Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/November 2012

< 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.

Michigan State Trunkline Highway System

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 at a stage where some feedback before a future ACR and FAC would be beneficial. The centennial of the system's creation is next May, so I'm aiming for a TFA slot for the article. Unlike most highway articles, which are on individual roadways, this is on the whole system for a US state, so we don't have a "formula" worked out in terms of content and organization that's been honed through multiple FACs. Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 05:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agneepath (2012 film)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after passing the prerequisites to be a GA, I want to push it further to emerge as a FA. I would welcome editors to provide a wider perspective to this article.

Thanks, S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whats the necessity for the "themes and analysis" section? All it has is some quotes from critics, the inference of which can be interpreted from the "critical response" section. These kind of sections are usually present only if some party has analysed the response to the film, and made interpretations out of it. Secret of success (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it basically is a listing of all the major themes running through the film as identified by the critics. The "critical response" section doesn't deal with these issues. So, I decided to shift them here. I can merge the two sections, if need be. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but still quoting such large amounts of text is against WP:QUOTEFARM and the section is also too small if the excessive listings are removed. A merge would be appropriate, after reducing the quotes. Secret of success (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Messines

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 made many small changes to it before altering my laptop settings and seeing that it already had a GA rating. I did a much more detailed revision to consolidate the small changes and add material and sources, similar to those of the other Passchendaele pages. All are now B-class except this one and 2nd Passchendaele. I want to work on bringing all of them up to A-class or GA next and then use the experience to branch out into article assessing. A peer review of the page will give me a model to use on the rest and allow readers to benefit from a better article.

Thanks, Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: this article is progressing quite well, IMO. Good work. I have a few minor nitpicks (mainly on style):
    • inconsistent caps: "Western front of the First World War" (in the lead) v. "Western Front of the First World War" (in the infobox); DONE.
    • inconsistent presentation: " 80m (264 feet)" v "50 metres (160 ft); DONE.
    • dashes and spaces: "11 May–6 June" probably should be "11 May – 6 June" (there are other examples of similar constructions);
      • Oh dear... it will take a lot of time to put spaces in. Is there no discretion?
    • in the Footnotes, some of your page ranges uses endashes, but others don't.
    • in the Footnotes, the page ranges might be better presented as "pp." rather than singular "p."; DONE.
    • I suggest moving a couple of the images, or adding a couple more, to break up the text a little. For instance in the "British offensive preparations" seciton, the image "File: Lone Tree Crater 2009.jpg" could be moved down a little to break up the text a little;
  • Labatt's been working on maps so I'll get in touch. (I'm inclined to put maps and pictures on the right hand side) I'll shift the pictures a bit and see what you think.DONE.Keith-264 (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • at ACR or FAC, there might possibly be a question raised about the source for "File:Battle of Messines - planning map (cropped).jpg". Currently the source is the generic "www.awm.gov.au", but at ACR or FAC, they will probably want a direct link (if one exists), or a book with a page number;
      • Sadly I'm a beginner with uploads so I can't do that. (I had a try with some pictures from The Dover Patrol for Operation Hush but reached an impasse with the aficionados.)
    • "File:Battle of Messines - Map.jpg": probably has a similar issue, in that its listed source is the generic "www.dean.usma.edu";
    • in the References, are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers that could be added for the Boraston, Brown, Bulow, Cleland, Simpson and Stewart works?
      • Some of the books don't have ISBNs but I'll have another look. What is an OCLC number?
        • Similar to an ISBN. Not all works have ISBNs (I think those before 1965 don't - not exactly sure of this point). So if you can't find an ISBN, it can help a researcher if you include an OCLC number. They can be found at www.worldcat.org. I've added a few in for you. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the External links, for consistency "The Plugstreet Archaeology Project" link might be better presented by embedding the link as the others have been.
      • I have tried to leave previous work on the page and fit additions round it, so quite a lot was there before I got stuck in. I haven't encountered some of the technical aspects of previous work, so don't always know how but I'll have a try. TRIED & Failed.Keith-264 (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries, I've made the tweak myself. In doing so, though I notice that some of the items in the External links section are actually internal links. E.g. they should go in a See also section, but only if they aren't already linked in the article. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regards back, hope you feel better.Keith-264 (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ISBNs, I can add some ISBNs from later editions and reprints of at least some ot the volumes but they won't be from the copies I've used. Will an ISBN from a reprint or facsimile edition do?Keith-264 (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I'd suggest adding the OCLCs. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Footnotes, I found a couple of the links didn't work "Edmonds 1927, p. 353" (should this be Edmonds 1948?) and "Portal Belgium.be 2012".

Comments. - Dank (push to talk) "The Battle of Messines took place from 7–14 June 1917, on the Western Front during the First World War. The British Second Army under the command of General Herbert Plumer launched an offensive ...": I'd go with: The Battle of Messines (7–14 June 1917) was a First World War offensive launched by the British Second Army under the command of General Herbert Plumer ..."

  • "forced German Army": forced the German army
  • "running north about the villages": north of the villages
  • "Caprture": Capture
  • "the French army, which was suffering a collapse in morale and many mutinous outbreaks and position British troops as the prelude to a larger assault in the Ypres Salient.": "position" is too far from "would", and might be read as a noun.
  • "many mutinous outbreaks": outbreaks of mutiny - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll sort them out. Trouble with "north of the villages" is that they're on the ridge. I'll alter it to Plugstreet–Messines–Wytschaete–Mt. Sorrel.Keith-264 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added three paragraphs from Farndale to the text, can put them in a note if preferred.Keith-264 (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Oz, just saw your recent edits. In the books the titles have the colon printed after a space. Is it wrong copy this? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a template page for weights and measures converters? I tried {{convert|144000|tons|tonnes}} etc but no luck. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, on the first point with the colons: IMO colons are usually presented without a space in front of them. That's just my experience, but I'm a professional soldier, not a professional writer, so I'm not an expert (interestingly enough, though, the Defence writing guide on my desk agrees with me on this point and it is usually fairly much in tune with the WP:MOS). You may of course disagree its (the Defence writing manual) guidance as it certainly holds no weight here. If you feel it is necessary, I'm not wedded to it and you are of course welcome to change it back. On the second point, "contact, wait out". I'll have a hunt around and get back to you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does this do the trick: {{convert|144000|t|MT}}? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I wasn't sure about Wiki usage for book titles when I did the book references so copied what I saw in the books. If it's wiki to modernise obsolete punctuation I'll follow the wiki system. I'm hoping that one of the things I'll get from the peer review is a better idea of the writing conventions (like the A – B or A–B question) so I won't have to plough through the other pages sorting out mistakes. Looking things up for myself hasn't worked well, the only Wiki advice pages that I've found helpful, are the ones recommended by more experienced contributors like thee.Keith-264 (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{convert|144000|t|MT}} doesn't seem to work. I used a calculator instead.Keith-264 (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Must we have anachronistic national symbols for Dominion contingents? If we must then shouldn't we have the same for Bavarian, Wurttemburg, Saxon and Prussian etc forces?Keith-264 (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keith, while I can see arguments for an against both sides, I think you would save yourself a lot of drama by putting them all in there. For whatever reason, the flag icons draw a lot of drive by attention, when in reality they add almost nothing to the quality of the article. The interesting thing (from an Australian point of view), as that our soldiers have flown both the Australian and Union flag (at different times) while fighting, right up to and including during the Second World War. A lot of Australians don't know this, though, so if you remove them you will probably get POV editors adding them back in. For an example of both during the Second World War, view these articles: Battle of Sattelberg and Battle of Wareo (these actually occured during the same campaign). As such, I'd probably suggest a path of least resistance. It's your call, though, and personally I don't mind either way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me to be historically illiterate, pre-Statute of Westminster, 1931; I'm buggered if I'll go to the trouble though, drive-by or no. ;O). Are there any German aficionados who can help?Keith-264 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that I've been writing Anzac as in the OH and not ANZAC, is this a mistake?Keith-264 (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another can of worms, I'm afraid, Keith. There have been some spectacular arguments about this in the past. I personally don't think it matters which one you use. If you have chosen one style because that is what is used by the main source, then that seems a good enough reason for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've been wriggling on the hook over A – B rather than A–B because I'll have to re-do them on every page but If that's what it takes....;O)Keith-264 (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis done; I may have overdone the nowraps though.Keith-264 (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I fear that I have not explained the issue with the dashes very well. That issue had been fixed (I did it earlier). What I was trying to say was that this is correct "1–2 June", but that this isn't correct "16 April–9 May 1917". What has happened now is that we now have "1 – 2 June" (which is not correct), but we also have "16 April – 9 May 1917" (which is correct). Apologies for not explaining this more clearly. At the end of the day, it is a really minor thing, though. I will go through and try to fix this for you if you want (please let me know). There is one issue, though, outstanding that I'm not sure how to fix. It is the issue with the the footnotes "Edmonds 1927, p. 353" and "Portal Belgium.be 2012". When I click on them, they don't seem to link to anything. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
B

Oh **!"£%^s. I thought that the – must have gaps so I've put them in on all the other pages too. PS what's the difference between ndash and nowrap?Keith-264 (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Edmonds 1927 was from the paragraphs I parachuted in from the main page. I forgot to do the same for the references attached.Keith-264 (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portal of Belgium was an attempt to find a source for the language comments (I don't have a literary reference) but again, I forgot to do the reference.Keith-264 (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the gaps out of the 1–10 June dates that I put in.Keith-264 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched through wiki and still can't find anything like a relief map of the ridge or the Gheluvelt plateau. Any ideas?Keith-264 (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look around and couldn't find anything free. Sorry. Maybe, if you post a request on WP:Graphic Lab for someone to make one, you might get lucky. Having said that, in the past I've not had any success when I asked there for maps to be created. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://archive.org/details/struggleinflande00gibb there are some maps in here from 1919 which I can try to upload. Will there be any copyright complications?Keith-264 (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListFiles&limit=50&user=Keith-264 Done this, any good?Keith-264 (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I think those licences are okay, but I'm not an image expert. With the maps, though, I'd probably suggest cropping them to remove the text around them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the red lined one might be best but I have exhausted my computer mojo to get as far as uploading them. I'll have to leave the rest to someone who knows what to do. Having sorted out the – problem, I'm having second thoughts because I've spaced all of them, 1914 – 1918 rather than 1914–1918 for example.Will this matter? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at cropping the maps on Commons. I think what I did was okay. Regarding the dashes, it seems a minor issue, but someone might take issue with it (it really just depends upon who is reviewing). AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We bow in awe of your Wiki-fu. Thanks for doing the cropping I'm trying them out now.Keith-264 (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos, do you know how to get rid of the "cite error" tag here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hush#Notes I've shifted templates around but to no avail. As usual the advice page is useless.Keith-264 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Ehlers

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I wrote this article shortly after Jürgen Ehlers' death (and note with some pride that, in the meantime, it has been translated to French and apparently helped make the German version more complete, as well). I've now updated it with information found in the special issue of General Relativity and Gravitation published in Ehlers' honour in 2009. With that, it should be reasonably complete, and I want to get it to FA status. It's been some time since I got an article ready for that (the last one was general relativity, I think), and I might be a bit rusty. Any helpful input would be greatly appreciated! Markus Poessel (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, Part 1 of 2

Approaching this from a non-science (but interested) perspective.

Lead
  • I'm always a little hesitant to include the word "notable" in an article, especially a lead section. The definition of the word is different outside of Wikipedia than it is in it, if that makes any sense. Anyway, the first sentence could omit the word and perhaps be a tiny bit more specific, and the first sentence of the second paragraph could include that he was known among [insert group of people here] for..., etc.
    • "notable" removed (this and later inset bullet points comments by Markus Poessel)
  • "relativity group at Hamburg University" - Not quite sure what this means on first reading.
    • replaced by "relativity research group" - that should be clearer.
  • The hyphen after "lecturer" seems superfluous, unless there's something I'm missing there.
    • Oops, that should be lecture- since the word is "lectureship", not "lecturership". Fixed.
  • Since you already have a wikilink to Germany at the end of the first paragraph, I recommend removing the one in the first sentence, since it seems a tad more awkward. Either way, you'll have to get rid of one of them at least.
    • OK, looking at a few other biographical articles, wikilinking "German" is indeed unusual and, I agree, awkward. Wikilink removed.
  • No comma needed after "foundations of general relativity"
    • Removed.
  • Since general relativity is wikilinked above, you'll want to remove the second link here.
    • Hey, I like linking to that article! OK, you're right; second link removed.
  • The sentence with the list of accomplishments simply seems too long, and its complexity makes it awkward to read. Don't be afraid to separate these out to give them some air to breathe, even if it makes the lead section longer.
    • I've tried breaking it up into two smaller sentences. Also dropped the "notable" and talked more generally about "worked", "formulated", "proved" etc.
Biography
Early career
  • "went on to study" can simply be "studied"
    • Changed.
  • "("Staatsexamen")" Not sure if you need this, but if you do, I think it needs to be in italics. Check the MOS.
    • I'd like to keep it, but you're right - WP:MOS says to italicize isolated foreign words that are not proper name.
  • The phrase "While earlier, the main..." should probably be "Prior to his arrival,".
    • Changed.
  • The rest of the sentence has quite a few interjecting phrases that make its syntax quite awkward. If you need to add a clause in that explains a particular theory, I don't think anyone would have a problem with separating out a couple sentences so that you can make it clearer. As it is, it appears as though the writing is terse (which is good) but awkward (which is not so good).
    • OK; I tried to break things up a bit.
  • The same sort of goes for the sentence beginning with "He then held teaching and research positions..." and ends with "full professor of physics". It's very, very long. Have someone read this out loud to you to see what I mean.
    • OK, I broke that sentence into smaller ones.
Munich
  • "brought into play" - The phrase feels too colloquial here. Perhaps a clearer way of saying it would be just "suggested"?
    • Agreed; changed.
  • This is something I noticed in earlier sections too, but be careful about lists of people. It starts to sound like the social page of an old newspaper after a while: "The supper was well attended by person, person, person," ad nauseam. Just because these folks have their own pages doesn't mean they need to be listed.
    • I see what you mean, but I do think it's important to have those connections between biographical articles. Who worked with whom is an important aspect of a scientific career. Incidentally, having that list is not an original idea of mine; that's what Ashtekar finds worth mentioning in the article I'm quoting.
  • "post-docs" You'll have to explain this term.
    • I've wikilinked instead.
  • Delete "go on to"
    • Fixed.
  • Scientific American should be italicized.
    • Fixed
Potsdam
  • Delete "He was successful, and". Begin with "On..."
    • Deleted.
  • "officially decided to found" - Did they officially decide to found it on this date, or was it founded on this date? If it's the latter, simply saying "founded the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Potsdam" might be less wordy.
    • It was the date of the decision to establish the institute. The founding presumably came later; it's one thing to decide to have an institute, and another to actually found it.
  • The clause "when the institute started operating on April 1, 1995" would make more sense at the beginning of that sentence.
    • Switched as per this comment.
  • Maybe wikilink "emeritus".
    • Linked
Honours and awards
  • I'm thinking "Honours and awards" should be its own section, not part of the biography. It's related to his life, yes, but also his work, and seems to me like it could easily be split apart and placed below "Work".
    • Good idea. Done.
  • Delete "In the course of his career,"
    • Done.
  • Remember to stay with a summary style. I'd rather know the general significance of his acceptance into all of these societies than read them in a laundry list.
    • I would think it's important for honours to be listed, even though it does make for list-like reading. The two current FA physicist biographies where I could find honours do it in two different ways - as a genuine list for Stephen Hawking, and as a text that, by its nature, is not very far from a laundry list, for Ben Gascoigne. I'll leave this as is for now.
  • I think "trianually" doesn't have a hyphen.
    • You're correct; also, this should be triennially. The official website I was quoting from gets that wrong.
  • Italicize General Relativity and Gravitation.
    • Done.


Got to go for a run. More to come later. Runfellow (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, part 2 of 2
Work
  • Sort of like "notable", "important" is hard to define in an objective way, and as such it veers a little too far from NPOV.
    • Removed.
  • "theory's" should be "theories'" because there are two that he tried to clarify.
    • OK, this was misleading. The single "theory" this refers to is general relativity. I've changed the wording accordingly.
  • Maybe wikilink Heuristic?
    • Done.
Exact solutions
  • The "in effect" interjection here seems to be trying to explain not only Einstein's equations but also what he was trying to do with them. As such, it's simply too much to try to cram into one interjection.
    • Fixed
  • covariant goes to a disambiguation. Is there a more specific definition you'd like to use?
    • Proper link set
  • Delete interjections "in fact,"
    • Deleted
  • Maybe wikilink invariantly?
    • Wikilinked.
  • Delete "To this end,"
    • There needs to be something to make clear what the connection with the previous sentence is. I changed this to "In order to do so", but "To this end" would have conveyed that meaning as well.
  • Probably delete "seminal". Not that I'm disagreeing, but sounds like inserted POV.
    • Deleted.
  • Seems like Hamburg Bible should be italics, not quotes. Not sure.
    • In WP:MOS on italics, I don't see this particular use case; seems to me the quotation marks are the way to go.
  • The phrase "systematic exposition of the properties and characteristics of exact solutions to" seems overly complex.
    • Broke it up in two, somewhat simplified.
  • "not quite begun" should probably be "not yet begun"
    • Changed.
  • If, like in the case of the Ehlers-Geren-Sachs theorem, there is an article dedicated to these subjects, you probably need to use Template:Main at the top of the section.
    • On re-reading Template:Main, that should work for the Ehlers-Geren-Sachs theorem, but e.g. not for gravitational lensing (since I'm only talking about Ehlers' work on the subject, not gravitational lensing in general). But I've added it for Ehlers-Geren-Sachs.
General Notes
  • To be honest, I'm a little skeptical that the "Work" section is a necessary part of the article, at least as it is written. Take a look at the Featured Articles for Physics and astronomy bios and you'll see that all of them are written in a completely chronological style. They include brief overviews of their work, but the vast majority of the articles are focused on the actions of the person, not a specific overview of their scientific work. The information regarding their work is typically integrated into the rest of the article.
    • I've looked at the excellend and also at the good articles, and what I'm doing here seems to be the same as in Albert Einstein - a biographical section, and then a "scientific career" section that is mostly, but not perfectly chronological. Following that lead, I've renamed the "Work" section "Scientific career". I think this splitting makes sense - for the scientific work, you want to summarize by topic; otherwise, you'd lose cohesion.
  • It looks like there are a lot of repeated wikilinks. Check WP:MOSLINK, but in most cases, there really shouldn't be more than two links to a page per article, once in the intro, once in the article.
    • I removed all the repeated wikilinks I could find.
  • It's tough to write something like this, because it is notable and important, yet hard for the average reader to grasp. As a result, you have to strike a fine balance between leaving the reader wondering what you're talking about by simply depending on wikilinks to let other people find their way through various articles or interjecting quick explanations of each of these concepts in this article. That's how this ended up with so many "that is, ..." interjections, which often confuse instead of clarify here. If you haven't already, go through Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. No, you don't have to "dumb it down", but you're going to want to make it as accessible as possible. Right now, the second half of the article feels more like a literature review in a reviewed journal than an encyclopedic article.
    • Making things accessible is exactly what I tried to do in the second half. I know (and, some time ago, contributed to) Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, and the current state of the article reflects my attempt to find a balance between explaining Ehlers' work on the one hand, and not getting too much into detail on the other. The article has to stay encyclopedic; in a popular science book about Ehlers, I'd take a much longer run-up than is possible here.
    • If you find it difficult to approach the subject from a more casual perspective, you may just want to tag it with Template:Technical at the top and ask some people for help to simplify it. No shame in that.
      • Well, yes, seeing that making things less technical is what I'm getting paid for, there would be some shame in that - and I think the problem here is deeper (see previous comment).
  • In many cases, the original published article from Ehlers is a source, which is okay, but even if these were peer reviewed and well accepted, you're going to want a bit more than that in many cases. Something that might help with this is including layman reaction to Ehlers' work, which helps give the reader a better connection and understanding of the subject at hand (even if it feels perhaps too simple). For example: The New York Times referred to [person] as... etc.
    • If there were layman reactions, I'd have included them. I did include quite a number of articles in which other scientists comment on Ehlers's work (the memorial issue of General Relativity and Gravitation contained useful material in that respect), and also statements from various obituaries.
  • Optional, but I'd turn the references into two columns. You can do this simply by turning {{Reflist}} into {{Reflist|2}}.
    • Done. I like the result; that was a very useful suggestion.

Please don't take any of the above as any sort of "serious" criticism. I realize these reviews can sometimes seem like someone is jumping all over you, and that is certainly not my intent. Clearly this is worthy of your time and effort, and I think anyone can recognize the serious amount of work you've put into this. Best of luck for improving the article, and please let me know if I can be of any assistance in the future. Runfellow (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thorough reading of the text, and for your helpful suggestions! I appreciate the time you've taken to go through the article. Unless you object, I'll address each of your points (probably mostly with something along the lines of "Done!") directly in your comments sections; I remember this practice from the FARs in which I participated, and assume that it is acceptable here, as well. Markus Poessel (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool with however you'd like to address them. Some folks like to use strikethrough too, but it's a matter of personal taste. Runfellow (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine. Strikethrough is a good idea, too, I think - makes it clear at a glance what I've already addressed. Markus Poessel (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now addressed all the comments, including saying why I disagree with a few select of them. Thanks again for your helpful feedback! Markus Poessel (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Wadewitz

Sorry these are so late! I just have a few comments.

  • He only had one doctoral student?
  • I couldn't really follow the "Ehler's group" section, but perhaps this is just one of those areas that can't be explained to a lay person? The rest I could make my way through. I'm sure I didn't understand everything, but I could get the gist.
  • The "Cosmology" section and other parts of the article seem to be cited to the original papers. Is this allowed in science articles? What is the consensus on that?
  • If you are going to take this to FA, I would be worried that some people are going to complain about the lack of biographical detail. You'll just have to be prepared to defend yourself with the "no published sources" defense.

I hope this helps! Wadewitz (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your helpful comments! I've added one additional doctoral student, and would think there are many more, but cannot right now think of a systematic way of uncovering them. I've tried to make the "Ehlers group" section more accessible, but it is, by its very nature, technical. I'm glad that you got the gist of all the rest, though! I've added an additional reference to the cosmology section; looking over the article, the only papers without secondary sources are those on history of science and epistemology. Re-reading WP:OR, I don't find anything particularly objecting to using primary sources in this particular way, that is, to cite an article by X on Y to support a statement that X wrote on the topic of Y.
I'm somewhat surprised that you talk about a "lack of biographical detail" - compared with what is known about your average person meeting the WP criteria for the notability of scientists, I was quite surprised about the comparative wealth of information about Ehlers. Anyway, it's good preparation for what might come up in the FA candidacy. Markus Poessel (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that listing only two doctoral students is misleading - either list them all or none. That's up to you, though. On the point of biographical detail, I'm only comparing the article to the average FA biography. :) Wadewitz (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I think I'll stay with listing two, for the following reason: Whenever somebody finds a reference to a new student, they can add him or her. That way we will end up with a more complete list over time. As for the average FA biography: That's probably about someone much more famous - or someone whose biographical details have been the talk of the town! Markus Poessel (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments addressing changes

The article is definitely better now, especially in terms of clarity. Part of it may be just the fact that this is my second time through it, but I really think you've done a lot to clarify the "work" section here. You deserve some serious credit for taking up a rather difficult subject. Some final notes, to address a few things you and others have mentioned above:

  • You mentioned that you changed it to "lecture-", but it's actually "lectur-" right now. Unless we're talking about an alternate spelling... actually, not going to lie, a cross between a physicist and Lecter might make for some good cinema.
    • "Hannibal Lecturer". I see what you mean. That is scary. User:Dewritech has kindly fixed this, along with a few other things in the category "clean-up".
  • The sentence beginning with "Ehlers' work on the construction..." feels a bit out of place, chronologically speaking, and it is the only sentence in that bloc that doesn't regard the group specifically. It might work better as the first sentence of the following paragraph, before "In 1961, having become", but I'm not sure if that still works chronologically.
    • I've separated the doctoral work (which belongs directly to his academic career) from the more general comment about his influence on the group.
  • the clause "as the director of its gravitational theory department" might work better in that sentence after "in Munich". That way all that other stuff won't interject in the middle of your main thought.
    • I've removed the additional explanation about the Max Planck Society. It did distract from the key statement, and anyone who cares can follow the wikilink.
  • To avoid pronoun confusion in the sentence beginning with "When he joined the institute in 1971" (with Biermann, the subject of the previous sentence), I'd recommend switching "he" here with "Ehlers". Then "Ehlers also became" can become "he also became".
    • Good catch. Changed.
  • For lists, you'll want to be consistent with whether you want to use the Oxford comma. The list ending with "and Brandon Carter", for example, uses it, but most do not. WP:MOS says it's personal preference; American Institute of Physics MOS says use it. I don't care too much which way you want to go, but you'll want to make sure it's consistent.
    • Changed all the lists to the Oxford comma style.
  • I'm always suspicious of the word "arguably", but I'm not sure how else you can phrase it.
    • The "arguably" does smell of WP:OR. I've looked up the Bicak article and, seeing how enthusiastic even Chandrasekhar was about the Kerr solution, have changed this to "one of the most important solutions of all".
  • I don't think you'll have an issue with the lack of detail issue mentioned by Wadewitz above. Simply stated, if it ain't there, you can't use it. There are only a limited amount of biographical sources available, and the context of Ehler's work seems more important than his personal life (with the possible exception of the "popularizing science" stuff.)

I still think some of the career stuff could be integrated into the bio (to give a more chronological picture of who influenced who on what subject and when), but it's not something I'm going to lose sleep over. If you're happy with the structure, I'm happy. I'd probably shoot for a copyedit from the fellows over at WP:GUILD next (they're quite good at getting to the heart of things) and then go for GA soon. Since it sounds like you're very familiar with the subject, I'd say it might be worth your effort to try to come with a few more things relating to Ehlers for the Wikimedia Commons (for example, a graph or chart.)
Runfellow (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your feedback, and also for the exclusive barn star! I haven't used the WP:GUILD for my previous articles (and skipped the GA stage), but will give the guild a try this time. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zojoi

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 following the events of a new video game development company called Zojoi, LLC which has acquired many of the old ICOM Simulations intellectual properties. After noticing a severe lack of information regarding ICOM Simulations and Zojoi on Wikipedia, I decided to do some research into various different sources to try and get some information about Zojoi and the games they are working on.

After editing a few other pages that already existed to try and fill in some blanks and tidy up, I made an entirely new page from scratch and built it using as much detailed, verifiable, notable, and neutral information as possible. It's the first time I've ever undergone building a Wikipedia page of this scale from scratch, and I want to make sure I did it right. This is why I'm requesting peer reviews from the WikiProject Video Games to see if this page is any good or not. If it needs more work, I'd love to know what so I can try and make some fixes. Likewise, if there are some things done exceptionally well, I'd love to know what I did right too. And since this entire page was just built from scratch, I guess everything on this page needs reviewing since its brand new.

The last time I tried making a new page, I got a lot of feedback saying I didn't follow procedures or what not, and since it had been a while since I did a lot of major work on Wikipedia, I guess I wasn't aware of new policies and changes to existing ones which caused work I did to be deleted (or at least nominated for deletion if they haven't been deleted yet). But I've done my best to try and abide by the guidelines and get as much information as I can. I think there's a lot of promise from this new company, and given the pedigree of its founders, I expect good things from them.

Please be kind and thank you very much for your help.

Thanks, OtakuMan (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Fall of Cybertron

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 planning on taking this to GAN in the next few months. I have copied my current to-do list below which currently consists of replacing some unverified sources. But after having stared at this page far too many times I'm afraid I'm missing some of the things I should normally catch. I'd also like outside perspective as to the completeness of the article and the clarity of game-specific information to an outsider.

Thanks, Teancum (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll try to give this a more in-depth look later, but one thing I notice, and this is me saying this as an old school Transformers fan, is that the second paragraph of the lead might be taking too much for granted in terms of story. Assuming this article should be readable to a general audience, it seems like a random reader will not understand what's going on. I could be wrong, and they can always click the links to other pages for more information, I suppose, but nowhere in the lead are we told just what a Transformer is, for instance. I don't have time to read the whole thing right now, but I don't see anything about that in the synopsis section either. —Torchiest talkedits 13:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a few copy edits, but I see one spot I can't fix: "Veteran Transformers voice actors Peter Cullen and Fred Tatasciore were confirmed to reprise their respective roles of Optimus Prime, Ratchet and Megatron during E3." You have two actors and three characters, so the "respective roles" part is confusing.
  • In the reception section, I don't think you should convert the the Giant Bomb rating to a percentage. Assuming the lowest theoretical percentage a game could get is 0%, and the lowest theoretical score a game could get on a five star system is one star, 3/5 is actually 50%. But if the lowest score is no stars, or half a star, the conversion would be different. I think it counts as WP:OR to do that conversion. Sorry, I know that's a bit nitpicky.
  • The characters table: is that the best format for the information? It might be that we're used to thinking of huge groups of transformers and listing them all, but I wonder if it's really necessary to have every character in the game in a table. Is Laserbeak's minor role notable enough to list?, for example? Why not just add a little more detail to the gameplay section about the other characters that are playable, and let the non-playable characters that are significant be elucidated upon in the story section naturally through prose? —Torchiest talkedits 20:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I typically don't like tables, either, but in instances where the information is clear and concise and will pacify IP edits to place one I leave it in place. I've done similar things to articles such as Marvel: Ultimate Alliance and Transformers: War for Cybertron to keep unhelpful edits at bay while providing information to perspective readers quickly. In such cases character cast is a point of deciding a purchase, and while we don't cater to that crowd, it doesn't disrupt article flow in any way. --Teancum (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't read the whole page, but the lede mentions a reimagined Dinobots origin story, but doesn't say what it's reimagined from (the previous game, previous series, the movies). More importantly, I couldn't find any mention of this reimagining in the article. The same sentence also doesn't say what the other characters' subplots were adapted from, where typically something is adapted from another work. —Ost (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed. I simplified it as a blanket "G1" origins variation, even though G1 has multiple origins stories. I couldn't differentiate enough, but interviews were fairly clear that it was an "alternate take" on the origin, so that should be sufficient. --Teancum (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple more comments: "Bruticus is playable only in a level where the players will feel 'the most powerful.'[5]" That line is a bit confusing. I think it needs a little more context to make sense.

Giorgio de Stefani

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 went through a major revamp lately, was featured in DYK and I'M looking forward to further improve it following your instructions

Thanks, Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 13:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look Mickey

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 prepare this for a run at WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani's random comments
Comments by Chris857

Islam: The Untold 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 because it documents a current event – the debate and furor surrounding the screening of a documentary that explores the historical development of Islam. A lot of work has gone into producing this article recently, and i'd be very grateful if someone gave a few minutes of their time to read through and review it.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the notes should be in ascending order, ie [13][5][11] -> [5][11][13]. The User 567 (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco 1492
  • References need accessdates. I'd strongly suggest archiving web references using www.webcitation.org.
  • Standardise reference formatting (I see The Telegraph in the publisher field when it should be in the work field, while the Hall reference doesn't even have its work included).
  • "claiming that it lacks sufficient supporting evidence." - The critique or orthodox Islam history?
  • Upon release, the documentary proved controversial, provoking criticism from figures within the United Kingdom's Islamic community who argued that Holland ignored the evidence that supported the orthodox account of early Islamic history. - Perhaps a split? Something like "Upon release, the documentary proved controversial. Figures within the United Kingdom's Islamic community argued that Holland ignored the evidence that supported the orthodox account of early Islamic history."
  • "In 2012, Holland's fourth work of history" - Perhaps just "In 2012, Holland's fourth history"?
  • Rather heavy on the quotes, even in the background section. Should be paraphrased.
  • British Asians - In American English "Asians" would be East Asians and not South Asians. Perhaps a more universal term?
  • You repeat the word "then" a lot, might want to be careful with that.
  • "get Holland into trouble." - Sounds rather informal
  • "Although he asserted that he did not know what devout Muslims would think of Holland's arguments, he did assert that they did not have "a monopoly on literalist affront"." - Assert ... assert
  • Direct quotes should have citations immediately afterwards.
  • That's it for today... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "statement in which they stated" - state(ment) ... state
  • Some of the statements chosen might need to be more selective. You have two paragraphs (perhaps 200 words) dedicated to the views of people who, in the big scheme of things, aren't significant. Scholars, politicians, and whatnot... sure, but random students and protestors?
  • Still very heavy on quotes. If you paraphrased these properly, you could trim the length of this article to about 10k characters and not lose any of the meaning. (FAs can be that short, such as my recent Mereka Bilang, Saya Monyet!)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few small comments, overall this looks like it's in GA territory.
  • "Ofcom and the broadcaster Channel 4 received an estimated 1200 complaints regarding the program" You might want to add a brief explanation what "Ofcom" is.
  • "The film's screening came a month after the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) screened the first episode of their television sitcom" Some repetition here "screening ... screened"
  • The main question I have is if the film's conclusions are in line with the consensus among mainstream scholars (if there is such a thing). I know you're limited by sources, but anything you can add to place it in context like that would be helpful. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gangnam Style

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…with edits dying down recently, I want to know what more editors could do to complete this article. The article at the moment is just a collection of facts -- I'd like to know what editors need to add and what needs to be purged of

Thanks, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments from Paul MacDermott

  • First of all, articles submitted for peer review should be free of major cleanup tags. There is one in the first section, which may need to be taken out.
  • The lead fails to mention several points made in the main text. For example, the origin of the term "Gangnam Style". Generally the lead should provide an overview of the topics covered in the article itself.
  • I think the synopsis should be higher up, perhaps after the Background section. Music Video refers to various scenes from the synopsis, so it would be useful to have an overview of what happens before discussing individual parts of the content.
  • There are several references to K-Pop. What is that? I'm guessing Korean Pop? A brief explanation would be nice.
  • Not sure it's necessary to tabulate Worldwide Reception. Could that not be written as prose? Also, the non-English text from the reviews is not required.
  • "Celebrity comments with more than 1000 retweets" seems a bit trivial. As with the above point it may be better to include some of their comments as part of a prose section. This may also come under Critical Reception.
  • Watch out for colloquialisms. I spotted a reference to a "woman's butt" in the synopsis. There may be others like this which need to be substituted with more appropriate words.

My comments are based on a quick read through this afternoon. I haven't gone into depth, and haven't checked the quality of the references, so I hope somebody else will do that. The article would definitely benefit from a copyedit, particularly if it were to go forward for GA or FAC at some future point. Overall this is an interesting piece about a current phenomenon, and hopefully when the furore subsides it will be much easier to get it into shape. Let me know if you have any questions, and good luck. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's worth checking out a few GA and FA song-related articles for ideas on the sort of information that should be included. I tend to find one that covers a topic well, then use it as a template for writing anything similar. Layla and Bohemian Rhapsody are two particularly good pages in the songs category, but there are lots of others. Take a look at Category:FA-Class song articles and Category:GA-Class song articles. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from A1Candidate

Thanks for your feedback

  • First of all, articles submitted for peer review should be free of major cleanup tags. There is one in the first section, which may need to be taken out.
  • *There are several references to K-Pop. What is that? I'm guessing Korean Pop? A brief explanation would be nice.

I've expanded that section by adding (What I personally consider) some important background information for readers unfamilliar with Gangnam Style's music genre

  • The lead fails to mention several points made in the main text. For example, the origin of the term "Gangnam Style". Generally the lead should provide an overview of the topics covered in the article itself.

I've added and included (What I personally consider) some important information in the lead

  • I think the synopsis should be higher up, perhaps after the Background section. Music Video refers to various scenes from the synopsis, so it would be useful to have an overview of what happens before discussing individual parts of the content.

I agree, its now fixed.

  • Not sure it's necessary to tabulate Worldwide Reception. Could that not be written as prose? Also, the non-English text from the reviews is not required.

I disagree, I personally think its better to put it in a table, non-English text is allowed as long as translations are given and a short selection should be included as per WP:WORLDVIEW.

  • "Celebrity comments with more than 1000 retweets" seems a bit trivial. As with the above point it may be better to include some of their comments as part of a prose section. This may also come under Critical Reception.

I've moved these comments to Gangnam Style in popular culture instead

  • Watch out for colloquialisms. I spotted a reference to a "woman's butt" in the synopsis. There may be others like this which need to be substituted with more appropriate words.

I originally wrote "woman's buttock", which I believe is the correct anatomical term. Someone changed it to butt, but I've reverted that. I can't spot any other colloquialisms, at least not those written by me.

Once again thanks for your feedback, it has certainly made the article better. -A1candidate (talk)

You're welcome. I've just read through this again and it's looking much better. I've made one small adjustment to the text, but am happy for you to revert it if you don't think it's necessary. Let me know if you need any more help. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book

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 up to at least GA. The article isn't long, but it's fairly complete, and the book is considered a key work of the author's.

Thanks, CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 04:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Murphy

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 created the page and nominated it for DYK so I want to know what I can do to improve it, maybe getting it to GA.

Thanks, Lucky102 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

edit
  • Move line on disability into paralympics section.
  • Why did he not compete in 2004?

Comments from Jayron32

edit
  • The article is very repetitive and trite. The writing could use some variety. Starting every paragraph with "he competed in" ... "He came in..." etc. etc. makes for a boring read. You could save some verbiage by converting it to a table of some sort, and you could vary the writing by describing the unique particulars of each competition. Other than that, I'll echo what Casliber said. More biographical background would be good. --Jayron32 22:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank's Cock

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 FA and would like feedback, mostly on prose, before going there (and while my current FA dawdles).

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments

Looking forward to watching Talk:Main Page catch fire again.

  • "the upper-left shows scenes representing mankind's creation" - suggest wikilinking the intended meaning of "mankind's creation" here. The description of the associated image says "one of mankind's creations", which has more potential interpretations - might want to amend that.
  • Done.
  • "older brother-younger brother" - roll of the MOS suggests this should be an endash, probably same for "NFB-John Spotton Award"
  • "one which portrayed an AIDS patient as one full of love" - which is full of love, the patient or the movie?
  • The patient. I think I've fixed this.
  • "a grant to create a three-minute film about breaking up" - this film wouldn't seem to meet those criteria; was it included in the omnibus, and were there any complaints from the grant granter?

Comments from Casliber

edit

More random notes - is looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Part of the terms of his grant were that Hoolboom was allowed a limited number of edit --> "edits"?

Leo Minor

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 still finding my way with astronomy articles, and the gulf between accessibility and accuracy is a bit trickier to negotiate. Also the prose flow I find difficult in places. All suggestions welcome (Already GA and want to take to FAC....)

Thanks, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Altes Stadthaus, Berlin

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

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

Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Blofeld

Will gradually add comments over the next few days..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • 7 million marks, needs currency conversion and inflation to today's figures to make it understandable.
  • Delink World War II per OVERLINK.
  • Delinked.
  • What are civic virtues?
  • "During World War II the building was damaged by Allied bombings, and more severely in the final months of the Battle of Berlin. The roof was almost completely destroyed, there was substantial water damage to the building and the statues above the rear entrance were also destroyed." Dates?
  • Only a brief mention of the Senate function nowadays? Could use more on the recent developments and political function/context.
History
  • "since it could not be extended". Why?
  • The proposal for another city building was therefore put on hold for "several years". Quote needs sourcing or simply write how long it went on hold for.
  • "In 1900, the prosperous city decided the building should feature a tower; the following year" In 1900, the prosperous city decided that the building should feature a tower; the following year
Specs
  • "approximately 80 metres (260 ft) tall". Source.
  • "The walls over the doorways are inscribed with moral sayings" Such as? Biblical?
  • "The facade on Jüdenstraße is 82.63 metres (271.1 ft) long; that on Klosterstraße, 126.93 metres (416.4 ft), that on Parochialstraße, 108.31 metres (355.3 ft), and that on Stralauer Straße, 94.46 metres (309.9 ft)." Source
During the Weimar Republic
  • Delink World War I and II.

Honest opinion I think it would need a tremendous amount of work to pass FA. Its a little rough around the edges...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish Premier League stadiums

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 FL status.

Thanks, Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts to bring it up to FL-level:

  • In my ears "Since the inception of" is a poor way of starting an article. I would have written "The Scottish Premier League is...." then in the second sentence stated something in the line of that it has 19 historic and 12 current stadiums.
  • The lead must be much longer. It could contains information about the largest and smallest stadia,
  • It is better to use colors and symbols than bold/italics for specifying current/demolished.
  • Notes to the table headers themselves should be in the description (specifically the comment on demolished capacity)
  • Blank cells need a centered emdash.
  • Refs are usually centered.
  • Coordinates are often in small print, often within the location cell, but not always.
  • In List of Norwegian Premier League venues there are some additional parameters (no. matches, years). If these can be verified, consider including them.
  • How is Duncan Adams a reliable source?

Expand the lead and fix the minor issues and it will be close to the FL criteria. Arsenikk (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deadalive

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 up to FA. It's currently a GA, and it's being worked towards A-Class. Any comments would be wonderful. Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

edit

Lead

edit
  • Wording: " infection in Skinner's blood as leverages, .." - should be "leverage"
  • Wording: ", and he tries to get him " -> maybe better as "and Krycek tries to get Skinner to .."

Plot

edit
  • Time? "In the episode "This is Not Happening".." - maybe "In the eighth season episode "This is Not Happening" " Confusing: "Skinner orders Mulder's body exhumed at a hospital, .." - Isnt Multer buried? Is he buried in a hospital?
  • Wording: " a decomposing Mulder—despite all medical knowledge—shows weak vital signs." - "despite all medical knowledge" is not quite right. Maybe: "contrary to all scientific expectations" or "contrary to all rational expectations" etc
  • Wording: "and Scully notices that he has two heartbeats while visiting him." -> and while visiting him, Scully notices that he has two heartbeats." may be better
  • Explain: "At the FBI, Kersh tries to persuade Skinner to stop investigating Mulder's apparent death, ..." - what is Kersh's motivation for stopping it?
  • Who? - " When he leaves Kersh's office and walks down a hallway, rogue FBI agent Alex Krycek (Nicholas Lea) " - who is walking? Krycek? or Skinner?
  • Wording: " him stumble over in pain. " -> "stumble in pain"
  • Motivation? - "However, he says that he will only give it to Skinner if Scully does not give birth to her baby." - why?
  • Wording: "Scully, however, gets a new lab report, ..." - "new" can probably be deleted.
  • Better words: "After Scully reveals the truth to him, .." - "truth" could probably be better: we dont know what truth is. Maybe "After Scully tells Dogget about the genetic transformation ..." or similar.
  • Wording: " Doggett later catches Skinner nearly removing Mulder's life support; .." - would it be more accurate as " Doggett later catches Skinner attempting to remove Mulder's life support; .."?
  • Better word? - " but Doggett argues that they are unreasonable. " - Hmm. I haven't seen the show, but is there some more precise way to describe the argument that Dogget used, like: Krycek is bluffing, or it is unethical to kill Mulder, or that they could steal the vaccine from Krycek, or ???
  • Detail? - "Krycek nearly runs him down with a car, smashing the vaccine on the ground as Doggett races to save it.." - Did Krycek throw the vaccine on the ground? or what?
  • Define: "..t, Mulder will die or become a hybrid." - Was "hybrid" defined earlier in the article? if not: define now.
  • Wording: "They laugh, to which Mulder asks, "Did anybody miss me?" and Scully responds with tears" - "to which" is not quite right. Maybe "They laugh, and Mulder asks Scully, "Did anybody miss me?" to which she responds with tears"

Production

edit
  • brackets: " burying the man […] just " - No need for brackets: should be "burying the man … just"
  • The article needs a sentence or two or more about the contract dispute with Duchovny: Maybe best at the start of the PRoduction section. Explain the dispute; over money? Were the producers desperate to get D. back to the show? Did they settle the dispute when season 9 started? What was the details about the sentence "Due to Duchovny's contract, he was only available for shooting on certain days. " ... why was his access limited? That should be explained at the top of the Production section.
  • Wording: "The majority of the episode—like the rest of seasons six, seven, eight and nine—was filmed .." - better is "The majority of the episode—like other episodes from seasons six, seven, eight and nine—was filmed .."
  • Wording: "Spotnitz was able to secure the fishing trawler scene to be filmed off the coast of .." - " Spotnitz managed to secure sufficient funds to enable the fishing trawler scene to be filmed off the coast of .."
  • Wording: "Make-up effects artist Matthew Mungle created the apparent decomposition .." - "Make-up effects artist Matthew Mungle was responsible for the effects that portrayed the decomposition of the bodies of Mulder and .."
  • Initial capital in quotes: "he asked, "If we can figure .."" - generally avoid initial caps in quotes, See Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Typographic_conformity. Just use: "he asked, "if we can figure .."" -

Themes

edit
  • comma: "As The X-Files entered into its eighth season themes revolving .." - "As The X-Files entered into its eighth season, themes revolving "
  • no brackets: "resurrection and salvation [...] disease," -> "resurrection and salvation ... disease,"
  • when? - "with other episodes the season," -> "with other episodes of the eigth the season,"
  • Duplicate sentences: paragraph starts with 2 very similar sentences: "As The X-Files entered into its eighth season themes revolving around "human resurrection and salvation [...] disease, suffering, and healing" became focuses for the show.[35] "Deadalive", along with other episodes the season, explored the themes of death and resurrection. " - Consider merging those into 1 sentence. I don't think there is any need for that quote .. just paraphrase the sources.
  • Unneeded word: " This sub-theme would continue well into the" -> " This sub-theme would continue into the"

Reception

edit
  • Wording: " first released as single episode on an eponymous DVD ..." - many readers wont know what eponymous means; also, it is not clear if the DVD is named the same as the episode or the show? Use plainer language
  • Link: " preceding episode, "This is Not Happening", ... - go ahead and link to that episode's article; this is a good exception to overlinking rules.
  • Ellipses: " the stage for [...] the countdown to" -> " the stage for ... the countdown to"

Other

edit
  • Cites: "^ Fraga (2010), passim " - Passim is generally discouraged. Better is to find a few specific pages (pp 5, 12, 33) or just name the entire page range (pp 1-92)
  • Cites look good and uniform. FAC reviewers are very picky about cite formatting, so you may want to double check the uniformity ... but they look good to me so far.

Summary

edit
  • Overall, it looks like a great article ... definitely beyond GA status. After implementing the above fixes, you can take it to WP:FAC, although the reviewers there can be very strict, so if you want to be sure it passes, you might want to consider an additional Peer Review by yet another reviewer before you go to FAC. Good luck!

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this prompt and in-depth review. This recently underwent another one a couple days ago, as well as two copyedits (one by myself, and another by a Guild member). I feel very confident in this article now. Once again, thank you!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian mythology

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 hope to send it to FAC. I've incorporated suggestions from the previous review where possible, like adding images and working to simplify difficult wording. I simply don't have enough sources to write a decent section on influences in other cultures, but I've added a section on origins of myths and elaborated on some other things.

Thanks, A. Parrot (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts at definition

  • The text says that important narratives are mostly about gods, yet "actual' narratives about godly events are rare. Is the intention to say that there are other less rare types of discourses about gods, or simply that (surviving) narratives are in general rare, and that there are therefore few concerning the gods (even though these are rare, too)? If the latter, the "Actual narratives" sentence might start "Yet even narratives..." or clarify in some other way.
It partly means there are other discourses, and partly it's referring to the problem of fragmentary-ness that other parts of the article address more directly. How about "complete" instead of "actual"?
"Most references to such events are mere mentions or allusions; complete narratives of the gods' actions are rare, particularly in early texts." ?
  • It might be helpful to include some of Assmann's arguments/evidence for the (difficult to substantiate) claim that myths did not exist in the early period.
I don't know most of the details of his argument, because the original source is inaccessible to me. This statement is sourced to Baines' paper, which is a sort of survey of scholarly approaches to mythology. The paper does say that the main support for this argument was that the earliest source (the Pyramid Texts) simply doesn't contain whole stories. Maybe I can make that a little clearer.
  • I like the new perspective from Tobin and Bickel. I wonder if we can even broaden 'statements that convey ideas' (particularly based on the definition @ mythology of mythology as simply a collection of myths, since it seems possible to talk about a mythology that underlies or generates individual statements available to the present-day researcher.
Not quite sure what you mean by that.
This is definitely a minor point, but I was trying to say that, especially given the fragmentary nature of our sources, perhaps we should define mythology not as an aggregation of statements, but as the structure that underlies and generates individual statements.

Origins

  • Great section, very interesting and informative.
  • Are there examples of rituals that might be pre-mythic? (Generally a fascinating topic, the page about which is a list theories from dead, white, & mostly male anthropologists.)
A couple of my sources mention offering rituals as an example, because they're so basic. I'll add a little about that soon.
  • The "origin myths" section doesn't belong (unless we have reason to believe that these origin myths were involved in the origination of myth).
What I was trying to do in this section was list the ways that particular myths, or parts of them, are believed to have arisen. I could try to word the sentence so it's more clearly tied to that purpose. The only other section to move it to is "Content and meaning", which would probably complicate whatever reorganization goes on there (see my response near the bottom of this page).
Ah, so the connection would be: "Egyptians wanted to explain the world around them so they came up with origin myths." Seems obvious in retrospect but wasn't obvious my first time or so around. Curious to know the reactions of other readers. (Also maybe titling the section "Sources" would decrease chances for confusion.)

Content and meaning

  • "The events in mythology are symbolic of events that take place in the realm of the gods" <--- a little confusing. Symbolic of? (Should this be "symbolic of events that take place in the earthly realm"?)
It's meant to say that humans can't understand the realm of the gods and have to express what goes on there through symbolism. Would it be clearer if it said, "The events in mythology symbolize events that take place in the realm of the gods and that, therefore, are beyond direct human understanding"?
This idea is very interesting. If you're saying what I think you're saying, maybe make this idea more clear at the start, saying something along the lines of: 'The true realm of the gods is mysterious and inaccessible to humans. Mythological stories use symbolism to make the events of this realm comprehensible.'
  • This second part of this section could almost be its own section: "Ambiguity and inconsistency"
See my response near the bottom of this page.

Sources

  • Do we know how oral tradition was generally transmitted? Priests, parents (mothers? fathers?) to children, everyday language, etc.
Well, we just don't know. Even the existence of an oral tradition is conjecture.
  • How does one classify a nonreligious text which addresses mostly a religious topic?
Are you referring to a particular text, or just speaking generally? Either way, I'd say that texts are classified by the purpose they're guessed to have been made for. For example, "The Contendings of Horus and Seth" deals with a lot of serious religious subject matter, but it was found in a village rather than a temple or tomb, and it makes the gods look so ridiculous that everyone assumes it was meant as private entertainment. So it's classed as a non-religious text.
Just speaking generally. That answer makes sense. It is kind of a funny distinction when you think about it :-)

Cosmology

  • Very cool section
  • I notice again that outsiders are grouped with natural surroundings. If these are really always treated together in the myths, that's fine, but if they're sometimes separate maybe they could be separate in the article. (It would also definitely be interesting & worthwhile to include more detail about "outsiders" or nine bows.)
In folktales and in real Egyptian life, the position of foreigners was more complicated, but in religious cosmology, they're usually part of the hostile surroundings. They don't even appear in mythology except in some minor, borderline cases. My main purpose in including them was to indicate that Egyptian mythology is overwhelmingly about Egypt and rarely involves other places or peoples. A lot more could be said about the Nine Bows, but I don't know how much of it is relevant here.
Check. My quick search of "nine bows" makes it seem like a pretty secular concept that wouldn't necessarily be front & center mythology. Although looking back at the definition, what could be more culturally central than the general narrative of a society's enemies? But this type of narrative seems to exist on a different plane from the gods, and would perhaps be real 'mythology' only according to a very expansive view. (Like one could argue that "9/11" is currently a major part of the USA mythology, but this might be controversial... I don't know...) I don't think I really want to push for a 'secularization' of the article, especially when I'm not capable of doing the grunt work myself. But, you know.... just putting it out there.
  • There's probably a really great image that could accompany "Time"
Finding images that are both relevant to the text and available under Wikipedia's licensing requirements is surprisingly hard for this article. I can think of three Egyptian images that could work, but two of them are reliefs (photographs of which are not inherently public domain) that have no image on Commons. The third is fully two-dimensional, so I can freely plunder images of it from the web. Look at the first image on this page and see what you think. It's used in at least two of my sources to illustrate the Egyptian concept of time, and I can use these sources to explain the picture's symbolism in the caption, but the image quality isn't ideal.
That image looks cool, but maybe it would be better to just avoid redundancy and make sure there's a link to the place with the image & explanation. (And wait until another viable image falls into our lap.)

Major myths

  • Nice treatment/organization of change over time in the creation myth. At the risk of complications, these types of changes would be interesting to include for other myths as well. Can you shed any light on the development of a "monotheistic" Egyptian theology based around Ra? (Is there any truth at all to this narrative about Egyptian religion, which I think I get from Moses and Monotheism?)
Although the connections with Judaism that Moses and Monotheism proposes are roundly rejected, the book does refer to a real monotheistic (or monolatrous) period in Egyptian religion, called Atenism. It centered on the Aten rather than Ra himself, although it was an outgrowth of the traditional beliefs about Ra and his life-giving power. Because it was only about one god, it didn't have any myths of its own. Its descriptions of the sun's journey resemble the traditional Ra-centric version of the same thing, but the Atenist version is stripped of all other deities and all but the vaguest mythic imagery. If you think it's necessary, I could add something about how "non-mythic" Atenism was, as scholars have often remarked upon it, but I don't see a natural place to put it.
Good to know. Yes, I think Atenism's lack of myths is definitely worth noting, even if only for the particular category of ignoramuses I represent.
"Although the connections with Judaism that Moses and Monotheism proposes are roundly rejected" Really? Jan Assmann writes “Freud’s ingenious observation links up perfectly well with the relationship between the Biblical account of the Exodus and what has to be considered the historical evidence for it….his [Freud’s] fascinating and brilliantly written article.” (p. 150) He also notes that “The literature on Freud’s book on Moses is rapidly growing” with an extensive listing given (p. 252). (Moses the Egyptian, 1997, ISBN 0-674-58739-1) "I could add something about how "non-mythic" Atenism was, as scholars have often remarked upon it." Vincent Tobin writes “The ultimate result of Amarna royal myth was a virtual identification between Akhenaton and the Aten, the king being only slightly below the Aten in stature. Some scholars have seen various expressions of Trinitarian myth in the Amarna system, but there is no agreement on any one official Amarna trinity. Mention should also be made of the city of Akhenaton, a mythic expression of the divine presence on earth. This concept of a sacred city constituted what could almost be regarded as a type of realized eschatology. Amarna teachings were not myth free-free dogmatic assertions, but rather statements that used a modified form of myth to create an intellectual and abstract religious system.” The Oxford Guide to Egyptian Mythology, Edited by Donald B. Redford, P. 244, ISBN 0-425-19096-X Yt95 (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Osiris myth and some of these other intermediate sections still take place during linear/mythical time, you might consider separating out "The Destruction of Mankind" and moving it down, maybe to before "The end of the universe".
That's the problem with chronological order in Egyptian mythology. But the last paragraph of "The reign of the sun god" does make the chronological contradictions clear (I think), and the order that the myths are arranged in now is based on the one in Pinch's book. I'd rather not alter it.
That's just fine.
  • A little more on Coffin Texts vision of the end?
The Coffin Texts version is pretty vague. (The relevant portion just says: "I have placed millions of years between me and that Weary-hearted one, the son of Geb [Osiris]; then I shall dwell with him in one place. Mounds will be towns. Towns will be mounds. Mansion will destroy mansion.") I mostly mention it because it's the first known occurrence of the idea. All the detail is in the Book of the Dead spell.
OK.

Influence in Egyptian culture

  • Interesting idea about the relationship of myth to religion/kings/government. It makes me curious about a whole many things surrounding the relationship of the myths/religion to everyday life. How much did people 'believe' versus 'obey'? Were there folk versions of the religion that differed from the official version? Maybe there aren't answers... and maybe these questions pertain more to Ancient Egyptian religion.
Yes, I would say they belong at that article, at pharaoh, and at a yet-to-be-written popular religion in ancient Egypt article. Those are very important questions that have produced a lot of scholarly debate, and I'll have to address them when I get around to those articles. But because they are both very complicated and marginally relevant to mythology, I'd rather not go into them here.
Great, looking forward to it.
  • First section of the "In religion" section could be clarified. "Because the Egyptians rarely described theological ideas explicitly, the implicit ideas of mythology formed much of the basis for Egyptian religious belief." (a) Might it moreso be the case that these ideas implicitly formed the basis for religion? (b) "ideas" -> "themes"? (c) Is there even evidence for the existence of theology or "religious belief" beyond myth, or might this be our own perspective and concept of religion expressing itself?
(a) Yes, it might as well say that. I've changed it. (b) Not sure which word choice is better. ( c ) If myths are any statements about the gods, then probably not. But if myths are stories of any length, the answer is definitely yes. Egyptian texts list groups of deities and stated their relationships to each other, hymns state what gods do in the present, and so on. I suppose I can elaborate on that, as Baines talks about it a good bit.
(b) Your choice, that word just popped into my head, I think.
(c) This also relates to the comment under "Attempt at definition" about mythology as statements vs. structure. But I must have been reading "religion" as some sort of pure theology, which really is different from what the section describes. It's almost like there's a conceptual triangle of myth, religion, theology (a conceptual structure of the religion, perhaps expressed by myth...) Anyway, it's complicated, I'm guessing your planned additions will be helpful and clarifying.

Lead & overall

  • "All Egyptian myths, however, are meant primarily as symbols, expressing the behavior and essence of the mysterious deities in metaphorical terms. Each variant of a myth represents a different symbolic perspective, enriching the Egyptians' understanding of the gods and the world." Confusing, similar to "symbol" statement above.
I can see how it could be, but at the moment I can't think of a way to rephrase it. I suppose I have a lot of trouble with these essential sentences.
The explanation above helps. I think the second sentence is good, but a rewording of the first would clarify the meaning of "symbolic". Possible: "Egyptian myths are primarily metaphorical, translating the essence and behavior of deities into terms that humans can understand. Each variant..."
  • Any reason not to make "works cited" a subsection of "Notes and citations" (or similar, retitled)?
I don't know. I've used this organization for previous featured articles and one Good Article, and I'm sure it's used in many other articles. I'm willing to change it if you or somebody else thinks it's important.
Shrug.
  • The "Content and meaning" section doesn't fit all that well when considered with the overall page. You don't really know what to expect if you click the link in ToC and it's not really clear why the order is Origins - Content - Sources - Myths. Splitting this section up, with some into origins and some into myths might be a good idea. Forgive me if I'm missing something essential!
The section does sort of sprawl, subject-wise, and I'm not sure how to organize its content. The first four paragraphs might be integrated into "Origins", but given my original purpose for that section—listing the ways that particular myths are believed to have arisen—the two wouldn't fit together very well without some significant reworking. The "Major myths" section is meant as a list/very loose narrative of specific myths, so I'm reluctant to put content in it that serves as an overview of all myths. The latter four paragraphs of "Content and meaning" might be split into an "Ambiguity and inconsistency" section, as you suggested above, but that still leaves the issue of where to put the first half. The main subject of the section is the meaning and purpose of myths, so would titling it "Meaning" or "Meaning and purpose" help?
Splitting seems like a good idea. "Meaning and purpose" for the first half makes sense. From above, "meaning and purpose" is (if I read correctly) the "origin" of "origin stories", so maybe these can be grouped together somehow. Possibly as a next-level header under Origins, reflecting that the desire for meaning is an origin. (History, natural surroundings, and ritual might then also be sub-headers). Maybe with this option (and it's just one option), "Origins" could become "Origins and purposes" and this subsection would just be "meaning". The second half, on ambiguity/inconsistency, might combine well with content up in "attempts at definition", for a slightly broader section about the position of the Egyptologist in relation to the whole domain of mythology.
  • On the whole, a well-constructed and also crucial article, which sheds important light on the overall themes of Egyptian mythology!

Comments from Casliber

edit
I must say I am not a fan of the title Attempts at definition - I'd have thought Scope or Definition and scope was better...?
Would some discussion of where Egyptian mythology concludes (how it segues into Hellenistic Egypt) go well here?
My sense is that the article sorta jumps into things. The para that comprises the Attempts at definition feels like it should have some more basic info before it...just my sense. I think it would sit nicely after the origins section.
Coming into this article cold, I forgot there was a Ancient Egyptian religion article (which upon finding it made this article make a lot more sense!). Given this would be a search term, I think some more prominent navigation or explanation between the two is warranted (more than a bluelink in para 3 of lead as is currently)

Arthur Gilligan

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 currently a GA and I am hoping to take it to FAC. Gilligan was an England cricket captain in the 1920s, at the same time that he was an active fascist. No, really! Any prose comments would be appreciated. Also, how does it read for non-cricketers and is there the correct balance between cricket figures and stats, and the "human element"?

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I can help with some grammar nitpicks and some non-Cricket perspective. I'm about a third of the way through, overall very good just a few small points (not in order, sorry!):
  • Check for some places where you can replace "Gilligan" with "he", some suggestions: "When his playing career ended, Gilligan held several important positions", "Gilligan established a sporting reputation in athletics and cricket.", & "In 1914, Gilligan came top of the school batting and bowling averages.[4] But Gilligan, while displaying an aptitude for cricket, was not well-known outside of the school team."
  • "The South African government did not want D'Oliviera in the England team on the grounds of his colour." Which colour was he?
  • While this may seem delicately phrased, it is probably the best way to write it. D'Oliviera was what was known by the apartheid government as a "Cape Coloured". I think the context makes it clear enough without having to categorise his race, but you may have a better way to phrase this as a non-cricketer, who probably doesn't know the story. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " His batting made a bigger initial impression when, batting at number eleven in the order," Is there a good way around the "batting ... batting" here?
  • "After briefly playing County Cricket for Surrey, he moved to Sussex in 1920. After a slow start to his county career" Minor issue, but you start consecutive sentences with "after" here.
  • "A few day later, Gilligan won his blue by appearing in the University Match against Oxford." If might be nice to have a parenthetical or a note explaining what a "blue" is here.
  • Are there any more details about his wartime service that could be added?
  • "Gilligan left Cambridge and joined a General Produce Merchants in London, called Gilbert Kimpton & Co." Do you know what his role there was?
  • You might want to link his brothers in the "Early life" section.
  • "Michael Marshall names Harry Howell, a fast bowler, as the person responsible for the injury." I think you could end the sentence after "responsible".
  • There were a few places that you had commas where I didn't think they were necessary: " broadcasting in Australia on the 1932–33 Ashes series, and covering subsequent visits of MCC teams to Australia for the Australian Broadcasting Commission.", "those regarded as representing the best players in a region or group (such as professional cricketers), or one involving national sides", " He took 163 wickets at 17.50 and scored 1,183 runs at an average of 21.12, to complete the double of 1,000 runs and 100 wickets in a season for the only time in his career", "he had 103 wickets at 19.36,[8] and 864 runs at 21.07.", & " he scored 231 runs at a batting average of 17.76,[7] and took 35 wickets at 31.57.".
  • Also, a few places I thought you could use one (commas added here): "His cricket was less effective in following years, and he played less frequently.", "He died in 1976, aged 81.", & "Gilligan was appointed vice-captain to Frank Mann, in preference to Percy Fender who was much admired as a captain but not popular with the cricket authorities.". Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, finished my read-through, back again with a few more comments:
  • Double check consistency of capitalization for "Communism".
  • "he did not score a fifty and averaged 7.22 with the bat,[7] and took four wickets." Is the comma necessary here?
  • "some commentators hoped that the tour would help to ease tension.[39] It was hoped Gilligan's influence and popularity would further assist" There's some repetition of "hoped" here.
  • "It provoked a minor controversy when he suggested Jack Hobbs assumed the captaincy" Is "assumed" correct here?
  • "Following heavy losses to Australia in two Test series immediately following the war, the England selectors needed to appoint a new captain." Minor issue, but I'd suggest "England's selectors" here.
  • "Australia won the first two Tests, and Herbie Collins, the Australian captain, had established himself as the superior tactician." Do you need the "had" here?
  • Ok, looks good, not a whole lot I can find to complain about. I'll make some small copyedits, feel free to revert if need be. Let me know when this is at FAC and I'll plan on reviewing. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments up to the halfway point. I am pretty busy this weekend and will only be online intermittently, so the rest will probably have to wait until Sunday night or Monday.

Lead
  • I think the first para should mention the kind of cricketer he was (e.g. fast bowler and hard-hitting lower-order batsman – or some such)
  • "his brother Harold also captained England" - not really lead material (especially given the nature of the "England" that Harold captained)
  • Also in the lead, it might be better to summarise the Fascist stuff separately, rather than in the middle of a paragraph mainly about his cricket feats.
  • Some readers may wonder how an injury he sustained while batting messed up his bowling.
Early life
  • Bit clumsy, this: "He was the second of three sons, all of whom played first-class cricket, to Willie Austin Gilligan and Alice Eliza Kimpton, who also had a daughter".
  • At present it reads as though he played club cricket in Sussex as a child. Suggested slight rephrasing: "...Gilligan followed Sussex County Cricket Club as a child, and later played club cricket there".
  • "While he displayed an aptitude for cricket, Gilligan was not well-known outside of the school team" - this sentence seems fairly pointless, could easily be ditched without effect.
Cricket at Cambridge
  • The first paragraph begins "Following the war..." but there is no year given for the events recorded until the last sentence. You should specify the year earlier
  • I'm a bit confused about the timing of his decision to transfer to Sussex: "...his decision to register with Sussex after the previous season" needs clarifying
  • Something missing: "...In all first-class cricket, he ???? 624 runs at an average of 17.33 and took 81 wickets at 23.55".
Sussex cricketer
  • "Having married just before the season..." Why is this relevant to his cricket in 1921?
  • (Private note: how can taking just 9 more wickets at an even higher cost than in 1920 be considered "a distinct advance"? I detectWisden's usual penetrating analysis, which I encountered more than once in my Larwood researches)
  • (To digress, my reading on this is that Wisden at the time was very sniffy about statistics. I've managed to collect several older copies and reprints of Wisden, and the 1920s is full of comments which simply disregard the statistics in favour of commenting on how they performed. I've no particular problem with that, as many cricketers filled their boots against the (very) weak counties who propped up the table at the time. One brief example from a similar period: Wilfred Rhodes regularly came top of the Yorkshire bowling averages with astonishing figures, but Wisden usually has a comment that he got most of his wickets in very favourable conditions or against the weak counties, and Macaulay and Kilner usually carried the attack against their main rivals. And the scorecards more-or-less back it up. Short version: I tend to believe Wisden in this period when it disregards stats.)
  • Was it Mann or Gilligan who was preferred to Fender by the MCC establishment?
  • "and took nine wickets at 22.37, although he did not exceed three wickets in any of the four innings in which he bowled." I'm not sure that the not exceeding three wickets is very important, but I do think the summary of his Test match performances should follow rather than precede the report that he played in them.
  • Capitalised "County Cricket"?
  • "Personally..." is redundant
England captain
  • "In the event, the selectors appointed Gilligan as captain for the 1924 series against South Africa, in an attempt to assess his quality as a player." This doesn't make sense: why would they make him captain in order to assess his quality as a player?
  • Not quite as daft as it sounds, but requires a bit of background. They were in a desperate search for a captain, and were thrashing around for anyone who was not Fender. I suspect Mann was the favoured choice, but could not cut it as a player. And although the captain had to be amateur, he also had to be worth his place. Or at least not to be an embarrassment. So they had a look at Gilligan to see if he was up to scratch, but made him captain as well as that was the role they were really looking at. I've reworded a little, but could probably add more of this background if you think it needs it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Again, he was preferred to Percy Fender" That is already clear (you have said that Fender was under consideration, and that Gilligan was appointed.
  • "Both players missed the tour which substantially weakened the bowling strength of the team." Needs re-punctuating, to avoid ambiguity.

Will be back with more. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the second half:

Tour of Australia - on the field
  • "Gibson notes... " twice in quick succession. In the second case he appears to make a judgement rather than a "note"
  • In my view the two final sentences, which summarise Gilligan's entire Test career, are rather misplaced here. They could, for example, be moved to the beginning of the "Remaining cricket career" section.
  • Moved them to the end of his career with his first-class figures.
Political concerns
  • "according to historian Andrew Moore": Tim riley used to regular;y chastise me for committing the tabloidism/Americanism of using a person's description as an adjective without the definite article. Thus, according to the Law of Tim, it should be "the historian Andrew Moore". Having noted how the more literary writers formulate this sort of thing, I am firmly on Tim's side with regard to this.
  • On what evidence is it asserted that the British Fascist movement was "popular" in the 1920s? I'm sure it did not enjoy mass support; I wonder how many people even knew it existed?
  • The article by Moore explicity says this; I've reworded to show that was not for long. Apparently, the Australian secret service believed the membership reached 100,000 in Britain, although this was apparently a considerable exaggeration. As I've no great knowledge, I have to go with the source on this one. To be honest, I'd never heard of them before encountering Gilligan's story. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remaining cricket career
  • Not the best of prose styles to have almost-successive sentences beginning respectively: "Appearing in fewer games..." and "Appearing in more games..."
  • Grammar needs attention: "That season, Gilligan also joined the panel of England Test selectors, which caused him to miss some cricket for Sussex, but was no longer considered for a place in the England team". There's a problem around with the "but". I suggest the sentence is recast along the lines: "That season, although no longer considered for a place in the England team himself, Gilligan joined the panel of Test selectors, and as a consequence missed some cricket for Sussex".
  • It should be made clear from the outset that the 1926-27 MCC team to India was not a representative side and did not play any Tests.
  • "withdrew fro the tour owing to illness" (I should have fixed this typo)
Style and technique
  • "Many of his centuries..." rather implies a higher career total than 12
  • "excelled" repeated in successive (almost) lines
  • Maybe Sussex's "greatness" deserves a [sic]? Did they win anything? (see also "successful years" later in the section)
  • No, they didn't, although they came close many times. Perhaps greatness is over-egging it, so I've just gone for "relative success", which is a bit wishy-washy but I think better. I'm not sure about [sic], as it implies some sort of editorial judgement. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "put in a lot of work" is a bit informal & a slightly stale expression
  • "...said of him: 'With him...'" Sounds awkward
Personal life
  • Harold's succession to the captaincy and leadership of the MCC tour to New Zealand have already been mentioned.
  • "...for whom he was later made an Honorary Life Member" - I think one is a member "of" a club, not "for". And a club is a "which" rather than a "whom".
  • "According to D'Oliviera's biographer Peter Oborne, the selectors were advised by former Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home to support the wish of John Vorster, the South African Prime Minister to omit D'Oliviera". This opinion is attributed to Oborne, but cited to an article by Vic Marks. I have Oborne's book (though I can't lay my hands on it at this moment) and my distinct memory is that Home did not advise the selectors to "support the wish of John Vorster" to omit D'Oliviera. What he did was equally egregious: he advised the selectors not to press the matter with Vorster, because D'Oliviera might lose form and not deserve selection, in which case the whole business would fade away. He wished, he wished... Perhaps, while I hunt up the book (it could be anywhere) you could check this out? On the other hand, I'm far from convinced that whatever Sir Alec did or didn't advise has much relevance in an article about Gilligan, and it may be that the best solution is to leave this sentence out altogether. However, if it remains in, let's be sure to get it right.
  • OK, looking at this, and your notes on your talk page, I agree that AD-H can come out here. I've clarified Oborne's opinion of Gilligan, and I think it all reads fine without any mention of Vorster or Douglas-Home. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That concludes my comments. Nice tidy job, well done as usual. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Sandiego's Great Chase Through Time

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 very passionate about this series (the Carmen Sandiego franchise) and have worked my tail off these past few days to get it up to a good standard. All the Carmen Sandiego pages need drastic assistance, and considering this is one of my favourite games of all time, I figured it would be a great place to start. Any input provided by the peer review would be greatly appreciated, and obviously a more in depth analysis of the page means I will be a lot better off :D. In particular, I'm not sure about the images in the article. There was nothing there at all before I started editing, so I figured I might as well trawl Flickr and Google Images for images, and I managed to find a few. I do have the game and additional materials related to the game so I can make screenshots and take photos if that would solve problems. So, in conclusion, I sincerely hope that you enjoy my hard work, provide some helpful feedback, and learn about this incredible edutainment game from the mid-90's. :).

Thanks, Coin945 (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the SubGenius

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 bring this to good and featured status eventually, so I'd like some feedback on it. It's a tricky topic to write about, so any comments would be appreciated. I'd specifically like feedback on understandability, encyclopedic tone, and flow/organization. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Comments not by Crisco :)

  • Hmm, that's a good point. I think the difference between this and the example given in that guideline is a list of pros and cons that are subjectively evaluated and spuriously added to either the pro and the con category ("I like feature X, this secondary source likes feature X, therefore I'll put it in the 'Pro' section for this article"), in contrast to a neutrally curated list of positive and negative reception/reactions to something like a piece of art, literature, or other by-nature subjectively received cultural items. But maybe that's just splitting hairs :) Anyway, there's probably a better logical way to split those two sections up; the distinction between "Categorization" and "Appraisal" just feels too murky to me. Accedietalk to me 05:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of modern history

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it needs another eye to look at it for objectivity. Almost all the additions have been by me and me alone, and the feedback as far as objectivity is concerned is fairly dire, so I thought it could use a check for obvious omissions. And yes, I know it doesn't have any citations, but then neither do any other historical timelines.

Thanks, Serendipodous 13:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bronson

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 this is on the verge of being a FA but needs some improvments on the citations and it needs more references to help achive this, also i think its could be cut in length its a bit to long winded.

Thanks, Jojofrog (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Stafford

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Listing for peer review ahead of a future GA nomination (probably later this year or early in 2013). Both myself and We hope have worked on this over recent months, and it would be interesting to find out what else the article may need to bring it up to GA status. Looking at other similar articles I suspect some of the sections on her later life may need to be merged, and the discography hived off to a separate article, but I'm not really sure, and there may be other things which need doing too. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Doing... Also touching up the photo of Stafford in the infobox, getting rid of the awkward dots in there. Will upload that soon. – Runfellow (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments, Part 1

As a frame of reference, I'm using the article guidelines from the Musicians Wikiproject, though that seems to be just a few general notes, not a set of comprehensive policies. I'm also looking at the articles for Elaine Paige and Kathleen Ferrier, both of which are featured.

Lead
  • Technically, the way the first sentence is written is correct, but the phrase "occasional actress whose career spanned four decades" somewhat implies that it was the acting that spanned four years, not her career in general.
    • Done.
  • No comma after "four decades"
    • Done.
  • "She was greatly admired" could be clarified a bit by changing the sentence from passive to active. Who admired her and considered her "one of the most versatile vocalists of the era"? The listening public, the music critics, or both?
    • Changed to "She was admired by both critics and the listening public for the purity of her voice and was considered one of the most versatile vocalists of the era." Ref is offline, so I hope that is an accurate description.
  • "...at the age of twelve, and after graduating from high school..." - Change to "at the age of twelve. After graduating from high school,..." because there isn't quite enough link between those two thoughts to justify a conjunction there.
    • Done.
  • The sentence beginning with "The sisters enjoyed" contains awkward syntax, mostly because it jumps around chronologically. When "after" and "before" are in the same sentence, that can happen. Better would be "After meeting future members of the The Pied Pipers on the set of Twentieth Century Fox's production of Alexander's Ragtime Band, she became lead singer for the group."
    • Changed to "In 1938 while the sisters were part of the cast of Twentieth Century Fox's production of Alexander's Ragtime Band Stafford met the future members of The Pied Pipers and became the group's lead singer."
  • Similar passive vs. active issue as above with the sentence beginning "After a difficult start". Better would be "After a difficult start, bandleader Tommy Dorsey hired The Pied Pipers in 1939 to perform backup vocals for his orchestra, including work in some early recordings from Frank Sinatra."
    • Done.
  • Comma after "As the first solo artist signed to Capitol Records" but no comma after "throughout the 1940s"
    • Done.
  • "where she continued to record" - This seems redundant, considering the person we're talking about and the nature of Capitol Records.
    • Done. Changed to "where she had some of her biggest hits." That can be removed though if necessary.
  • "while as well as her solo work she also recorded" - Awkward syntax. The semicolon before it makes it more awkward.
    • Done. Changed to "In addition to her solo work she also performed several duets with other artists, including Gordon MacRae and Frankie Laine."
  • National Broadcasting Company isn't italicized, as per WP:ITALICS
    • Done
  • "The Chesterfield Supper Club;" - Needs a comma, not a semicolon.
    • Done.
  • "She was also viewed" - Was, but isn't any more? Also: By whom?
    • Done. Have completely rewritten the last paragraph to expand on the Edwardses and give an example of their influence.
  • "She was the first woman to have a No 1 on the UK Singles Chart." - This seems like a pretty big deal. You might consider moving it to the top as part of the first sentence, if you can fit it in there.
    • Moved to paragraph one. May also need to mention Grammy there.
Early years
  • Might want to be careful about semicolons here; you have quite a few of them, including two in a row here.
    • Have spotted and corrected a few.
  • The earthquake story is interesting and worthy of a mention, but it feels a little strange in the middle of that paragraph. Like "Oh and she sang during an earthquake. Anyways..." Not sure how you can address that fully, but I'll try to think of something.
    • Agreed. Not sure how to rework that at present, but will have a think.
  • You have "The Stafford Sisters" in quotes here, but not elsewhere. Technically, they shouldn't be, but you may be able to get away with it if you write something like "called 'The Stafford Sisters'". Even then, I'm not sure.
    • Removed quotes from all instances.
  • Don't be afraid to split sentences. "In 1937, she worked behind the scenes with Fred Astaire on the soundtrack of A Damsel in Distress. For the film, she created the arrangements and, with her sisters, sang backup vocals for the song "Nice Work if You Can Get It".
    • Split that sentence and one or two others.
  • Comma after "to be adapted".
    • Done.

More later. I'm clearly nitpicking here, so don't think any of these things are somehow going to be disqualifiers for GA status. It's clearly a good article overall about an interesting subject. Bear with me as I go through each element, and I'll finish up with general notes regarding some of your original concerns – Runfellow (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far. Just spent an afternoon tweaking the lead and the first section. I've expanded the lead a little to include one or two things I'd overlooked previously, but hopefully it reads better now. Also, I'm wondering if the Grammy should be mentioned in paragraph 1, but haven't yet decided how best to do that. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, Part 2
The Pied Pipers
  • Seems like you'll want a wikilink to Alexander's Ragtime Band (film) at some point here. Optionally, you could include one for The Four Esquires as well.
    • Done. Alexander's Ragtime Band is linked in the lead and The Four Esquires in this section.
  • "It soon worked out that" - Sometimes a source doesn't give much information on this, and sometimes the story is a little too difficult to explain in a summary style article, but this phrase here is a little vague. Was this simply a marriage of financial convenience, or was it more musically motivated? Was it arranged by the groups' managers, or was it pushed more by the performers themselves?
  • Done. I've rewritten that piece, adding a quote from Stafford and Weston's autobiography. The sources are sktetchy, but it seems that the decision to merge the groups was a mutual one between their members. Hopefully there's enough info here now.
  • I'd kind of like to know what these members played or sang in the group, rather than just a list of names, but if it makes the list go on too long, forget it.
  • Remember to capitalize "The" whenever referring to "The Pied Pipers", since the article is part of the proper

name, in this case.

    • Done.
  • No need for "radio" and "movie" to be wikilinks. If you wikilink "soundtracks", you'll want to do it the first (and only the first) time you use it.
    • Done the ones I've found so far, but there could be others.
  • This is just a minor thing of mine, but be careful about phrases like "landed only a single job that paid them just $3.60 each". Words like "only" and "just" can typically be left out in this context. Yes, that's clearly not a good situation, but people can determine that on their own. Sadly, there were plenty of people during that time that were working for less than that per week.
    • Done.
  • I'm a little confused by the story about Dorsey. After the sponsor disliked the group, did they fire them, or did Dorsey? Because if it was out of Dorsey's hands, why would the two guys be embarrassed about still working for Dorsey?
    • The sponsor was based overseas, but demanded their sacking when he visited the United States and heard the show. I'm not sure of the logistics of who did what, so that'll need a bit more attention. Presumably he told Dorsey to fire them.
  • "re-hired" should be "rehired", I believe.
    • Done.
Solo career
  • "countless performances" - Eh, hyperbole doesn't seem right here. Maybe "many". Or if you have a number, even better.
    • Done.
  • "to surrender; she personally" - These sentences don't directly relate, so a period is more appropriate. You have quite a few of these close together anyway.
    • Done.
  • No en dash needed before the name of the show.
    • Done.
  • The first time you mention Perry Como, you use his last name as though he's already been introduced. You wikilink it later. You'll want to swap those two.
    • Done. Delinked second. There are two others in the discography, but I can sort those out when I work on that section.
  • "thought to be" or it definitely "was" the first airplane broadcast? If there's some doubt or controversy, say who thinks it was the first.
    • Not sure as I couldn't find the first half of the newspaper story.
  • Comma, no hyphen after "that evening".
    • Done.
  • See WP:MOSTIME for proper time formatting.
    • Done.
  • Was "Supper Club" a regular show? If so, it should be in italics.
    • Done.
  • Strike "remembered and" and "heard and".
    • Done.
  • "established a prize" - Perhaps "established a contest" would work better.
    • Done.
  • Comma after "In 1948"
    • Done.
  • Clarify "million-seller". If the record sold a million copies, tell us straight up.
    • Changed to "In 1948, Stafford and Gordon MacRae's version of "Say Something Sweet to Your Sweetheart" sold over a million copies, and in 1949 they repeated their success with "My Happiness"."
  • "the "Whispering Hope" of her childhood memories" - I think you might be trying a little too hard to be clever here.
    • Done.
  • "much as was done with" - Awkward syntax.
    • Chanced to "in the same way she did with Perry Como on Chesterfield Supper Club".
  • Add "(VOA)" after mentioning "Voice of America" if you plan to use the acronym later, as you have.
    • Done.
  • "entitled" should be "titled", and there should be no colon after it. Also, names of articles should be quotes, rather than italics.
    • Done.
  • No comma after "with the company,". Comma after "While at Columbia"
    • Done.
  • "their duet of Hank Williams' "Hey Good Lookin'" making the top ten in 1951." doesn't justify the semicolon before it, but changing "making" to "made" would solve that problem.
    • Done. Split the sentence into two.
  • Delete "all-time" and "both"
    • Done.
  • Delete "as did many of the popular singers of the late 1950s."
    • Done.
  • The sentence "Both Stafford and Weston would return to Capitol in 1961." from earlier in this section should definitely go to the beginning of the last paragraph of this section. Change "would return" to "returned".
    • Done.
  • "mostly retrospective in nature" - Does this mean that the albums were covers of older songs that they had performed and recorded in the past (as Capitol sometimes did) or that the songs' themes and lyrics were more retrospective of the past?
    • They seem to be covers of previous songs she recorded, so I've updated that accordingly.
Jonathan and Darlene Edwards
  • This section would better be titled "Comedic career" or something to that effect. It gives the reader a better impression as to what the section is about, and encompasses more than just the Edwards act.
    • Done.
  • "was brilliantly funny, a remarkable example of how a true singer could adapt to any theme and style" - This is definitely a NPOV issue, I'm afraid, one of the first serious ones in the article. If there were contemporary accounts from critics or audiences saying she was very funny, you can say that explicitly. If this is the opinion of the source you're looking at, tell us that's who thought it was funny or remarkable.
    • I'm not sure if this is a quote from somewhere, but as I can't read the source to find out I've left it as it is for now.
  • Delete "Further success in the comedy genre came about again accidentally."
    • Done.
  • "It was Paul who innocently began the act at a Columbia Records sales convention," - Change to "Weston began the act at a Columbia Records sales convention,"
    • Done.
  • "gave the character Weston played the name of Jonathan Edwards, a Calvinist preacher, and asked him to record an album under this alias" - Change to "named Weston's character Jonathan Edwards, for the 18th century Calvanist preacher. He asked Weston to record an album under this alias."
    • Done. Not sure if there shouldn't be some kind of link to the other Edwards.
  • "they were in fact the Edwardses" - I think you mean they were in fact Weston and Stafford, since the "they" in question here is referring to the performers.
    • Done.
  • "The album was followed up..." This sentence needs to be moved to the subsequent paragraph.
    • Done.
  • Why is "full time" in quotes?
    • Done. Unquoted.
  • No commas needed around "Jonathan and Darlene Edwards in Paris".
    • Done.
Personal Life and Retirement
  • Since earlier parts of the article, in chronological form, mention various aspects of Stafford's personal life (marriage, kids, etc.) and this section contains almost no personal information, it seems a little misleading to use "personal life" in the section heading here. I'd recommend changing it to just "retirement", since that's what the section is about.
    • Done.
  • I don't think "fun" needs to be in quotes. And what is "it" in this case, singing professionally or singing at all?
    • Fun unquoted. At a guess "it" means singing professionally, but I'll need to clarify that before changing it.
  • "also a singer," - Probably superfluous, and makes the syntax a little awkward there.
    • Done.
  • "a charity that aids those with developmental disabilities" - I don't think anyone would have a problem if you named the charity here.
    • Done.
  • "Stafford won a breach-of-contract lawsuit" - You'll want to split this sentence up.
    • Done. Split into two.
  • No comma after "as a religious label,"
  • Done.
Death
  • "her library and her husband's" - Were they two separate libraries? Did these contain special documents, papers, music, etc., or were they just used books?
    • Rephrased slightly, though I'm not sure if they were held separately. Also added some detail about what the library contained.
  • No quotes around "Golden Bandstand".
    • Done.
  • Suffering from congestive heart failure
    • Done.
Discography
  • You may want to look at a few more articles and check with some other editors, but I would say that yes, the discography needs to eventually become its own article. Not sure if you'll be able to merge it with List of Jo Stafford compilation albums or something to that effect. For the article, though, I don't think only recorded studio albums should be included in an article's discography. From Discography guidelines at Wikiproject Musicians:
    • "The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums, leaving a complete listing of releases to the discography article."
    • "Live and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc. should generally not be included."
    • "If a musician has released an extremely large number of albums, it may be better to describe their discography in a prose summary."
  • The second note for the singles table doesn't seem to be in the same format as the first "| * # peaked at #2 on the country charts"
  • Considering all of that above, the "Notable songs" section seems redundant, and I'd recommend removing it, especially if you end up creating a discography list.
    • I've hived off the singles and most of the albums for now, just leaving her studio albums. There's quite a lot of those so it may look better as straight prose, although I'm not sure how much of it could be sourced. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing to GA criteria

All in all, I don't do GA nominations or any of that stuff, so don't take this as any sort of real GA review but here's a very brief rundown of the various parts of the Good article criteria as they relate to this article:

  • Well-written – With a little prose work and some clarification (much of what I've talked about here) I don't think this will be a problem.
  • Factually accurate and verifiable – I haven't checked most of the sources, but this isn't the kind of article where that's usually a problem. Some reviewers will check random references, though, so you'll want to make sure every link works and that they actually say what you've written here.
  • Broad in its coverage – I don't see a problem here. It's not too specific or too broad.
  • Neutral – You'll want to be careful here. We often tend to write about subjects with which we are familiar, and we are familiar with subjects we like. Don't let that get in the way of remaining neutral, and watch for assumed superlatives and crafty adjectives inserted into the text.
  • Stable – Doubtful there's a problem there.
  • Images – Some of the images have some eyebrow-raising rationales, like File:Chesterfield Supper Club in the air.jpg. I'm not sure how they'll react to that, but none of them are the kind that absolutely need to be in the article, so if they have to go, that can happen later, no big deal.

That's all I have, so hopefully that helped. Best of luck on improving the article. – Runfellow (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I've spent another couple of hours on this tonight, and have done as much as I can for now. I'll keep working on this though and hopefully get everything addressed soon. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thanks for your work with the main picture. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yadira Silva

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am trying to get a GA article about this Mexican Olympic Table Tennis Player. Thanks, Osplace 01:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by PJ Harvey

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 comprehensively covers the topic and I'm hoping to bring it up to FL status. The prose in the lead may need more information and/or minor copyedits.

Thanks, Idiotchalk (t@lk) 17:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Richmond upon Thames

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 some feedback on whether it is likely to be of sufficient quality to be a Featured list candidate.

Thanks, Headhitter (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot the Freak

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 trying to improve my article creation and editing skills.

Thanks, Dkendr (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Washington v. 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 have completed significant work on this article in preparation for nomination for Featured Article status. It currently is a Good Article and could use a good eye to see where improvements can be done.

Thanks, --Lord Roem (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions and recommendations
  1. The lede/intro is a bit short, I'd suggest expanding it a tad bit more, perhaps with the Analysis and commentary section.
  2. Analysis and commentary section = This section could certainly be expanded upon a bit more.
  3. Uncited sentence at end of first paragraph in sect, Analysis and commentary.
  4. Uncited sentence at end of Washington's trial sect.
  5. Keep an eye on one-sentence or two-sentence-long paragraphs throughout, I'd strongly suggest to either expand or merge these.

— Cirt (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cirt for your suggestions. I'll work with them later this week. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, besides the areas of expansion, are there any things of style or wording that can be improved? I've been trying to write in less legalese so the content is more clearly understood. Lord Roem (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While the article is certainly starting to look a lot better, I would strongly suggest putting it up at WP:GOCE, and also this might help: User:Tony1/Writing exercise box. — Cirt (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it up on the list at GOCE. Thanks for the tip. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interruption science

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 develop this article and I think that this is a very useful subject.I want feedback from the community as well as some contributions other than my own in the article. Thanks, Aodunton4 (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish Premier League hat-tricks

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 progress it to featured list status. I have tried to base the article on List of Premier League hat-tricks. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "on the opening day of the first SPL season" I would give the season as well to provide some context for our readers
  • "of the 1999–2000 season" link the season
  • "Five players have each scored hat-tricks"
  • The main table does not currently meet MOS:DTT, you need to add col and row scopes to ensure it does
  • Make sure all images have alt text
  • I don't think you need the as of above the multiple hat tricks table
  • That table needs to meet MOS:DTT as well and I would ensure it is full size, no reason or need for it to be smaller
  • Note a needs a reference

Not much wrong with this list, fix these issues and I don't think you'll have many issues when you take it to FLC. NapHit (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Montalban

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've undertaken a lot of work to put it together, but the last time that it went for peer review, it was completely ignored. Hopefully the same won't happen this time. Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

God of War (video game)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this article for FAC. I'm looking for any comments/suggestions that could help improve this article so that it'll likely pass FAC.

Thanks, JDC808 ♫ 19:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead, I think the way it's organized it problematic. You're somewhat going over the same territory by mentioning sequels in the first and third paragraphs, even though its in different contexts, and it reads a little disjointedly as is. I wonder if you could move the re-release info down to the third paragraph, in order to avoid redundancy. It also makes sense that re-releasing in a new bigger collection fits into the legacy concept of the last paragraph. —Torchiest talkedits 15:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in doing so, that would make the first paragraph two sentences and the third paragraph rather large. Would you suggest putting the information that you suggested into the third paragraph, and put the first three sentences of the third paragraph in the first paragraph? --JDC808 ♫ 16:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking at it again, I see that you don't really describe gameplay in the lead, which means it's not fully summarizing the article. Try adding that information to the first paragraph, and it should be big enough without needing to pull from the other two. —Torchiest talkedits 17:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? --JDC808 ♫ 18:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented with your copy-edit. --JDC808 ♫ 00:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
31 opened for me. Will replace 36. --JDC808 ♫ 16:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just rechecked 36 and it worked. When I checked it on November 2, I was on my home PC, today I'm on a Mac. I don't know if that would have anything to do with it or not. I'll recheck when I get home and see if it works there. If not, I will replace the source. --JDC808 ♫ 00:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
36 was okay for me just now. 31 was a weird redirect, so I replaced it with the final target page. —Torchiest talkedits 01:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good. --JDC808 ♫ 02:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --JDC808 ♫ 16:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find more info. If I remember correctly, I had to dig some for the info currently there. --JDC808 ♫ 02:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find a little bit more information, including a little on the demo. --JDC808 ♫ 22:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can find. --JDC808 ♫ 03:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit tough finding stuff for this game as Google brings up the more recent games when I try to search. --JDC808 ♫ 17:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yeah, I've noticed that the few times I've tried doing searches too. Maybe try searching Gamasutra; they always have good info on game development specifically. —Torchiest talkedits 03:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. National Forests

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 completely rewritten this article so that the list includes more than just the name of the forest. I would like feedback primarily on the lead paragraphs and the description of the forests. I think both are fairly concise, and details should be left to supporting articles.

Thanks, Fredlyfish4 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I noticed. In one of the blurbs, I noticed a comma with no space after it that I fixed. Check if any similar issues exist. Chris857 (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just read through the article again looking these type of issues and didn't see any, but they're so small I could have missed any that still exist. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a great list and clearly a labor of love! A few minor comments:

  • Do you have any reliable secondary sources? Adding a few as references would make the list a good candidate for a featured list.
    • There is a three book series on National Forests at the library that I can get to cite before I hopefully take this to featured list candidacy. But I'm not sure of its quality or content, and there are really no other comprehensive secondary sources on National Forests that I could use. I'm sure I could piece together other individual sources for each forest.
  • In the lead you convert acres to hectares but in the table you convert acres to square km. Is there a reason for this? Should it be consistently one or the other?
    • The only reason for this is that I don't notice when I do one or the other. I have changed those in the lead to km2 and left the smaller areas in each forest's description as hectares.
  • The first sentence states that there are 155 forests, but the table only includes 132. Do you intend to add the remaining forests to the table, or is there some selection criteria? Perhaps the others fall into the category of "managed together"?
    • The number of forests and their management scheme is something that I'm still struggling with how to adequately explain, let alone understand myself. There are 132 forests that are known according to the USFS website as separate forests (Salmon-Challis is one forest, National Forests of Mississippi is six). There are 155 named forests (Salmon-Challis is two forests, National Forests of Mississippi is six) and some number between those two are managed together (Salmon-Challis is one forest, National Forests of Mississippi is one). If you count forests in the article separated by hyphens and GW & Jefferson NF as two forests you get 152 forests (these are "named" forests). One of the three is Choctawhatchee National Forest, which is only 743 acres, completely managed by another forest, and the only mention of it on the USFS website is that it was transferred to become Elgin Air Force Base. The others are Idaho Panhandle National Forest, which is actually sometimes still referred to as Coeur d'Alene, St. Joe, and Kanisksu National Forests. I thought about including Choctawhatchee and the three Idaho Panhandle forests as separate forests in the list, but I don't think this would be optimal. Maybe they could be listed in small text in the name column below the current name.
    • I guess another possibility would be to list each named forest separately and then in small text note the name of the forest management area.
  • If I add up all the areas of the forests in the table, I get 187,431,442 acres, slightly less than the number in the text (188,240,056). Is this an error, or is there some explanation?
    • I'll check all the areas with those from the reference. If afterwards they still don't add up the difference may be due to how the Forest Service manages and counts areas, which I may not be able to explain.
      • I found two small mistakes and a couple missing areas, so the totals are now the same.
  • I think that your lead is better than the entire article United States National Forest. Have you considered merging the two? (and then making List of U.S. National Forests a redirect to the table?

Regards Illia Connell (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Women's Cricket World Cup Final

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made major changes to this and want to get this to GA status.

Thanks, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Hudson

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 currently a GA and I am looking to go for a FAC sometime in the future and I would like to see what issues need to be addressed before I visit FAC.

Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 00:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris facts

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Yerevanci (talk · contribs) put the peer review template on the article's talk page in August 2012 (diff), but didn't completed the process, so procedural completion, finishing steps for Yerevanci (talk · contribs). :)

Thanks, — Cirt (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions and recommendations
  1. The article page has lots of wholly unsourced content, the first thing I would do is reference the unsourced material on the page with secondary sources.
  2. Next for further expansion would be a good idea to build a resource perhaps through discussion with relevant WikiProjects talkpages, to have a list of good ten or twenty secondary sources to use to expand the article.
  3. Once that's done, I'd suggest only after the article has had significant expansion from secondary sources with more sourced info about Background, History, and Impact and Reception or Analysis, then after all that is done, submit for copyedit by the WP:GOCE editors. — Cirt (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanith Lee

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 my team recently finished a series of heavy edits to the page and we'd like outside perspectives on the improvements we've made. We're eager to create the strongest possible page and welcome constructive criticism.

Thanks, Jmdeane1 (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Flash Player

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this article and have greatly expanded its content over the last few months. I've tried to be as neutral as possible. The article looks fairly okay to me, but I want the peer review process to give me feedback about what's missing. I'm working towards improving the article's rating, since it is currently rated C-class.

Thanks, Tom Jenkins (reply) 11:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please review and assess the article under the Computing, Free software and Software projects. I hope the article's quality has improved. -- Tom Jenkins (reply) 15:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsive talking

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 be aware of any areas that need to be changed and how I can make it better.

Thanks, Mommy2bjej (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medical journalism

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 added a lot of new content to the page and would like to make sure it is up to Wikipedia standards.

Thanks, Blitzm

Asymmetric hydrogenation

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 just finished drafting it (by and large, I intend to add some industrial applications and maybe some images in yet) and to the best of my knowledge only one or two other chemistry editors have so much as glanced at it. Therefore, it is probably chock full of errors that need catching and I can't do it all on my own.

Style advice or anything else you care to add would also be much appreciated since it has been largely just me calling the shots so far.

Thanks, Bmalbrecht (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very good article, but perhaps not as accessible as it could be to the non-specialist. I copyedited it as best I could, mostly tweaking excess capitalization (on WP, unless something is a proper name only the first word is generally capitalized in captions and section headers) and wikilinking terms I didn't understand. You may want to read WP:NOTJOURNAL (especially #7), and do a bit of explaining at the beginning of the article to orient the general reader. Overall, though, a very good job; sorry I don't have the expertise for a technical edit. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of roller coaster rankings

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 wanna make sure everything is right in the article, this is only my second nomination.

Thanks, Astros4477 (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure "rankings" is an appropriate title, because it implies that there may be dynamic changes in position. A suggestion: "List of Roller Coaster Superlatives and Rankings". Note the capitalization, as well.Klantry01 (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is. There are changes in each table almost every year. I think "rankings" is fine.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all for your comments?--Astros4477 (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Overall pretty good, the list should be ready for featured list candidacy soon. Some specific comments:

  • "This list of roller coaster rankings" WP:MOS is against this due to it being "boring", so I'd rewrite it or something
  Done--Astros4477 (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Done--Astros4477 (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DASH concerns with "Magnum XL-200", hypten should be en-dash, please check
  Done Themeparkgc  Talk  23:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same goes for some references, like ref. 15
  Done Themeparkgc  Talk  23:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many" to "numerous" for a more engaging prose
  Done Themeparkgc  Talk  23:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add table captions to the tables, including the key, per WP:DTT
  Done--Astros4477 (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table doesn't meet WP:ACCESS, add scope cols and rows to ensure it does
All the tables do have scope cols and rows.--Astros4477 (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the "." dots after numbers in tables, as it is unnecessary
  Done Themeparkgc  Talk  23:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink all countries per WP:OVERLINK, as done in the tables
  Done Themeparkgc  Talk  23:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "USA" to "United States" for better prose
  Done Themeparkgc  Talk  23:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Record Held" held should not be in capitals per MOS:CAPS
  Done Themeparkgc  Talk  23:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would suggest creating a "Ref." section in table, and adding the references that are just after the tables in there, some do already have that, but others don't, so add to all, and please check
  Done Themeparkgc  Talk  23:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a suggestion, but aligning references in the tables that do have them right now to the center would probably be a good idea
  Done Themeparkgc  Talk  23:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some have no references in "Ref." header parameter, ones that do right now have it
  Done--Astros4477 (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Poll rankings" tables certainly don't meet WP:ACCESS, "Top 10 Steel Roller Coasters of 2012" and such should be as a table caption per WP:DTT
  Done--Astros4477 (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add related portals to the see also section with {{portal box}}, see WP:PORTAL, or add to the end of article using {{portal bar}} after the templates
  Done Themeparkgc  Talk  23:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any external links?
  Done--Astros4477 (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In there, I would add a {{Commons}} template
  Done--Astros4477 (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley 21:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Bite the Sun

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello,

My research class and I have created the page on Don't Bite The Sun and we would love some feedback on the page. There's a lot to be done in terms of further research and peer editing of the style and diction used in the writing of the article. Feel free to edit the work!

Thank you, Jared Bland

Fulham F.C. league record by opponent

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 some impressions on the page so far and see what needs to be changed, added and removed. The list is based upon similar featured lists.

Thanks, 03md 02:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Korkoro

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's time this article gets prepped up for a FAN. It has been a long time since I edited this article and I think this would give me a better distant vantage point when editing the article. morelMWilliam 14:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bal maiden

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 considering taking this to FAC in time for St Piran's Day, and want outsiders' views as to whether it's ready. To pre-empt two issues: first, I'm aware that it relies quite heavily on a single source, but Mayers's book is so comprehensive it's unlikely anyone will write another significant work for the foreseeable future; second, it's very footnote heavy - this is intentional, as there are a lot of facts that will already be known by readers familiar with the history of Cornwall and/or mining (presumably the majority of potential readers) and thus shouldn't be explained in detail in the main text, but which need to be explained for the benefit of other readers who don't know the background.

Thanks Mogism (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Hinde Zimmerman

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 copyedited and I would like to begin preparing for GA review. I previously listed this article on October 15, 2012, but it was not reviewed and a bot closed the review. I would greatly appreciate a solid peer review. Thank you in advance for your time and any helpful comments.

Thanks, Lawman4312 (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article and enjoyed it, which is a good sign, but it still needs some work. The lead stuck me immediately. First, I always feel the opening sentence of the article should mention the nationality or country and “American” should be in the first sentence.

  • Changed

Also, the article is about this individual and what made him significant. Even if his father and grandfather were prominent, I wouldn’t mention them as early as the second sentence and maybe not in the lead at all.

  • Changed

The third paragraph uses the work “greatest” twice in two sentences too close together. And the word “greatest” itself is one of those words that should be avoided. It doesn’t really convey content. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.

  • Changed

Also, from reading the article it seems like the hotel was one of his major achievements, but he died just shortly after it’s completion. Perhaps mention that fact. You do say he died near the hotel, but I think the fact that it was an achievement very late in his life would be an interesting fact for the lead.

  • Changed. Originally it was more detailed, but during copyedit the information was removed.

The structure of the article seems good. There are a few things...

It seems very unusual that his uncle and his mother both died of morphine overdose! I think any reader is going to wonder why they were taking morphine. If you mentioned that, I missed it. It does make you wonder if it was health or addiction? If you have that information you should add it, because readers will be annoyed by not knowing.

  • Changed.

I also like in an article to have a good sense of time. You detail the course of his life in Family and Faming and then Later business ventures, but you don’t mention the years and especially his age when the events were occurring. I don’t get a sense from reading whether he was young, middle-aged, or old as I was reading them. Somewhere you have “Made large amounts of money” which doesn’t sound correct. Doesn’t sound encyclopedic, but maybe that’s just me.

  • Changed

Finally, the hotel picture is a really great photo. It think it would enhance the article to make it larger. Use you own judgement, but I’d be inclined to make it 300px.

  • Changed

Hope this helps. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot)

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 feedback on grammar and style. I believe that I mined all the available sources on Waldmann.

Thanks, MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Doing... May post comments in chunks. – Runfellow (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Lead
  • Since he is long dead and he "was" a pilot, "former" is superfluous here. You can delete it.
  • Rather than include a definition of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, I'd include the reason why Waldmann received the award specifically (the B-17 incident).
  • Comma after "various pilot and fighter pilot schools"
  • I think you need an "and" before "over the Crimea", but even then the sentence might have some awkward syntax.
  • "Flying the Me 262," - Since the previous sentence establishes that he switched, you can delete this introductory clause here.
  • "two North American P-51 Mustang" - Do plural aircraft terms use an "s" at the end, like "Mustangs"?

Childhood, education and early career
  • "Easter 1932 he transferred" - Maybe something like "On Easter Sunday in 1932", but I'm not sure the significance of Easter is apparent enough to avoid simply stating the date.
  • I don't think "Wilhelm-Gymnasium" needs to be in quotes, unless I'm missing something.
  • Elsewhere, you have the foreign term first, then the translation in parentheses; however, for Abitur you have these swapped.
  • Need "at the" before "end of March"
  • Comma after "Still at school"
  • "He had traveled"
  • Comma after "to Berlin"
  • "In parallel to his schooling" - Not sure I'm following you there. Maybe "while still in school," or something to that effect?
  • This lists his mentor as "Heinrich Koppe". Do you mean Heinrich Koppers?
  • When you say "following his graduation", do you mean from the gymnasium or from the Institute?
  • The addition of "and two years after his first application to become a Luftwaffe officer" makes the sentence's syntax awkward. I recommend removing it entirely.
  • "returns" - "returned"
  • "landing again after"
  • "From here he conducts" - "From here, he conducted"
  • "roundtrip" to "round trip"
  • The interjection between dashes in the final sentence of this section should be its own sentence. It's important enough.

World War II
  • The dictionary definition of Ukraine here states that the article "the" before the name of the country is no longer appropriate.
  • "For the next days he is send" - "For the next few days, he is sent", although a more precise time period would be desirable.
  • When exactly did Steinhoff ask Waldmann to become his wingman? The text implies this was before Waldmann flew his test flights and mission, but I don't think that's the case.
  • "positively impressed" - redundant
  • Comma after "to a transfer squadron"
War against the Soviet Union
  • "After 84 victories on 1 September 1943" - This implies he had 84 victories in one day; I doubt that's what you meant. Perhaps "After reaching a total of 84 victories on..."
  • "28 aircraft bomber formation" - "28-aircraft bomber formation"
  • "eight aerial victories in March, 16 in April of which eight were claimed from 5–12 April" - I think this might have been part of a larger list at some point, but the syntax is awkward. Maybe "eight aerial victories in March and 16 in April, of which eight were claimed during a one week span."
  • "are transferred" - "were transferred"
  • Comma after "Barkhorn selected Waldmann's 4th Staffel"
  • "which is officially assigned" - "which was officially assigned"
Invasion of Normandy
  • "in full swing" - Maybe a little too colloquial for here.
  • Ground support is wikilinked the second time it is mentioned rather than the first as it should be.
  • "destruction numerous" - "destruction of numerous"
  • "in the timeframe of" - "between"
  • "had hit one of the B-24 between the two starboard engines which immediately had set the B-24 on fire" - Strike both "had"s here.
  • "7 enemy planes" - "seven enemy planes"
Flying the Messerschmitt Me 262 and death
  • Not trying to be funny, but phrases like "Waldemann converted to the Messerschmitt Me 262 'Stormbird'" make me think of Transformers, not pilots. He didn't actually convert into one physically or through religion, but he did swap aircraft.
  • "tookoff" - "took off"
  • "in a westerly direction heading" - "west" would suffice, I think.
  • I'm not terribly familiar with the subject, but I'm not following "the lower cloud ceiling at Kaltenkirchen was less than 600 metres (2,000 ft) and most of the time between 80–100 metres (260–330 ft), the upper cloud ceiling was at 6,000 metres (20,000 ft)"? Specifically, "most of the time" puzzles me.
  • The sentence beginning with "Major Erich Rudorffer," includes three interjectory phrases to describe the positions of the men involved. Is there any way to include this information without pausing the sentence each time? If not, is it necessary to include all three descriptions?
  • "personally intervened" - Redundant
  • Comma after "tookoff first"
  • "as the most experienced"
  • "Werknummer 117097—factory number" - Don't know if this information is necessary.
  • "took-off" - Elsewhere, the verb form of "Takeoff" is not hyphenated.
  • Semicolon instead of comma after "Only three Me 262's tookoff"
  • "parachute but is body was found riddled" - "parachute, but his body was found riddled"
  • "being credited" - "and was credited"

General
  • As per MOS:FOREIGN, most foreign terms should probably be in italics, and you've done that here. There are certain exceptions for proper and common nouns, and I'm aware that WP:MILMOS#DATERANGE may have other requirements. I'm not entirely sure which system you've used and why some are italics and why others aren't, but you'll want to make sure the italicization here is consistent.
  • Does the decimal time format meet the requirements of WP:MOSTIME? Is there a national attachment or a military/aviation standard I'm not aware of?
  • There are a lot of introductory clauses, especially with regard to dates, that need commas after them. These include sentence beginnings like:
    • "In 1928"
    • "Eight days later"
    • "From 4 April to 28 April 1941"
    • "The next day"
    • "In late February 1944"
    • "By 31 May 1944"
    • "In the month of August 1944"
  • Eastern Front and Western Front are proper nouns in this context and should be capitalized.
  • The concept of an "aerial victory" here isn't really defined (at least until later in the article, and then only in nebulous terms) or wikilinked. Although I assumed it means an individual kill, we can't assume others will make that connection. I don't think there's an article for World War II standards like there is one for World War I, but you might want to clarify the term since it's so important in this context.
  • You might want to consider merging the introductory text in the World War II section into the "War against the Soviet Union" subsection (since they regard battles around Stalingrad anyway), then upgrading each of those subheadings to full headings. As it is, the biography feels a little awkward divided into two top headings: growing up and World War II. Since he only fought in one war anyway, putting all the other headings underneath the war's label seems redundant.
  • Along those same lines, it seems like a "Legacy" section might be in order here. That's up to you, but it seems like someone with so many kills and awards would have a larger impact after his death. Were there any awards or buildings named after him? Did his flying style influence others? Etc.

Overall, the structure is fine and the narrative string is easy to follow, even for someone like me not terribly familiar with the terminology. There may be some WP:MILMOS things you'll know more about than I would, but most of the things above are small and easily fixed. Good luck on improving the article and please let me know if I can be of any further help. – Runfellow (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the valuable comments and suggestions. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Robinson Brown

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 we are going to be submitting it as a Featured Article candidate soon and would like comments on anything we still need to fix or simply comments and reviews from outside eyes. Lead editors are myself and User:Churn and change. Thanks, Montanabw(talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

I don't have much, really:

  • I think the first paragraph is way too long. Suggest you make for a short first paragraph, and lump the remainder into a second. You are allowed four paragraphs. One idea is to make "After graduating from Williams College ... " the start of the second paragraphs, and change "he" to "Brown"
  • LOL, it originally WAS two paragraphs; last PR we got a whine that we had too many paragraphs, so I consolidated! I'll split it out again (I like it better that way too, but if I get the other complaint again, I'll blame you, OK? (grin) --MTBW
  • "Berlin Mills changed its name to the Brown Company during World War I" I don't think this is necessary in the lede as you do not mention the company by name the rest of the lede.
  • Removed. --MTBW
  • Is a link possible to an explanation of what a remount agent is? Or a remount?
  • I linked to U.S. Army Remount Service as a piped link, which is a little iffy because I link the article itself directly just a few words later. I'm open to maybe adding a bit more on this, though, as the topic is poorly covered on WP. Question: would this be viewed as a reliable source at FA? It explains, "Stallions are delivered at Government expense to local agents who arrange for service and collect the fee therefor. A local horseman or farmer of good standing interested in breeding is usually selected as agent." This, clearly, is what Brown did, as well as selling/"providing" some of his own stallions to the remount service. I've also located a history of the remount here that looks like it's worth getting, but wonder how much I need for this particular article? How far down the rabbit hole shall I go? --MTBW
  • I looked at this a bit. This org has the support of the U.S. Army Quartermaster Museum, which with this web site is a military undertaking. That site links to the Foundation's website, so the Army does think this a legit site. They have a board that presumably does fact checking, one prime criteria for being an RS. Churn and change (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "PhD". I'm not sure that's properly rendered.
  • Fixed --MTBW
  • You might want to mention he cast his ballots for Coolidge (and Dawes).
  • Added in body of article --MTBW
  • "He understood" Brown understood. You are getting remote from a mention of his name.
  • Fixed. --MTBW
  • "Brown also helped found " this sentence contains multiple semicolons
  • My view is that this is acceptable punctuation when you have multiple statements where commas are also needed. Open to better ways to do the whole sentence, though. --MTBW
  • Br'er prefers a text note should precede a footnote, not follow it.
  • " Family members sold off personal holdings, including Brown's Arabian horses" This sounds like family members sold off Brown's horses.
  • Rephrased. Better? --MTBW
  • Orton, I would imagine is the O.B. mentioned earlier? Odd to mention him by initial first and name later.
  • I think I was slavishly adhering to the source cited, which said "Orton" but I'll make it "O.B." throughout, as that appears to have been the more common use. That better? --MTBW
  • "Northeastern U.S." I would change to "northern New England, perhaps. More associated with severe winters than the Northeast generally.
  • Again, slavish adherence to the source, will tweak. Better? --MTBW
  • The whole Blunt matter may be too much of a frolic and detour. I'd cut it back a bit. Or footnote it.
  • I chopped a wee bit, found one bit I clearly could pop into a note. I admit it IS a bit of a frolic and detour, but anything Wilfrid Blunt touched turned into a three-ring circus that surpasses any modern reality show or soap opera, and the "loss" of *Berk and *Astraled to the Crabbet program with their very minimal siring of foals after arriving in America is considered one of those great tragedies within the Arabian breeding community. (I don't think Lady Wentworth ever got over losing *Berk, one of the only Arabians of the time who could trot worth a damn, which was a huge part of his genetic value that was lost) Maybe refine to me if anything left is total overkill and I'll see if I can whack it down a little more and move what has to be there for those who care into a note. --MTBW
  • "a journey notable for taking a long 21 days." Not the most elegant phrasing.
  • It's mostly trivia, I cut it, probably why the stallion only lived another year, had to be the trip from hell for an old horse, but probably more relevant to a "biography" of *Astraled than Brown! ;-) --MTBW
  • "producing few purebred Arabian offspring." An implication of this is that some of the foals might not be purebred. Surely this could not be unless they intended it?
  • No, what I meant is that when he was out in the boonies, he probably was bred to god-knows-what and didn't sire any registered foals, only when Brown got him did he once again get bred to Arabian mares to produce purebred foals. I rephrased it to say he had no purebred foals, but I'm going to have to check that against Datasource because Edwards worded this bit rather vaguely (but I think that was what she meant) --MTBW

Follow up: I had someone check datasource for me (it's a paid database owned by the Arabian Horse Association, allows tracking of all Arabians ever registered in the USA) and it confirms that *Astraled only sired six foals after importation to the USA, the last four were foaled in 1924 at Maynesboro, the other two were in the 'teens, interestingly one was born to a mare owned by Spencer Borden and one to a mare owned by HJ Brown. Interesting, but doesn't quite say how long he was out in the boonies as a remount stallion, either. So anyway, can you look at the wording in the article now and let me know if I've conveyed the information properly? --MTBW

  • I question the need for a link to "gelding". Ditto "Quebec".
  • Agreed for "Quebec," but someone is going to ask me what a "gelding" is, I just know it. (They'll be a troll for doing so, but they will; Ealdgyth has gotten whines for saying "sire" and "dam" on some of her horse FAs and people have literally asked her to explain that the "dam" is a mommy) --MTBW
Looks like a nice effort. Definitely should go to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Did I hit everything you needed? Let me know what you think of my questions/comments. and THANK YOU! Montanabw(talk) 23:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/November_2012&oldid=530675586"