadien Lynx from age 13–14 and the Miramichi Rivermen from 15–17." As noted above, the usage of bantam and midget would be confusing for people without a good understanding of the minor hockey system in Canada.
  • You got some endash poisoning. ;o) "14-year-old" should use hyphens, not endashes.
  • Link C$ to Canadian Dollar. Trust me, someone will nitpick that at FAC.
  • "In exchange for Bourdon, the Wildcats, who were hosting the 2006 Memorial Cup, sent Ian Mathieu-Girard, Jean-Sébastien Adam, a fourth round pick QMJHL draft and a first round selection in 2008 to Val-d'Or." The statement on the Wildcats hosting the Memorial cup seems disjointed in the middle of that sentence.
  • There was some variation between the usage of Canadian English and American (i.e.: usage of both "defence" and "defense"). I've changed spellings to consistently use EN-CA where I've found them, but you may want to give it a quick look in case I missed any.
  • It is stated that the Canucks are considering producing the guitar pins they wore during the Draft. Given that passage has been in this article for some time, is there any update on this possibility? Resolute 18:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, looks very good. Resolute 18:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything should be good now. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments
  • The prose was overall pretty good, compelling, I'd say. In one spot it was really really choppy (typos/bad grammar), but I've given the article a thorough copyedit.
  • I delinked common terms.
  • I deleted (a bit boldly, a bit out process, but I firmly believe if I send it to IfD it would be deleted) Image:Bourdon2005draft.jpg as it failed WP:NFCC#1, as a free image can possibly be found, WP:NFCC#2, as the source is Reuters; [WP:NFCC#8]], as its omission will not heavily decrease the understanding of the subject.
  • I transferred Image:LucBourdon2007a.JPG to Commons.
  • I fixed two deadlinks.

--Maxim(talk) 15:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling that the image wouldn't survive. BUt I felt that it was worth a shot to try and get it in. Thanks for going over the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quark edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Since the article failed the FAC, it seemed like many editors were discouraged from continuing improving the article. However, most of the major points emerged in the FAC were addressed. But before nominating the article for GA (FA seems too premature to me), I'd like other editors to take a look at the article. In particular, there are some "strange" statements which I'd be tempted to remove as nonsense, but cautiously I marked them with inline tags. (Specifically, the one about "strange quarks in the vacuum" in section "Spin" sounds quite odd, but these theoreticians say lots of strange things these days, so if some references were added showing that this hypothesis is more than WP:FRINGE, I would be happy to keep it in the article. As for glueballs not having an associated wave, it does cite a book, but I strongly suspect that whoever added that statement misunderstood what the source meant, as the de Broglie wavelength is a trivial consequence of the way the momentum operator is defined – in other words, the wave isn't "associated" to the particle, it is the particle. So that statement can only be true if it means "glueballs cannot be described by the known quantum mechanics framework", which sounds very unlikely to me.)

Thanks, Army1987 (t — c) 09:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few, hopefully useful comments:

  1. I would like it if the quark names were consistently italicized in order to avoid confusion in the text. For example: "validated the existence of a third strange quark" is ambiguous, whereas "validated the existence of a third, strange quark" is not.
  2. The terms "spin", "color charge", "coupling of quark hadrons", "sea quarks" and "quantum field" are first introduced without explanation. Of those, three are covered later in the article. I think WP:JARGON applies here.
  3. Based on past experiences with FAC, it is considered good practice to reduce the amount of parenthetical text. An example is "(These numbers refer to... charges cancel each other.)" which manages to fill up most of the paragraph. Are parentheses necessary here? Should it be converted to a footnote instead?
    • I did some copy edits to reduce the number; hope you don't mind. The example above still exists, however. I wasn't sure about how best to address it.—RJH (talk)
      Fixed, copying that paragraph from the 2005 version of the article. -- Army1987 (t — c) 13:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. [partons? (a term proposed by Richard Feynman, and supported by some experimental project reports),] Did the experimental reports support Feynman's term or the existence of partons? It is somewhat unclear, and it would also be good form to eliminate the parentheses.
  5. [which fitted perfectly with the three-quark theory in that one might have "three quarts of drinks at a bar."] Huh? Are three quarts some type of standard quota for physicists?
  6. [Atoms usually have as many electrons as protons; since ... is called an atomic ion.] This does not seem relevant to the subject.
  7. [...as in the previous case of the interaction between the quark and antiquark of opposite charge colors.] This seems redundant and unnecessary.
    This is fixed now.
  8. "The Singularity and Other Problems" is missing a publisher and ISBN number.
  9. There are a few instances of "unnecessary vagueness", as described in the MoS at Wikipedia:MoS#Unnecessary vagueness. For example, "...contributes most significantly..." and "...the strength of the bind dramatically increases".
  10. The citation formats are inconsistent. Some have first name last; others first name first. This issue is sure to come up during FAC.
  11. Can the "Color confinement and gluons" section provide some information about the range over which the confinement occurs (along with a comparison with the typical size of an atomic nucleus). Perhaps a plot can be included? At what radius does the separation of quarks result in the formation of a quark-antiquark pair?
  12. Having a particular interest in astronomy, I'd like to see some discussion of quarks during the early phases of the big bang. Especially the Quark epoch and Hadron epoch. You might also mention Quark star and possible quark novae (quirky supernovae).
    Good idea. The semi-automated peer review suggests that the lead shouldn't mention concepts which aren't expanded in the rest of the article, which the last sentence does. -- Army1987 (t — c) 18:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Seems like it could use an infobox of some type. Perhaps there needs to be a {{Infobox Particle Family}}?

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I hope you don't mind the fact that I'm changing bullets to numbers in your list in order to refer to individual items more clearly.)
No problem.
As for (1), italicizing the names everywhere would look excessive to me, but sentences like that should be clarified, and probably not only with italics. As for (5), there was once a long quotation of Gell-Mann, explaining why he liked that name, but it was removed. I have re-added fragments of it to the footnote reference, but personally I wouldn't object to re-adding it to the main text, as that subsection is named "Etymology", after all. Overall, you make good points, that should be addressed. -- Army1987 (t — c) 16:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.—RJH (talk)
  • I think that merging the sections "Hadronization", "Color charge", "Color confinement and gluons", and "Sea quarks" into one or two sections (titled "Strong interaction", or "Strong interaction" and "Quarks in hadrons", or something like that) might be a good idea. Only, I'm not sure on how to implement it (e.g., where the resulting section(s) would go, etc.). Of course, they shouldn't have too many details, as they could go to the articles Hadron, Color charge, Color confinement, Quantum chromodynamics, and Strong interaction. OTOH, I've found that much information from the 2005 version of the article, favorably reviewed by Nature and listed as a GA is missing from the present version of the article. Some of it is very technical, but most of it could reasonably belong to the article, if adequately explained. -- Army1987 (t — c) 13:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have returned from a wikibreak initiated on the 13th of the month. I would just like to state that I will be keeping an eye on this article and am now hoping to set some time aside to continue with improvements to this article. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

River Irwell edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like constructive criticism on it's content with a view to moving it to GAC status. I will be making a map for the article this week.

Thanks, Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: A most interesting article. Below are some comments on the first few sections; more will follow later. As a general point, I think that the lead needs to be strengthened and extended, to become a summary of the whole article.

  • Course: Can you confirm that the 39-mile length is from source to confluence with the Mersey? Is "south of Irlam" the same as "near Flixton", as mentioned in lead? fixed
  • Natural History
    • "Until the 19th century..." is too vague. Suggest: "Until the beginning of the 19th century..." Done
    • Again, "during the 20th century" doesn't give enough information. Give an indication of when in the 20thC. This was a slow process over the 20th century as can be seen from the history section
  • River Irwell catchment area
    • The first four words should not be bolded (MOS) Done
    • First part of second sentence needs to be slightly reorganised. I suggest; "The climate of the catchment area is, on average, wetter than that of the rest of the UK..." Done'
    • "mm per annum" looks better than "mm/annum" Done
    • Suggest "between 350 metres (1100 ft) and 450 metres (1500 ft)..." - that is, replace dash with "and" Done
    • "Above Ordinance Datum (AOD)" should read "Above Ordnance Datum" (AOD) However, this sits awkwardly in the sentence, making it hard to understand. Try: "...450 metres (1500 ft) AOD," with a footnote explaining what AOD means Done
    • Incidentally, why are the metric distances given first? This is the way they are given in the reference, which is standard for the UK - they don't talk about inches of rainfall on the weather forecast anymore
  • History
    • Can you give a date (approx) for when the Brigantes first setted in the area? Done
    • See WP:ERA. This style recommends writing AD before year, thus, AD 79 (with space), AD 410, AD 910. Done
    • Comma required after "proposed", unless you change the "and" after "proposed" to "as" Done
    • Comma required after "Nottingham" Done

Perhaps you would consider these points. I will add some more comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Note: I'm happy to continue the review, but would like first to see some response to my initial points.) Brianboulton (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S Club edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there have been some major changes and rewrites to the article since its last peer review and FAC nomination. I hope you can help me to work out some of its problems and get the article to an even better standard.

Thanks, »—Mikay—talk—contribs→ 17:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes:

  • no need to have lots of duplicate refs (first section in particular this occurs).
  • "However, the vice president of the Fox Family Channel stated..." A name would be nice.
  • "US media reported that S Club 7 were "The Monkees for the next generation"..." need a cite.
  • "The up-tempo "Bring It All Back" reached number-one..." It might be obvious, but not everyone will know what "number-one" refers to (and why the hyphen?) Following on from that "and was eventually made Platinum..." I don't know what Platinum is. Needs links.
  • "S Club 7 dolls were later released onto the market..." Onto? Into?
  • "were also launched furthering 19 Management's corporate aim..." What corporate aim?
  • "entered the UK charts at number-two..." Citation should be moved after punctuation.
  • "Their third single was a double A-side..." What's that? (Needs link)
  • Linking to UK Single Charts should be done in the first instance of it, and doesn't need linking again.

I only went up to the 1999–2000: Miami 7/S Club section, may come back later. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and contributions. :) I've covered the small ones but I have a couple of questions. What is it your mean by duplicate references? Like multiple references per statement, or several sentences within one paragraph having the same reference but referenced after every sentence? Also, your last point, do you mean wikilinks within the article or linking to the UK Singles Chart in all the references there are? Thanks very much, I'll get onto the others. »—Mikay—talk—contribs→ 11:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mean there's several sentences next to each other all having the same reference after it. You only need one; put it at the end after the last one. The last point, I mean, you only need to link it once, where it first occurs. I've just had some unexpected busy-time IRL, but I'm going to look through the rest of the article now (I'd say it's almost featured quality if that's what you're going for.) – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they felt gruelling schedules..." How can one feel a schedule?
  • Most of the last paragraph of the 1999–2000: Miami 7/S Club section needs rewriting. Sorry I can't be more specific; the sentences just don't read very well, and don't seem to flow well.
  • Why is 'British Breakthrough Act' in single quotes? Why quotes at all?
  • "uptempo" What's that? You used a hyphen last time.
  • "aired as the main theme tune to the second series..." Was there another theme tune?
  • ""Reach" was released as a single in May 2000..." What about an exact date?
  • "It arguably became one of the group's most successful singles..." Who argues it?
  • What's "certified Triple Platinum"?
  • "It reached number-three in September 2000..." Number-three what?
  • "As well as performing for Children in Need, the band launched, on 25 September 2000, a new television series called S Club 7 Go Wild! which saw each band member support an endangered species." Whole sentence needs rewriting.
  • "S Club 7 Go Wild!" Is there an article that could be created, or linked to?
  • "It reached number-one in the UK charts..." Refs need to go after punctuation.
  • "Teaming up with the World Wildlife Fund, each member travelled to different destinations worldwide with a hope to raise awareness about the seven endangered creatures, including the Siberian Tiger and the Hyacinth Macaw." So each member travelled to several locations? Are there only seven endangered creatures in the world? Why only two examples?
  • OK, throughout, refs need to go after punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence (this is so I don't need to keep repeating myself).

Saving... – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure if there should be hyphens in "number-one" "number-nineteen" etc.
  • "After topping the UK charts" isn't really encyclopedic language.
  • PMS International could do with a link.
  • "However, this came to nothing..." Something just doesn't sound right there.
  • Throughout: refer to S Club as either a band or a group, not one or the other.

Connection is playing up, so saving here. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Throughout: British dates needed on British article.
  • "as well as a wave of emotion before going on stage..." That, and the whole sentence really sounds unencyclopedic.
  • More multiple cases of the same references in the 2nd para of 2001–2002: Hollywood 7/Sunshine section.
  • "more like bubblegum..." Could bubblegum be linked?
  • "tour with the Carnival tour as a more..." Why is Carnival capitalized?
  • "by the children's media..." What's children's media? Newsround?
  • "it was disappointing when S Club 7 released their ninth single..." Disappointing is someone's opinion. Needs rewording.
  • "led the way for a series of events that was to unravel..." Unravel? It makes the article sound like a story, not an encyclopedia entry.

Saving... – How do you turn this on (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why were they paid with Euros?
  • What about their legacy? Anything to be added about that? The lead also ends abruptly, with the announcement of their split, but there's no mention of anything after. Surely something could be said about Rachel Stevens solo career, O'Meera's controversy on Celebrity Big Brother etc? – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you thank you thank youuu! :D

These are all brilliant suggestions which I will get to as soon as possible (I've been a bit busy with University applications recently and hunting down reliable sources for the upcoming part-reunion tour!!) »—Mikay—talk—contribs→ 20:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It just got promoted to GA status, and it is on it way to a FA nomination.

Thanks, Oldag07 (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit I can understand the hesitancy for people to review this page due to its massive size. But thanks to Karanacs' review we have created a way to review single sections of our page: Talk:Texas/FA Prep. Thus maximizing short amount of your time you may choose reviewing this page. Thanks for the help Oldag07 (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Karanacs edit

Congratulations on achieving GA status! The article looks pretty good, but I think it needs a lot of work before being ready for an FA nomination. The two most pressing overall issues I see are a) the sourcing is not quite up to FA standard. There should be a lot more books or journals cited and fewer websites. There are probably thousands of books about various topics that are covered in this article, and some of them should be consulted. b) I think the article is getting close to comprehensive, but there are a few gaps. I've tried to list out a lot of specifics as I noticed them below, but this is not a 100% comprehensive list. I'm probably not going to watch this page, so please ask on my talk page if you need clarification. Good luck!

  • Get a good copyeditor to do a survey of the whole article
  • The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the lead cover essentially the same topic and should likely be combined
  • I'd add at least a mention in the lead that France had a small colony in Texas too, and a mention that Texas joined the Confederacy during the Civil War.
  • The lead also seems to have no mention of several major sectionf in the article, including the climate and government/politics sections
  • In etymology, I'd mention that the Spanish used "Tejas" or "Texas" to refer to the state, from the Caddo name.
  • I think the information about Texas manifestations in vernacular speech is essentially trivia that could be removed from the article. The info about the Caddos could then go into the history section.
  • I don't like that the History section begins with a large picture of the 6 flags of Texas and no text to explain what that means. Sections should begin with text, not pictures
  • The history section probably ought to begin with information about the Native Americans who lived in the area. I haven't done much research on the pre-colonial days (hence why the History of Texas article doesn't have much info in it), but I know there were Caddo, Karankawa, and other tribes in Texas long before the Europeans arrived.
  • When the article refers to people (such as La Salle), use their whole name the first time they are mentioned.
  • The first paragraph of the Colonization section doesn't make it clear that Pineda claimed the whole area of Texas for Spain (which makes it confusing when the article mentions French "encroachment")
  • I think the Colonization section misses out on some important information - the fact that there was fighting in Texas during the Mexican War of Independence that actually resulted in the defeat of the Spanish forces and caused a Spanish backlash that decimated the country.
  • The information about the Convention of 1832/1833 belongs in either the colonization section or in a separate section on the Texas Revolution
  • There is almost no information about the Texas Revolution. It is significant that the Texans kicked out all Mexican troops in 1835, that Santa Anna invaded in 1836 and achieved mostly victories before his defeat at San Jacinto - which was partially due to Santa Anna's policies of taking no prisoners. That angered the colonists enough to join up. Also, much of the revolution was fought by adventurers from the US, who also formed a lot of the new government. And it should mention that Mexico was worried about the US immigration and they feared the US was trying to take over the province
  • There is zero information about what happened during the 10-yr Republic of Texas. It might be good to learn who recognize the new country (Mexico didn't), that Mexico invaded ("two recaptures of Bexar" doesn't say by whom), and some of the policies that were enacted (such as Lamar's actions against the Native American population)
  • The modern era section seems focused on education. What else happened since 1870?
  • There ought to be citations for "debatable. Depending on the source, it can be fairly considered either or both a Southern or Southwestern state. The vast geographic, economic, and cultural diversity within the state itself prohibits easy categorization of the whole state into a recognized region of the United States. The East, Central, and North Texas, regions have a stronger association with the American South than with the Southwest. Others, such as far West Texas and South Texas share more similarities with the latter."
  • There need to be citations in the first paragraph of Geology
  • There needs to be a bit more emphasis on the fact that Texas is also bordered by the Gulf of Mexico - possible mentioning the number of miles of coastline and the fact that there are barrier islands
  • Some of the regions of Texas are briefly mentioned, but there is not a comprehensive explanation of what and where they are. This would make most sense in the Geography section.
  • The Llano Estacado is mentioned in an image, but not in the text - that seems a bit of an oversight
  • The Davis Mountains are not mentioned at all
  • "The natural increase since the last census " - need to specify what year that census way; people from outside the US aren't familiar with the census-taking habits of the US
  • The Demographics section seems too much like lists. Some of these lists could be in tabular format; others should be more prose.
  • The Demographics section mentions nothing about languages spoken (I know that election ballots have to be translated into lots of languages)
  • I think there needs to be a bit more explanation on the wackiness that is the state constitution - what are the "provisions unique to Texas" in the state's Bill of Rights? also mention how specific the constitution is - some of the things that we have to amend it for are nutty (and what is the process for amending it and how often has that happened)
  • Need to cite " Scholars attribute the change to the success of Nixon's Southern Strategy."
  • I think the Texas Rangers need a bit more explanation - founded by Stephen F. Austin, etc.
  • In the politics section, might mention the most recent gerrymandering of legislative districts - that set a precedent in allowing the districts to be redrawn in a year that there were not new census results and there were several lawsuits about it (and it led to the legislature leaving the state, which was funny and might be worthy of mention)
  • "Today, Republicans control most of Texas's U.S. House of Representatives delegation, " - Avoid use of "today", etc because the reader doesn't know when that was written - October 2008, Nov 2008, 2004?
  • "Of the 32 congressional districts in Texas, 19 are Republican seats and 13, Democrat seats." - this is likely not going to make sense to non-Americans. It makes it sound like we always reserve 19 seats for the Republicans
  • Need a cite for this "The state's Democratic presence comes primarily from minority groups and urban voters, particularly in Austin." (South Texas is also often Democratic due to immigration)
  • "Dallas remains approximately split." - I don't think this is true anymore? I thought that in 2006 Dallas voters kicked out all the Republicans and that the entire city roster of elected officials was Democratic (Houston is on the verge of doing the same thing, if the Chronicle can be believed)
  • There are too many right-aligned pictures. On one of my monitors, it leads to lots of white space because the pictures are too close together.
  • Might need a cite for this "Texas has 32 congressional districts, the second-most after California. "
  • Probably need a cite for this "County government runs similar to a "weak" mayor-council system; the county judge has no veto authority, but votes along with the other commissioners."
  • I don't think that the sales tax holidays need to be mentioned, and if so they don't need so much detail
  • "for Texas's business tax climate, the state ranks 8th in the nation" - 8th highest or 8th lowest?
  • "a whole, Texas is a "tax donor state" with Texans receiving back approximately $0.94 per every dollar of federal income taxes collected in 2005" - this doesn't make a lot of sense to me
  • Might mention the King Ranch - isn't it the largest in the US and one of the largest in the world?
  • Might expand a bit on the commercial fishing industry - what are the most common types of seafood harvested/caught and how does that rank with the rest of the nation/world
  • "Since 2002, Texas deregulated its electric service."...and, why is this important?
  • Might mention that Texas has its own electric grid (I think, and I don't know why, but that is significant considering the whole northeast is on one grid). Texas also has lots of power plants, and I'm not sure how much of the nation's power is produced here.
  • How much wind power is produced each year?
  • There really isn't information on the cost of living in the state. I'm not sure whether that is available or not
  • The Why is the info about the transportation hub in Commerce and not in transportation? I kind of expected to continue reading in that paragraph about the ports, but then I saw it was in the next section
  • Interstates are mentioned, but not US highways - should those be included as well?
  • I'm not sure if the Trans-Texas Corridor should be mentioned, because it's not a sure thing at all yet
  • Might want to mention that the Wright Amendment has been loosened a bit
  • In sports, might want to discuss high school athletics a bit - mention the UIL and the number of divisions by school size. Also, is the new UIL program of drug-testing students unique in the nation at all?
  • "The American Legislative Exchange Council ranked Texas 26 among the 50 states for education in 2007. " - 26th highest or 26th lowest (not that it makes that much of a difference)
  • There probably needs to be a bit more information about private schools, charter schools, and home school (do we know how many kids in each category)
  • bexargenealogy.com is not a reliable source
  • I don't believe that Lon eStar Junction is a reliable source
  • The Texas Civil War Museum is not a reliable source
  • The web sources are not all formatted properly
  • I'm not sure if "Texas Politics" (ref 51) is a reliable source
  • From the references, some of the article looks more like original research. For example, the article uses info from individual cities off the weather channel - this means that the person who added this into the article was deciding for the readers which cities were properly representative of the temperature data for the state, rather than a third-party source (book/magazine/journal article). Example 2: The article directly cites Lockheed Martin and Bell Helicopter websites - that shows that the author is likely cherrypicking information. We need to see this type of data in independent sources
  • Is msn city guides a reliable source?
  • Is "cleanenergystates.org" a reliable source (i think probably no)
  • Is "Association of Religion Data Archives" a reliable source?
  • Reference 81 is another wikipedia page - that is DEFINITELY not a reliable source
  • Is www.siteselection.com (ref 101) a reliable source?
  • Is netstate.com a reliable source (probably not)
  • Is FierceBiotech a reliable source
  • Is texasfreeway.com a reliable source?
  • Is aaroads.com a reliable source?
  • Keeptexasmoving.com is not a reliable source
  • ref 131 is not a full source (Aviation Week and Space Technology, January 15, 2007, p. 349, )
  • is Aviationexplorer.com a reliable source?
  • If at all possible, avoid press releases. They are self-published sources
  • is coderedtexas.org a reliable source?

Karanacs (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Route 531 edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am doing one last peer review before sending this article off to FAC. Any improvements or comments? ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 21:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Looks better since I last reviewed it, but it seems nowhere near FAC ready to me. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

  • I agree with the tag at the top that it desperately needs a copyedit, as one example 172nd Street NE once extended from current SR 9 to the banks of the South Fork Stillaguamish River, which has since been removed.[5] what has been removed? the river? 172nd STreet NE? SR9?
  • Comprehensiveness is an FA criterion, but a History section that starts The whole route of the highway from Wenberg State Park to current SR 9 has been known to exist earlier than 1911.[5] What happened before this? When did settlers arrive there? How can a gap from 1911 to 1991 be comprehensive?
  • The map caption says "A 1911 map showing what is now SR 531 from Wenberg State Park to Edgecomb." but the park is not on the map shown, and the name Edgecomb is cut off.
  • What about usage statistics?
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several state route FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Transport that may be useful models, such as New York State Route 22 or New York State Route 22
  • Any chance for more refs that are not maps or atlases?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atmosphere of Jupiter edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently passed GAN and its final destination is FAC. Any comments are welcome (and especially those related to the clarity of the text).

Thanks, Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review/comments:

A very interesting and well written article! I've just a number of questions/remarks:

  • In chemical composition: "Their abundances in the deep (below 10 bar) troposphere" the use of pressure to define a 'depth' is not intuitive and has not been explained before.
  • The links of troposphere, stratosphere, thermosphere and exosphere all lead to articles that only cover the earth's atmosphere. Is it possible to have articles about the general properties of these layers not only limited to the earth's atmosphere?
  • Ok the explanation about the depths and pressures is in the vertical structure case, maybe add some forward referencing text in the chemical composition part or swap sections?
  • last four sentences in specific bands sections are 1 sentence paragraphs. Join to single paragraph?
  • At the start of the dynamics section, move the link to Atmospheric circulation from "see also:" to "...atmosphere of Earth", in fact all the "see also"s that refer to the earth's version are a bit unexpected. I was expecting that a summary style was used and that they would refer to more extended explanation about the Jupiter case.
  • In the section on the great red spot, South Equatorial Belt links back to the Atmosphere of Jupiter article.
  • In the section Oval BA, reference is made to Ovals BC, DE etc. What are these, why are they named like this?
  • In the section observational history, link to Galileo probe?

ErikvDijk (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved your issues, I think. The whole generic "troposphere," "stratosphere", "exosphere" issue lies outside the scope of this article, and may be dealt with later. Serendipodous 08:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RJH: It looks good overall. Here's a few observations:

  • In the vertical structure section, is it worthwhile mentioning the value of the scale height for a comparison with the Earth's atmosphere (especially as the term is later used in the Zones section)?
  • The "Chemical composition" section includes a possible explanation for the underabundance of helium, but it doesn't cover the differing abundances of the other noble gases.[12]
  • Although the belt/zone structure is stable, don't they change in latitude, coloration and intensity over time? Also, do you want to mention the differential rotation rate of the atmosphere (somewhere other than in the GRS section)?
  • The descriptions in the "Shallow models" section might be a bit complex for some readers. A couple of graphical illustrations in the Dynamics section may help clarify the descriptions. For example, see the two illustrations here, under "Two Global Circulation Models for both Saturn and Jupiter".
    uploaded images. Nergaal (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of non-free images like that may become an issue during FAC. It may be better to find a graphic artist who is willing to render them for wikipedia.—RJH (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you want to mention Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 and the effects it had on the atmosphere?

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am grateful to you for the review. Ruslik (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added notes about scale height and enrichment. I also clarified that location and width of bands and jet speeds are approximately constant, while color and intensity can vary. I think it is unwise to say much about Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, because it was just a one-time event, which had no long lasting impact on the atmosphere. Ruslik (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did the 'scars' from the collision show anything about the composition of the lower layers? Nergaal (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found it: Comet_Shoemaker-Levy_9#Observations_and_discoveries. Nergaal (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence about it, though I am not sure I've placed it in the right place. Could somebody double-check it? Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 93 is completely off and there needs to be some standardization with the format of the page listings. Nergaal (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced [93]. Standardizations should include, in my opinion, addition of et.el. to all page citations and consistent use of only the first author. Ruslik (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"et al." should not be necessary if there are at most two authors. Nergaal (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's left to do b4 FAC? Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions of RJH need some work. Ruslik (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything still missing b4 FAC? Nergaal (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi everyone! This article recently passed a GA review, and I would like to see what more needs to be done before I take the article to FA review.

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 206.71.52.13 (talk)
Lead
  • Too many ands in the second sentence. I would suggest making it is separated from Tanzania and Mozambique by Lake Malawi into its own sentence or, if possible, adding earlier on in the sentence about its borders with countries.
  • and includes good diplomatic relations with most countries - the word "good" is ambiguous.
    • Changed to "positive". I'm basically trying to convey in one word that they're not at war with anyone, nor likely to be in the foreseeable future. Dana boomer (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The economy is heavily based in agriculture - please add a percentage in brackets.
    • As this is the lead, it is supposed to be a general overview. If people want exact percentages, they can go to the body, IMO. Dana boomer (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • with a largely rural population. - same as above.
  • Malawi has several programs developed since 2005 that focus on these issues. - should be "Malawi has developed several programs ~"
    • No, because Malawi didn't develop all of these programs. Some of them were developed by outside entities. Dana boomer (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malawi has a low life expectancy and high infant mortality. - in comparison to what? The world? Africa? Please note this.
    • Again, the lead is a general summary. I got complaints before the GA that the lead was too long already, so I shortened it a bit and don't want to lengthen it again. Dana boomer (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...with several languages are spoken and an array of religious beliefs. - remove the word "are" to make sense or change something else.
  • Although there was tribal conflict in the past - when? 2007? 1800s? Please add dates.
  • it had diminished to almost nothing - change it to something like "decreased considerably" or find a statistic.
  • Malawi has a strong culture - probably POV, change to "Malawi's culture combines native and colonial aspects."
Other
  • This article should be written in African English, not American.
    • I have never heard the term "African English". Wikipedia generally recognizes British English and American English. It is generally the preference of the main editor, although this can change depending on the subject. As I am American, I write in American English, and have a hard time finding words that should be changed into British spellings (not to mention my spell checker yells at me cause it thinks they're wrong!). I have had no other comments about the American spelling, so unless I hear more about this later, I'm just going to leave it as is. Dana boomer (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the list of regions, as it creates too much white space. Try filling the section up with information on regional heirachy.
  • The axis on the graph in demography should be labeled.
    • They are, you just can't see them because the image is small. I could make it bigger, but then I'd run into issues with forced image sizes. I've added some information about what years the graph covers, so that should help. Dana boomer (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are some inline citations missing by just scanning it. My rule of thumb is to have one inline citation per sentence and to not have inline citations in the lead, because everything in the lead should already be mentioned below and thus cited.
    • Every sentence does not need a citation. Everything here is referenced (I know that because I wrote the whole thing), and each reference covers everything that comes between it and the preceeding reference. Dana boomer (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Places like the US and UK shouldn't be wikilinked, nor army, government etc.
  • The picture of the president should be in politics, not history.
  • If you can find any pictures of history, they would really help, but they're not a requirement for FA.
    • Haven't been able to find any so far, but will keep looking. Dana boomer (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map of regions should be labeled on its own description page, otherwise the numbers are useless.
  • (In infrastructure) - internet doesn't need a capital letter, nor wikilink.
    • Internet is actually supposed to be capitalized (it's a proper name, despite the way it is used in many informal settings). I'm on the fence about de-wikilinking it, so for the moment, I'm going to leave it the way it is. Dana boomer (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps a bit!

I've added some of my replies above. I will continue working on the other comments (the ones I have not replied to). Let me know if you have any additional comments...I always appreciate the input. Dana boomer (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Harrison edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a core article for WikiProject The Beatles and is of a lower class than most others in its topic. It and Ringo Starr need to be taken up to GA-class so I can submit 'The Beatles personnel' to become a Good Topic. Therefore, I would like advice on how to improve this article to GA-class.

Thanks, Dendodge TalkContribs 20:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I generated an automated peer review of this article. I don't think the summary style one applies, and the weasel word seems to be fine. Therefore, it hasn't really helped, but it's saved someone else the trouble of doing it. Dendodge TalkContribs 21:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)
  • Format references per WP:CITE/ES to include at least a publisher and access date
  • "George Harrison visiting the Oval Office in 1974." – remove period from non-sentence
  • "George Harrison," – why the comma?
  • "Honours" section is just a bunch of small paragraphs. Merge them coherently.
  • entire article needs more references

Gary King (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I've removed the full stop from the image caption, and I'm about to start merging the 'Honours' section. I'll find publishers for the references after that, and reference some more statements. However, I've left the comma as we normally put them before MBE (e.g. Paul McCartney). Dendodge TalkContribs 16:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple comments. First, great work! George is one of my top four favorite Beatles! ;)

  • Throughout, there is a tendency for short, choppy paragraphs of two or even a single sentence (under "Honours", for example, this is the second paragraph: In 1970 Harrison and the three other Beatles won the Academy Award for the best Original Song Score for Let It Be.). For readability, I always suggest a minimum of three sentences per paragraph. This actually might be easy to do; some of the sentences are very long and are just asking to be split in half. Case in point, at the end of the 1990s section, In 2001, Harrison performed as a guest musician on the Electric Light Orchestra album Zoom, played slide guitar on the song "Love Letters" for Bill Wyman's Rhythm Kings, remastered and restored unreleased tracks from the Traveling Wilburys, and wrote a new song, "Horse to the Water". I see what it's going for there, but it's a bit overwhelming.
  • Could I suggest that the "Death" section become a subsection of the main bio? Not sure why I'm asking for permission; consider that a suggestion. :)
  • I'd also suggest, along those same lines, that the Personal life section incorporate the section on his Marriage to Patti Boyd and his interest in cars as subsections.
  • I agree with Gary about more references. One example is the claim that he was "an accomplished gardener" - and not a single reference in that paragraph to support the claim.

Sorry I didn't do a more thorough review of the prose. Let me know if that's what you could use. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I'm starting work on them now. Dendodge TalkContribs 15:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Golden Dearth edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article was created recently. It needs formatting and clean-up.

Thanks, Bachfanwang (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's looking ok so far. The lead needs expanding, per WP:LEAD. Could anything else be added to his biography? Often articles will have an Early life, Career, Later life etc section. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and nice artworks. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Agree with the comments above - see WP:LEAD The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • The article links some things that should not be linked like years
  • Affiliations and awards section has zero refs and needs some
  • The external links for the poaintings in museum should be converted to refs - avoid dirtect external links
  • What have critics said about him and his art? A Reception section is fairly standard for arts articles
  • A model article is useful for ideas and example to follow - there are several FAs on artists that may be useful as models, for example Henry Moore or El Greco or these articles

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Air destinations edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for suggestions before sending this article to WP:FLC. I know I am not the best writer, and the prose in the lead will probably need some work, but any input on the table or citations would also be helpful.

Thanks, Admrboltz (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

This is the first list of its kind that I have encountered, so I haven't got anything relevant to compare it with. The first thing that struck me was that the table is pretty uninformative.

  • Should you not mention in the lead that Horizon Air is based at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport?
  • Would it not be possible to give, for each of the destinations listed, the following information:-
    • Date of inauguration of service (I know some indication of this is given in the lead, but the table should list precise dates)
    • Number of scheduled flights daily
    • Passenger numbers (monthly averages, perhaps)?
  • The "notes" section of the table is pretty devoid of information; I'm a bit surprised there's so little to say. What does "Hub" mean, by the way?
  • Could there be more images - a shot of Seattle-Tacoma airport, perhaps, or something else directly relevant to Horizon?

In general, then, I'd say that this list is at a fairly early stage of development, and needs more added to it before it can be considered as complete. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know its a first of its kind, I am kind of good at that. I started the whole List of Opening Day Starting Pitchers... thing. I will incorporate your suggestions about Sea-Tac in the Lead, as well but with the date of service, number of flights and passenger count, I think that would violate WP:NOTTRAVEL. Also trying to cite service dates would be very challenging. Hub will be defined, but I can remove the notes field and use footnotes to notate hub, EAS and seasonal service, etc, would that work better? Thanks! --Admrboltz (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Streator, Illinois edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… The Streator, Illinois article has been improved greatly yet is currently assessed as a stub-class article. I do not feel qualified to change the current assessment, as I am currently the primary editor of this page, and would like a review and reassessment by those qualified to do so. Thanks, Ljmajer (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start on what could become an excellent article. It's certainly way beyond stub class, and it would be fine for you to upgrade it at least to start class. The photos look good, and your section logic looks generally reasonable. I have several suggestions for further improvement.

  • The two long lists toward the end of the article grab my attention. Insofar as possible, it would be better to blend the list material into the narrative sections higher up in the article. I would suggest moving the architecture items into the "Arts and culture" section, where you discuss the Majestic Theater. I'd move the Streator Public Library from "Education" "into "Arts and culture" as well. You'd then have all the NHRP buildings in one place. The armory and St. Stephens (as architecture) could go there too, and you could then delete the empty "Architecture" section. Include all of these things as prose rather than as bulleted lists.  Done-- The section with the list of famous names is a bit tougher, but you could start by eliminating people like Ralph Plumb who already appear in other sections. The goal would be to work the other important people into the text sections as part of the general narrative and to eliminate or greatly reduce the "Notable residents" list.
Moved most writers, authors into main "Arts" section. Removed Ralph Plumb from notable list and expanded his biography in the History section. Moved local legislator into Government section. Three notables remain in the list including Clyde Tombaugh. I'll try to figure out what to do with him later. - ljmajer
  • The "Economy" section suffers from a problem similar to the long-list sections. It's a quasi-list rather than a flowing prose narrative. You might try re-writing this section chronologically in a way that lets us see how the economy developed over time and how one thing led to another.  Done -- We get no sense of what happened to the coal industry, for example. Who bought the coal? Was it displaced by low-sulfur coal from elsewhere? Is coal still being mined near Streator? Were the coal miners able to shift to other kinds of work in Streator? Was agriculture important to Streator's economy when coal was king? And so on. In other words, the list needs to be connected in some way; otherwise, the coal, beer bottles, and heavy-duty sewer cleaning equipment seem disconnected.
  • The "History" section could be expanded. It says nothing about early inhabitants. Who lived near Streator prior to the 19th century? Any Clovis sites thereabouts? Former Indian villages?  Done -- Any explorers, missionaries, surveyors, or geologists who preceded the coal miners?
  • The "Geography" section could be expanded to include more geology. What kind of coal? How old is the coal? What geologic conditions led to its deposition? How extensive are the coal beds? In addition, a bit more about current geography would be useful. You might, for example, tell us which highways connect Streator to which more well-known cities and how far away they are.
  • If possible, the citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and access date. What's possible and what's needed depends on what kind of work you are citing. The "cite" family of templates is quite handy for getting the right information in the right order and serving as a reminder of what's needed. Please see WP:CIT.  Done

* I see minor Manual of Style issues such as missing metric conversions, missing no-break codes (WP:NBSP), and repetition of "Streator" in the section heads. A copyedit to catch these low-level things would be a good idea.   Done

  • You can get more ideas about city articles by looking at ones that have attained featured status. You'll find these listed at WP:FA. The suggestions at WP:USCITY are also quite helpful.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Finetooth for your thorough assessement of this article. I am beginning some revisions, and will finish others as I find information to add. As I do not live in the town, I don't have access to local resources for a more detailed history. I have rerouted the notable artists and writers into the beginning of the arts section and fleshed out the Col. Plumb info in the history. You're correct, as there are a couple of notables that will need to remain in the list for now.
I moved all architecture into the Museum section and eliminated the section. It reads much better now.
Thanks again for your efforts. They are much appreciated. --Ljmajer (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome. Finetooth (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will use the above assessment from Finetooth, as a guide for my updates. Changes will be checked, and highlighted in bold. --Ljmajer (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercat Shopping Centre edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know what mark it would recieve at this stage.

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • First off, read the bot suggestions, and follow them through. All refs need to come straight after punctuation, with no spaces. It needs quite a bit of expansion, on all the current secions. More images would be nice. What shops are there? What kind of statistics of shoppers are there? Anything interesting ever happen there? I'm not sure what kind of "mark" you're looking for here, but it needs quite a bit of work to get even to C class. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with the above comments - interesting article. So very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, butthe owners seem only to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Internet refs like ref 2 need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The lead says the construction was bewteen 1972 and 1981-1983 (which itself makes no sense - between usually implies one beginning date and one ending date), then the article itself says building began in 1971 (not 1972).
  • Provide dates for statements like A prospal to extend the shopping centre for a third phase is pending. (add "as of 2008" or "as of November 2008") - in a few years it may not be pending (done or abandoned)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of FA Trophy winners edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it's nearly ready for FLC. Let me know what I might still need to work on.......

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Chris, I don't think this list/table needed to be split out from the parent article, it was perfectly fine where it was and the main FA Trophy article is the poorer for its removal. If it has to be split, a) I'd drop most of the lead as it's not all relevant to the list, and b) consider renaming it to List of FA Trophy finals, as the runners-up have equal prominence to the winners. - fchd (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll see what other people think as to whether the list should even exist. But if it does stay, I don't see what's wrong with the title, as it matches List of FA Cup winners, List of UEFA Cup winners, etc etc. As far as precedent goes, the latter article got broken out from the UEFA Cup article and subsequently elevated to Featured List and nobody seemed to have an issue with that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the content of this list at all. The FA Trophy itself may not be a big competition like the FA Cup or the UEFA Champions League, but a comparable amount of content has been provided for this list, so I don't think there's any need to argue its deletion. – PeeJay 11:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)
  • "In 1979, the leading Southern and Northern Premier League teams formed the new Alliance Premier League,[12] and teams from this league dominated the Trophy during the 1980s, although in the 1980–81 season Bishop's Stortford of the comparatively lowly Isthmian League First Division won through nine rounds to reach the final and then went on to defeat Sutton United." Long sentence probably worth breaking up. Also "and then went on to defeat" could be simply reworded by "final, where they defeated..."
  • Shouldn't the table of "Results by team" by sorted by wins then losses then either last final won or alpha order?

Not much else to say. It's otherwise spot on as far as I'm concerned. Peanut4 (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Cheers for your comments. All addressed now, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Javon Ringer edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've worked really hard on it to get it where it is now, and want to see what else i can do to improve it.

Thanks, - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed the article first, and here's my original conclusions. The by-year subheadings under college all either need to be merged, or expanded. They're too short to have individual sections. I really don't see the needs for the quotes, they seems to add no ency. value to the article.
After reading the article completely my comments are, in addition to the above: Dates shouldn't be linked WP:MoS#Dates. I didn't check your sources, but words like "unselfish" come off kind of peacocky. The personal section is a bit choppy, and could probably be expanded I'd also recommend changing it to "Personal life"; but that's more from other FA bios I've read and I don't think a style issue. Check for capitalization issues like "187.9 yard per Game", there's a lot of them. Instead of "Ringer tore his ACL and his 'shaky grades' and a low ACT score" try to use transitional words for a better flow. Don't break into a paragraph unless you can atleast 5 sentences out of it. One sentence "paragraphs" should be mreged into another paragraph. Don't forget articles, ie :"The Walter Camp Award". Check your wikisyntax, there are some unclosed italics. When speaking of specific colleges use their entire name or official abbreviation; ie I don't know which "California" he played without clicking the link. Double check your punctuation. "carries," is an example. Scan for excessive/accidental characters ">". 2000-2001 needs an mdash. Type out words instead of using & and Div. Please get rid of the quotes, the make it seem like you don't have a NPOV. Also, ringer23.com is not a 3rd party reliable source (See WP:SELFPUB. Other than that the article looks promising. If you'd like another review in the future feel free to hit me up on my talkpage. I'll run a scan with WP:AWB to get some general errors fixed. Keep it up. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think Ringer23.com falls under WP:SELFPUB because i don't think it's run by Ringer.. I beleive it's run by the Michigan state athletic department, because it links from his MSU Spartans bio to there, and vice versa, but no contact information on it is available. - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 22:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not doing an appropriate WHOIS before making an assumption. You're correct in that fact the MSU runs it. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
haha, that was a total guess on my part, and it turned out to be right. I'll start to work on fixing up the article. Once worked on, do you think it would have Good article criteria? - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a good chance. Also, I forgot to mention that numbers and their units (yards, Telsa, etc.) need a nonbreaking whitespace. IE 44 yards. I also updated the auto-peer review, so the program can take a look at its current state. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also recommend moving the {{Infobox NFLactive}} into a user subpage and removing it from the article. Articles should be able to be easily edited by new editors and the last thing you want is for someone to make that infobox visible. It being there as it is almost feels a bit crystally. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Trinkle edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to try to promote this article to WP:GA status. But first of course I have to get it through WP:GAN, and I have requested a peer review of Ken Trinkle to prepare and polish the article before the nomination. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giants2008 - I'm an FAC reviewer, meaning that I don't have great knowledge of the GA standards. However, I can still offer some helpful suggestions, and have done so below.

  • The article seems rather short to me. Is there any more published information on him that could be added to the page? A library search could be helpful, or you could do a Google News search for articles on him. No guarantees that you'll find anything, but I do feel this needs to be beefed up.
  • I have concerns about the reliability of sources used. What makes garybed.co.uk, findagrave.com, and baseballinwartime.com reliable?
  • Here's an example of an uncited statistic: "In 1949, his only season with Philadelphia and his last in Major League Baseball, Trinkle pitched in 42 games and recorded his highest major league earned run average at 4.00." Statistics, along with quotes and contentious information, should be cited.
  • "Kenneth Wayne "Ken" Trinkle was born in Paoli, Indiana in the United States." Optimally, the first sentence should state why the subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. In this case, it should say that he was a Major League Baseball player.
  • The part about where he was born could be moved into the body. The lead should serve as a summary of the whole article, and everything in the lead should be mentioned in the body.
  • Watch for writing issues like "He was a relief pitcher in Major League Baseball player who served military service in World War II during his career." Player should be removed, and served and service are redundant; change one of them.

I hope you find this helpful. If you want more comments, please ask on this page or on my talk page. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Kevin Johnson edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Before I nominate this as an FAC, there are some places where I think that the prose could be improved—mostly in the lead. Perhaps the reception section should be cut down as well. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 97198

  • the return of several dead or departed characters and revelations about them; specifically, that Tom (M.C. Gainey) is gay - "several" characters and revelations about them are mentioned, but it's not really going into specifics when only one instance is given. Either the clause before or after the semicolon needs to be changed to reflect what the other implies.
  • After escaping from the island, Michael has returned to Manhattan, has become estranged from his son Walt Lloyd (Malcolm David Kelley) after confessing that he murdered Ana Lucia Cortez (Michelle Rodriguez) and Libby (Cynthia Watros) as part of his effort to rescue Walt from the Others' captivity and is seeing apparations of the late Libby - a pretty big mouthful for one sentence. If you don't break it up, a serial comma after "captivity" would make it somewhat easier for reading.
  • Libby's mysterious backstory will be revealed through multiple flashbacks of a new character not aboard Oceanic 815 introduced in the fourth or fifth season - doesn't entirely make sense to use future tense with season 4, though it does make it hard to discuss 4 and 5 in the same tense...
  • Cynthia Watros became the first former cast member not receive a "Special Guest Star" credit upon her return - could possibly do with a citation, as the episode itself can't be used to show that this was the fourth. Could be hard to source, though.
  • revealed to be the homosexual—Lost's only gay characters - "the homosexual"?
  • executive producers co-creator/head writer Damon Lindelof and staff writer Carlton Cuse - we've got a kind of double-epithet going on for each of them... not sure if this could be easily trimmed?
  • Dubbed "the most anticipated Lost of the season" by Verne Gay of Newsday - would placing an "[episode]" after "Lost" make some more sense?
  • I don't think Lindelof's 24 analogy really adds much. It's already pointed out that he was less than impressed by the fan forums and the nitpicking, so his little rant about 24 isn't especially relevant, IMO. (And you mentioned the Reception section is a little lengthy.)
  • "this episode fell a little short … I feel like we were kind of robbed of half of the 'What Happened to Michael?' story. It was interesting to see how far into depression he sunk … And they did give him a pretty good reason for working for Ben … But I can't shake the feeling that we missed a good opportunity. He further commented that "Tom would make a great football coach—his motivational speeches are awesome." - I think a quote needs to be closed around about "opportunity"...?
  • Just my pedantic nitpicking - do we really need all the ampersands in ref 39? Looks kinda neater and a little less "whoa" with semicolons. Maybe likewise for ref 4. Maybe ref 14 too, or perhaps keep the ampersand between the Darltons because they're a "writing team"? Or you could just use commas as done in ref 7 ... oh, the possibilies are endless. Do as you please. It's definitely not life or death, as much as it sounds like it!

Lovely as usual. Image FU rationale will probably need some strengthening for taking to FAC, though I don't doubt you already expect that. :) —97198 (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful review, as always. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of states and union territories of India by population edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to take this list to FL level. I have used List of Canadian provinces and territories by population (a FL) as my basis for development. This would be my first attempt so I would like get this list reviewed from as many as aspects as possible. Tell if this lists needs more images, references, MOS, add/remove text, table content, etc.

Thanks, GPPande talk! 20:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Pasting the automated review here to keep all at one place.[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
    • Not sure if this applies to List class articles so I would wait for an eyeball review. --GPPande talk! 12:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
    • The only topic which might seem extra is migration data. Do I need to remove it? --GPPande talk! 12:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
    • I think list class articles don't need templates as mandatory. --GPPande talk! 12:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
    • Need manual explanation here. I think the sections are same as Canadian article. --GPPande talk! 12:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 04:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for some reviewer here to post more comments. --GPPande talk! 12:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Avoid keeping images larger than 300px. In lower resolutions, it takes up all the space.
  Done
  • Unlink low-value common nouns such as villages
  Done
  • Do not link country names (Aug MoS)
  Done I have left a link for India as this article is about Indian states. Or it also needs to go?
  • Use &minus; to render the minus sign, not a hyphen
  Done I went through WP:HYPHEN and have done changes. Let me know if they are correct.
  • You might want to also include the area in miles and density per sq mile.
  Done
  • net "out migration" --> emigration
  Done
  • "in migration", --> immigration
  Done
  • Wrong wikification of Delhi in the lead
Removed.
  • Explain what a UT is in the lead: It's federally administered
  Done
  • 'Latest Indian census has shown --> tense & should be specific: "The 2001 census shows that..."
  Done
  • "Almost 70% of Indians reside in rural areas. " too much like a statement, About 70% of India's population reside in rural areas, while the remaining X% live in the 4 metros, with the remaining living in other smaller towns and cities.
Sine I did not get any specific reference which denoted % living in 4 metros I have twisted the sentence a little bit. Please check and let me know if it correct.
  • Check the clauses in the sentence: Population count is done by Census of India and is one of the largest administrative task carried out by any government --> The population count carried out by the Census of India is one of the largest administrative tasks that conducted by any federal government.
  Done
  • Give the standard equivalence of lakhs and crores
  Done
  • Explain sex ratio in the sentence. "The ratio of females per 1000 males, known as the sex ratio..."
  Done
  • Ranges such as these "0-6 " should be separated by a dash, not a hyphen. Use &ndash; to generate an N dash. Do a global check.
  Done
  • Use the convert template for 120,849 sq. km
  Done
  • You also have to mention the areas that are claimed by Pakistan and China (Kashmir/Sir Creek/Arunachal) for NPOV
Added PAK, Aksai Chin and Shaksgam Valley. Sir creek is water area. Arunachal is simply claimed by China and not occupied so it's area does not account here. Census of India page describes This includes 120,849 square kilometers of area illegally occupied by Pakistan and China.
  • When possible replace ", which" by "that"
  Done
  • Include an =External links= section that points to the census of India site
  Done

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your excellent review. Please keep adding points if you see more problems. I would try to fix them at earliest. --GPPande talk! 18:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No, you mixed up the minus and dash entities. The Wikitext should read (&minus2.6 million) and 500&ndash;999 See [{WP:DASH]]
  Done I have fixed best to my knowledge. Let me know if I have done mistake anywhere.
  1. (federally administered region) --> avoid using brackets when you can integrate with the text itself --> See this: ..seven union territories directly administered by the central government [Do this for sex ratio too]
  Done
  1. For lakhs, I did not mean this: 5.94 lakh (100,000). I meant 5.94&nbsp;lakh (594,000) (use the non breaking space &nbsp; between a number and unit). Do a global fix.
  Done
Do I need to use this system of mentioning the count like 594,000 all over or only at first place?
  1. 2.3 million , -> extra space before comma
  Done
  1. In recent decades --> comma needed after decades.
  Done
  1. Areakm²[8] --> space needed
  Done
  1. nearest whole integer. --> "Whole" is redundant. There's no half-integers.
  Done
  1. Use proper nouns for geographic entities: Delhi --> National Capital...; China --> People Republic of China.
  Done
  1. prompting government --> "the" needed
  Done
  1. External links is the last section. See [[W{:LAYOUT]]
  Done
  1. Remove the dash in the =note= section.
  Done

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on adding density/sq. miles column - You can verify the changes done by looking at this. Let me know if they are done correctly. This is first time I am referring to the MoS guide and trying to understand it :-) so please hang on with me. Any more problems as you see are welcome. --GPPande talk! 13:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review 3
No, you fully didn't get what I meant by the equivalent for lakhs. The term is subcontinental use only, so the international format is demanded to reach a global audience. We can't expect someone reading the text in Latvia to really keep calculating in their heads that 1.28 lakh is 128,000. Give these equivalents in brackets for all such figures in India-related articles.
  Done please verify now. One question, some places I have used lakh and at some places million. Should I follow one unit throughout the article?
  1. to take preventive action --> Hanging sentence. Needs to be precise. What preventive action?
  Done along with refs.
  1. You've missed out Arunachal Pradesh in the list of disputed regions
  Done moved the disputed territory areas to notes section. Since Arunachal is administered by India itself I had thought of no need for separate mention as it's area was included in the total area as per Census board. But I have added it now.
  1. Converting to miles is simple. Copy to a spreadsheet, add the formulae, and then add the wikisyntax. Shouldn't take more than 30 mins
  Done
  1. States like Haryana --> Keep this in mind: The word Like is not favoured by reviewers when used for comparison. Replace this words with such as
  Done

=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the third set of changes. Also, I have done some shifting work and added few more refs and data. Please verify and let me know your thoughts. Also, do you think List of Indian states ranked by population density should be merged with this list? --GPPande talk! 19:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes, you can merge the article
  Done
  1. Consistency is important. So you can use the international format throughout. The Indian format is btw, not legal in India, especially when signing a check.
  Done
  1. Sq miles column missing
  Done
  1. Further copyediting needed
I removed some repeated words and made tense changes. This is done to the best of my knowledge now. Please let me know if find any mistakes. --GPPande talk! 10:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get feedback on whether it is ready for an FLC or not.

Thanks, -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the information about the naming of the chapters up, as it looked a bit clunky by itself. Aside from that, I think the line breaks require more pink, to match the Tokyo Mew Mew template. -Malkinann (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I didn't even notice the color. Adjusted to match the pink which is also used in the ep list. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the anime notice into the second paragraph. My biggest quibble is that the summaries are huge. From a quick skim of the summaries, I can tell that they probably can be reduced. I've never read or watched this series, so I don't know how plot-intensive it is, but even for a plot-intensive series, these summaries are a tad big. Condense events, eliminate extraneous details, and remember that the reader doesn't need every last detail of the series. And even past this, a general copy-edit would be good. Also, are the chapter names given in English for the original Japanese release? If not, then the kanji and romanji are necessary. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 09:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anime notice moved. As noted in the lead, the chapters are unnamed in the original Japanese, Tokyopop created names for the story itself then names for the extras. Not sure how to reflect that in the table. Maybe put something like Chapter x-y: English name? The plots have all been cut down a couple of times so far, with the last run taking them from above 500 to below 400. I can try reducing again, but yeah the series does pack quite a few events in each volume. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through and shortened all of the summaries again. Most are now near or below 300, with the longest ones now at 327 and 330, being the A La Mode summaries (mostly from all the names being tossed around). Is this better? (I also got in the chapter numbers) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Note: In the first releases of the manga, Tokyopop misspells this as chimera anima, but they corrected it to chimera anima in later volumes." - is it just me, or is the wrong spelling the same as the right spelling? -Malkinann (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, what happens when you get too happy with the search replace :P Fixed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the proper plural of chimera anima? --Malkinann (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chimera animas :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. Is Mew Mew Project a proper noun? --Malkinann (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, fixed that one. Mew Project, referring to the project to make the Mew Mews is official, but the second use on the list meant a new "mew mew project" as in making a new Mew Mew. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McBride & the Ride edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it can get to GA class with a bit of work. I started this article a long time ago and have been constantly adding to it. There isn't much to say about their musical stylings that I can find, and I've had a very hard time finding critical reviews outside Allmusic and Entertainment Weekly.

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy edit

  • The infobox lists a lot more members than the lead... odd discrepancy (says when he's only read one paragraph of lead)
    • After reading some more... maybe say it initially consisted of those guys in the first paragraph?
  • "These albums also produced" - why the also?
  • "Brown then introduced"
  • "failed to chart entirely"
  • "produced their first music video" - the song was the producer of the video? :) reword
  • The article basically reads as a discography; album X was released on date, singles X Y and Z were released and charted as follows. Is there nothing more to be said about the band's career? (biography not discography)
  • Overuse of also in the third music career paragraph
  • "In September 2000, Herndon decided to re-unite with McBride and Thomas after meeting them" - after meeting them when/where/why? Sentence ends very awkwardly
  • "Since then, McBride became the bass guitarist in Brooks & Dunn's road band." - don't mix past and present tense in the one sentence
  • In general it feels like there's more content available to be used. Just a gut feeling. Hope this helps... Giggy (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, I'm trying. Most of their career was before the Internet as we know it existed, so there aren't a ton of web sources available. All of the members in the infobox are indeed listed in the lead, check the paragraph where it mentions the added members. I haven't found out when or why they reunited, even tho that was much more recently. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently developed this article considerably, and would like positive and creative feedback in how I can improve it as much as possible, and be able to nominate it for GA review.

Thanks, Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Hi Michael. First of all, let me say how I appreciate your work on this article, since I'm Portuguese and was really touched by our entry this year and all the reactions to it. Now, about the article, one thing that came out to my eyes immediately was the excessive and thoroughly detailed content concerning the national final. In my opinion, it would be great for an article Festival da Canção 2008, where such level of specificity is justified, but not for this one, where mainly the results are compulsory and a link to the national final article would be enough. I mostly like to do proofreading to find a fix grammar and syntax bugs, so I hope you don't mind if I take a deeper, more careful look into it.
This article was expanded as part of the Eurovision WikiProject's unofficial drive to expand and nominate the 2008 pages for Good Article Status. Most articles contain the national selection in the main article as a way to keep everything together (most aren't this detailed though). To make a separate page would complicate things such as navigational templates and the way we assess articles. The national selection as a whole usually has a page if it has an official name or way that it works year after year, but we generally discourage individual selection pages. All together it just seems more complete. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit off-topic, but... what if someone created per-year articles of a specific national final? Would the Eurovision Project be against it and battle for its closure? If not, would you still keep that level of detailness in the "Country at Eurovision Song Contest Year" pages?
I understand that this type of articles must begin with the national final - where the song was selected - and then proceed to the participation in the international contest, the main topic. But what I find extraneous is the amount of detail concerning the national final in this article (for instance, the contestants' clothing...), while the ESC content itself is not that broad. On a side note, for example, I see that Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 is more of a Melodifestivalen 2008 (which is actually a redirect). Parutakupiu (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier to maintain one page as opposed to two with near identical content. It also doesn't help that some countries' finals have no name so we're trying to be consistent here in the layout of all of them. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Puppy Episode edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because although it's brand-new I think it comes fairly close to GA standards. I'd like another set of eyes on it before making the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not going to do a full review here since this isn't my field of expertise, but you might want to rephrase "ABC situation comedy Ellen" so we don't have three separate blue linked terms in a row. We don't want seas of blue. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I don't have very much to say about the article, there were a few errors, but these were so minor that I've already fixed them myself. A few things left though:

  • Reference 17 (TV guide) needs to link to the TV Guide article in question, not to the TV Guide Ellen news page because that still changes every once in a while.
  • The tv show infobox has a parameter for guest stars, so you can merge the guest star section into the infobox.
  • According to this, reference 4 is dead.

Otherwise the page looks nice, problably GA worthy (maybe even FA?). Good luck with the eventual GAc.--Music26/11 13:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bone grafting edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need help with formatting this article, being sure it is written in a concise (and accurate) manner, and would like to know of any areas in the article that may need more elaboration.

Thanks, Somertime02 (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN CANCELED BY Somertime02. THEY ARE NO LONGER ACTIVELY EDITING THIS DOCUMENT. --JimmyButler (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I archived it per the above request Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chondromalacia patellae edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to see if i am on the right track with editing my article and to get suggestion on what i need to fix.

Thanks, Mmc cyclone (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This will be quite harsh because this is no where near ready for GA nomination or FAC. I suggest you do more editing than swapping two words and adding a single reference line (incorrectly I might add, as instead of one reference appearing in your "References" section, it appears multiple times). It also took me about 3 seconds to notice that your "jgames" website has its information TAKEN from the wikipedia article you are editing. How can it be that you are citing yourself? If this is not a form of plagarism it is certainly unethical and a poor attempt to "cheat" the system. That being said, I suggest you fix the following:

  • Fix your reference - you cannot cite your own work.
  • Find out how to list an inline citation multiple times for one reference (Wikipedia:Footnotes#Naming_a_ref_tag_so_it_can_be_used_more_than_once}
  • "It is common in young adults, especially soccer players, cyclists, rowers, tennis players, ballet dancers, horseback riders, and runners." -- Reference please?
  • Don't use inline citations in the middle of sentences unless it is required (author's name etc.) -- they tend to go at the end
  • I don't see a single line that defines RICE in this reference
  • Try to get rid of the "External links" section
  • This is a medical journal, not a website and should be cited as such
Also, I see nothing that supports your claim in the abstract and, as a general rule of thumb, you do not link to abstracts of a medical journal -- only the full journal article (if available). Please use PubMed

Overall, this article needs a lot of work but it is do-able. FoodPuma 23:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments on references - (this version)
    • All of them except for 3,5 and 8 need to be replaced.
      • Jgames is a mirror of Wikipedia...you can't use copied text to cite the original text, pal...
    • Mayo Clinic is in the references section, but where do you use that in the article? Use an in-line citation please. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THE REQUEST FOR PEER REVIEW HAS BEEN CANCELED - THIS ARTICLE IS NO LONGER BEING ACTIVELY EDITED BY Mmc cyclone.

2008 Philadelphia Phillies season edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent a lot of serious time trying to keep this article in shipshape condition for the entire baseball season. It's certainly significant because the Phillies won the World Series, and I've tried to reference and maintain everything that's in here. I want to take this article to GA after going through PR. Thanks, KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Monowi

I'd like to offer a couple of suggestions.

1.) I noticed the use of adjectives like "strongly" and "poorly" in the article. For example, the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead currently says, "Philadelphia opened the season strongly...." In light of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, I would suggest leaving out words like strongly and poorly. I like to think of Wikipedia as a place were facts and references are presented, and it's up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Words like "poorly" might unintentionally bring bias into the article.

  • The problem with this issue is that the article begins to look like a robot posted statistics for 162 games. I can certainly temper the lead a bit, but being a Phillies article and relevant to this particular season, especially considering that the Phillies had their share of struggles this year, it makes sense to say when the team was hot or cold, all things considered. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2.) The last sentence of the "Retentions" section needs to be moved up into the paragraph above it.

  • This was to separate players and coaches, but I certainly have no problem combining them. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3.) For some of the specific games during the season, the reference link goes to the MLB.com Gameday page. While this is a great start, the reader would be better served with a weblink to a page that clearly contains the info cited. For example, current reference #58 is for a recap of what happened during Game 3 of the NLDS. The reference link specifically needs to go to either the MLB.com article by Ken Mandel or Adam McCalvy, or the webpage that actually lists the full boxscore. As a side note, if in future edits on other articles you're looking for seasons or games that happened in 2007 or earlier, you might also consider using boxscores posted on Retrosheet.org. Retrosheet is a resource that has been determined reliable by other editors during my work with the Ozzie Smith article.

  • These pages do clearly contain the information cited; the full box score is located at the bottom of the page, which is why I use it as a reference. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I get the chance, I'll try to look at the article again, but I hope these suggestions prove valuable too you for the time being. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Simpson edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to have the page FAC ready soon. I'll probably submit a FAC by Friday, so this won't be open long.

Thanks, Scorpion0422 04:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some occasional overlinking, especially in the merchandising section. Also, I have troubles linking "do not age" to immortality. Also, my personal preference is to list 'references' that use the show's episodes, separate from the 'true' references. Consider using the <ref group=note> trick. Nergaal (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments With just a quick scan I can see a real lack of info. Just examples:

  • Nothing about his character development
  • No mention of him being a fan of Radioactive Man
  • Don't quite understand the Role in The Simpsons section, it seems more to be about his age, why is so short? why is it the lead section?
  • "Reception and cultural influence" section should be split. It's not clear what's Reception and what's cultural influence.
  • "Bart is sometimes willing to go through a series of humiliations if it means pleasing his mom." example?
  • "While Bart has often hurt Lisa" example?
  • Has this article has a copy edit.If not get someone to do one before you even consider making it a FAC.

BUC (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Para Siempre edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want a second opinion about its contents. Also, I want this article to be as acurate as posible.

Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ink Runner (talk · contribs) As I don't read Spanish, I am not able to check the reliability of the Spanish references, so I'll just work on streamlining the prose. (Tight prose is a must for FAs.)

  • "Para Siempre (Eng.: Forever) is the title of the 79th studio album released by Mexican performer Vicente Fernández. It was written and produced by Joan Sebastian. And it is considered one of the most succesful mariachi recordings in recent times with worldwide sales over a million copies." -> "Para Siempre ("Forever") is the 79th studio album by Mexican singer Vicente Fernández. Written and produced by Joab Sebastian, the album is one of the most successful mariachi records in recent times; it has sold over a million copies worldwide."   Done
  • "Three singles from this album reached Top Ten status on the Billboard Hot Latin Tracks chart: "Estos Celos", "La Derrota" and the title track, which also is used as the main theme of the Mexican telenovela "Fuego En La Sangre". For this album, Vicente Fernández received several nominations for the most prestigious awards, including the Grammy Awards, Latin Grammy Awards and Premios Oye!." -> "Three of the albums singles reached the Top Ten on the Billboard Hot Latin Tracks chart: "Estos Celos", "La Derrota", and the title track, which was used as the main theme of the Mexican telenovela Fuego En La Sangre. The album earned Fernández nominations for a Grammy, a Latin Grammy, and a Premios Oye!."   Done
  • "Jason Birchmeier from Allmusic gave the album a 4 star review, calling the set "a near-perfect album" praising the singing, the songwriting and the instrumentation, naming it "stellar."" -> "Jason Birchmeier of Allmusic gave the album four stars; he called it a "near-perfect album" and "stellar" and praised the singing, the songwriting, and the instrumentation."   Done
  • "Para Siempre is the 79th album recorded by Vicente Fernández and was released on late September, 2007 in several countries including United States, México and Colombia; with this album Fernández is celebrating the 40th anniversary of his singing career, and according to his record label it is on of the most important projects on mexican music, despite a statement from Joan Sebastian, the album producer and songwriter, who declared that the record label did not expect much of this album, which has became on the most important recordings on Fernández career." -> "Para Siempre is the 79th album by Vicente Fernandez, released in September 2007 in several countries. Recorded to celebrate the 40th anniversary of his singing career, the album is, according to Fernández's record label, one of his most important. Producer Joan Sebastian, however, claimed that the label did not have such high expectations of the album."   Done

International Space Station edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to put this article up for peer review once again in order to start the ball rolling on getting the article to the stage, finally, of FA. I believe we've dealt with the issues that caused the article's GA delisting, and would love some ideas as to how the article stands, how it can be improved, and what needs to be done to comply with first GA, then FA criteria. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aaron Eckhart edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after failing its FAC this month, I want to give the article another FAC try and this time to make sure that it passes. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

David L. Cook edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would appreciate a review and suggestions on what others may feel this article needs to get it to WP:FA status. I am not asking anyone to do the work as I will do that myself, but simply to give some suggestions to get it there. Thanks, Canyouhearmenow 15:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ink Runner (talk · contribs)

I don't know if you want specific suggestions or general, so I'll try to do both...

  • MoS-related issues
    • "Nee= Mercer" should be "née [not capitalized, and with the acute accent] Mercer" (no equals sign)  Done
    • "...for the song, 'Drop that Rock'" No comma, since "Drop That Rock" is an essential element.  Done
    • I don't know if the last sentence in the lead section belongs there. Perhaps move it to the "Biography" or "Early life" section?
    • The quotes (like those in the "Early life" section) shouldn't be italicized.  Done
  • Sources and external links
    • I don't think that Jump the Shark is a reliable source, since it appears to be a forum.
    • Since IMDB also has user-generated content, I don't think it is considered a reliable source, either.
  • Prose
    • I haven't read through the whole thing, but I noticed a bit of wordiness. For example, "The creators of the television series Touched by an Angel filmed an episode entitled, 'Show Me the Way Home' based on Cook's life" could be streamlined as "The Touched by an Angel episode 'Show Me the Way Home' was based on Cook's life."

I don't know what kind of review you were exactly aiming for, but if you're fine with this, I'll add more comments later.

Prose review I'll just work on streamlining the prose for now; if another reviewer doesn't finish the job, I'll continue tomorrow (Saturday for me).

  • "Cook was born in Pascagoula, Mississippi but after two years his family relocated to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida where he attended the prestigious Pine Crest School and later graduated from Boyd Anderson High School" -> "Cook was born in Pascagoula, Mississippi; after two years, his family moved to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, where he attended Pine Crest School and later graduated from Boyd Anderson High School." I'm pretty sure that "but" as a conjunction should be used with contrastive clauses/phrases (the two clauses in the first sentence aren't exactly contrasting.)   Done
  • "Cook began his musical career at the age of five with his family, The Cook Family Singers. His parents divorced in 1980, which brought an end to four generations of the musical group." -> "Cook began his musical career at age five, singing with his family's group, The Cook Family Singers. His parents divorced in 1980, after which the group disbanded."  Done
  • "In his early life while performing with his family, Cook suffered at the hands of a father with a severe drinking problem. His father would become very violent with David's mother and all of the children after becoming intoxicated. After many years of this abuse Cook developed many psychological problems that ended up following him through to his life as an adult." -> "Early in life, Cook was abused by his father, who had a severe drinking problem; when intoxicated, the father would become violent towards the family. After many years of abuse, Cook developed psychological problems that continued into his adulthood."  Done
  • "Cook developed a severe Dissociative disorder coupled with psychogenic amnesia. Cook recalls having periods of "missing time" but never really understood why it was happening. In 1990 the disorders finally came full front when Cook experienced what they thought was a full blown stroke while in Ft. Lauderdale and was rushed to Coral Springs Medical Hospital." -> "Cook developed a severe dissociative disorder and psychogenic amnesia. He recalled having periods of "missing time" but never really understood the cause. In 1990, doctors finally diagnosed the disorders after Cook experienced what they thought was a severe stroke and was rushed to the Coral Springs Medical Hospital in Ft. Lauderdale."  Done
  • "Cook's story has been told on many occasions and through various media and television shows. The creators of the television series Touched by an Angel filmed an episode entitled, 'Show Me the Way Home' based on Cook's life. The episode portrays a Christian recording star that leaves his career after many tragic events and finding trouble in his walk with God. In the end, he overcomes his trials and returns to the stage and ministry with the help of the angels. The 700 Club also did a full length documentary on Cook that was aired throughout the world. Cook is the author of the published religious self help book Inspirational Words, which outlines most of his ordeal and how he eventually overcame the disorder." -> "Cook's story has been told through different media. An episode of the television series Touched by an Angel, 'Show Me the Way Home', was based on Cook's life; the episode portrayed a Christian music star that leaves his career after experiencing tragedy but returns to recording and ministry with the help of the angels. The 700 Club did a full-length documentary on Cook that was aired worldwide. Cook himself wrote the religious self-help book Inspirational Words, which outlines his ordeal and how he overcame the disorder."  Done
  • "His first solo Christian album, Come Follow Me, was released in 1985. The album was written and produced for him by famed producer/singer, Frank X. Loconto, former member of the popular 50's group, the Lane Brothers. The following year, he signed with the American Musical Academy of Arts Association (AMAAA) and recorded a follow up album entitled Personal Feelings." -> "His first solo Christian album, Come Follow Me, was released in 1985. The album was written and produced by singer/producer Frank X. Loconto, a former member of the group Lane Brothers. In 1986, he signed with the American Musical Academy of Arts Association (AMAAA) and released another album, Personal Feelings."  Done
  • "he started his own record label called DLC Records." -> "he started his own record label, DLC Records."
  • "It was during this transitional period that Cook created a comedy character, named Mortermer Crabbottom, in the tradition of comedic country alter egos like Jim Nabors' eccentric Gomer Pyle persona." -> "At this time, Cook created Mortermer Crabbottom, a comedy character designed after Jim Nabors' eccentric Gomer Pyle persona."
  • "Cook even recorded an album in character, Split Personality, based on the life and times of Mortermer Crabbottom growing up in the fictitious town of Crabbottom USA." -> "Cook also recorded an album in character, Split Personality, based on Mortermer Crabbottom's life in the fictitious town Crabbottom USA."
  • "To date, Cook is the youngest person to be inducted." -> "Cook is the youngest person to be inducted."

Ink Runner (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments My review was hampered by an edit conflict. Some of these points may be covered by the above.

My main concern in this article has to do with the referencing. On my read-through I noticed that the first half-dozen sentences in the "Early life" section contained a number of highly significant statements about abuse, drunkenness, psychological illness, etc., all apparently cited to [13]. This turns out to be the website of Broward Health. In what way does this site provide any verification of the statement made concerning Cook? Similarly, reference [14], given later in the section after further medical information on Cook, is evidently a link to a media player. I am concerned that other apparent citations may be equally off the mark. I strongly recommend that you review each citation in turn, to see that it is a genuine source for the information you have provided in the article.

There are also general prose issues, a sample of which is listed below:-

  • (Nee = Mercer) needs to be writtern as (née Mercer)  Done
  • 2500 should be written as 2,500  Done
  • "Drop that Rock" should be italicized, and not in quotes  Done
  • The lead is too short. It is not a full summary of the article, and the information in the last mini-paragraph is rather trivial.
  • The "Biography" section only takes Cook up to age 12. What is the demarcation between this section and the next, titld "Early life"?
  • Comma required after "Mississippi" and "Florida"  Done
  • Why "Ft. Lauderdale", not "Fort Lauderdale"  Done
  • In "Music" section, "follow-up" needs a hyphen
  • "which went on to earn..." would be better as "which earned..."  Done
  • "It was during this (not "that") transition..."  Done
  • Ref [19] is another dubious reference - why is it reliable, and how does it support the information in the text?
  • "That same year..." What year is this - it's a while since a year has been given?  Done
  • In TV section, "co-host of the evening's..." not evenings  Done
  • Comma required after "president of Firebirds"  Done
  • "for the television series entitled New South Crossing..." - "entitled" is redundant  Done
  • "the song became entitled..." Try "The song was called..."  Done
  • You should not use the style "...you saw Cook..." In this instance the passive voice "Cook was seen" is necessary.  Done
  • "ins and outs" (plurals), not "in's and out's"  Done

A thorough prose check may well reveal other points needing attention. I hope this review has helped. Brianboulton (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your review. There is one of the references that leads to a video of Cook on the 700 Club which explains all of the citation points in that area. I went through that when we took the article to WP:GAstatus. I will fix these things things as soon as possible. Please feel free to monitor the article and let me know of anything you see that needs more attention. Canyouhearmenow 01:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of premiers of Nunavut edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive feedback on how to improve it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Sources look good. Just one comment though. Does there really have to be a list for one item? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should stay as a separate list. Elections will take place at least once every five years; the list will grow. Gary King (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't we merge it for five years then? :-) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, it's not really like, say, my other List of universities in Canada lists where some provinces have only one university. This list is bound to expand over time; it's useful as a boilerplate page, so whenever the next election is, whoever updates the page will be able to do it easily. I'll let it sit for a bit and wait and see if a consensus develops over time. Gary King (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion It might be an idea to put this review on hold for a few days until the new premier is chosen on 14 November or thereabouts. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I wasn't aware, although I don't think it will affect the article so much that this peer review needs to be closed. I'm mostly looking for help on prose, formatting, etc. Gary King (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of premiers of Yukon edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive feedback on how to improve this list. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Fikerle edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello there Peer Review type persons!

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm just trying some small articles as I am new to Wikipedia, and I'd like a heads up on how to improve this article. I hope to become a more large scale contributer but I know from little things, big things grow.
Is the tone appropriate?
Although I know the person's date of birth, I have decided to only list their year of birth, due to privacy concerns. Is this the right decision?
Also, my coding may be a tad iffy.
Advice for future efforts gratefully accepted. Thanks, E. Swann (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ink Runner (talk · contribs)

  • I see superscripts, but the footnotes don't appear. Add {{reflist}} to the page wherever you want the footnotes show up.
  • Maybe organize the discography with tables?

Reply from E. Swann (talk · contribs) Thanks Ink Runner! Have inserted Reflist and tables... yr help is most appreciated. E. Swann (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DanaBoomer
  • For the references, make sure you have the publisher and not the work. For example, the publisher for ref 1 would be MOG Inc, not Mog.com, and for ref 9 it would be Entertainment Depot, rather than Entertainmentdepot.com.au.
  • Check the reliability of your references. Blogs are generally not considered reliable.
  • The lead should be a summary of the entire article, with no original information. My suggestion would be to move most of the information currently in the lead to a section titled "Career" or something of the sort, and leaving the lead as a summary of the information in the entire article. Because it's a summary, it doesn't need to be referenced.
  • Is there any information available to expand this article? It is still very short. I would especially suggest looking for anything of a personal nature on Monika. A short section on where she was born, who her parents were, and other early career and personal information would be great.

I've done some reformatting on the article, just to make everything be in the right place. I didn't change any of the content. I don't watchlist peer reviews, so if you have any questions about this review, please contact me on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit nouns edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. Kindly give your valuable opinions on its improvement to FA status.

Thanks, ­ Kris (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. As currently written this is a long way from FA, and not even that close to GA yet.

  • Biggest problem with the article reaching FA is a near total lack of references. There are three inline refs, but they are only in the lead - none of the six sections of material have refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The lead does not follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • Any chance for an image or two in the article?
  • Why are Both devanagari script and IAST transliterations given for the first table, but none of the other tables?
  • The I, u , and long vowel stems tables have no explanatory text and should - see WP:PCR

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chaser APEC pranks edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to move it up to Featured article status. I would like a peer review for any final problems that might be raised in the FAC part. Thanks.

Thanks,  The Windler talk  09:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I think this has some work befopre reaching FA status.

  • The lead does not have an image but should - probably the two guys dressed up is best. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but the second lead paragraph on the CHaser and its history does not seem to be in the article. Please see WP:LEAD
  • There are two free images of the world leaders at the APEC summit article - why not use one of them, perhaps in the section on the summit?
  • Some places need refs, for example here is a direct quote without a cite: Morrow also hinted on the general idea for their prank; that their challenge was to do a stunt that would "make Osama bin Laden feel a little incompetent". My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Refs need work - one is marked as a dead link, some are just links, but Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • I am also not sure about linking to a YouTube video - does the poster really have the copyright to the material in question?
  • The Other stunts section is full of very short (one or two sentence) subsections and paragraphs. Could they be combined? I note most of them do not give dates either - they should to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR and perhaps organizing them by dates would be a way to have fewer subsections.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom Cigar Company edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been the only editor so far, and I would like to make sure I am covering all the bases. This is an article outside my normal zone of editing. Hopefully, I can get this to GA at some point. Thanks, HoboJones (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead does not seem to follow WP:LEAD - the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but largest store in Pittsburgh area is not in the article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the notoriety is not mentioned in the current lead.
  • Lead says the store was founded in 1955, article body says it dates to the 1920s. This needs to be addressed in the article, if two different reliable sources give different dates, then say so.
  • Any chance of some photos inside the store?
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - I note that Elderly Instruments is a FA and may be a useful model - local specialty store with a regional / national reputation.
  • Perhaps separate sections on the store itself and the Cigar Camp as a club / social group / business venture would be useful.
  • Can more on revenue, plans to go to Internet sales be added - I read a few of the refs
  • Last two paragraphs are just one sentence each - can these be expanded or perhaps combined?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horses in warfare edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has recently passed an A class review and a MILHIST Peer Review, since when it has undergone some alterations. We are hoping to put it up for FAC soon and would like any feedback on what else should be done to the article in preparation, with attention to content (any gaps? undue weight?), format and so forth.

We are putting this up for an open peer review after the MILHIST PR because we would like to get the viewpoints of some editors outside of the military and equine wiki-communities. Thanks, Montanabw, Ealdgyth, Dana boomer and Gwinva (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Launceston, Tasmania edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i think we need an outside opinion on what the article should be rated.

Thanks, Aaroncrick (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DanaBoomer

Overall, I would say this article is still probably at C-class, although it is getting very close to B-class. Here are some issues that should be addressed to get the article up to B-class:

References:

  • Web references need publishers, which should be listed after the title.
  • References should all be formatted the same way, either always using cite templates or never using them.
  • References should be located immediately after punctuation, with no space in between.
  • There are quite a few places that need references. All of the fact tags should be taken care of, and a good rule of thumb is to have at least one reference for every paragraph.

MOS:

  • The number of images and graphics in this article make it choppy, break up the text, and make it harder to read. Either some of them should be removed, or more text should be added to raise the ratio of text to graphics.
  • There are a lot of short paragraphs in the article, which contribute to the choppiness. Either combine or expand these.
  • There are a few existing hidden comments pointing to places with possible POV, sourcing and other issues. These should be taken care of.
  • The lead should be expanded. For an article of this length, three to four solid paragraphs is recommended. Also, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, with no original information. This way, it generally doesn't need references, although some editors choose to reference the lead anyway, it's a personal preference.
  • Take a look over the table of contents and make sure that the division look appropriate. For example, right now, history gets no subsections, while transportation has five. Looking at this, I would say that some (or all) of the transportation sections could be combined. There are other examples, just by looking at the ToC.

I haven't done a full review of the prose, but the comments above should help propel you over the hump to B-class, and then down the road to GA-class if you are looking at that. I don't watchlist peer reviews, so drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this review. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Rally Championship Drivers' Champions edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the list is close to featured standard, maybe needs a few kinks to e ironed out, anyway thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I only did a very minor edit (Finland). Overall, the list is quite complete but I a think perhaps you should add a section or paragraph on how points are/were scored. First because it has changed over time/disciplines in motors sports (I don't now exactly in rally but in Formula one that is the case). I also suspect that there is a rule that any team with three or more drivers must elect only two to score points. You put some information in notes but maybe a text directly in the article would be better to understand. Also, perhaps a column with number of rallies counting for the championship and another one with the number of rallies entered could help. For example, Loeb had his first seasons impaired by the fact that Citroën did not compete in every rally. Zitelli67 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Giorgio a Cremano edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It was classed as a stub article, but I have re-written it as a much fuller article, with the layout based on other city/borough style pages found elsewhere in Wikipedia. It is referenced, and I want a peer review to determine what needs to be done to lift it at least to good article status please? Thanks, Robert Fleming (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DanaBoomer

Overall, this looks like a nice article, but there is some work that needs to be done on references and layout before it is of GA class. The comments I'm making below are the main ones that I would make if I were reviewing this article for GA status.

References:

  • Books need page references.
  • Web references should all be formatted the same way and references that are the same should be combined using the named reference format. Also, there has to be publishers listed for each web reference, and generally they are listed after the title. Also, make sure that you have the author listed if available, and make sure you are listing the publisher and not the work. For example, for ref 15, you currently have Faculty.ed.umuc.edu as the publisher. Instead, you should have David Taylor as the author (which comes before the title), and Jeff Matthews is the publisher (you can see this on the main page of the website, as it has his name as the copyright holder).
  • Make sure that there isn't anything listed in the References section that isn't used in an in-line citation. For example, there's a book by AA VV which does not appear to be used in-line. If you want to keep them in the article but they aren't used for specific referencing, consider putting them in a "Further reading" section.
  • The books in the References section should be formatted consistently, and should include ISBNs where applicable (WorldCat can help you with this).
  • There are still a few areas that need references. A good rule of thumb is generally to have at least one reference for every paragraph.
  • Ref 22 (pubblicaamministrazione) deadlinks.

MOS:

  • The Patron Saint external link deadlinks.
  • Image galleries are discouraged. Instead, integrate what images are essential into the text, and then provide a link to the commons cat for the city using the {{commonscat|Category Name}} template.
  • There are a lot of redlinks in the article. Now, this is not a requirement that a GA will pass or fail on. However, it does break up the article. What I would suggest is to look through the redlinks and see which of these you really thing have a chance of having articles at some point in the future, and if you haven't already, double check to make sure there isn't already a link under another name that has already been created. If they don't have an article, and you don't think that they stand a good chance of having an article created, then delink them.
  • The redlink issue is especially important in the Famous citizens section. If people are not notable enough to have an article written about them, they probably shouldn't be included in a "famous" citizens section. What a lot of articles do is move the redlinked citizens to the talk page, and when/if they have articles written about them, they can be moved back to the main page.
  • The top half of the article has almost no images, while the bottom half is over-populated with them. This should be evened out.
  • Please check image placement. The placement of images in the Housing and Infrastructure sections makes there be a lot of white space right after the Transportation subheading.
  • There are a lot of short paragraphs in the article. I'm not saying that all of these should be combined into a bunch of jumbo paragraphs, but it would be nice to see a bunch of these combined so the article doesn't look so choppy.

I haven't done a complete check of the prose, so there are probably things that I missed. However, taking care of the above issues will make the article much cleaner and closer to GA status. I don't generally review city articles, so I don't know what the typical layout for those is and cannot advise you as to how the article complies with those guidelines. I don't watchlist peer review pages, so if you have any questions about this review, please contact me on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Brazilian Grand Prix edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get feedback on what needs to be done with the article in order to pass GA, with an aim of then moving on towards FAC. The template we are following for the article are the two FAs 1995 Japanese Grand Prix and 1995 Pacific Grand Prix. It is only a short time since the event, but all the major issues from the race are there. Thanks in advance for the criticism. Thanks, Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 11:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e's comments

I think the insane idea is coming along nicely. Some minor points:

  • "he Autódromo José Carlos Pace (otherwise known as Interlagos) of São Paulo, Brazil." in Sao Paolo? near Sao Paolo? Probably not of Sao Paolo, though.
  • "where contact with main rival Felipe Massa saw the McLaren driver relegated to the back of the field." Wasn't Hamilton's penalty for the contact with Raikkonen at the start?
    • I would agree that seems a tad out of place, the original statement is criticism towards Hamilton, where, if memory serves me right people criticised him because of his overly aggresive start. No one criticised him because of the Massa incident - that was arguably 100% Massa's fault. I suggest changing that so it talks about the first corner incident instead of the Massa clash. D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More rain in the closing laps could not prevent Hamilton from finishing the race in fifth position," perhaps 'did not' instead of 'could not'? It certainly could have!
  • "Heading into the final race of the season" Perhaps a little magazine-y?
    • Disagree. I think it's fine for an encyclopedia - no real reason, but I don't think it's magaziney to a huge extend. D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a style thing, so we're unlikely to always agree! 4u1e (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to explain what the FIA is at the first appearance. I usually put "motorsport's world governing body". This occasionally prompts complaints from American editors, but as far as I know it is true, in that even NASCAR falls under their remit via the US national governing body, ACCUS.
    • Unless I'm blind, I can't see any mention of FIA in the prose... D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last para of 'Background'. Spelt out in full, which of course doesn't help unless you speak French! 4u1e (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added minor description. I think I need an eye check up....... =D D.M.N. (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The relative slowing in pace" perhaps needs expanding a bit to make the meaning clear. Perhaps "Hamilton's relatively slow pace in the final qualifying session compared to the first two"?
  • "changed both their cars' tyres" Ambiguous. How about "changed the tyres on both their cars"?
    • Good point and changed
  • Would it be useful to expand on why Kubica stayed on the dry tyres?
  • WP:ENGVAR You've got "tyres" for UK English (normal for F1 articles), but "donuts" instead of "doughnuts" later on.
  • You should check for repeated links - I can see two Red Bull Racings.
  • Several journalists commented on Massa's sportsmanlike approach after the race. See here for example. Can we add something on that?

Very nice article overall. I'd say you were in an excellent position to go for GA on this one. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thankyou for the help! Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review by AlexJ

Overall, it's pretty good, content seems to be all there. Here's some thoughts on how it can be improved.

Lead:

  • "Massa started alongside Toyota driver Jarno Trulli." - Started what? That may need a bit of clarification/context to aid non race-fans.

Background:

  • "the Brazilian driver would not have enough points to eclipse Hamilton's tally" - I've always thought eclipse to mean greatly outperform or similar. Indeed wiktionary says "to overshadow; to dominate something and make it seem insignificant." Also perhaps the tiebreaker in case of points draw needs to be mentioned here.
    • I changed to "the Brazilian driver would not have enough points to defeat Hamilton's tally." I tried to write the section so that we wouldn't have to mention tiebreakers; I said he had finish at least fifth, if he finished sixth he would have lost because the tiebreaker rule would have come into effect. I didn't want to get too technical. But if you think I should still put it in, I will.
      • If you want to avoid mentioning the tiebreak, you'll have to be very careful about how you word it. Defeating Hamilton's tally implies getting more points than, which wasn't required. You'll need to somehow word it in the form of Massa getting enough points to beat LH in the championship positions as opposed to earning enough points to beat him in the championship points (can't think how to make that clearer, do you understand what I mean?) AlexJ (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added it. I understood what you meant, but the thought of having to write that in the article overwhelmed me and I simply added the tie-break information and cited the sporting regulations.Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practice & qualifying:

  • Would it be beneficial to mention about the times being wiped clean at the end of Q1 & Q2 in the explanation paragraph? I'd get a second opinion first.
  • "The final part of qualifying determined the positions from first to tenth, and effectively decided pole position." - Effectively seems redundant here, as it directly decides pole position.
  • "Raikkönen qualified third, though was happy with beginning the race on the racing line behind his team-mate." - Racing line is jargon, and might need a bit of explanation.
    • I linked it. Is that enough?
      • Yeah, that should be fine. As long as there's somewhere people can easily find if they aren't sure what it means. Link is probably the best option here. AlexJ (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hamilton's slow pace in the final qualifying session compared to the first two suggested he was carrying more fuel than his title challengers." - Why? Perhaps need to explain the low fuel/race fuel Q1/2/3 differences earlier on in the how quali works paragraph.
    • Added explanation.

Race:

  • "The race was due to begin at 15:00 local time (UTC-2), but was delayed by ten minutes when heavy rain hit the track." - would it be worth mentioning it was delayed due to how late in the start sequence the rain came (after the tyres must have been fixed to the car).
    • I did say "when heavy rain hit the track." I think that sufficiently represents the lateness of the delay.
      • I'm not so sure. Say the rain hit at 14:40 and was due to clear by 15:10 so they delayed the start by 10 minutes. The above sentance would still be correct. I know said situation wouldn't happen, but the reader won't neccissarily know this to be the case. AlexJ (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right. The sentence now reads: "The race was due to begin at 15:00 local time (UTC-2), but was delayed by ten minutes when heavy rain hit the track minutes before the scheduled start." I think that covers all the bases. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • And now it reads: "The race was due to begin at 15:00 local time (UTC-2), but was delayed by ten minutes when heavy rain hit the track at 14:56."
  • "Vettel was closing in quickly on Hamilton, the McLaren driver needing to finish no lower than fifth to win the Championship.[19]" last time we mentioned Vettel he was in sixth. I think by the sentence he's in fifth. It doesn't say anywhere he jumped Glock, and in any case it can be quite hard to keep up with all the overtakes in prose so a position reminder for SV would be useful at this stage IMO.
    • I think he was sixth - wasn't Hamilton fifth, and then Hamilton ran wide at final bend and Vettel went through to fifth? D.M.N. (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only after Hamilton and Vettel pitted and Glock didn't. This is before the rain. I added Vettel's position.
  • "Massa crossed the finish line for the final time" This could come across a little weird to someone unfamiliar with motorracing. Logically a driver only crosses the finish line once at the end of the race. The rest of the time it's usually referred to as the start/finish line. I'd phrase it completely differently.
    • Rewrote as "As Massa crossed the finish line, Hamilton battled Vettel for the crucial point needed to win the Championship."
  • "Hamilton finished the race in fifth position, just enough to become Formula One's youngest Championship winner" - take out the just, and add he'd done it by a single point instead. (Let the reader deduce how close it was rather than than tell them)

Post race:

  • "After the race, Felipe Massa appeared on the podium and subsequent press conference." - might need to clarify somehow this is standard procedure for race winner. They way it's written now gives it too much emphasis - it sounds almost as if a mistake's been made putting FM on the podium rather than LH.
  • "a celebration illegal in Formula One" - illegal sounds a little extreme. not permitted by the regulations might be more suitable? Although actually, I don't think donuts are explicitly prohibited. The relevant rule is "After receiving the end-of-race signal all cars must proceed on the circuit directly to the post race parc fermé without any unnecessary delay" A reword perhaps?
  • "Coulthard left Formula One with 246 race starts and 13 wins, after 15 years." - better as "Coulthard left Formula One after 15 years with 246 race starts and 13 wins."?

Other:

  • Keep an eye out for relevant freely licenced pictures of the actual race in Flickr etc. Some are almost bound to come up. Not a requirement for GA/FA but they do help the article (providing the number used is kept reasonable).
  • How reliable a source is thinkSpain? Would we be better using a quality Spanish-language source ([13] - El Mundo for example.
    • I changed it. My Spanish is terrible, and thinkSPAIN didn't look too unreliable. I dunno, is it that likely to be challenged? Also, is it likely to come up in an FAC "why is it in Spanish"?
      • At FA level I think every source needs to be from a quality output, the reviewers have tightened up on this a lot recently. I imagine you'd have been asked to justify why thinkSpain is reliable. As for using a foreign language source, WP:CITE says "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber. However, do use sources in other languages where appropriate." Keyword here is equal caliber, thinkSPAIN is definately of lesser caliber than El Mundo (which I believe is considered a newspaper of record in Spain, similar reputation to say The Times in the UK). I don't think you'd have a problem at FAC. AlexJ (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, thanks. I read that policy after I posted the above comment. I guess I'm trying to predict every thing that could possibly go wrong at FAC at the moment. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 04:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that's of some use. AlexJ (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding so promptly. I've adressed your concerns. This was exactly the kind of PR I was looking for. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 01:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help guys, especially D.M.N. I've closed this so I can list the article for GA, but I should have the 2008 Italian Grand Prix page back here soon. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 14:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entremet edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've returned after a long absence to improve on some of the articles on medieval cuisine that I've worked on extensively before. I think most of the medieval aspects of entremets are covered by now (just holler if something's missing), and I'd like to start describing the development after c. 1500. Hopefully it's possible to take this to GA status, maybe all the way to an FAC.

Do your best/worst!

Peter Isotalo 11:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh a few points to start out with. If it was an elaborate form of entertainment dish then I suppose that implies it was only for the wealthy/royalty, but it may be better to make that clear from the outset. Also I presume this type of thing may have occurred in non western societies, but I have no idea. It's a failure of nearly all Western scholarship that assumes everything originates there. Worth checking into to make sure the history is accurate. Otherwise a rather interesting article. I'm looking forward to seeing how this ties into the modern form. - Taxman Talk 21:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tweaked the wording to be clearer about the upper class-status. I don't really know anything about similar dishes outside of Europe, though. I'm sure that elaborate dinner entertainment has existed in other cultures, but I've never read anything specifically about it. Do you know of any appropriate sources on non-European culinary history? Peter Isotalo 14:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No sorry, I haven't the slightest idea, short of plugging into a library catalog. Though since this is a specific tradition, I don't think you'd be required to cover all meal entertainment that happened in other cultures in this article, but if there were something that were similar to the original meaning of an entertainment dish that occurred elsewhere then that would justify mention. But if this really did evolve into general mean entertainment, maybe a brief mention of other forms of that would be justified, I'm not convinced either way yet. Perhaps a couple sentences linking to another article (existing or not) would suffice. - Taxman Talk 15:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did quick search on google books for "culinary history" and it comes up with some possible sources. The first result "Food: A Culinary History from Antiquity to the Present" has some promise due to the way it covers traditions and so forth, but from it's table of contents it is heavily focused on Western civiization. It does have some on the Arabic and Egyptians which may be relevant to the article. Another comes up on the culinary history of Southeast Asia, though that's awfully focused on one area to be useful. "Cuisine and Culture: A History of Food and People" by Linda Civitello discusses various sources on culinary history including "Food: A Culinary History..." and remarks that book is European focused, while the Civitello book itself seems to be one of the most well rounded food history sources I could find. - Taxman Talk 20:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • What is there reads well and is interesting. There are a few rough spots - for example the timing seems off in this section The earliest mention of a specified entremet can be found in an edition of Le Viandier, a medieval recipe collection, from ca 1300. but a few sentences later it says Later on the entremets would take the shape of various types of illusion foods, ... then the next paragraph starts Starting around 1300 the entremets began to involve not just eye-catching displays of amusing haute cuisine, ...
  • Provide context for the reader by (for example) identifying the royals and nobles better - the son of Edward I [of England] or At a banquet held by [France's] Charles V in honor of [Holy Roman] Emperor Charles IV in 1378 See WP:PCR
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - but the etymology is only in the lead. The modern entremet is only there too, but presumably this will be added later as the article is expanded.
  • I think there needs to be more on the timing of entremets witihin a meal - this is unclear to me

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes which should clear up most of your concerns. I included a reference to a serving as a met, but I don't think there's much else to say about it. I'm aware of the lack of information about the modern entermet, the problem is just that I have trouble finding sources that actually discuss it. Peter Isotalo 14:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jørgen Iversen Dyppel edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just added a substantial chunk of info to it, and I'd like fresh eyes to take a look at the style/language, any weasel words that might have snuck in, POV problems it could have, etc.

Thanks, Mikkel (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e's comments

Hi, my usual random thoughts:

  • You need to do a check to ensure that refs follow punctuation and not the other way round.
  • You've got a lot of single sentence paragraphs - see if you can build them up into more substantial topic-based ones.
  • Where there appear to be gaps in the story (i.e. Dyppell's education) they need to be filled, or a positive statement along the lines of "little is known about..." could be included if this is the case.
  • You should probably gives rigsdaler in full at the first appearance, and you need to disambiguate the link used.
  • "(and piousness for white servants)" How did he mandate piousness? Indentured servants is linked here for a second time, and does not need to be.

More to come. 4u1e (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be useful to review the tense of the article as well. As a historical article it should pretty much be in straight past tense throughout. I spotted a few inappropriate uses of present tense: "Taylor notes that none may leave the island" (Taylor noted that none could leave the island), "In the subsequent investigation, it comes forth that" (In the subsequent investigation, it came forth that) etc. There may be more examples.
  • "Among Dyppel's initial tasks included" could be simply "Dyppel's initial tasks included"?
  • "Due to the Danes not being used to the climate (Krarup mentions that the Danes had trouble with "the poisonous fumes" of the tropical forest, as well as the foreign food, whereas the Dutch were better acclimatized[22]), as well as the Franco-Dutch and Anglo-Dutch wars, this proved a complex undertaking." What is the complex undertaking referred to here? It's not clear from the current wording.
  • The connection between the first and second sentences of the 10th para of 'Governership' isn't really clear. Presumably Dyppel was considered a good governor?
  • "Krarup has a dim view of the predominantly Dutch and convicted settlers, but skips over Dyppel's countrymen (Danes, Norwegians, and Holsteiners" As currently worded, this is more a comment on Krarup than Dyppel: can it be re-worded to focus more on Dyppel?

More to come. 4u1e (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Esmit was welcomed with warmly" "with" is not needed here; where was he welcomed warmly and by whom?
  • "Dyppel called upon the new administration to review his term, for which he got a public declaration of appreciation" Not sure what is meant by this sentence: whose term was reviewed (presumably Jansen?), and who got a public declaration (presumably Dyppel?). The sentence is ambiguous at present. Also, what is a "public declaration of appreciation"?
  • "not affectionate of the German" Was Esmit German? This has not been mentioned previously.

It's an interesting and well-researched story. Your English is far superior to my French (my only second language), but I recommend that you get the article copyedited by a native English speaker: there's quite a lot of mildly incorrect or non-standard usage in the article. Hope these comments are helpful. 4u1e (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie Smith edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the last time I put this article up for Featured Article status, it was suggested that there was a lot of "peacockery" that was holding the article back. So, I'm looking for someone to make sure the article complies with the NPOV policy, that the "peacockery" is eliminated, and that any syntax errors/poorly written sentences are pointed out and addressed. As a side note, I've had two featured article reviews and one peer review in the past year, & I think I've addressed any leftover comments from those reviews, but if not, I'd love to re-evaluate any of those comments too. I think the article is really close to FA status, but it just needs a few touch ups to put it over the top.

Thanks, Monowi (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't have time to read the whole article, but it still has issues judging by the lead. I removed two excessive terms, but it is still pushing the POV envelope by selective presentation of facts. It's the problem most sports and University related articles have. They tell us all the best and greatest things the athlete has done. While those do establish why an athlete is important, good etc it usually goes too far. It's not POV to say that an athlete that is widely considered to be excellent is, especially when you cite who says so, but it is getting POV when you say they are outstanding and have done x,y, and z unparalleled feats without mentioning that they are simply average or maybe even below average in many other respects. Scanning through the rest of the article there is more. I see things like "Plus, Smith still received accolades even after his playing days." which is something that would simply not appear in NPOV writing not by a fan. Sorry I can't finetooth the whole thing right now, but basically look for anywhere positive wording is used and basically if a non baseball fan wouldn't use the same wording based on the facts at hand, it's probably too positive and thus not NPOV. Also look for everywhere where you say he is the best, did the best, etc, and it probably needs to be balanced by something else or simply reworded to state the fact. For example instead of the bit about 13 Golden Gloves in a row being unequaled, just say he won 13 in a row. That is fact and impressive enough. Maddux won 18, so phrasing it in that way is unecessary. Of course it's a different position but that's sort of the point: if you exclude so and so, there's this amazing fact. That's how sports stories are written, but we can't do that and reach NPOV. I hope I've explained what I'm getting at in a way that helps. - Taxman Talk 04:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments. I completely understand your points about NPOV, and I'm definitely going to go over the article with a renewed focused to help weed these instances like the two you cited. Any additional phrases or sentences you could point out would be welcome. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic Kingdom edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because User:Tezkag72 and I would like to make it a featured article. We've worked on it to get it to good article status. Basically, we'd like to know what stands between it and a featured article so we can make further improvements.

Thanks, Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 14:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, Escape Artist Swyer and I are trying to get Tragic Kingdom to FA status, after which we will get Everything in Time and Boom Box to GA, so we can make everyone's work on the other No Doubt albums worthwhile by getting the whole topic "No Doubt albums" to featured topic. If there's anything standing in the way of Tragic Kingdom becoming an FA, please let us know here. Tezkag72 (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Giants2008 - Be forewarned that I have no experience with reviewing album articles, so I don't have great knowledge of what is expected.

  • Two fair-use images is going to cause a problem at FAC, where minimal use is becoming widespread. Consider dropping the DVD and just having the album cover; if a second image is needed, maybe use one of Stefani. Oh, and the "most famous" bit in the music sample caption may cause POV concerns.   DoneTezkag72 (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released on October 10, 1995 (see 1995 in music)," First, the comma after the parenthesis could be removed. The 1995 in music link can be put in a See also section before the references to get it out of the way. I sense that moving links like this to the bottom will become the next big FAC trend.   DoneTezkag72 (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: "No Doubt released its debut album No Doubt in 1992" This is a redundancy. Here's a great way to remove it: "No Doubt released its self-titled debut album in 1992". That removes the redundancy while keeping the link destination clear.   Done -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 13:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eric Stefani did not like to relinquish creative control to someone outside the band..." Perhaps try "Eric Stefani did not want..."? done -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 13:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after The Beacon Street Collection.   DoneTezkag72 (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Production: "and was interested in mixing No Doubt's new album. After mixing the first single, "Just a Girl", Palmer went on to mix the rest of the record." A lot of mixing going on here. FAC reviewers never like to see repetition, meaning that I suggest modifying this. done -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 13:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The US dollar link can be removed, as similar links are typically deemed unnecessary in US-based topics. done -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 13:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the comments above are nit-picky, but doing them now will save aggravation later. Hopefully you'll find them helpful. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS Spitfire (1776 gunboat) edit

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

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

it is a new article. Thanks, Hollingsworth (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DanaBoomer

Hi! This looks like a great article overall. I'm not sure where you're headed with the article (for example, do you want to take it to GA or are you just looking for suggestions), but I'm going to give you the suggestions that I would if I were reviewing the article for GA status, and you can take them from there!

  • My main concern with the article as it stands right now is referencing. Articles on WP are coming more and more to expect in-line superscript referencing. For example, see the article MS West Honaker. You'll notice that the main editor uses a dual system to give extraneous information it's own section. However, the sections labeled "References" and "Bibliography" are the ones I'm attempting to point out. In the Spitfire article, I notice that you have some books and websites listed under references, as well as parenthetical referencing at the end of some paragraphs. Page numbers, however, are needed, as well as splitting out which information comes from which book.
  • The lead should be expanded. For an article of this length, one to two paragraphs is appropriate, and if only one paragraph, it should be more than two sentences. Because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, it generally doesn't need to be referenced unless you are backing up direct quotes or really controversial information.
  • External links, such as the one at the end of the Action at Valcour Island section, are not really supposed to be included, and it should probably be turned into a reference or external link.

Other than these things, this is a very nice article, and should be fairly easy to get to GA status. I don't watchlist peer reviews, so if you have any questions about my comments, please drop me a note on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One Grand Prix winners edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this list is close to featured standard, and it just needs input so I can iron out any kinks before I take it to FLC. Thanks in advance for your comments, NapHit (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "All figures correct as of 1 November 2008" shouldn't that be 2 November 2008?
  • Why does the country come before the drivers name?
  • How come the "By Nationality" table doesn't have first and last wins.
  • If List of Formula One Grand Prix winners (constructors) is so called shouldn't this be [[List of Formula One Grand Prix winners {drivers)]]?

80.6.0.122 (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Giants2008 - Looks quite good overall, and with a few minor tweaks it should be fine for FLC.

  • Michael Schumacher linked twice in the lead.
  • Citation would be good for Fernando Alonso having the most wins among active drivers.
  • Same for Schumacher having the longest gap between first and last wins.
  • Headings: change First Win to First win, to avoid unnecessary capitalization. Do the same for Last Win.
  • Most of the sources look fine, but what makes www.f1complete.com reliable?

That's all. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this clear that up? NapHit (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Official team and FIA data is fine, but I wish that fan sites weren't included in the list. If you're concerned about it, you could always bring it to Ealdgyth, our resident source checker, and ask what she thinks of it. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleMania XXIV edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it reach FA status. Thanks, iMatthew 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SRX edit

Resolved review by SRX
Lead
  • The event featured ten professional wrestling matches with pre-determined outcomes between the fictional wrestling personalities participating in the event. The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that took place before, during, and after the event were planned by WWE's creative staff. The event starred wrestlers from the Raw, SmackDown and ECW brands: storyline expansions of the promotion where employees are assigned to wrestling brands (or television show) under the WWE banner. - this should be in the BG section. Before having it peer reviewed, Matt you should have updated the OOU style yourself to the more recent ones, like No Way Out (2004) and The Great American Bash (2005).
  • I'll review the rest later if you attempt to make the updates manually on your own;)--SRX 03:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. iMatthew 03:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never meant it in a harsh way, I am just saying that you could have done some copyediting before the PR.--SRX 03:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch-er. iMatthew 12:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've basically got the lead done, and after I read the article up and down, I think that any problems remaining could be fixed in a "step by step" peer review. iMatthew 13:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The show held three main events. During the first main event, The Undertaker defeated World Heavyweight Champion Edge to win the title. - well holding three main events is a supercard, needs to be properly worded. There also needs to be an elaboration as to how many matches there were overall. Excerpt from SummerSlam (2003)'s lead : Nine professional wrestling matches were scheduled on the event's card, which featured a supercard, a scheduling of more than one main event.
  • During the first main event, The Undertaker defeated World Heavyweight Champion Edge to win the title. --> The first was a singles match that featured The Undertaker defeating World Heavyweight Champion Edge to win the title.
  • The second was a standard match involving three wrestlers from the Raw brand, in which WWE Champion Randy Orton defeated challengers Triple H and John Cena to retain the championship. - The lead can be in IN-U, as long as the term is elaborated in the article. So you can just say "triple threat match."
  • During the final main event, Kane defeated ECW Champion Chavo Guerrero to win the title. - well this reads like the ECW Championship match was the final match on the card. --> The other was a singles match, in which Kane defeated ECW Champion Chave Guerrero to win the title.
  • You list the brand for the Raw match, you should list the brands for the other matches.
  • Three featured bouts were featured on the undercard. - this was discussed to be cut out. I recommend using the sentence I wrote for OTE'99: From the six scheduled bouts on the undercard, two received more promotion.
  • In a match where any weapon or outside interference was legal, Floyd Mayweather, Jr. defeated Big Show. - just say No DQ match, or whatever the match type was.
  • The second bout had wrestlers from all three brands fighting in a Money in the Bank ladder match, where the objective is to climb a ladder and retrieve a briefcase hanging from the rafters; CM Punk won the match. - 1) Remove explanation of ladder match 2)Replaced "had" with "involved"
  • Tickets went on sale to the public on November 3, 2007. ---> Tickets to the event went on sale to the public on November 3, 2007.
  • For the second year in a row, WrestleMania broke the record for the highest-grossing pay-per-view in WWE history as well as for the Citrus Bowl, grossing $5.85 million in ticket sales. - comma is needed before the as well. I recommend a semicolon after Bowl.
  • The record-breaking Citrus Bowl attendance record of 74,635 consisting of people from 21 countries, all 50 states, and five Canadian provinces, pumped an estimated $30 million into the local economy. - because of the way this is written a comma is needed after the number.
  • More than one million people ordered the event, grossing $23.8 million in revenue. - ordered the event on what?--SRX 14:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, feel free to cap when you feel these are infact resolved. iMatthew 16:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't resolved the one about the comma after 74,635.--SRX 17:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. iMatthew 17:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BG
  • The prominent rivalry written into WrestleMania on the Raw brand was between Randy Orton, John Cena and Triple H (Paul Levesque), over the WWE Championship. - "scripted" works better versus "written."
  • At the Royal Rumble in January, Cena won the Royal Rumble match, a match where thirty superstars compete in a ring and are eliminated by being thrown over the top rope, by last eliminating Triple H to become the number one contender to the WWE Championship at WrestleMania XXIV. - What is the Royal Rumble itself? A show? A PPV? I also think mentioning that he last eliminated Triple H is non-notable, as Triple H didn't retaliate over that, plus to much Plot.
  • There, Orton got himself intentionally disqualified after slapping the referee, thus retaining the WWE Championship. - better worded as There, Orton intenionally disqualified himself by slapping the referee. + It needs to be stated that he retained due to WWE regulations somewhere.
  • . If Orton won, however, the main event would stay as Orton versus Triple H in a standard wrestling match. Cena won the match, pinning Orton after lifting him onto his shoulders and slamming him down to the mat, a move that Cena dubbed the FU. - too much detail (Plot). Just say he won the match, in the BG it does not matter how he won it, remove the FU.
  • After the match, Triple H, who was the Special Guest Referee, executed a Pedigree to both Cena and Orton, a move where Triple H tucks the opponent's head between his knees and jumps up to slam their head down to the mat.[17] - too much plot, unless you state that this also enhanced the feud then it can stay.SRX 17:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. iMatthew 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the Royal Rumble pay-per-view event in January, Cena won the Royal Rumble match, where thirty wrestlers compete in a ring and are eliminated by being thrown over the top rope. - this has to be in past tense.--SRX 00:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki edit

  • "At the Royal Rumble pay-per-view event in January, Cena won the Royal Rumble match, a match where thirty superstars compete in a ring and are eliminated by being thrown over the top rope and became the number one contender to the WWE Championship at WrestleMania XXIV." - this is a run-on
  • "The next night on Raw, one of WWE's primary television programs, after Cena argued that he deserved another WWE Championship match, Raw General Manager William Regal (Darren Matthews), who is portrayed as a matchmaker and rules enforcer, announced that Cena would face Orton later in the night with the stipulation being if Cena won, he would be added to the WrestleMania match between Triple H and Orton, making it a Triple Threat match, or a standard match that involves three wrestlers." - this is also a run-on
  • Spot should probably be defined the first time it is used. I don't think the contextual clues make it 100% clear.

Nikki311 23:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. iMatthew 22:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 edit

  • Are citations in the lead needed for the match results? They all look to be cited in the body already.
  • Redundancy here: "The record-breaking Citrus Bowl attendance record..." Too many records.
  • At the bottom, I see a few source concerns. References 1 and 12 need publishers, and I see a few questionable sources, including a Flickr photo and betweentheropes.com.
  • Background: "Cena won the Royal Rumble match, a match (repetitive) where thirty superstars (might set off POV alarms; recommend wrestlers instead) compete in a ring (where else would they be competing?) and are eliminated by being thrown over the top rope (comma here) and became the number one contender to the WWE Championship at WrestleMania XXIV."
  • The sentence about the Monday Night Raw after No Way Out is a run-on in my mind. I would stop and start a new sentence after Regal announced the match.
  • Production: First off, great idea for a section. This will eventually set a new standard for all wrestling articles to follow. I'd like a change to this sentence, though: "In the March 2008 issue of WWE Magazine, WWE set designer Jason Robinson revealed that a steel rig with a tarpaulin roof would be built above the ring itself to prevent rain." A roof can't prevent rain; only Mother Nature can. This should say that it was to prevent rain from falling on the ring.

Overall, I think it still needs work before being sent to FAC. Keep working on it, though, because it has great potential. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! iMatthew 22:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton edit

Sorry to have been a while getting here. I've only been able to look at lead and Background but as you see, I have quite a long list, mainly of minor points. I also have a general question, which has occurred to me before, in relation to other articles: why is so much detail thought necessary in wrestling articles, compared to those for other sports?

  • Lead
    • "entirely outdoors"? I would have though "entirely" was superfluous since, surely, tournaments are either indoors or outdoors.
    • "Nine professional wrestling matches were scheduled on the event’s card, which featured a supercard, a scheduling of more than one main event". A bit clumsy and repetitive. Slight rewording would remove repetition and clarify, e.g.: “"Nine professional wrestling matches were programmed for the event, which featured a supercard, a scheduling of more than one main bout”.
    • Next sentence: "first" requires more definition, e.g. "The first of these was..."
    • Need to identify ECW – spell out on first mention
    • Clarify what title Kane won, since the words "to win the title" have been used earlier in the paragraph
    • In the third para, "thirty million dollars" should appear as $30 million (see last line). There are also some no-break space issues with 21 countries, 50 states.
      • How do you fix this? iMatthew 22:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
    • "eight professional wrestling matches..." It was nine in lead
    • "different" in first line is unnecessary
    • "The prominent rivalry..." Suggest "predominant" (as used later)
    • Transfer "that same night" to the beginning of its sentence: "That same night, Triple-H also became..."
    • Two number one contenders? How does that work?
    • Delete "after" before "Cena"
    • (next sentence) "...enforcer, then announced..."
    • "in the night" should be "that night"
    • "being if Cena won..." should be "that if Cena should win,..."
    • "...a Triple Threat match, or a standard match..." Are these alternatives? If not, the "or" is not necessary.
    • "If Orton won" should be "If Orton should win..."
    • Last sentence of para looks in need of a "however": "However, Cena won the match, and was..."
    • "Undertaker won the match..." Isn’t he called The Undertaker? Check several mentions
    • "last eliminating...": "last" should be an adverb, "lastly" or "finally"
    • "Edge claimed..." would be better as "Edged predicted..."
    • Could there be some brief indication as to why Paul Wight’s return was a "surprise"?
    • "...the next match Flair loses would result in a forced retirement for Flair." Suggest reword: "...the next match Flair lost would result in his forced retirement".
    • "Flair also said" - no need for "also"
    • "Flair mentioned that he was asked..." should be "Flair mentioned that he had been asked..."
    • Also, "Flair, however, had refused..."
    • What is the purpose of the words "from ECW" after the bracketed information? They don’t appear to make sense
    • "...to determine the participants in the match..." Need to say which match.
    • "on the edition on that night’s edition.."? Remove "on the edition"
    • Full stop required after (Nelson Frazier Jr) as sentence ends here.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your general question, it's because wrestling is not mainly a sport, but a scripted work and is sports entertainment (film and action), which requires background to how the scripts worked and how the event cameabout.SRX 20:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. iMatthew 22:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenloft (D&D module) edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a GA for over a year, and we feel there have been enough improvements since then to make it at least an A-class. We intend to move it towards a FA nomination. Any helpful comments and criticisms would be appreciated.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that this article is nearly ready for FAC, but needs some polishing in points that editors familiar with the article would be unable to catch.

Thanks, haha169 (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich 2006 serial murders edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has now reached good article status, and I want to see in what ways the article could firther be improved. I am interested in weather editors feel the two fair use images qualify under the non-free content criteria or not, I already removed non-free images of the victims. Is the article missing anything? Is prose sufficient for explainig things or are there sections where a table or some other illustrative device may be of use?

Thanks, Million_Moments (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

  • "The Ipswich 2006 serial murders took place during November and December 2006 when the bodies of five murdered women were discovered at different locations near Ipswich, Suffolk, England" - this sentence makes it seem like the discovery of the bodies was the event itself, perhaps "Investigation into the Ipswich 2006 serial murders began during November and December 2006 the discovery of the bodies of five murdered women at different locations near Ipswich, Suffolk, England"
  • "A cause of death for the other victims" is a little clunky, perhaps smooth it over and make it into one sentence by incorporating the previous comment about Alderton and Clennell.
  • Last to sentences in the lead could be merge to read less bullet-point-ish
  • Infobox is fine, rest of the lead is good
  • "Police investigation" as a header, were there other investigations? Why not just "investigation"?
  • "A senior investigator with the Metropolitan Police, Commander Dave Johnston, was reported " reported by whom?
  • I have AfD'd Stewart Gul as I do not believe him notable enough for his own article, and recommended a redirect to Ipswich 2006 serial murders
  • "As of 18 December, the number of officers involved in the investigation had increased to 650 including 350 officers from 40 other police forces" - a tense confusion, "as of" has presumably been left from when the case was still open, given that it is closed and followed by a "had increased" it ought to be "By 18 December"
  • "Tania Nicol" you have wikilinked the second (or possibly multiple) use of "missing"
  • the end of the first section under court appearances has two one line paragraphs that need to be merged
  • "Steve Wright biography" this section is a bit clumsy and difficult to place within the rest of the article, perhaps put it in at the point where he is nicked. Or you could consider cutting it out as he has his own article
  • Media coverage section has a load of two/three line paragraphs that need to be merged together
  • ... as does the appear section
  • the article on steve wright is already linked to in the article so can be removed from the see also

Hope these things help, good article. SGGH speak! 20:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lincolnshire, Illinois edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am aiming to get Lincolnshire, Illinois to featured article status, and have already nominated for WikiProject Chicago A-class review; I'd like as much feedback as I can get, so I can save the FAC reviewers some trouble.

Thanks, Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 04:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch's Review edit

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC. While it has improved, it still needs some work before FAC I think.

  • The most difficult criteria for most articles to reach for FA is that it is written at a professional level of English. I do not think this is there yet. A few examples:
    • Lincolnshire is an affluent American village in Vernon Township, a southern Lake County, Illinois locale, and is a suburb of Chicago, which is located in Cook County just to the south. could be something like Lincolnshire is an affluent village in Vernon Township in southern Lake County, in the U.S. state of Illinois. It is a suburb of Chicago, which is in Cook County to the south ... Done --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 16:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Midwest village is a suburb of the city of Chicago, being situated in the southern reaches of Lake County, and therefore located in the extreme northeast of the state of Illinois. could be something like The village is a suburb of Chicago in the southern reaches of Lake County, which is in the extreme northeast of Illinois in the American Midwest. Done --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 16:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Art Festival permits local artists to display their work to the rest of the village and other visitors. could be something like Artists display their work to locals and visitors at the Art Festival. All Examples (And a little bit more) have been dealt with --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 16:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Illinois Route 22 within Lincolnshire borders on a sunny afternoon. (caption) - I am not sure what this means, frankly Fixed (Lol) --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 23:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can ask for a copy edit from one of the editors listed in the last section of WP:PRV
  • According to the United States Census Bureau, the village has a total area of 4.4 square miles (11.5 km²), of which, 4.4 square miles (11.4 km²) of it is land and 0.04 square miles (0.1 km²) of it (0.68%) is water. this needs a ref, also is a one sentence paragraph, as is the one before it. Short paragraphs (1 or 2 sentences) should be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve the flow of the article.
    • Question I think I've fixed it. However, the coordinate sentence, in my honest opinion, cannot really be incorporated effectively into the rest of the section. What's your opinion? --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 16:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would look at some model articles - Youngstown, Ohio is an FA, for example. I thought the coordinate sentence could be the first sentence of the first paragraph (combine it with the current second paragraph). If this follows the Youngstown model, that would also address Tony's comment below. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox picture is very similar to the image later Image:Lincolnshire IL Village Hall 2.JPG - I would avoid two very similar pics.
    • Should I just place the pic located in the infobox down there, instead? There's got to be a better way to solve the problem. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 23:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would put the picture you think best illustrates the village in the infobox, and perhaps a picture of the fire department or some other service in the spot where the second city hall pic is now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid words like currently, give date instead "As of 2008..." Done --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 23:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book refs need more info, so fix Various authors: "Lincolnshire Information Report", A History of Lincolnshire, 2004. What is the publisher, for example? See WP:CITE
    • Maybe Done I don't know how I can rephrase it in any other way. I may have fixed it, but really, not more information about the source can be added. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 16:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help, Ruhrfisch. I have just one last question, beyond all the others in this peer review session, to ask you.
Do you know any good, faithful copyeditors? I have already asked most of the people on the page before for copyedits, and they either haven't responded to me, left me early, or took a really long time. I don't have much luck in that sector. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 16:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not have any for sure ones. Another place to look is at the old WP:LOCE - the group is defunct, but the editors listed there might help with a copyedit. I also noted that the subsections in the History section could perhaps be renamed per WP:HEAD (avoid repeating "History" in subsection titles in the History section). What about adding dates, or Founding and Modern era? Another small detail to watch for - refs should be in numerical order. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger's Review edit

  • Can you add a {{Geographic Location}} template at the bottom so I can tell which towns are adjacent to it?
  • The WP:LEAD has some details that don't belong such as:
    many of these parks contain tennis courts and other sports facilities
    It also experiences a humid temperate climate similar to most other communities within miles of the Great Lakes.
  • Early history should be sequential with 1673 events preceding 1768 ones.
  • "the town was a thriving community with a blacksmith's shop, sawmill, country store, and a church". - How about a population estimate.
  • Did anything happen between 1855 and the end of WWI?
  • Any demographics on double income families?
  • How big are the companies in the economy section either in terms of employees or revenues?
    • Question I don't mean to sound indignant, but how would this relate to the village? It seems like something that'd describe the companies themselves. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 00:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are any of the parks state parks or are they all local?

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/November_2008&oldid=704356132"