Wikipedia:Peer review/November 2014

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

---

Alanis Morissette

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm submitting this article for a peer review request because I would like to hear others' opinions on how to take this article to the next grade up and eventually make it to a FAC someday. Thanks, Turn➦ 08:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Bollyjeff

• I see a lot of sources in the lead. It is better if the lead is a summary of the article text, and most of the sources are there instead.
• There are too many one line paragraphs, making it look like a bullet list in some places. Try to add some more info, group related things together, and make it flow more like a story.
• Some larger paragraphs appear to be totally unsourced.
• Sometimes sources appear in the middle, rather than the end of the paragraph, making it appear as though the second part is unsourced, which it may or may not be, but that's the impression you get when scanning it.
• The last external link seems to not even be about her. In any event, reviews are better off incorporated into the article.

Thank you so much, your insight is very helpful and useful! I will keep your comments in mind when editing the article. Turn➦ 09:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Beau Ideal

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done quite a bit of work on it. Being an older, lesser known, film, the research was somewhat difficult, but incredibly enjoyable. I'm very interested to know what others think of it, and how it can be improved to be taken to either a GA or FA status.

Thanks, Onel5969 (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
3. Per WP:LEAD, consider expanding the lede intro sect, (four paragraphs), so it may function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
4. 6 total images used in article, those will require an image review at either WP:GAN or WP:FAC, suggest you go over all those image pages and make sure all fields are filled in and all licensing checks out okay.
5. Plot summary looks a tad bit skimpy, could be expanded a bit more, perhaps one more paragraph.
6. A few one-sentence-long-paragraphs and other short paragraphs throughout, consider expanding and/or merging them up.
7. Notes sect is awkwardly titled. Notes title for header of sect generally means footnotes or citations, not body prose text. All the info in that sect should be moved into Production sect.
8. Try to find more sourced info to expand Production sect and Reception sect. Then, perhaps break up Production sect into a few smaller sub sects within larger Production sect.
9. Useful reading at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Style guidelines/Copy-editing essentials
10. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to Cirt's Comments

1. Okay.
2. Absolutely. I began using the wayback machine after I created this article, so I hadn't used it yet. Will definitely go back through and archive all the ones I can (some can't be archived).
3. Will do.
4. Not sure what you mean by all fields filled in. I have done the licensing checks, though.
5. I'll fill it out a bit.
6. Again, will do.
7. Not sure what to do here. Some of the information, in my opinion shouldn't be in the production section, since it is peripherally related to the film, but not production-related. I took the "Notes" heading from another article a few months ago. Perhaps per the film style guidelines (which you reference above), I'll call it trivia. I'll move what I can.
8. I pretty much exhausted the online source material on this film. I went through about 30 film fan and trade publications, and included every pertinent fact (didn't want to get too trivial). I think this is a limiting factor in many of these old films, can't really do much about this.
9. Thanks. Will keep this in mind.
10. Okay.
11. Just wanted to say thank you for taking the time. Will be coming right back at you regarding RU Professional. Onel5969 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Anything rather than calling that sect header Notes would be better, as that implies citations. Suggest you look for more sources in archival databases including NewsBank, LexisNexis, InfoTrac, and Westlaw. Also may want to search lots of books for more info. Could try asking for your local reference librarian at your local library for help. — Cirt (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Jefferson–Hemings controversy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it has the potential to become a Good or Featured article

Thanks, Monkelese (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Checklinks tool shows several problems throughout with dead links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
3. Per WP:LEAD, well, actually lede looks pretty good. Might consider adding a sentence or two to the first paragraph.
4. 3 total images used in article, those will require an image review at either WP:GAN or WP:FAC, suggest you go over all those image pages and make sure all fields are filled in and all licensing checks out okay.
5. A few one-sentence-long-paragraphs and other short paragraphs throughout, consider expanding and/or merging them up.
6. 10 instances in article of large amounts of blockquoting. Strongly recommend removing all blockquoting. Paraphrase instead, and trim down for succinctness. If absolutely necessary, a few shorter quotations smattered about, but I'd avoid it.
7. Controversy sect, entire paragraph starting with sentence The Jefferson-Wayles descendants and most historians denied for nearly 200 years that he was the father of Hemings' children. is uncited.
8. Controversy sect, entire paragraph The manuscripts for Thomas Jefferson's Farm Books were rediscovered and published for the first time in 1953, edited by Edwin M. Betts. They provided extensive data about slaves and slave births, including all of Sally Hemings' children, and have been used extensively by researchers. is uncited.
9. Controversy sect, last sentence in very last paragraph of sect is uncited.
10. Evidence sect, last sentence of 4th paragraph is uncited: Before their report, in the previous 180 years historians had made no suggestion that Hemings had more than one partner for her children.
11. 1998 DNA study sect, first paragraph The Jefferson family assertions about Carr paternity of Eston Hemings were disproved in a 1998 DNA study which tested the Y-chromosome of direct male-line descendants of Eston Hemings, the Carr male line, and the Jefferson male line. In addition it tested male descendants of Thomas Woodson, who have a tradition of descent from Jefferson. is uncited.
12. Monticello Community sect, why is second word in this sect header capitalized?
13. Monticello Community sect, After Hemings moved his family to Madison, Wisconsin in 1852, they took the surname Jefferson and entered the white community. His descendants married and identified as white from then on. last sentence of 2nd paragraph is uncited.
14. Representation in other media sect, this sect strikes me as sort of awkward or odd, it has both prose and list format, suggest perhaps finding secondary sources and modifying to prose paragraph format.
15. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Ellen Wilkinson

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A sparky, slightly bumptious politician who shone very brightly in the drab political years between the world wars, Ellen Wilkinson enjoyed a brief period of power as Britain's Minister of Education, 1945–47, before her premature death. She was only the second woman, after Margaret Bondfield, to sit in a British cabinet—and rather outshone her stolid predecessor. She first become widely known in 1936 when, as MP for Jarrow, she led the famous Jarrow march to London, to petition the government to bring work to the devastated town. A hive of energy, when she wasn't actively politicking she wrote novels, pamphlets, helped to found UNESCO and (possibly) conducted a long-term affair with Herbert Morrison. I'd be glad of any comments, suggestions etc. While the review proceeds I will be paying some attention to the main Jarrow march article, which is a little inadequate at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Cliftonian

Very strong and engaging work here, I thoroughly reading it. I had never heard of Wilkinson. I made a few minor tweaks during my readthrough but nothing major. Here are some other thoughts I hope will help.

• "Suffrage Pilgrimage... when more than 50,000 women marched to a mass rally in London's Hyde Park" from where?

• From all over the country – clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Where we introduce the Profintern, perhaps rephrase slightly to "often known by the Russian abbreviation "Profintern"" or similar (some readers may not be aware of its provenence)

• I don't have the source for the origin of the abbreviation, but it is surely English, not Russian – the intern bit = "international". I don't think we need further explanation here; the linked article should do for readers especially interested in this organisation. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough. "Intern" is from Russian though; the Soviets used the word "internatsionale", taken from French, as a noun to describe international unions like this. The 2nd International for example is in Russian the "vtoriy internatsionale" if I recall correctly from school. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks - your education was better than mine (and certainly more recent!). Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• We refer to Wilkinson promoting "Russian achievements" and saying "the Russian people" could look forward with hope. She may well have said "Russian", but I think she would have meant the Soviets as a whole, no? If I recall correctly the USSR wasn't quite formed yet at this stage but a few of the Soviet republics were already there.

• The Soviet Union was proclaimed in December 1922, a month after the quoted speech. I have to go by the source, which specifically refers to "Russia". People continued to use "Russia" as shorthand for the USSR for decades, right up to the Union's collapse in 1991. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• "striking colours of her hair and clothing" what was striking about them?

• Clarified Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• We refer to Jawaharlal Nehru simply as an "Indian leader" but so far as I'm aware he didn't hold any office at the time (the "Indian leader" wording could taken to imply he was part of the Raj authorities). Perhaps better to call him an "Indian nationalist leader" or "Indian pro-independence leader" or something like that?

• "nationalist" is good. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• we say "over the age of 21" but I think we mean "aged 21 or older"

• You are absolutely right - done.

• In the 1929 election, did the Tories or Libs have any women elected? I guess not since we don't mention any. If not, perhaps put "260 and 59 respectively (all men)."

• There were certainly a few Conservative women – Lady Astor and the Duchess of Atholl, maybe one or two more. There was Megan Lloyd George on the Liberal side. But I don't think such information is required in the text. If I can find a proper source, I'll add the details in a footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• We refer to "the autumn of 1929", but I believe it is better to avoid unqualified references to seasons like this as to readers in the southern hemisphere autumn is February–March. Perhaps "late 1929" or similar?

• Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• "she approved the conscription of women into the Auxiliary Fire Service for fire-watching duty, a policy that provoked considerable opposition" opposition from whom? the women being drafted or others?

• From women generally. I will expand this a little, to clarify. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheers and thank you for the education and the good read. Hope this helps. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments – most helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

Lead

• Not a big deal, but is there a way to avoid the repetition of "women's suffrage" in consecutive sentences?
• "Following her defeat at Middlesbrough in 1931, Wilkinson became a prolific journalist and writer, before returning to parliament as Jarrow's MP in 1935": My instinct would be to split this sentence but again, not a big deal at all.
• Would "comprehensive schools" be better linked to Comprehensive school (England and Wales)?
• Will everyone realise, particularly non-UK readers, that a "bitter winter" is a cold one, rather than a resentful or argumentative one?

Background, childhood and education

• "She was soon struck down by a series of childhood illnesses that kept her at home for two years, where she learned to read": Not sure about "where she learned to read" here; maybe better in a different place? Or maybe "when she learned to read"?
• "Her individualistic approach to classroom teaching led to frequent clashes with head teachers and school inspectors": Some examples might illustrate the point, as I'm left wondering what she might have done!
• We don't seem to have a link to women's suffrage, here or in the lead. Nor is it explained. I think one or the other is needed.

Down to the end of Middlesborough MP so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Out of parliament

• "Meantime, her parliamentary prospects had been revived by her selection as Labour candidate for Jarrow, a Tyneside shipbuilding town": To me, meantime does not sound right here. Maybe it's just me. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments and suggestions. I have dealt with them all, except for the sentence-splitting, which did not read well when I tried it. I look forward to anything else you have to add. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Postwar career

• " Emmanuel Shinwell, just appointed Minister of Fuel and Power, commented that "it is not bad tactics to make one's enemies one's servants".": Another minor point, but was the comment made at the time or afterwards? If the former, it was rather a pointed comment!

• He wrote the comment in 1966. I have slightly altered the text. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• "and more recently had collapsed during a visit to Prague, in 1946.": I think we could lose "more recently had" from this sentence.

• Done Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder if some of the note giving potential reasons for a possible suicide should be moved to the main body. Also, these seem pretty flimsy reasons for supposing suicide. Was there anything else, as some people seemed to give credence to it?

• Not much else at all, apart from gossip. But I think you're right – a little more info in the main text is desirable. I have ditched the nfootnote. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

General

• "National Government": I notice that this is not linked in the text; this may be worth doing. Also, it might be worth adding a sentence saying how long it survived.

• Now linked at first mention, in the "1929–31" section. I have also clarified that the National Government ended when Churchill formed his wartime coalition in 1940. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Although not an image expert, I spot one little image issue. The FU image of Wilkinson has a licence which refers to Imogen Holst!

• Wow, that as careless! Fixed now Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing else jumps out from this very readable and interesting account. Nice work as always. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, many thanks for these suggestions, all covered now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Nicely put together—as always—and (again as always) it's a struggle to find too much to comment on. A few minor corrections made; feel free to revert anything you don't like.

Early years

• " classroom teaching led to frequent clashes with head teachers and school inspectors, and convinced her that her future did not lie in teaching": there's a lot of "teach" in there, perhaps "her future did not lie in the profession" would suffice?

• Fair point: I have reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

1929–31

• "same year Wilkinson co-sponsored": I think "she" would work as well

International and domestic concerns

• "and Philip Noel-Baker": To avoid popping away to another page, perhaps a descriptor on the worthy gent?

Notes

• Note 1: I think I'm right in saying the date format is wrong here and should be 1911–52, not 1911–1952; feel free to ignore me on this if you know better

That's it from me: all very interesting, and a delightful read to boot. Please drop me a note when you go to FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for these points, all attended to (I'm impressed that you read the footnotes!) Brianboulton (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

First lot, to the end of the Jarrow March section:

• Early years
  • "she was impatient with religion, and socialism" – the comma notwithstanding, my eye initially took this in as saying she was impatient with socialism as well as religion. Careless reading on my part, I admit, but it might be prudent to replace the "and" with a semicolon.
  • "leaflet distribution and putting up posters" – I think this might flow better if you used a participle for both halves: "distributing leaflets and putting up posters". Just a thought.
• University
  • "many of the contemporary leaders on the radical left: the veteran … Sidney Webb" – two things here. First, shouldn't "on" be "of"? Secondly, the colon implies that the four people named were the only leaders of the left. Perhaps "including" rather than the colon? Or "many contemporary leaders..."?
• Trade union organiser
  • "in London's Hyde Park" – it may just be me, but this construction always seems a bit tabloidese, as opposed to "in Hyde Park, London".
  • "her connection with the WIL, and its WIL conference adopted…" – you don't need the second WIL, I think.
  • "actions in Ireland" – "actions there" would avoid the repetition of "Ireland" in the one sentence.
• Communism
  • Growing up Into Revolution – in the sources, below, you capitalise this title differently.
• In opposition, 1924–29
  • "the striking colours of her hair and clothing" – we can take the clothing on trust, but you might add that she was a flaming redhead or platinum blonde or whatever she was.
    • Point raised by an earlier reviewer, and amended accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Harrison acknowledges" – This is the first mention of Harrison, and a phrase of introduction to him would be welcome.
• Out of parliament, 1931–35
  • Did the tract Why Fascism not have a question mark at the end?
  • "benefitted" – one of my little obsessions: "focused", "biased", "budgeted", and "benefited".
• Jarrow March
  • " met Runciman to protest the decision" – and when are you getting your US passport? In English usage you need "against" after "protest".
  • [Hensley Henson, the Bishop of Durham – I have him on my to-do list. A strange mixture of a man. His anti-trade-union sentiments were positively phobic.]

More anon. I'll be travelling for most of tomorrow (Lake District) but will have web access there and will look in again on Thursday if not before. Tim riley talk 15:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these observations. I have dealt with them all, and look forward to your further wisdom in due course. I shall be most interested to read your take on Henson. Brianboulton (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Second and concluding batch from Tim

• Second World War
  • "disapproved the measure" – missing "of" after "disapproved", I think.
  • "and approved the wartime legislation" – this means, surely, that she exercised the power to authorise the legislation, which I don't think a junior minister could have done. I think you want "approved of …" or "supported" here.
  • "became vice-chair of the party's National Executive" – I bet she didn't. I'll lay five bob she became vice-chairman. Certainly The Times (27 Jan 1944, p. 2) records her as becoming chairman in place of the late G Ridley the following year.

• • I won't risk the 5 bob, and I've made the change you suggest. In my defence, though, the Bartley source says she became "vice-chair". Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Minister of Education
  • "to achieve cabinet rank in the British government" – you may need to be a bit careful with this phrase. In 1945, as in earlier and later administrations, some ministers are described as "of cabinet rank" without being in the cabinet (see The Times, 6 Aug 1945, p. 2). Sounds rather daft, but I just mention it in case the distinction is relevant because there was (if there ever was) an earlier female minister "of cabinet rank" not in the cabinet of the time.

• • Apart from Bonders, no other woman had previously occupied a position in the cabinet or of cabinet rank outside it, but I have tweaked the phrase. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Appraisal and legacy
  • "ambition and pragmatism enabled her to temper her earlier Marxism and militancy" – "enabled" strikes a faintly wrong note; something like "caused" or "led" would seem to me more natural.
  • "she believed that, in the final analysis" – there's a touch of Sir Humphrey about this ("looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another, in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn't very much in it one way or the other") and I think it would be better to say, "she believed that parliamentary democracy offered a better route to social progress than any other".
• Missing OCLCs:
  • The Division Bell Mystery = 504369261
  • The Road to Success = 504641202
  • Growing Up Into Revolution = 626722

I enjoyed this article greatly. You have a rare talent for winkling out interesting women and bringing them to life on the page (Gibbons, Smith and Bondfield among recent examples). Super stuff! Now I'm off to scrutinise what you've said about my Poulenc efforts. – Tim riley talk 14:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe all the necessary fixes are done, and again my thanks to you for your helpful suggestions (and OCLC additions). And now, like you, I will hie me to Poulenc, where I will finish my review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Comment Riveting. A fine depiction. A few comments.

Infobox

• Why some start/ends of office are years only is not clear to me. Wouldn't some of this be available by consulting articles on those who entered Parliament with her, say?

• I have regulated the presentation of dates. Those relating to her terms as MP for Middlesbrough and for Jarrow are the dates of general elections. Strictly speaking, MPs cease to hold office on dissolution of parliament, usually about three weeks before the election, and if re-elected resume when retaking the oath a few days after the election. But to avoid lots of explanation irrelevant to this article, I think the actual election dates will suffice

Lede

• I might cut the comma in the opening sentence.
• "poor but aspirational" The "aspirational" is a stopper, which the reader is likely to puzzle over. What about "ambitious"?

Early etc.

• "self-educated, he ensured that his children received the best education" can the "education" be changed to "schooling" to avoid the near-repeat?
• "struck down". That tends to get used in American English as something far more drastic (death, perhaps, or in sports out for the season). Afflicted?

University

• The word "university" occurs three times in close succession in the first part of the first paragraph (plus the title of the section). Surely the second one in the text can be changed from "At the university," to "There,"
• "In her final year at the university" I would think "the" could be safely deleted.

Early career

• "the university". Same comment.
• "her connection with the WIL, and its WIL conference adopted a non-pacifist stance that justified armed struggle as a means of defeating capitalism" Can the WIL be reduced? Additionally, a date here would be helpful, as it occurs between a description of 1917 (First World War) and 1920 (conflict in Ireland). Or if they're talking about what was going on in Russia, or what.

• Yes, the second WIL was a mis-typing, it should have been the year (1919). Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Communism

• " at that time the CPGB was not a proscribed organisation, and dual CPGB/Labour memberships were accepted." This is a bit unclear to me. Accepted by whom? The people with the power to proscribe or other people? This should also be made clear in the following section, where you refer to the Labour Party doing proscribing, but I'm not clear on whether you refer to the party, or the government led by the party.

Seeking elective

• I think you should make it clear she lost in Ashton at the 1923 election. You refer to Baldwin calling it in December 1923, that might lead the reader to believe that after the usual shenanigans, the election took place in 1924, which of course is a different election. Possibly you should say that Baldwin called the election for December 1923 and make it clear at some point that Parliament didn't meet until the following year.
• "After this," vague. "After making this statement"?

Opposition/Government

• "related to the striking colours of her hair and clothing." I think you're going to have to give the reader some explanation here.

• Other reviewers have said the same - I have added explanatory detail. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Out of Parliament

• I am devastated not to have a description of Nev! (no action, though I'd appreciate the quote)

• I don't know if Nev was included in Peeps. (She certainly went for him later!) Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• " documented early incidences" incidents?

Jarrow

• Did Wilkinson speak in the debate in which Runciman made those comments? Or in presenting the petition to the H of C?

• There was not a debate as such – I have amended the wording to "brief discussion". The entire discussion is available by clicking on the citation 118; you will see that Wilkinson asked a technical question, Baldwin replied, another member asked a supplementary to which Runcimn gave his "much improved" reply, at which Chuter Ede accused him of complacency. There were a few more questions, but no fiery speeches. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• "she said of Chamberlain's actions" you have not previously mentioned the individual.
• "In 1937 Wilkinson was ... Hire Purchase Act 1938." I would establish this as a paragraph immediately prior to the one on appeasement. The remaining material builds up to the war well, if you do that, in my view.

• I have reorganised the material, and transferred a sentence back to the Jarrow section, to maintain the momentum towards war. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Postwar

• "the king's invitation to form a government" the incumbent should get a pipe.
• "was to secure the raising of the school leaving age by 1 April 1947" this is, I gather, simply what the law required, or is there significance to the 1 April date? Was it earlier than required to keep more children in school?

• The date was set by the 1944 act, but few thought it was achievable, hence the refs to parliamentary scepticism. Wilkinson was determined that the date be met, and stuck to her guns, finally getting cabinet backing in January 1947. I have rejigged the paragraph to make the position clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Appraisal

• "The Town that was Murdered" this is capped differently in the list of works--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all these comments, which subject to my comments have been adopted into the article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Glur's Tavern

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article on a historic tavern for peer review because I need help with two technical questions: NRHP Infobox formatting and rotated display of a Wikicommons image.

Thanks, Heritager (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Peer Review is not the appropriate place for seeking technical help. Try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

---

R U Professional

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

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

R U Professional passed through multiple stages of review including AFD, DYK, and successful promotion to WP:GA quality. Looking for some helpful input on ways to further improve the article. Thanks for your time, — Cirt (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Notices left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Los Angeles task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, User talk:Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments

1. While the lead should reflect a brief synopsis of the entire article, this one seems a bit detailed and overly long based on the length of the overall length of the article.
2. I'd break the lead into 3 paragraphs , mirroring the 3 main sections of the article: Background; Inspiration and composition; and Release and reception. I'd drop the sentence about "In a statement, The Mae Shi...". You cover it in the body quite well.
3. The current second lead paragraph has way too much detailed information, I'd simply cut it to three sentences, with no quotes, summarizing the response and mentioning a couple of the sources you use in the detail section.
4. In the background section the 2nd and 3rd sentences are a weird transition, going from the actual event to the recording. Then the second paragraph begins a discussion about the already introduced recording.
5. The Inspiration section is fine. The only issue was that you referenced 4 films, then use 5 quotes, I'd lose the quote which doesn't tie back into one of his films. Other than that, I like the section.
6. In the Release section, the first paragraph: I'm not a Youtube aficionado, so I have no clue how impressive 145k hits in about 6 weeks is. I think this needs to be contextualized. The rest of the section is okay, but was the song universally praised, as this section makes it appear? Or were there folks who didn't like it? If so, those dissenting views should be included, if not, than give it the props it is due and say that it had no detractors. Also, there are terms used which should be explained (e.g. "poppy" dance song).
7. Finally, if you could come up with 2 more images, it would balance the article out well. The two existing pics are good licensing wise. Onel5969 (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to comments from Onel5969

1. After responding to your other suggestion, lower in your above points, I added to the lede intro sect to summarize the 3 main sections of the article: Background; Inspiration and composition; and Release and reception. Actually the semi-automated review had previously said I needed to expand the WP:LEAD sect, so now I think it's better.
2. Done. I've broken the lead into 3 paragraphs , mirroring the 3 main sections of the article: Background; Inspiration and composition; and Release and reception.
3. Done. I've dropped the sentence about "In a statement, The Mae Shi...".
4. Done. I've cut out a bit from that paragraph, and went back over it to make sure there are no quotes.
5. Done. I've re-arranged those sentences so there is a better transition there.
6. Done. I've made it clearer why that other quote is in there, it shows that it ties back into one of his statements in his audio outburst.
7. Done. I've trimmed the bit from the Release sect about the YouTube hits. I've also added some info from Irish Independent which is the closest I could find in all the sources to sort of relatively more negative critical. I've copy edited out the word cited above.
8. Done. I've added 2 more images to the article to balance it out better.

Thanks very much to Onel5969 for these helpful suggestions, I think the article looks much better for them. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to automated tips

1. This pertains to my responses to the semi-automated peer review recommendations.
2. Done. The automated tips previously recommended to expand the lede intro sect per WP:LEAD, because previously it wasn't adequate to function as a full standalone summary of the entire article's contents. After I expanded the lede, the automated tips no longer suggest this, so it must've been an appropriate change.
3. "If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one." -- I've added 2 free-use images to the article, itself, also echoed by comments from Onel5969, but I'm not sure an unrelated image would be appropriate for the infobox. Although if others feel differently we could for sure add an image of the various band members performing, into the infobox.
4. "Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a." -- I've gone through and done a lot more copy editing. I've also nominated the article to be copy edited by the friendly people at WP:GOCE. I'll think about asking a few other specific editors, separate from the GOCE process, for additional copy editing help.
5. "You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas." -- I'll take a look through there for other ideas.
6. Checklinks: "Checklinks found 0 dead links out of a total of 28 links on 21 October 2014 at 00:24." -- Done.
7. Dablinks: "No disambiguation links on R U Professional." -- Done.

That seems to be all for now from the automated tips department. — Cirt (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Triumph International

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Is the topic large enough in scope/sources to qualify for FA? If so, what improvements are still needed to make it worthy of an FA nomination? CorporateM (Talk) 14:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Gelou

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been substantially rewritten based on academic works and it needs to be checked against WP:NPOV criteria.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Oncenawhile

• Great article and interesting topic. My suggestions below
• The first picture in the article should be a representation of Gelou himself, not a map. Whether imaginary or not, I assume representations of him exist?
• Many of the key sources are unavailable online, so for the more contentious refs, I suggest including a sentence of quotation as support
• The lead should be longer and should summarise the article more closely
• The "Gelou in modern historiography" section needs some improvement to its structure:
  • "have always" in the first two sentences should be more specific
  • It reads like a "pros and cons" list. I suggest that the first paragraph becomes a simple summary of the historiographical debate(s) - i.e did Gelou exist. Then rather than having two paragraphs with one "for" and one "against", have paragraphs focusing on the specific areas debated by the scholars, e.g. motivation to invent, similarity to local names, other proven or claimed examples of similar inventions.
• Oncenawhile (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, thank you very much for your above comments. I highly appreciate your throughful review. Based on your comments, I expanded the lead and tried to modify the last section ("Gelou in modern historiography"). Unfortunatelly, I cannot add a picture of Gelou, because I have no information of such a picture. Sorry, I do not understand your suggestion about sentences "of quotation as support": in most cases, the article itself contains a quotation. Borsoka (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

From the Chronicon Pictum

@Borsoka: Is this a picture of Gelou? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it is a picture of Gyula III, a Hungarian chieftain ruling in Transylvania a hundred years after the Hungarian Conquest. Borsoka (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What about one of the seven pictured at Seven chieftains of the Magyars - according to Simon of Kéza one of them may be Gyula?

Separately, are you sure Gelou is the WP:COMMONNAME for this article? It might be better to be consistent with Gyula (title), Gyula II and Gyula III. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The Gyulas (or one of the three Gyulas) and Gelou are not identical. Gelou was a Vlach prince fighting against the Magyars, while the Gyulas were Magyar chieftains. Gelou is mentioned under this name in the academic works cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah ok. Given everything we know about Gelou was written by Magyars, and given that Gyula (title) is a generic title, surely this connection should be made clearly in the lead. I assume the academic works mention this? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• László Péter: "Who ruled Transylvania for a period during the tenth century until his defeat by King Stephen. Just as Anonymus derived Salan from the phonetically analogous Kalan, so too did he create Gelou from Gyula."[1]
• Endre Haraszti: "In some of the Chronicles, this Gyula, or Gylas appeared as "Gelou, dux Blacorum"[2]
• Béla Köpeczi: "While it is evident that Anonymus had converted honorifics into the real names Gyula and Horka, the source of the name Tétény is less clear: he may have borrowed it from a Hungarian family's legend, or from the locality, on the Danube, called Tétény. Gelou was an authentic personal name as well as a toponym that is noted in the chronicle: the fortress of Gyalu, at the confluence of the Szamos and Kapus rivers. This Hungarian name, of ancient Turkic origin, occurs as a toponym in other regions of Hungary as well. Curiously, Anonymus did not choose a royal castle — such as Kolozsvár or Doboka, both proximate to the scene of his story — for the seat of the Transylvanian Blak leader. Instead, he opted for the Transylvanian bishop's castle at Gyula — perhaps because it was the closest major fort in relation to the Almás River and the Meszes Pass, and because it sounded similar to the leader's name, Gyalu."[3][4]
• [5]

Hopefully the three quotes above are helpful and could be added to the article. Also, on a different subject, may be worth adding this: Pál Engel "After Gelou was killed by the Hungarians in a battle near the River Somes, his subjects elected Tuhutum, one of the 'seven dukes', as their prince."

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, thank you for your above comments. Could you provide the exact sources of your above citations? I would like to use them to improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Borsoka, I have added the links above. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if you have time, i'd be very grateful for your thoughts on Wikipedia:Peer_review/Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"/archive1. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley This is a most impressive article, both for its scholarship and its prose, which, if I may be permitted to say so, is astoundingly good for something written in someone else's mother tongue, and puts monoglot Englishmen like me to shame. Just a few comments:

• Lead
  • "a dozen of persons" – idiomatic English requires this to be just "a dozen persons" or (I think preferably) "a dozen people".
  • "a sedentary population" – this may be a technical term of which I am ignorant, and if so ignore me, but the normal use of "sedentary" is quite literal – sitting as in being seated, not standing or walking. The term comes up again, I see, in the Background section.
  • "Weapons unearthed in the same regions suggests…" – "weapons" (plural) need a plural verb – "suggest".
• Background
  • "the presence of Romanians in this context should not be ruled out" – I'd lose the quotation marks. With such a plain phrase you're in no danger of being accused of plagiarism, and the quotation marks don't add much.
  • "the use of spurs by the Avars have not been proven" – the reverse of my comment above: this time we have a singular noun with a plural verb.
  • "ask that they should not sell salt to the Moravians" – another phrase in what I think are unnecessary quotation marks.
• Gelou and his duchy
  • "a tradition which contradicts their narration" – I think I'd substitute "narrative" for "narration" here: the latter implies the act of narrating, whereas the former is just whatever is being narrated.
• Sources
  • Macartney, C. A. (1953). The Medieval Hungarian Historians: A Critical & Analytical Guide – according to WorldCat and Google Books the title uses the full word "and" rather than an ampersand.
  • You are inconsistent in how you indicate that a book is in a language other than English: compare the Kordé listing with that for the second Sălăgean. To my mind the former is preferable, and it is certainly more usual.

Those are my few, minor quibbles. As to NPOV, it didn't cross my mind for a moment that there was anything of concern on that score. If you take the article to FAC please ping me. Tim riley talk 13:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Tim riley, thank you for your thorough review, and also for your kind words. I fixed most problems you mentioned above. Sorry, I insist on "my" quotation marks. :) I do not want to be involved in a copyvio issue. Borsoka (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't at all press the point about the quotation marks. Onwards and upwards to FAC! Tim riley talk 14:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "turn of the 9th century" usually means around 800; I went with more straightforward wording. [Thanks for fixing my mistake with the time frame.]
• "The inhumation cemeteries": The word won't be known by many of our readers. I take it you mean the non-cremation cemeteries, but just "the cemeteries" usually means that, so I went with that.
• These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Dank, thank you for your edits. I highly appreciate them. You even answered a question I was planning to raise (I did not understand the deletion of the "inhumation" adjective.) :) Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Glad you liked it, looking forward to seeing this at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

---

John Johnson (footballer)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to make it to the FA.

Thanks, RRD13 (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
3. Per WP:LEAD, consider expanding the lede intro sect, (four paragraphs), so it may function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
4. 2 total images used in article, those will require an image review at either WP:GAN or WP:FAC, suggest you go over all those image pages and make sure all fields are filled in and all licensing checks out okay.
5. Appears to be well cited throughout with very good use of in-line citations.
6. 5 uses of direct quotations from sources. Consider removing all or some of these and paraphrasing, instead. You'll have an easier time at FAC that way, trust me.
7. Style of play sect, not the best title for this sect, perhaps just Commentary or Analysis. Because the sect is only about secondary source commentary.
8. Honours sect, entire sect appears to be uncited.
9. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Generally very good looking - neat structure and well cited.
3. A WP on referencing (can't find the name immediately) recommended the use of one these formats in citations: YYYY-MM-DD or abbreviation into three letters of the month, so "21 January 2014" would become either "2014-01-21" or "21 Jan 2014".
4. If applicable, also mention the author in the citation with the parameters "|first=" and "|last=" or "|author=".
5. Perhaps a line on personal life? This is no must of course, it would be merely illustrative.
6. In the Style of play section, in the first sentence the word "but" seems needless.
7. Use of less direct quotations from sources, as already mentioned.
8. Perhaps in the "External links" section you can also refer to other websites considered reliable regarding soccer statistics, like Soccerway or National Football Teams.
9. Copy the citations regarding the honours used in the text to the "Honours" section. I just got aware that I will have to do the same in my article undergoing Peer Review.
10. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Good luck! Please also take a look at my football-related Peer Review, Kareldorado (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

---

St James the Great, St Kilda East

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because despite the work done on the subject it remains listed at a "start class". This parish is unique in many ways: the smallest geographical parish in Melbourne (if not Australia), its history from the closed St John's Theological College, its survival despite cultural changes in the area, particularly since World War 2. I really want this article to be a good resource, and welcome comments.

Thanks, Adamm (talk • contribs) 00:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A few notes from Peripitus. I can't find any significant material missing. It needs more inline referencing and copyediting.

• There a quite a few unreferenced paragraphs. From the context I assume that they are sourced from articles in the references section, but they do need inline references to back up factual statements.
• A few common word structures to avoid: "also" is almost always redundant as is "A number of"; "recent" or "currently" should be replaced with a reference to the time in question.
• The lead and history section seem to allow readers to be confused about the division between the the parish founded in 1914 and the physical church in 1915. Perhaps something like "St James the Great is an Anglican parish and associated church in the City of Glen Eira, Victoria, Australia." Then some edits to make it clear which bit refers to which entity.
• Has the church been consecrated ? Did this happen in June 1915 or was that just the date of the first services in the new building.

- Peripitus (Talk) 08:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Katrina Kaif

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently failed its GA review. Since the review, I have edited the article to try and fix the main issues (that a lot of the sentences are too long (with too many colons) and that the article comes off as too hagiographic). Anyways, I'd like to get some opinions on the article, so that I can get it to GA, or even FA status.

Thanks :-) AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 12:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Skr15081997

As far as sources are concerned, the article looks pretty good. I have read the 2 GA reviews.

• It needs a little effort to deal with the POV issues. Too many quotes have been used. Either trim them or paraphrase a few.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've cut a few more quotes here. Tell me what you think. Also, you've asked for the page for one of the sources. If you click on the link and go to the Google Book, there are no page numbers. What should I do about that? AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 12:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The page number is 2011. Change the link accordingly. The book's title is Mother Maiden Mistress. Is there any particular reason for using "1950-2010" at the end?--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Done AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 00:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Add that Manish Arora opined that she was the "most sensuous rampwalker" and the source supporting it. I'm new to review process and not in a position to pass judgements on what quotes must stay but this one looks important.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it might be good to leave it out, cos of the POV issue AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 00:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• In 2013, she was Bollywood's highest advance tax paying actress.
  • Dubey, Bharti; Pandey, Piyush (20 March 2013). "Akshay Kumar Bollywood's top advance taxpayer". The Times of India. Mumbai: The Times Group. Retrieved 6 November 2014.

This info might be worth adding.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that :) But, I've already got that she was the only woman in the Top 10 of India's Forbes list. Both of those lists are talking about their income, so it might be repeating info. AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 21:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Mary Dyer

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to elevate it to featured status

Thanks, Sarnold17 (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Shah Rukh Khan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC, and want to get out any obvious flaws ahead of that. It made GA two months ago, and had a thorough copy edit.

Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 01:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Some observations:

• I believe Khan sang in Chakde! India ("Ek Hockey Doongi Rakh Ke"), Don ("Khaike Paan Banaraswala"), Mohabbatein ("Aankhen Khuli"), Baadshah ("Main To Hoon Pagal"). Some of these songs were quite successful, I think. Don't you want to have something on that?

Are you sure that he sang, or was it more like talking/rapping. Is this very important, since you are already talking about the length? BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• His career as a producer is strewn all over the article and it is very difficult to figure that part out. Can you streamline that part somewhat?

There once was a producing section, but it seemed to duplicate info already spread throughout, so it was removed. Since he usually stars in the films he produces, it would be hard to mention those films only in a separate production section. BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• The article is way too long - over 100 KB prose and 8,000 words. Check WP:SIZERULE. There are a few things that can be done:
  • Shorten long sentences. Example: "1996 was a disappointing year for Khan because the four films he appeared in were critical and commercial disappointments." > "In 1996, all four of Shahrukh Khan releases flopped critically and commercially."
  • Make the prose a little less verbose would also help in places. Example: "disowns him for marrying a girl (Kajol) belonging to a lower socio-economic group than his family" > "disowns him for marrying a poor girl (Kajol)".
  • Eliminate some stuff that are trivial in comparison with the big and important information. Example: "After the release of the film, Khan took a six-month break from acting, during which he said he "just enjoyed the feeling of being sad"."
• The two section - Artistry and Wealth and popularity. Why do you need entire sections for these? It is well understood that any major film star from any major film industry would have some artistry, wealth and popularity (unless there is seriously different story to tell). That part is already covered in the body of article, and whatever is necessary, though there can't be much essential stuff in these two sections, to keep can be integrated into the rest of the article.

More forthcoming. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is really not what I was hoping to hear. I am about to add more info, particularly in the early life section, since I got a copy of Chopra's book. There is just a lot to say about the world's biggest movie star. Its going to be hard to trim, but I will try, particularly in the sections that you mentioned. My previous FA Priyanka Chopra, was accepted with 7798 words, compared to this one currently at 8628. Let's see what others have to say. BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that there is duplicate information in the Artistry section. I can probably make that one go away, but some of it will get integrated elsewhere, and the article will still be very long. We have already split off his filmography and awards into their own articles. Is there a precedent for splitting even further? One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness, and I would hate to throw away good material. BollyJeff | talk 13:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Even without deleting important information, it is possible to reduce word count in this article, as Aditya exemplified. Why 2011-2013 section is named major commercial success? He already had major major commercial success. What is different in 2011-2013? Mere numbers (100 crores) do not make these films significantly more successful, DDLJ is more succesful than a Chennai Express despite perhaps earning less.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It was already copy edited to make it more tight, but I will look for further examples like those. I may also reduce the content in the career section by not covering so many films. What do you think? Also, I am open to ideas for renaming the later career sections. BollyJeff | talk 18:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Jackie Chan is 5,000 words long, while Peter Sellers has 10,000 words. Article length is subjective. But, I assume that you are planning to make this article as excellent as possible. And, at that it could reduce verbosity and redundancy, which are enlarging it needlessly. My two paisa there.

Have you given any thought to making his producing career more accessible? That part of his story is still strewn all over the article in between long narrations on his acting career. Not very accessible.

Looks like the earlier version had a pretty nifty idea to organize his producing career.

I already posed the question above: How to do this without adding more redundant info? In Shah Rukh Khan filmography it notes which films he produced in the table and footnote. Here is what the producer section used to look like: [6]. Is that good? BollyJeff | talk 18:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And, the songs. I believe he sang for the movies, and some of the songs became quite popular.

I cannot find reliable sources for these, can you?

No, I am afraid. How good are IndiaGlitz or GlamSham?

Perhaps you can also consider a bit of his modelling career. I did walk for Lakme Fashion Week and so on. Right?

And, probably a bit on his estate. He owns a lot of stuff - property, luxuries, companies, cricket teams and so on.

Already there.

Fashion modelling too? Or is it not very important?

More forthcoming. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else? BollyJeff | talk 00:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Although I have not read it in details, seems like the article is ready for WP:FAC. I'd say go for it, and you'll get (hopefully) much better feedback there.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. In the past I tried multiple PRs, posting the PR to relevant project talks, and posting comment templates, along with indivudally requesting interested or potentially interested editors. But, all that is a lot of effort. FAC is better. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: - I have reworked that artistry section into a public image section and added the modelling stuff there. I have added a section for other film work that includes both production and singing details. BollyJeff | talk 03:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It is disappointing that there is so little activity here. At FAC, they get really picky, so it would be better to get it cleaned up first. Oh well, I will put it up there soon. Thank you guys. BollyJeff | talk 13:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want more comments in PR, you can message, or even email, individual editors who may be interested in this topic.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld:, @Krimuk90:, @Vensatry:, @Vivvt: - Could you make some comments here so that I don't get killed at FAC? Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 14:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Peter Aduja

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like others to provide suggestions to edits, prior to nominating this article as a good article.

Thanks, RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Interesting article on a deceased politician who is no longer alive. (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
3. Per WP:LEAD, consider expanding the lede intro sect, (four paragraphs), so it may function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
4. 1 image used in the article. Suggest contacting people to try to obtain a free-use licensed image to upload to Wikimedia Commons through the commons:Commons:OTRS process.
5. A few one-sentence-long-paragraphs and other short paragraphs throughout, consider expanding and/or merging them up.
6. This is an article primarily pertaining to United States. Please convert to USA date formatting in both body text and in citations.
7. Remove Biography sect header, not needed.
8. Move Family info up to new top sect, Early life and family, and then put beginning info in Biography sect, in that new sect.
9. Try expanding all portions of the entire article with additional sourced content from more secondary sources. Surely there's more sourced info available on this individual then is present in this relatively small article at present.
10. Not sure cites are needed for all those little things in the infobox itself, as it's noncontroversial info, just make sure it's mentioned and cited in the main article body text.
11. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cirt:, thanks once again for reviewing the article. I have made the following edits to the article as suggested above. I have not changed the dates per WP:STRONGNAT, due to the subject having once served as a Soldier. I don't believe that this should significantly impact a GA nomination. I have merged some sentences, and incorporated the data from the family section. Unfortunately, there aren't many sources that give the subject significant coverage, even though the subject's first election was a very notable milestone in the political history of Filipino Americans.

Are there any other additional corrections I should make?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Meineke Car Care Center

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

I posted suggested changes to this page, which is currently flagged for inadequate citations, to its Talk page on 9/9/14. I have disclosed a COI (someone connected to the company asked if I could clean up the page). Because of the COI and because the edits are extensive, I would like to have my edit request on the Meineke Care Care Center Talk Page reviewed so changes can be made to take care of the verification issues.

Thanks, HollyQ (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@HollyQ:It looks like the request you made was already moved into main article space 5 days after you started this peer review and marked as "done" on the article's talk page diff, so are you all set now? — Cirt (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Saturday Night Live

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I nominated this article for featured article without making major edits to the article like should be done, the debate of which can be found here. I thought a good first step to making Saturday Night Live a featured article would be starting this peer review and gathering consensus on quality, scope, depth, and appropriate references.

Thanks! StewdioMACK (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
3. I looked through all the images and they checked out okay.
4. Five (5) citation needed tags in article at present -- but there are also more unsourced bits sprinkled throughout.
5. Other incidents -- this seems sort of like a random list smacked together.
6. Controversies sect -- would be best to do away with this sect entirely and work all that material, chronologically, into a History sect.
7. Consider cutting down total use of quotations in article, instead paraphrasing where appropriate, this will help you later down the road at WP:FAC.
8. Reception sect, might need to be updated with more current info.
9. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Cirt!

1. Will work on the citation needed tags. I'm having a hard time finding sources for some of that info, so I might have to remove some of it.
2. I'm not sure how the Controversies and Other incidents could be worked into the history section, but if you have any suggestions, go ahead. Maybe these could even be its own article, with other mess-ups from the show.
3. I looked for some more modern sources regarding Reception but unfortunately couldn't find much.

Again, thanks for your help! StewdioMACK (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I am hoping that this article will one day become a Featured Article, but that's in the future. This peer review is so people can have a look at the article and suggest any ways that it could be improved, taking into account that two of the games haven't been released in the west and one hasn't been released at all. Any/all sensible and constructive comments are wanted and appreciated.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
3. Per WP:LEAD, consider expanding the lede intro sect, (four paragraphs), so it may function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
4. 1 image used in article, with appropriate fair use rationale on image page, good job there.
5. Not sure citations are needed in the lede, per WP:LEADCITE, those could all probably be removed, with a check to make sure same info is already cited lower down in main article body text.
6. Comment elements -- suggest changing sect header to simply: Themes.
7. Creation and development -- recommend making those two into smaller sub sects Creation and Development, within new larger subsect, Production.
8. In fact, you might benefit from reading WP:MOSFILM.
9. Consider cutting down total use of quotations in article, instead paraphrasing where appropriate, this will help you later down the road at WP:FAC.
10. Reception sect, missing info if any Awards / Accolades won / nominated ?
11. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done most of what you cited. I even managed to archive all links and deal with the questionable link I saw. Nearly all the slower ones were IGN, and since some of the information there is exclusive to the site, there's no much I can do apart from archiving them. I also succeeded in archiving the Square Enix Blog reference. Thank you very much for your comments. I am definitely thinking of taking this article to FA at some point. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

Post-TFA depression sucks, but maybe contributing to the improvement of someone else's hopeful FA can help me out. Of course, it isn't about me! (Wait, actually, please review Freedom Planet's PR if you can. Okay, NOW it isn't about me.) As I passed this article's GAN, obviously I'm pleased with it overall, but there are a few minor points I'd like to bring up that... may or may not have been there before.

• "The concept for the Fabula Nova Crystallis series occurred" - pick a better verb; "originated", perhaps?
• Creation is a long paragraph.
• "creating the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII " - specify what this is; contrary to intuition, it isn't a compilation but a sub-series
• Might make more sense to simply phrase it that they chose to build upon the idea of blah blah blah, which came from Compilation of Final Fantasy VII.
• Was Nojima's book ever released, or just a series bible?
• Did Final Fantasy XIII begin development before or after the concept for the FNCFF sub-series originated? "Early 2004" could be before, after, or during April. If that information's available, anyhow.
• "film franchises such as Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings film series" --> "film franchises such as Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings"
• The aggregate review score table's a little wide. Are the numbers of reviews necessary? Those aren't standard. Does the entire title of Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII (as opposed to just Lightning Returns) need to be written out? Also, unrelated to length, why are they all linked?
• I feel like the Related media section could go into a great deal more detail. I mean, we don't even know when most of these things were released or anything meaningful about the content.

This is all from a quick hop-around. If you'd like me to really dig into the prose, just ask, but I haven't got the time, energy, or alertness for that now. Tezero (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero:, Done stuff with the suggestions you gave, and was able to clarify a few points. I also left some comments on the peer review you linked. Won't try to ask you for anything in return. ;) --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Meg White

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I working on getting all the White Stripes related articles at least to good article quality. I realize this article is not quite there, but I've made strides to add sources and flesh out the complete story of her career, and since I am pretty much the only editor working on the article (other than the occasional bot) I would like a second (third, fourth...) set of eyes to weigh in on weak areas.

Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with dead links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
3. Per WP:LEAD, consider expanding the lede intro sect, (four paragraphs), so it may function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. Specifically, 2nd and 4th paragraphs are a bit skimpy.
4. 3 total images used in article, those will require an image review at either WP:GAN or WP:FAC, suggest you go over all those image pages and make sure all fields are filled in and all licensing checks out okay.
5. Plot summary looks a tad bit skimpy, could be expanded a bit more, perhaps one more paragraph.
6. A few one-sentence-long-paragraphs and other short paragraphs throughout, consider expanding and/or merging them up.
7. References sect combines both harv citation notes and full references in same sect. Recommend splitting into 2 sects, Notes and then References, per models at WP:FAs including: The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa.
8. I see two citation needed tags in article.
9. 6th paragraph of The White Stripes sect has uncited sentence at end of paragraph, as well as the citation needed tag.
10. Other work sect has lots of uncited sentences and facts with no sources cited.
11. Personal life sect has uncited material in 1st paragraph of sect.
12. Strongly recommend removing quote box from Personal life sect -- they don't like those at WP:FAC.
13. Equipment sect, suggest blending into main article body text in chronological order instead of in this sect.
14. Equipment sect, 1st paragraph in this sect has lots of uncited material and facts with no sources cited.
15. Awards and nominations -- BIG PROBLEM HERE. This entire sect is unsourced at present.
16. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Caldas da Rainha

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it was promoted to Good Article this week. I believe that it is not far from Featured Article quality. I received much good feedback in the GAN process, but I think another set of eyes before I submit to FAC will be beneficial. Looking for any major red flags or showstoppers that have been missed. All constructive suggestions are welcome.

Thanks, Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Dota 2

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been lingering on the verge of Featured Article status for what seems like ages now, but has not received thorough or specific enough input to allow us to cross that threshold. With every possible detail addressed on the talk page, it is time to open up a new peer review to help us grind out any possible inadequacy. JimmyBlackwing, CR4ZE, shall we begin? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• I remember the overhead map of the battlefield with the turrets, etc. marked. Even though a reviewer complained about it at the FAC, I think that we have a good case for using the non-free content to illustrate the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I was the reviewer. The map adds nothing informative to those who don't play the game. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree. May I ask, do you play the game? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  I've played it before. I fail to see what the minimap adds for the average reader. There's no precedent for including minimap screenshots in FAs, and with good reason—to cover them in detail is blatant WP:GAMECRUFT. Tell me: how can such an abstract image add meaningfully to the reader's understanding of Dota 2? Why would we include a minimap shot in Dota 2 but not in an RTS FA? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"I've played it before." I have not played Dota 2. I humbly suggest that I am in a better position to judge how informative the map is "to those who don't play the game".

"I fail to see what the minimap adds for the average reader.... How can such an abstract image add meaningfully to the reader's understanding of Dota 2?" The map provides an excellent overview of where the opposing bases and towers are in relation to each other, and how the lanes connect everything.

"There's no precedent for including minimap screenshots in FAs." That's irrelevant to this article, unless you can demonstrate that there has been a clear consensus to exclude such maps. You have not done this.

"to cover them in detail is blatant WP:GAMECRUFT." Adding a photo of a map is hardly "covering them in detail". Moreover, none of the 13 points in the guideline that you quote prohibit the map. Your characterization of the map as "blatant gamecruft" is ridiculous.

"Why would we include a minimap shot in Dota 2 but not in an RTS FA?" If an RTS game always uses the same map, and that map is critically important in the gameplay and strategy, then there is an excellent case for including a map in that article. If you have a specific game/article in mind, please direct me to it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Minimaps are critically important in all strategy games. But that's beside the point. A minimap is too abstract to be meaningful without a gigantic legend, and, with a legend, it's gamecruft. I never said that the minimap was gamecruft—I said that "to cover [a minimap] in detail" is gamecruft. And you need that much detail to give something this abstract meaning. Why else do you think that RTS articles haven't included minimap shots in the past? There is no happy medium. The map has to stay cut. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• 2¢: Dota 2 and dotalike concepts of lanes/ancients are better explained through images than through text. This said, you could easily make a free use mockup (rather than a fair use screenshot) of the playing field, as one would of a football or another sports field. With my cursory understanding of Dota, you'd want to show the major features of the map (lanes, towers, any specific physical landmarks) and nothing near the level of detail in the previous minimap ordeal. If you cannot do it yourself, try WP:GL/I.  czar ♔ 05:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• This sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd add that the {{overlay}} template should be avoided at all costs. Make a simple, color-coded image that can be summarized in a standard image description. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Minimaps are critically important in all strategy games. But that's beside the point." It's a highly relevant point. "Critically important" details certainly should be considered for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.

"A minimap is too abstract to be meaningful without a gigantic legend, and, with a legend, it's gamecruft." Utter rubbish! The previously-included image had a legend that noted the position of bases, towers, and a few other notable features. I suppose that you characterize that as a "gigantic legend". Even this so-called "gigantic legend" does not fit any of the 13 criteria listed at WP:GAMECRUFT. Yet you persist in using this label.

"Why else do you think that RTS articles haven't included minimap shots in the past?" Despite your presentation of this very weak, circumstantial evidence as a rhetorical question, I note that you ignored my first criterion: if the game always uses the same map. From the time that I played Command & Conquer: Red Alert many years ago, I remember that each level had a different map. I suspect that remains the case for other RTS games. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• The old legend was ludicrous—like something out of a Prima guide. Twenty-eight points of interest? Really? In a general interest encyclopedia article? Obviously falls under criteria 3 and 4: "Detailed instructions"; "Strategy guides and walkthroughs". We aren't here to teach people the 28 major locations on Dota 2's minimap. It's shocking to me that you would even try to defend the legend's size. As for the side points—irrelevant. Wavedashing is critically important in Super Smash Bros. Melee, but do you see a detailed breakdown of it in the article? No; it isn't even mentioned. It's impossible to play Flight Unlimited II without a working knowledge of flight instrument arcana, and yet those instruments are discussed only in passing. Likewise with minimaps in strategy games: they can be mentioned, certainly, but decoding their details is best left to a manual or strategy guide. Whether the contents of the minimap change has absolutely no bearing on anything.
• In any case, I'm willing to accept Czar's proposed compromise: a stripped-down representation of the playing field, simple enough that it can be described without a legend. This would support the average reader's understanding of Dota 2 without veering into strategy guide ridiculousness. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on this compromise, Axl? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"The old legend was ludicrous." Rubbish. The old legend was fine. Indeed you are the only person who has complained about it.

"Obviously falls under criteria 3... : "Detailed instructions"." No instruction at all is provided in the legend, let alone "detailed instructions".

"criteria 4:... "Strategy guides and walkthroughs"." The guideline states "Basic strategy concepts are helpful to understand the game, but avoid details about how to solve puzzles and defeat certain foes." The position of towers and lanes is certainly a basic strategy concept. Yet the legend provides no details on how to defeat the enemy team.

"We aren't here to teach people the 28 major locations on Dota 2's minimap." We are here to provide general encyclopedic information about notable topics.

"It's shocking to me that you would even try to defend the legend's size." LOL, you are easily "shocked". I am equally "shocked" by your misinterpretation of WP:GAMECRUFT.

"As for the side points—irrelevant." I have no idea which "side points" you refer to. Each of my points was a direct response to one of your points.

"Super Smash Bros. Melee... Flight Unlimited II." As I previously mentioned, that is weak, circumstantial evidence.

"I'm willing to accept Czar's proposed compromise: a stripped-down representation of the playing field, simple enough that it can be described without a legend." I suppose that a stripped-down map is better than no map at all. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

With that out of the way, @DarthBotto: my Lightning prose review is now complete. I'll get to this article today or tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@JimmyBlackwing:, the map featured 28 landmarks, including the towers, the Ancients, the fountains, the shops and Roshan. Since you want a simplified version, what would you like featured? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Only what's necessary to depict the playing field: the lanes, the Ancients and probably the towers. Perhaps Roshan's location could be included because of its strategy importance. See the visual design of [7] or [8] for inspiration. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the article is "Dota 2 is a 2013 multiplayer online battle arena video game and the stand-alone sequel to the Defense of the Ancients (DotA) Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos and Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne mod." That's quite lengthy and should probably be split or condensed somehow. Very little of the introduction is sourced, also. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Prose review from JimmyBlackwing

• "the stand-alone sequel to the Defense of the Ancients (DotA) Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos and Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne mod" — Too much information crammed into too little space. Even knowing the context, I can barely follow this sentence.
• "each of which occupies a stronghold at a corner of the map" — There are three instances of "each" in this paragraph, and this one is the easiest to replace. Perhaps, "which occupy strongholds in two corners of the playing field".
• "over 800,000 concurrent players.[7]" — Citations are not necessary in the lead, unless this information is not repeated in the article body—and, in that case, it shouldn't be in the lead anyway.
• A rewrite:

• "Dota 2 is a multiplayer online battle arena game; its gameplay that focuses on combat in a three-dimensional (3D) environment, presented from an oblique high-angle isometric perspective." (Italics signify an addition. Don't forget to wikilink Isometric graphics in video games and pixel art.)

• After the first sentence of Gameplay, you need to introduce the teams and the objective. It doesn't really matter what single players do until their actions are contextualized.
• A rewrite:

• "The player may command a single controllable character called a controls one of 108 "Hero" characters, each with a specific role. For example, etc., which is chosen from a selection pool of 108." (Replace "etc." with one or two relevant examples.)

• A rewrite:

• "Each By Hero begins the match at level one but may become more powerful by accumulating experience points through combat, Heroes thereby leveling up and gain health and magic points." (Remember to wikilink Experience point, Health (gaming) and Magic point.)

• A rewrite:

• "With every Each level gained—the maximum is twenty-five— allows the player to may either select a new ability for their Hero, such as etc. to learn or enhance their general statistics."

• "The Hero's methods of combat are influenced by their primary property – Strength, Agility, or Intelligence." — This can be cut entirely.
• "Dota 2 features a host of items, which the player may store in a small inventory. Said items may be acquired predominantly through purchase by gold, the in-game currency. Items vary in function: some enhance the statistics of a Hero, while others grant additional abilities." — Explain how to get gold before you tell the reader how it's used. Also, all three of these sentences could be reduced to the following: "The player uses gold to purchase items, which, when stored in a Hero's inventory, confer bonuses such as increased attack power or health." Remember to wikilink Item (gaming).

These changes entail a sizeable amount of content rearrangement, and I have another pressing review to address, so I'll leave it there for now. Once you've dealt with the points above, I'll come back for another round. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Prose review from Axl

• From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Each player controls a "Hero" character and focuses on leveling up, collecting gold, acquiring items and fighting against the other team to achieve victory." Perhaps also include destroying enemy structures/buildings in the list? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• From "Gameplay", paragraph 1: "The player may command a single controllable character called a "Hero", which is chosen from a selection pool of 108." Is the pool always 108 Heroes, or does Valve occasionally release new Heroes? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• From "Gameplay", paragraph 2: "These items are acquired predominantly through purchase with gold, the in-game currency." Does "gold" really need a wikilink? I wonder if there is a more appropriate Wikipedia article for video game currency? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• From "Gameplay", paragraph 2: "The player automatically receives small increments of gold continuously, though they can obtain more by destroying enemies." Perhaps "killing" rather than "destroying"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• From "Gameplay", paragraph 2: "Killing non-player characters grants gold only to the player who lands the final blow, whereas killing enemy Heroes grants gold to the player's nearby allies as well." I am not sure if enemy Hero bots count as "non-player characters". I suspect that this is not intended. Perhaps this should be changed to "non-Hero targets" or "enemy creeps and neutral targets"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• From "Gameplay", paragraph 3: "These factions are defended by up to five players each." Aren't there always five player-characters on each side? Or are bots being included as "non-players"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• From "Gameplay", paragraph 3: "Located in a tarn on the northeast side of the river is a "boss" called "Roshan"." I don't think that the location really is a tarn. I have asked about this at WikiProject Lakes, but there has been no response so far. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Note from the nominator

JimmyBlackwing, Axl, pardon my absence- I have been engaged heavily in a new film project, so my Wikipedia time has been severely limited. Let me get back to you on your notes. Apologies! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Real life takes precedence. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm still pretty heavily immersed in my real life obligations and it will probably remain that way until about the 20th of this month. To get an idea about how immersed I am, I wasn't aware that Star Wars Episode VII had a title or that details on the Warcraft movie were coming in until at least a day later. I look forward to addressing all your concerns when I'm free, though. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

---

List of awards and nominations received by Lana Del Rey

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on this list for a while and would like to nominate it for featured list status in the future. I would be thankful for any opinions on the current quality of the list, as well as recommendations on how I could improve it. Thank you very much, Littlecarmen (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

---

I Could Fall in Love

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it failed its last FAC and it would be helpful to know if it needs more work before renominating.

Thanks, .jona^talk 18:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by esprit15d

It's a strong article, and I congratulate you on the work you've done so far. Some comments/suggestions:

• In the second paragraph of "Background and release," there should be a reference behind each sentence, even if the reference is redundant to surrounding sentences.
• Is it known (can it be included) on which day she recorded the song? If we know (we may not) it would contribute to the timeline of her subsequent murder.
• I'm at a loss as to the value of this sentence: "Fred Bronson of Billboard commented that if EMI Latin had released "I Could Fall in Love" as a single and it had debuted in the top 40 of the Billboard Hot 100 chart, then it would have been the first posthumous debut single to do so since "Pledging My Love" by Johnny Ace in 1955." Purely speculative, and a bit fannish. The reality is they didn't, and if they did, we have no idea how it would have performed.
• I would move this sentence to the "Reviews" section: "Mario Tarradell, an editorial writer for The Dallas Morning News, called the song a "mundane ballad"."
• The term "I Could Fall in Love" appears to often in the body text (58 times!), sometimes several sentences in a row, or in the same sentence. Pronouns and epithets should be used sometimes, for example: "the song," "the tune," "the ballad," or good-ole-fashioned, "it."
• In the "Reviews" section, quotes within quotes should use single quotation marks. So, random example, "Sally said that the song 'Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star' was her favorite."
• The last paragraph in "Composition and lyrics" is mostly original research (meaning whoever wrote that paragraph listened to the song, then interpreted the lyrics), and even the parts that are referenced don't make it clear in the actual text who holds these opinions. Writing these analysis sections are some of the hardest things to do at Wikipedia, so I feel your (or whoever wrote it) pain, but keep a couple things in mind to make it easier: (1) Wikipedia has NO OPINIONS about anything. Not even "obvious" things. Not even about Hitler. Not even about cute babies. Neutral about everything. So if you read a sentence and it's a naked opinion, it's already wrong. (2) EVERY OPINION in Wikipedia has to be, not only referenced, but openly attributed to someone, and someone reputable and/or notable. (See policy WP:SUBJECTIVE). "XYZ critic said the song was about this." "Television show made this comment." "XYZ movie character said this, prompting the public to react this way ." "The lyrics say this" (but without any explanation). See if you can find what the author of the song had to say about it's meaning. The first few sentences of that section are the worst offenders, but the whole paragraph needs rewriting. The critical reception section is a much better example.
• I think the Music video section could be expanded, perhaps with information about its development, direction, production, etc... Could you add a screencap of the video?
• Remove the redlink from the "Covers" section.
• The "Books" section should be called "Further reading."
• Remove the link to Metro Lyrics, since it's a copyright violation. See if you can find the lyrics at a site that owns copyright, like Selena's site, the site for the movie soundtrack, or the label's site.

Great job, keep up the good work, and I hope this review has been helpful!Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Joan Robinson Hill

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article tells the story of the life and death of Houston socialite Joan Robinson Hill, a noted horsewoman whose death in 1969 remains unexplained to the present day. I've listed it for peer review because it covers the topic quite broadly and I think has potential to become a GA, but I'd like to know what else it might need to get it there. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment from esprit15d

• I've made some changes that aren't controversial just to help the cause along.
• Note: This article was probably difficult to write since there are multiple people with the same last names. To help with this, Wikipedia policy is that people should be referred to by their last names. When there are more than one person in an article with the same last name, use the first name in any paragraph where the last name alone would be ambiguous. (Reference WP:SAMESURNAME. For an example see the article White Stripes). Since Joan's "last name" appears to be Robinson Hill, I would refer to her as that, except when talking about events prior to her marriage, where she should be referred to as Robinson or Joan.
• As it stood, the first paragraph in the lede was confusing, since it seems like Joan got killed twice. Once I kind of figured out this referred to her husband, I began to wonder what his name actually was it hadn't been mentioned yet. Also, it's not immediately clear who the surgeon mentioned the lede is either. Characters are being mentioned without establishing who they are.
• The pictures are awesome.
• The history of Ash Robinson's education and how he met his wife in the "Equestrianism and marriage" section, while interesting, seems totally unrelated to the topic of the article. I would delete it, and start with "After finally settling in Houston..." You could possibly mention that he was an oilman, since its relevant to Joan's childhood.
• The sentence that begins, "She was also married..." kind of came abruptly. You think it could be incorporated into the material more chronologically? Or, one could start a new paragraph there, that kind of addresses her marriage history.
• In regards to the sentence that begins "Robinson Hill died on March 19, 1969, at..." "abrupt" isn't even the word. This is the defining event for the entire article, and it dropped in casually into the back half of a paragraph with no lead-in. Perhaps her illness can be mentioned first, and any relevant events, and then the paragraph end with her death on March 19, 1969.

Unfortunately, I have to go, and cannot complete this peer review, but hopefully this was helpful up this point.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I quickly perused the article before leaving, and realized that much of the information in "Equestrianism and marriage" is expounded on again in later sections. The article should be reformatted to only cover main events briefly in the lede, and the in detail ONCE in the body. There is no need for multiple summaries, and multiple treatments of the same events.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tweaks and the review. Some useful comments here, and I'll make a start on updating it. I'll also put it through the copyedit process in case I miss anything. This is Paul (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• After I left this article, I kept thinking about it, and something occurred to me. Joan personal notability comes from the fact that she was a renowned equestrian apparently. However, you cannot be notable for things that happened TO YOU after you died. Those events are notable in and of themselves. So, for Wikipedia purposed, that means her articles should be set up like any other BIO article, and the events surrounding the subsequent murder trial should be broken off into a separate article. I would recommend the following course of action:

• Create a stub called "The death of Joan Robinson Hill" (or probably some other title. I would check precedent on Wikipedia for naming ideas, or take the matter to an RfC). Tag it {{hist-stub}}.
• Copy and paste all subheadings that don't deal with her actual life to that new article (pretty much everything from "John Hill" down.)
• Tighten up the "Joan Hill Robinson" article. It is currently not maximized thematically or chronologically, and contains a little too much about her ancestry (or grandparents and parents). You can reintroduce a lot of the information from the other article back into "Joan Hill Robinson" but in a way that pertains more to her. I would set the article up, and arrange everything into the following headings:

• Early life (covering her parents, childhood, education, and everything up to I think her first two marriages)
• Career (covering her training, ascent, awards, and major accomplishments)
• Personal life (her marriage to John Hill: how they met, their wedding, major events that happened during their marriage, the nature of their marriage)
• Death: This subheading should have the {{main|The death of Joan Robinson Hill}}. This section should thoroughly cover the verifiable information leading to her death, and then BRIEFLY cover the fallout and new legislation. The new article should go into detail about all the grisly details of the resultant murders, trials, and conspiracies resulting from her death.
• References
• External links

• Start setting up the new article.

I am willing to help with all of this as well. Let me know, and I would be happy to help.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, it would be great if you could help with this, as there seems to be a lot of work to do. I think splitting the article into two separate pieces is sensible, although a Death of Joan Robinson Hill article may still require some detail of her life. Maybe just who she was–i.e., a horsewoman and socialite with marital problems, as these were all factors in later parts of the case. Before making any major changes though, I'll drop a note at We hope's talk page, as the other editor who's made a significant contribution to this. Thanks again, and I look forward to working with you. This is Paul (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, I wouldn't mind helping with this effort at all, I really cherish that cooperative spirit in fellow Wikipedians.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Mark Udall

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I eventually want to nominate it for good article status, but in the meantime, I'd like suggestion on how to make it better.

Thanks, Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 09:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 PDC World Darts Championship

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…this article is unassessed like many individual dart tounaments and would serve as a guide. This is the first time I have asked for a peer review hope I done it right.

Thanks, Perfectamundo (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably ain't more than C-Class. B class at best. -Koppapa (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Freedom Planet

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Freedom Planet is what you'd get if that quiet emo kid you sat next to in Trigonometry, who never stopped drawing Sonic characters and anime dragons on his or her assignments and wore the same beat-up Chiodos T-shirt every other day, suddenly got serious after high school and decided game development was what he or she wanted to do. I got the demo back circa February or March and picked up the full game on release day, and I recently put it fourth on a Facebook list of my top ten games of all time - no regrets whatsoever. Despite the occasionally cheesy voice acting and writing, I find it rather sweet and adorable - as well as highly replayable and invigorating. Now, what I want is for the game's article to reflect this esteem as much as possible via a successful FA nomination, so drop a few thoughts here if you don't mind.

Oh, and I know the Reception section has zero organization; I'm just endlessly waiting for some kind of feedback on a few sources - the discussion's at WT:VG/RS if you're interested in helping! - before I rewrite that, so I know what exactly it is I'll be working with. Don't let that distract you; there may well be plenty else to critique.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake

Part 1

Right, here's my two bits. I may come back and find something else, but this is what I can see from a cursory glance.

• One gameplay image and some concept art I can understand, but there are two gameplay images that don't seem to show enough unique functions to justify both their uses (unlike Drakengard, which really did need two images), an image in the plot section displaying something that could just as easily be described with text alone and two pieces of concept art for the game in the same section, which seems a little excessive. Also, the concept art does not seem to relate to any of the characters described in the text.

• Thanks for keeping a watch out for that. In this case, know that every image in the article is freely licensed; Strife was generous enough to license the entire press kit + the one screenshot and coverart that were already in the article under CC, so I think the current set of images does a nice job of illustrating various aspects of the game. The two concept art images are of Torque and Brevon, probably the two most major characters who aren't playable. (Torque's the alien Fourth Jonas Brother who flies planes and gets kidnapped; Brevon is the bad guy.) I wanted to put them in one single thumbnail, but wasn't sure how to do that. (There's also concept art of a few other characters, like Mayor Zao and Neera, but I thought that'd be going a little overboard.) Tezero (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• "As a result of pervasive similarities in the fast-paced gameplay, aesthetics, and level design, including Freedom Planet has been frequently compared to the Sonic the Hedgehog games released for the Sega Genesis in the early 1990s.[1][2][3][4][6]" - Two things in this sentence: 'pervasive' seems a little negative for a neutral Wikipedia article as it isn't part of a quote, and the word 'including' seems superfluous.

• Changed to "wide-ranging"; see if that's better. (Probably worth noting that critics have actually generally loved the Genesis Sonic similarities, but hey.) As for "including", I don't know how that got there; I certainly didn't add it. (There were two spaces after it, too, which is an anti-Tezero calling card.) Tezero (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Shortly before that date, it was delayed again to July 19 to escape competition from heavily discounted games at Steam's Summer Sale and to be promoted at a convention in Miami, Florida." - the grammar in this sentence seems a little suspect to me. The main thing that shouted out at me was "at Steam's Summer Sale". Wouldn't "in Steam's Summer Sale" be better? But I leave that up to your judgement.

• It's fine. Changed. Tezero (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• As to Reception, I can have a look around.

That's what I saw with a cursory glance. May be back for some more detailed stuff. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Part 2

Here's my second batch of comments.

• "Freedom Planet began development as a Sonic the Hedgehog fangame, but when DiDuro became disillusioned with this task, he took to DeviantArt to recruit artist Ziyo Ling." - Maybe "he went" rather than "he took". But that's just a suggestion.

• A little more natural, a little more bland, I guess. I think I'll leave it as is for now and change it up later if someone takes issue at the FAC. Tezero (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• "However, DiDuro felt that the Sonic affiliation would hold the game back, so he tried creating his own protagonist, but he did not like any of his creations.[7]" - Too many 'he' verbs in my opinion. If I were writing it, I would rewrite the third part of the sentence as ""but did not like any of his creations.

• Done. Tezero (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• "The game was funded by Kickstarter and reached its goal with aplomb:" - Erm... what's aplomb beyond a physical law of ballet?

• It means something succeeded... a lot, and with finesse (definition). I figured that was a well-understood phrase; I actually didn't know it was a ballet term. Tezero (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That's really all I saw. Oh and magazine Hardcore Gamer has a review of the game. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I was wondering how I could possibly have skipped over that one... only to realize it was only released today. Tezero (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

---

I Never Liked You

This peer review discussion has been closed.

One of my favourite books, I'm aiming at making a Featured Article out of this, and would appreciate any feedback I can get.

Thanks, Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)**

Comments from Tim riley

Not much to contribute.

• A couple of phrases need attention:
  • she tries to spend to with him
  • she tries to talk about awkward subject
• and this was new to me and looks strange:
  • hid-and-side games
• Background
  • The first three sentences all begin "Brown"
• Publication
  • A "New Definitive Edition"… the second occurrence of "Brown" in this sentence would be better as "he".
• Reception and legacy
  • Something odd has happened to the possessive apostrophe in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 13:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! These should be all fixed now. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Hide and side"? not "Hide and seek"? Tim riley talk 00:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Aargh! Fixed. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      

---

Santa Cruz Parish Church (Maribojoc)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review for comments related to possible FA nomination in the future Thanks, Carlojoseph14 (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Intriguing article on a building relating to a major religion, one according to its Wikipedia article is "among the oldest religious institutions in the world", the Catholic Church. (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
3. Per WP:LEAD, consider expanding the lede intro sect, (four paragraphs), so it may function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. Currently there are indeed multiple paragraphs, but quite skimpy in size.
4. 9 total images used in article, those will require an image review at either WP:GAN or WP:FAC, suggest you go over all those image pages and make sure all fields are filled in and all licensing checks out okay. You may want to trim down number of images used in article, to make it easier on image reviewer doing image reviews at WP:FAC.
5. Citation number 3 is tagged as unreliable source. This needs to be resolved before WP:FAC.
6. A few one-sentence-long-paragraphs and other short paragraphs throughout, consider expanding and/or merging them up.
7. References sect combines both harv citation notes and full references in same sect. Recommend splitting into 2 sects, Notes and then References, per models at WP:FAs including: The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa.
8. All notes in Notes sect need citations, otherwise this is also unsourced info which will be a problem at WP:FAC.
9. 2013 Bohol earthquake sect, there's gotta be more sourced info in secondary sources that could be used to expand this sect from just two (2) total sentences in sect.
10. Dome -- one-sentence-long-sect is a bit questionable, could maybe be expanded or merged elsewhere.
11. Location sect should be ordered before Church history sect.
12. Features sect could be retitled instead as Building features sect, to indicate this is about the building itself, and not history or about congregation etc.
13. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply

1. Actually, the article was restored to its contents, layout by another editor after it passed GA. Here are the comments:
2. Done. The link was on the external link section.
3. Noted. Will expand it later.
4. Noted.
5. The article was restored by an editor to the its content after passing GA due to unnecessary edits. This is resolved.
6. Noted.
7. Restored to GA status history. Done
8. Done
9. Done.
10. Done. Merged with Interiors section.
11. Done.
12. How about architecture?
13. I'll edit the other sections later. Thanks for the PR. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    

---

Virginia Tech shooting

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was a former featured article and lots of people have been trying to re-list it since it lost it's status, but failed to do so. I would like to get help to find and fix errors before re-nominating it as a GA.

Thanks, Chamith (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Josh Hutcherson

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I brought this article to GAN about a year ago and it was successful in that nomination. The end goal is a successful FAC. I attempted a peer review of this article before but it received not one comment of feedback. I brought it to FAC after that and received some helpful feedback, but nobody was commenting on it and it was eventually archived with no consensus to promote. I'm back again here for try #2, looking for some tips and ideas on how to best get this article ready to go for another FAC. Any and all help is appreciated! Gloss 21:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am no expert at good article pages about famous people, but in the assumption that every tiny bit might help:

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Overall very good looking - neat structure and well cited.
3. A WP on referencing/citing (can't find the name immediately) recommended the use of one these formats in citations: YYYY-MM-DD or abbreviation into three letters of the month, so "21 January 2014" would become either "2014-01-21" or "21 Jan 2014".
4. In the "Awards and nominations" table, you should lump together the same years and if applicable also the organizations, just like in the Filmography table. It gives a better overview and a lighter look.
5. Below the picture in section "Personal life", the word "(right)" seems needless

Good luck! Please also take a look at my Peer Review, Kareldorado (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the review. However, I'm concerned with these requests. I've never heard of the recommended format being YYYY-MM-DD, would you mind linking to that guideline before I begin a load of work I'm not necessarily sure is necessary. For the table concern, per WP:ACCESS, the years are not supposed to be lumped together, rowspans are not supposed to be used. And as for the picture caption, the word (right) is included because the word (left) is also included (which I feel makes the most sense). Gloss 02:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Regarding the format, I hope to solve this issue this weekend. About the lumping: you (or other editors) DO lump together in the Filmography table and also the awards of 2013, why then? Where does Wikipedia disapprove of using rowspan (I would like to know it, made many tables myself...)? Writing "(right)" is of course not wrong, but not really needed IMO - you write a caption for two images and by specifying which is the first you discuss, you indicate the position of the other implicitly. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently it is rather considered "helpful" than "recommended", see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Date formats. Personally I prefer DD MMM YYYY in citations (with the month in letters), but this is no must. The only thing that is recommended is consistency in date notation within the same article. Kareldorado (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, it's currently not consistent so I'm going to fix that as soon as possible. Gloss 20:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Which I've taken care of. Gloss 23:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Brown County State Park

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it to GA. This is Indiana's largest state park, and it deserves better than Start-Class.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have little experience with Geography articles, but in the assumption that every tiny bit might help:

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Generally very, very good looking - neat structure, well cited and beautifully illustrated. In my humble opinion, the article class can easily jump to B-class and GA is within close reach.
3. Credit to whom it is due, nice pictures by Diego Delso, but there is not really a need to mention him below the pictures.
4. Tiny detail: I would use the larger dash (–) between numbers or years, and small dash (-) within words.
5. Below the heading "Activities" I would write a summarizing sentence mentioning that the park allows for mountain biking, fishing, hiking and horse riding.

Great job so far and good luck! Please also take a look at my Peer Review, Kareldorado (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking at the Brown County State Park article. I will make the suggested changes (4 and 5) on Saturday when I have more time. For item number 3: one of the conditions for using the pictures by Diego Delso is that he must be credited. I am not a fan of using pictures where the author must be credited, but his pictures were the best—and I now live too far away to take my own pictures. If you are certain that I do not need to credit him, please confirm that.TwoScars (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Khyri Thornton

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just got it up to DYK status and would like to potentially take it through a Good Article Review.

Thanks, Church ^Talk 21:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Morgan Freeman on screen and stage

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Morgan Freeman has a long, extensive career history that is still being added to. He's also one of my fav actors and deserves to have a great career history. Any suggestions would be helpful!

Thanks, LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Going for another FL? I did a bit of copyediting to the lead, and am happy to give this some preliminary comments.....

Yes ;) Probably my last one for a while, just felt nice to get articles to FL status. Thanks Snuggums LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• "before being cast in the 1989 war film Glory as Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins"..... not sure the prefixes should be abbreviated if included
  •  Done
• "he played God in the comedy film Bruce Almighty opposite Jim Carrey and again in the sequel Evan Almighty"..... if mentioning Carrey for Bruce Almighty, then Steve Carell should be mentioned for Even Almighty; in its current form, this could suggest Carrey was in Evan Almighty when in fact he wasn't.
  •  Done
• "During that time he also"..... needs comma after "time"
  •  Done
• "he played Eddie 'Scrap Iron' Dupris in Clint Eastwood's film Million Dollar Baby, which he won an Academy Award"
  • What needed changing? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I forgot to say that it should be "for which" Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
      •  Done
• "The following year he was in"..... needs comma after "year"
  •  Done
• FN20: Time shouldn't be in all caps
  •  Done
• FN21: Should read The Baltimore Sun
  •  Done
• FN34: Michael Fleming Jr → Michael Fleming, Jr.
  •  Done
• FN36: reliable?
  •  Done - replaced
• FN37: Same as FN20
  •  Done if you meant that Time doesn't need to be caps
    • Yes
• FN's 38 and 39: reliable?
  • 38 is The New York Times? and FN 39 replaced.
    • I derped on 38 :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL it's ok! LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking through again, I meant to say FN40 (Crave Online) Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yea, as far as I can tell CraveOnline is reliable. Nothing about it says it's gossip or heresay. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• FN44: Same as FN36
  •  Done - replaced
• FN's 46 and 47: Should read TheWrap
  •  Done
• FN57: USA Today should be italicized
  •  Done
• FN56: Since publishers aren't being used in other refs, I'd say remove "Hearst Newspapers" for consistency
  •  Done
• FN70: reliable?
  •  Done - replaced
• FN71: Same as FN's 46 and 47
  •  Done
• FN72: The Hollywood Reporter should be italicized
  •  Done
• FN's 78 and 79: Should simply read "New York"
  •  Done
• FN82: The New York Times should be italicized
  •  Done

Hope this helps! Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Snuggums! All done except on a couple, didn't know what you meant by "FN37 is the same as FN20", did you mean like make both Times not capitalized? And then you said 38 isn't reliable but it's the New York Times, so I didn't know if that was a mistake or not? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes that was a mistake on my part. You did everything right :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Lol awesome, thanks so much! LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

---

New Zealand national team nomenclature based on the "All Blacks"

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… The All Blacks are one of the most iconic sports brands in the world. The status of this brand has an influence on all national sports teams in New Zealand, so much that I created this list which I would like reviewed. Thanks, Bogger (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• To start, it looks like a good idea for a list and a good start overall. The "All Blacks" name certainly has considerable influence on other New Zealand team names.
• For some reason, reference 11 (Heveldt, Guy (3 July 2014). "Silver Ferns prepare for physicality". Radio Sport Website. Retrieved 4 September 2014.) shows a 404 error, although it was accessed in September of this year. That's the only broken link.
• Also, you might look for free images that can be added to the "logo" column where there is not a logo for a given team.
• For notes, you might add why the name was chosen (What is the significance of the "All Blacks" name? How does it relate to a green fern? etc.) and any other interesting facts about the team, such as that the All Blacks are currently the #1 rugby team in the world.
• As a side note, I saw the All Blacks play USA Rugby in Chicago yesterday, and they were impressive. They certainly deserve Wikipedia articles and lists that are the same way! Tonystewart14 (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  

---

Francis Poulenc

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Francis Poulenc is another French composer I hope to get to FA standard in the wake of Fauré and Massenet. Poulenc is too often dismissed as a lightweight, and I hope I have done a little bit to counter that misapprehension. Comments on prose, balance, images, sourcing, indeed anything, will be gratefully received. Tim riley talk 11:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from BB

First half:

Lead

• "he came under the influence of Erik Satie and Jean Cocteau, under whose tutelage he became one of a group of young composers..." This sort of suggests that Cocteau was one of Poulenc's music tutors, which is hardly the case. Also, I note that the only reference to Cocteau's influence on the young Poulenc is in a quotation of Milhaud – we next meet Cocteau in 1958. So if Cocteau is worthy of mention in the lead, his influence needs to be spelled out a little more directly.

Early years

• "when he was eight he first heard the music of Debussy and was fascinated by its modernism." Could the eight-year-old really identify "modernism"? I suspect that it was the originality of the sound that fascinated him, which only later he recognised as modernism.
• Referring back to my earlier comment re Cocteau, it seems that the musical influence of Viñes was profound, but he is not mentioned in the lead at all.
• "Henri Hell" – what a name! A slightly spooky inversion of "Henry Hall" – remember him?
  • "Here's to the next time", if I have the right bandleader. This bloke's name has forced me to flout WP rules about repeating people's given names. I can't say, e.g., "Hell finds the work enjoyable" without the risk of raising the eyebrows of the devout. Tim riley talk 18:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

First compositions and Les Six

• jeu d'esprit is probably worth a link
• Comma after "local elementary school at Saint-Martin-sur-le-Pré"?
• ...and another after "known in France"
• [Doesn't Ravel look rather like Kenneth Williams? SchroCat and Cassianto need to be advised]
• Is it possible to present the text of the Milhaud quotation in a manner that differentiates it from the main text in some way?
  • It's a blockquote; does the indented left-hand margin bump into the tripartite mugshot on your screen? You must have an unusually big one. The layout looks fine on my desktop and laptop. I could make it a full width quote box, but I'm not sure that would help. I suspect the vagaries of hugely differing screen sizes and resolutions are something up with which we simply have to put. Tim riley talk 18:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• "taking a total of 58 lessons" is a little Pooterish – maybe not essential info?

1920s: increasing fame

• "In 1922 Poulenc and Milhaud travelled to Austria to meet Alban Berg, Anton Webern and Arnold Schönberg. Neither of the French composers was influenced by their Austrian colleagues' revolutionary twelve tone system, but they admired and respected its three leading proponents." Slight confusion in the wording here; I would end the second sentence "...But they admired the three as its leading proponents".
• Make it clearer that Les biches is the ballet referred to in the previous sentence

1930s: new seriousness

• "after two years' break" → "after a two years' break"?
• "The following year he wrote three sets of songs..." – probably name rather than pronoun, for clarity (the following "Poulenc" could be a "he"}

If I may say so, notwithstanding the above minor gripes, the prose bounces along most pleasantly and is a joy to read. I look forward to the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, BB. Absolutely ad rem and all attended to apart from the one layout point (as above) and the suggested link to jeu d'esprit: I'll wait to see if I get away with "leg-Poulenc" once non-English reviewers look in (if they do) before tweaking the jeu. If Wehwalt or Ssilvers tells me "leg pulling" won't do for American readers, or Cg2p0B0u8m expresses disapproval, I'll be getting the blue pencil out for this sentence. Looking forward to your further comments, at your leisure. No rush, as ever. Tim riley talk 18:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"My well-loved lord and guardian dear, you ping-ed me, and I-I-I-I am here." I think the footnote about the leg-pulling is quite clear. Is that the question? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It was, and I'm v. grateful for your view on it! The Lord Chancellor talk 19:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with it as it stands and will put this article on my "to review list".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you, sir! Looking forward to it. No rush whatever. Tim riley talk 21:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Continuing and concluding

1940s: war and post-war

• " Vous n'aurez pas l'Alsace et la Lorraine" - will everyone know what this means and why it would rile the occupying Germans? Possibly a case for a footnote?
  • Shall add one. Good idea. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Any reason for the delay in the Paris premiere of Figure humaine until two years after the war?
  • Yes: it was too difficult for French choirs. If I can find the ref I can add it, though that won't do much for the entente cordiale. The lack of good choirs, glanced at in my text, is one reason why the French don't admire Poulenc's choral music as we do in Anglophone lands – the French public seldom gets to hear it, and even more seldom gets to hear it well done. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• "crossed swords with composers of the younger generation..." – one or two names, perhaps (other than Boulez who you do mention later)?
  • I'm away from home and bookshelves till midweek: will check then and add accordingly. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

1950–63: The Carmelites and last years

• Can you give the date and/or other details of the French premiere of The Carmelites
  • Will do. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• I was surprised to read that in 1961 Poulenc published a biography of Chabrier. Had he any prose writing experience before this? Otherwise it seems a pretty tall order for a man in his sixties with a busy professional life.
  • He wrote more than he let on. In the 1950s he took part in innumerable radio discussions about music – his own and others' – which he carefully scripted in advance to get his point of view across and project his image as a serious composer. Many of these scripts have been edited and published and they run to several volumes. (One can only conclude that French radio was considerably up-market then from its present sorry state.) – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• The fatal heart attack comes rather suddenly. Was there any recent prior history of illness to account for the attack?
  • Physically, a touch of liver trouble (well, he was French) but no harbinger of heart failure. One biographer thinks the drugs he took for his depression may have been a partial contributor to his heart attack, but there is no evidence clear enough to mention in the article, I think. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Music

Since I have little knowledge of Poulenc's music [Cries of "shame", "resign" etc from TR], my comments will tend to be niggles relating to style, punctuation etc:

• "In Hell's view" – I rather gathered you were avoiding this construction (and later on, "To Hell...!)
  • Indeed. The latter is, truth to tell, a deliberate try-on, but the first was an oversight, now fixed. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• The long sentence beginning "Poulenc had no time for musical theories" could advantageously be split, but more importantly, there is a hint of editorialising in phrases such as "had no time for" and "was exasperated by". These views need to be attributed.
  • Done. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Reconsider your use of colons in the sentences beginning "The Concert champêtre..." and "It draws on a variety of stylistic sources..." They seem to me as though they should be semis.
  • No, I think I mean colons there – in Fowler's words "to deliver the goods that have been invoiced in the preceding words" (or in Gowers's more decorous phrase I'm using the colons "to precede an explanation or particularisation"). My personal rule of thumb is that semicolons can always be replaced with a conjunction, but colons can't. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• "a poignant musical portrait" – editorial opinion?
  • The source says "haunting", of which I think "poignant" is a reasonable paraphrase. Will you buy that? – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• successive sentences beginning "They are..."?
  • Not now. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• In the "Chamber" subsection, I did not feel I got a clear idea of the musical character of the works in the second period. The Aubade's achieving "an almost orchestral effect" is really the only piece of musical description in this paragraph. There is more in the other two.
  • I agree, and have enlarged. Thanks for spotting the gap. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• "I have finished Les Ténèbres." Is this a reference to Sept répons des ténèbres, which is mentioned in the next sentence, or to a different work?
  • It is. I suppose an English composer would have called it "Tenebrae responses". Ought I to make it crystal clear? – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Reputation

• Are we permitted to include, verbatim, a 200-word extract from what is presumably copyrighted material? I feel that a quotation of this length would be considered as "unacceptable use" according to Wikipedia:Non-free content. The instuctions here deem as acceptable "brief quotations of copyrighted text" but forbid "excessively long copyrighted excerpts". Surely it would be possible to paraphrase much of Larner's tribute and limit the verbatim quote to a pithy couple of sentences?
  • Done. I have inevitably lost some of the piquancy of Larner's phrasing, but I take your point about the length of the quotation – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That is me done for now. A fine article indeed; I'll let those with greater knowledge of the music have their say on the "Music" section, although it generally reads comfortably for the non-expert. I would like your view, however, on the final point that I raise. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these points, Brian. Some solid improvements arise therefrom, and I'm grateful as always. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Alfietucker

Hi Tim. I've been "away" for some time, and still have - alas - little time to devote to WP, but I couldn't resist having a read-through of your lovely article. Just a few comments:

Early years

• 'a lifelong taste for what he called "adorable bad music"' – some examples of this, please? After all, one person’s “adorable bad music” is another person’s…
  • Done. Tim riley talk 09:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

First compositions and Les Six

• Ravel 'damned the recent works of Debussy and the whole of Chabrier's music'. I haven’t got any of my sources to hand, but this seems a little unlikely on the face of it, since Ravel admitted being strongly influenced by Chabrier in his Minuet antique, and also did an affectionate À la manière de Chabrier. I think a footnote at least to more fully explain Ravel's position/the context of his (alleged?) dismissal might be an idea here.
  • Redrawn and expanded. Tim riley talk 09:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• According to Milhaud, "Auric and Poulenc followed the ideas of Cocteau". What ideas? Can we say something about this, if only in a footnote (though I think it deserves a sentence or two earlier in the article)?
  • Done. I think I've slipped the extra bit in reasonably smoothly. Tim riley talk 09:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• [A point of style - I notice the Milhaud quote uses capital 'R' for Romanticism, as in the aesthetic rather than "lurve". Do you want to do an initial cap on all such cases of 'Romantic' through the article? - e.g. for "late-romantic lushness" a bit earlier.]
  • In quotations I think we must keep the capitalisation as originally written, but we are at liberty to take the contrary course in the main text, and I think we should. Tim riley talk 09:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Can we say a bit more about what Koechlin taught Poulenc (I seem to recall it was largely harmonizing Bach chorales, though Poulenc shows here and there some indication that he studied counterpoint).
  • Your memory is not failing you, but I don't know that going into this would be useful to the general reader. I am open to conviction on this point. Tim riley talk

I'm not sure whether I'll have time to do a more careful read, but I thought I'd post these comments for what they're worth, and say how much I'd enjoyed the article. Alfietucker (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Alfie, I'm as delighted to get your comments as I am aghast at how demanding they are going to be to deal with adequately. I shall sleep on them. Meanwhile, a cordial welcome back, however fleeting, and looking forward to more from you when real life permits! Best of all possible wishes, Tim riley talk 23:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

As I'm rainspotting (sic) in the Lake District till Wednesday I'll have to delay acting on your points till I get back to home and bookshelves. Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course - and thank you for the update. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Now dealt with – satisfactorily, I hope. Thank you very much for these points. Tim riley talk 09:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

Lead

• "Born into a prosperous family, Poulenc was destined for a business career": Destined does not seem quite the right word here. "Intended"? But that doesn't sound right either.
  • What about this: "As the only son of a prosperous manufacturer Poulenc was expected to follow his father into the family firm." Is that any better? – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• "Largely self-educated musically he came under the influence of Erik Satie": Does musically refer to his education or the influence or Satie? Perhaps a comma might tidy this up? Or maybe it's just me...
  • You're absolutely right. Comma inserted. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• "particularly in the religious music he started composing from 1936 onwards": Maybe "particularly in the religious music he composed from 1936 onwards [or even "after 1936?]"
  • Good, yes. The first of your suggestions, I think. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• "Poulenc's reputation as a composer, particularly in his native country, was frequently that of a humorous lightweight": Maybe "Poulenc had a reputation, particularly in his native country, as a humorous, lightweight composer"?
  • Better. Done. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• We use "known for" twice in the lead. Not a big deal, just commenting.
  • Amended. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• As someone who utterly hates writing leads, I wonder if this one is slightly lightweight? There are certainly parts in the first sections (as far as I've read, anyway) that might warrant inclusion.
  • I hate it too. I'll wait and see if anyone else comments, I think. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Early years

• Tedious MoS query: Note 1 gives the French original of the quote with a reference, but there is no reference in the text itself. Does the text also need the reference (and I have no idea of the answer, for what it's worth!)
  • Seems to me that the ref in the note clearly covers the associated text. The MoS, needless to say, is its impenetrable self.
• "...to less elevated works": Not an issue, just that this phrase amused me as someone who appreciates less elevated works!
• The Poulenc quote about Viñes comes out a little oddly on my computer (which has a mind of its own, to be honest) as it is next to the image and therefore does not quite look like an indented quotation. Similar on the later Milhaud quote. Not sure it is worth worrying about though. I'm just reaching to find something to say here!
  • Brian B raised this above, but I'm pretty sure it's a matter of different screen sizes and resolutions, and something that simply can't be legislated for to suit all users.

1920s

• "Poulenc's new celebrity after the success of the ballet was the unexpected cause of his estrangement from Satie, who refused to accept the new friendships Poulenc formed with musicians whom Satie regarded as enemies." I had to read this a couple of times to make sense of it. Could the sentence be split?
  • Done.
• "from whom, in Hell's phrase": Again, no comment but that one made me laugh as well! You should try to slip in a few more like this to see if you can get away with it. The words of Hell, perhaps? The work of Hell?
  • I know! I've been ignoring the MoS and using both his names throughout, but this one crept through. I have included another later on, quite deliberately, merely to indulge my own fourth-form sense of humour, which I am grieved to see you share.
• "He heard her as soloist in Falla's El retablo de maese Pedro (1923)": This may be my musical ignorance, but is it common to talk about a soloist without an article of any description?
  • It's OK, I think, but a definite article won't hurt, and I've added one. – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Down to the end of this section, more to follow. Looking frankly brilliant so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

And I'm looking forward to it. So pleased you're looking in, Sarastro! I have just been ambushed by my former employers, asking me to copy-edit a 48-page draft publication about offshore wind before Monday (I'm retired, but they still sometimes commission my editing skills – honed, if they did but know it, in Wikipedia peer reviews and FACs) but once I've done that I'll be back in the saddle by Monday, and eager to get to grips with your comments and those of AlfieT, above. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 19:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, so far. Some really good stuff there – thank you, Sarastro! – Tim riley talk 13:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

1930s

• "Music critics generally continued to define Poulenc by his lighthearted works for many years to come, and it was not until the 1950s that his serious side was widely recognised.": I wonder could "for many years to come" be cut completely here?
  • Yes. Better. Done. Tim riley talk

1950-63

• "Intense worry pushed Poulenc into a nervous breakdown, and in November 1954 he was in a clinic at L'Haÿ-les-Roses, outside Paris, heavily sedated": To my ear (or eye, I suppose!), the "in November" part doesn't read quite right. I'd prefer something like "...breakdown, and he [insert suitable verb] to a clinic ... heavily sedated in November 1954". But reading that back, I'm not sure it's an improvement. To be honest, feel free to smile, nod and ignore this one.
  • I see what you mean, and will ponder. Tim riley talk 09:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• "It was necessary for him to earn the substantial income that his recitals brought: his personal wealth had declined since the 1920s": I wonder could a few words be trimmed from the first part of the sentence. Something like: "As his personal wealth had declined since the 1920s, he required the substantial income earned from his recitals."
  • Much better. Done. Tim riley talk 09:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm now at the end of the Life section. More to follow, sorry for the long gap. Real life is a little manic at the moment. A very enjoyable read this one, so far. My comments on the music section may be less useful, though! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

All good stuff, and I'm in no rush whatever, so if you have time and leisure to look in later, please do. Tim riley talk 09:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Music

• "To Hell": (fourth-form chuckle)
  • Good! How do you rate my chances of getting this past the FAC reviewers! Tim riley talk 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Second paragraph of "piano" section: 2 successive sentences begin with "They", then then next 5 with "The". Maybe a tweak or two?
  • Definitely Tim riley talk 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No other problems, having read to the end. As I suspected, I am a little lost in the music section, but I get the general idea easily enough and don't feel too overwhelmed! An excellent, enjoyable piece of work. Let me know when it goes to FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. It really helps to have comments from non-experts as well as those (two of them on this page) more expert than I, so your self-deprecating remarks are uncalled for. Really helpful stuff, and I'm most grateful. Tim riley talk 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

A couple of minor tweaks undertaken a week ago around some petty formatting quibbles (I didn't get an angry missive, so presume I didn't break anything). A couple more questions:

1930s

• lighthearted: the OED has it hyphenated (up to you whether you follow or not!)
• song-writing: ditto (and ditto!)
  • What's good enough for the OED is good enough for me (apart from –ize endings, of course). Done. Tim riley talk 09:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Chamber

• "The best known is the Sextet for piano and wind (1932)": I feel there should be caps and/or italics (or quote marks) for the name of the piece?
  • Caps, definitely. Indeed I capped it at an earlier mention. Remiss of me to miss it the second time round. Now done. Tim riley talk 09:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That's it from me. I echo Lord Boulton's comments in the music section: very readable and understandable for a layman (or, in my case, an ignoramus). Please drop me a line when you go to FAC. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you SchroCat. Good stuff in there, gratefully received. Shall certainly ping you come FAC. Tim riley talk 09:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Dr. B

The lede seems a tad short to me considering the length. I always think it important to mention a few of the notable works of a composer in the lede with the year in brackets unless they're hugely prolific and no works have received any more attention than others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Better!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

A good idea, thank you, Doctor. Tim riley talk 09:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cg2p0B0u8m

First of all many apologies for the lateness of these comments and also if they are a bit vague; I may need to check something when I am at home.

lede

• is there any comparative evidence that FP was "among the first composers to see the importance of the gramophone"? Possibly this needs checking in a history of recording.
  • One would have to give Elgar the prize, I think, for spotting the potential of the gramophone first, but of major composers Poulenc wasn't far behind him. I don't want a citation in the lead, but I'll dig one out and add it to the main text. Tim riley talk 10:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

early years

• "a prosperous manufacturer" - is needed, or does it mean successful?
  • "successful" will do just as well, and perhaps better. Done. Tim riley talk 10:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• I assume Rostand later "described P as ...", not at the time
  • Indeed. Clarified. Tim riley talk 10:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• I am not sure about "the originality of the sound" but cannot think of an improvement
  • I'm not sure either. I originally wrote "modernism" but BB, above, wasn't persuaded that a child could have understood modernism. Poulenc wrote that as a child he had said "How beautiful it is! It is a little off key" ... "I tried to reproduce on the piano those ninth chords, so new, which had intoxicated me." Tim riley talk 10:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

First compositions

• leg-pulling/Poulenc : I have never heard before; is it just Monsieur Harding or are there other instances?
  • Hell mentions that English critics use the term, and a swift google confirms that the pun is frequently used. Tim riley talk 10:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh dear... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Still recovering from the Harding shock, I thought I would try and tempt you with a quote about FP's musical style from another source, but which avoids the strict light-serious split which most of the other views in the article display: « Je souhaite une musique saine, claire et robuste, une musique aussi franchement française que celle de Strawinsky est slave. » p162 of Landormy P. La Musique Française après Debussy. Gallimard, Paris, 1943. This is from FP in an interview at the start of his career to Landormy. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
        • This is excellent. I have added it to round off the opening sub-section of the music section. Please tweak my translation if you wish. Tim riley talk 14:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
          • It looks OK, if I think of something I will tweak. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with the previous commenter about the first sentence of this para starting "In 1917 Poulenc got know Ravel..." it is bizarre.
  • Now attended to, I hope to Alfie's satisfaction and yours. Tim riley talk 10:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• It is very difficult to translate slang, and "arse" really sticks out in the next sentence...
  • I agree, and have redrawn. I intend to add a footnote giving the ipsissima verba and have ordered the original source, Moi et mes amis at the British Library whither I shall now toddle down, returning later to deal with the remaining points. Tim riley talk 10:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh dear! Roger Nichols was evidently applying a little censorship in his translation. According to the original French text in Moi et mes amis, Poulenc quoted Satie as saying, "Ce c… de Ravel, c'est stupide tour ce qu'il dit!" The dots are as printed in the book, and I fear it is all too plain what they stand for. I am using the phrase complete with dots, exactly as printed. I'm not sure M. Satie was a very nice man. Tim riley talk 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• In the next paragraph "at the front" sounds ambiguous
  • I think I'll chance this. I can't call it the battle-front, as I don't think there was much of a battle raging then where Poulenc was. Tim riley talk 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

1920s

• 1st para - to be exact does Austria mean Vienna?
  • There and just outside. Perhaps Vienna might be better. I'll change it. Tim riley talk 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• 3rd para - "which was predominantly gay" is this clear?
  • On the gay-straight continuum he was near the gay end of it, but not completely gay, as became plain in 1946, when his affair with Freddie produced a child. I can't write "predominantly homosexual" because the prose would read horribly immediately after "his sexuality", which I can't think of any good way of rephrasing. Tim riley talk 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

1940s

• following on from this, is "an openly gay man" under Nazi rule, clear? should it be "known"
  • I think "openly" is all right, but "known" is probably better. Shall change. Tim riley talk 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• I am surprised that the article does not mention C - maybe this paragraph could include it?
  • Do you mean the first of the 1943 Aragon songs? I must be missing a point, I think: it didn't seem to me to call out for particular mention. I'm happy to be persuaded, though. Tim riley talk 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • "This is a masterpiece known the world over; it is the most unusual, and perhaps the most moving, song about the ravages of war ever composed."(Johnson in his Hyperion notes) Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I went off and listened two recordings of it - one by Hugues Cuénod and one by Ian Bostridge. I must have a blind spot, as it didn't touch me as some other Poulenc songs do. But I'll be guided by you and Johnson and make sure it gets a mention. Tim riley talk 14:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I couldn't fit in it the biography section very easily, and have added a sentence to the Songs subsection of the Music section. Tim riley talk 16:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Looks fine. Yes, I have blind spots too. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think (but will need to check) that Figure Humaine was very much intended for Belgium, which is not clear as only London and Paris are mentioned.
  • I believe the work was well under way before the Antwerp Chorale got to hear about it and expressed a desire to sing it after the liberation. Tim riley talk 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't have his letters, so am relying on Massin's book on Irène Joachim: "Dans une longue lettre à Pierre Bernac du 17 août 1943.... « C'est vous dire que cette œuvre est pour la Belgique... » " p286; on the previous page she quotes another earlier letter where it is described as « commande pour la Belgique ». The first performance was a private one at the Concerts de la Pléiade in December 1944, with Bernac turning the pages and Éluard and his wife in the audience (and of course FP at the piano). p292.
      • I'm struggling with this. Figure Humaine is for unaccompanied choir, and I can't see how the composer was needed as pianist or Bernac as page-turner. Tim riley talk 14:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Well I have double-checked in Massin and what I typed is as she writes (and references: the Bernac letter is no 43-4 p538-40, Chimènes 1994). As for the piano... that quote is from the memoirs of Denise Tual and of course it is possible that she confused this Concerts de la Pléiade with another one. But equally, in Frederic Spotts The Shameful Peace he mentions that Liberté on its own was first performed in private by Poulenc singing and accompanying himself! (One or two sources also sources also comment on the difficulty for the singers, so a piano might be handy). This is my suggestion: In 1943 he wrote a cantata for unaccompanied double choir intended for Belgium, Figure humaine, setting eight of Éluard's poems. The work, ending with "Liberté", could not be given in France while the Nazis were in control; its first performance was broadcast from a BBC studio in London in March 1945, and it was not sung in Paris until 1947. - but please don't worry if this is too much detail/nuisance. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
          • It's spot on, and I have adopted it verbatim. Thank you, yet again! Tim riley talk 15:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• next para I had to re-read "left for London" thinking they had moved, but this is clarified at the end of the para (of course many French artists came to London after the Liberation)
  • Redrawn Tim riley talk 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• general comment for this section, FP was a founder member and active member of the music section of the Front National. I think it should be included.
  • True, and it is mentioned in the biographies. I'll squeeze in a mention if I can find a suitable place. Tim riley talk 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

1950-63

• 5th para, first line, is there an "an" missing after in
  • It's idiomatic without, but an "an" would do no harm if you prefer. Tim riley talk 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• 7th para, it is more than a biography of Chabrier, it is also an exploration of his music, and a personal meditation of its meaning for FP
  • Redrawn Tim riley talk 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Have also remembered that Poulenc played the piano in the first revival of Chabrier/Verlaine's Fisch-Ton-Kan and the premiere of the surviving numbers of Vaucochard et fils Ier on 24 March 1941 (see https://sites.google.com/site/rogerdesormiere18981963/concerts-representations/annees), but this may be too much Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Caviar to the general perhaps. Tim riley talk 14:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

songs

• in the final sentence do you want to give the year of La Dame de Monte Carlo?
  • Indeed. Done. Tim riley talk 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

recordings

• You could mention that FP is seen on film on an EMI CLassics DVD called Francis Poulenc and friends, with Rampal in the flute sonata, Duval in songs and opera extracts (from the Salle Gaveau) and plys the Double Concerto with Jacques Février at a concert
  • Excellent! I'll look up the details and add. Tim riley talk 17:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• I would not choose Bernstein and Stokowski as representative conductors, while leaving out Georges Prêtre and Charles Dutoit who recorded much more; I suggest you substitute as they are still notable
  • I'm in two minds about this. Pretre and Dutoit have, as you rightly say, made many more Poulenc recordings than Bernstein and Stokowski, but my thought behind mentioning the latter two was to show that glitzy international conductors were interested in FP. Perhaps add Pretre and Dutoit but leave the other two in place? Tim riley talk 17:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I see what you mean, but will the reader get the point? Having just looked up those Chabrier premieres, I think in some ways Roger Désormière belongs here, with several Poulenc premieres to his name and close collaboration... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC) These are not personal favourites, I should add (the contrary for two of them.)
      • I've added Dutoit and Pretre. I'll leave Désormière out, unless you feel strongly on the matter. Tim riley talk 15:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Fine, I may add a sentence on his article. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• 3rd para should 'variety' be 'various'?
  • No, it's OK, I think: "various young French musicians" or, as here "a variety of young French musicians" will do equally well. I prefer the latter, as the former has a slight overtone of randomness, whereas the latter suggests (correctly) that the ensemble has been planned. Tim riley talk 17:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

reputation

• I think some italics are missing
  • Indeed they are, but are missing in the original quotation. I think we are asked by the Manual of Style to leave the italicisation or not as the original source prints it, but I'll check. Tim riley talk 17:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• I am not so happy with the very end. this seems like an assertion without facts by Rogé - an opinion. (One would have to ask the publishers for data on how often the music is played and where.) Why not finish with Larner's more positive comment? I think FP would appreciate it.
  • I see what you mean. I'll give some thought to rounding off with a positive flourish. You're right that we want an upbeat coda. Tim riley talk 17:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Now done. Tim riley talk 15:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

sources

• Décollogne seems incomplete...
  • Is it? Seems OK to me: author, title, year, place, publisher and ref number. What's missing? Tim riley talk 17:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I see, there's just an s missing (des): [9] Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Will amend. Tim riley talk 15:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it is very good anyway and very educational! thank you. You should ignore any of these comments which miss the point. I want to check in Journal de mes mélodies (which you do not mention at all in the article) as I think there are some things there. Many thanks Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

These are invaluable comments, mon général, and I am most grateful. Any responses or retorts you care to add will be most gladly received. An addition or two from Journal de mes mélodies will be most welcome before I go to FAC a few weeks hence. Do you have access to Bernac's book on the songs? Another WP editor has suggested to me offline that a sentence or two giving a singer's view of the mélodies would improve that part of the music section. Don't inconvenience yourself, though. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 17:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Although a small book the Journal is difficult to get grips with; the 1993 edition (according to the editor Renaud Machart) contains an extra 30% text taken from a rediscovered annotated typescript in the composer's hand. Duval's preface is not much use. In fact the personal note by Graham Johnson mentioned above might be good for a singer/accompanist's view. But I will think more on this. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

From the first entry (1 November 1939) « J'entreprends ce Journal dans l'espoir de servir de guide aux interprètes que auraient quelque souci de ma pauvre musique. Je dis pauvre, je devrais écrire misérable car, telle, elle m'est apparue, chantée ainsi. » Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC) PS The best 3rd party reference to the Journal I can find is again Graham Johnson's meticulous notes for Hyperion; maybe that would do? Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC) You may have missed this, or just declined... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Not for the first time, the thought occurs to me that there are two peer reviewers on this page – you are one of the two – who know a good deal more about Poulenc than I do. I'm grateful for your guidance – and for not making me feel too presumptuous in tackling the subject. I'll enjoy working through your outstanding points, above. Thank you so much! Tim riley talk 12:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco

• File:Poulenc-1922.jpg - Fine
• File:P1040339 Paris VIII place des Saussaies rwk.JPG - When was the building completed? When did the architect die? There's no FOP in France, so we need to be sure the building is PD.
  • I'm afraid I don't know. I'd guess, from the look of it, that it dates from Baron Haussmann's wholesale rebuilding of Paris in the 1850s and '60s. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Ricardo-vines.jpg - Source that says that Petit was the photographer?
  • The copy in the printed book is credited to him. I have clarified on the image page. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Stravinsky Igor Postcard-1910.jpg Can't be PD-70 with an unknown photographer. You need to clean up the licenses. (PD-1923 and some Russian template, I'd expect)
  • Amended licence details on the composite version. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Satie - This looks to have been published in the US, if I'm not mistaken. If so, the template is inaccurate. Also, I'd upload the source image separately, to be safe.
  • Yes, the MQ is an American publication. Amended. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Ravel - I don't see anything saying that this was published, or that it's PD in the source (though if it is I can get the original resolution for you)
  • The detailed information chez the Bibliothèque nationale says "Date d'édition: 1910" and "Droits: domaine public". Licence details adjusted. Tim riley talk
• File:Rocamadour fda.jpg - I'm going to assume this is accurate, even without the EXIF data. As a village (and thus a collection of buildings) the individual structures are all de minimis, and so we don't need to worry about FOP.
• File:W-Landowska2-crop.jpg is fine, though it might be worth working from the original size file (I'd be able to upload it later).
  • That's very kind of you – thank you. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Paris Opera full frontal architecture, May 2009.jpg - Should be fine, but when was the building completed? When did the architect die?
  • Completed 1875; architect was Charles Garnier (1825–1898) Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Pierre-Bernac-1968.jpg - Could use a category.
  • Mea culpa. Done. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, Quidenham, Norfolk - Windows - geograph.org.uk - 1084822.jpg - When were the windows installed? As 2D works, FOP in Britain would not apply (mind, I highly doubt these are still copyrighted).
  • Alas, it looks to me that the church is less than 80 years old. Shall I have to remove the picture? There is this File:CarmélitesComp02.jpg alternative from a book published in France in 1906. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• this - When did the author die? Also, your mosaic uses PD-100, and not PD-70 like
  • It must be fully public domain, surely? Painted in 1827 (Schubert died in 1828), and even if the unknown painter was a young person he or she must have died more than 100 years ago. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Guillaume Apollinaire, 1902, Cologne.jpg - Again, anonymous works cannot be PD-70, unless they were created in like 1700 or so. When was this first published? If the 1960s, like the source, it's much too late.
  • Good old Commons! It always lets you down. I've uploaded a different photograph from a book published in France in 1918. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Emmanuel-Chabrier-1900-image.jpg - Fine
• File:Mozart (unfinished) by Lange 1782.jpg - Could use a date
• File:Tiresias.jpg - What's with using CGI here?
  • I'm sorry: you'll have to explain that. I know not of CGI. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Benjamin Britten, London Records 1968 publicity photo for Wikipedia crop.jpg - Fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Prose comments:

• Several of the sentences in the lead seem overly long.
• Préludes - Should this be in italics or not?
  • This is often a problem. The MoS bids us not to italicise generic musical terms like symphony or concerto. The question is where to draw the line. Lots of composers wrote preludes (with or without the aigu) and I think it is probably generic.
• the Sonata or the sonata?
  • Should be Sonata for Piano Duet, I think. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• A habit of yours, this mixing of punctuation within quotes, and punctuation without it.
  • I was taught to put punct outside when a quote ended but was not the whole of a sentence, and to put it inside when they were. I don't say I always get this right. I'll review. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Poulenc's new compositions were not all in this serious vein; his incidental music to the play La Reine Margot, starring Yvonne Printemps, was pastiche 16th-century dance music, and became popular under the title Suite française. - This sentence is begging for a conjunction, I think
  • Looks right to me. Where do you think we need a conjunction? Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• These were music for Babar the Elephant, the Cello Sonata, the ballet Les Animaux modèles and the song cycle Banalités - And the last one is the one he started (but, one would assume, did not complete there?)
  • Indeed. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• In 1943 he wrote a cantata for unaccompanied double choir, Figure humaine, setting eight of Éluard's poems. The work, ending in a "Hymn to Liberty", could not be given in France while the Nazis were in control; its first performance was broadcast from a BBC studio in London in March 1945, - Any word on how he got it out of the country?
  • Paris had been liberated in August 1944, and there were flights between there and London by early 1945. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• The leading female role was taken by Denise Duval, who became the composer's favourite soprano, frequent recital partner and dedicatee of some of his music. - This feels like your jumping from a (lack of) popularity to the original performance
  • I'll ponder. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Stabat Mater, in memory of the painter Christian Bérard - what was their relationship?
  • Nothing out of the ordinary. Poulenc wrote an Elegy for Horn in memory of Dennis Brain, whom he hardly knew. He wasn't a particular friend of Pierre-Octave Ferroud, either, but was much moved by his death.
• Any word as to how he overcame the difficulties with the Bernanos estate? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Nothing in the sources. I get the impression that FP's lawyer ground them down and they capitulated, but I can't say that for certain. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• viewed from a Parisian point of view - Can we avoid having two "views"
  • Definitely. Done. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• It draws on a variety of stylistic sources: the first movement ends in a manner reminiscent of Balinese gamelan - out of pure curiosity (seeing as I've written several articles on Balinese dance recently)... where would he have had access to such music?
  • He certainly never went to Bali (unlike his friend Britten). My best guess would be the radio and/or the gramophone. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• a highly accomplished player - worth substituting "pianist" for "player"?
  • OK. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• perpetuum mobile - ?
  • Linked. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• tone-poems - link Symphonic poem? Also, is it tone-poems or tone poems?
  • Grove and the OED eschew the hyphen; the Oxford Dict of Music and Ox Companion to Music both include it. I'll go with Grove and the OED. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Link some of the Italian terms, if we have articles? Or other musical terms like Aubade?
  • On the "No surprises" principle of linking, I don't think we want a link to the generic Aubade article when the text implies that the link would be to FP's composition of that name. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• for female or children's voices - why the use of the term "female"?
  • As opposed to (adult) male voices: there are only soprano and alto lines in the score. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• one of the extremely rare operas - would "few" work better than "rare"?
  • The source uses the word "rare", and though I haven't used quotation marks I'd like to stick to Machart's phrase. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Leonard Bernstein, Milhaud, Eugene Ormandy, André Previn and Leopold Stokowski. - Milhaud stands out as he's the only one whose full name is not given. Perhaps refactor? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a matter of whether a duplicate link is justified here. The alternative, abandoning alphabetical order, doesn't appeal. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Marvellous input both on pictures and prose. I'll be going through both over the next few days. Thank you very much for the time and skill you've expended on the task. Tim riley talk 12:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through these suggestions with much pleasure. Thank you very much for raising points that have improved the article. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Sorry, been a bit slow on this. Starting with

Comment

Lede

• "solo piano music, chamber music, choral music" can the reps of the word music be avoided
  • Good idea. Done. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• 2nd pp, first pp. I would phrase something like "His wealthy family intended Poulenc for a business career, and did not permit him ..."
  • This is one of those sentences that unexpectedly give disproportionate trouble when one is writing. The present form is not the original version. The version you suggest is more concise and will do very nicely. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• "with both" With each?
  • Done. (Not by me, I think, but done nonetheless.)

Early life

• "He encouraged his pupil to compose, and later gave the premieres of three early Poulenc works." I imagine he conducted them.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No – played. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

And the remainder. Very interesting article. Well done.

The conscription in January 1918, I would make it a little clearer this made Poulenc a First World War veteran (as was my paternal grandfather, though he never got nearer the front than Aberdeen Proving Grounds/

Done. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You are not consistent on Les Six vs. "les Six". Also, there may be some issues with italitisation (see fn. 9, for example). Six of one?

True. The writer quoted in fn 9 doesn't italicise the term, but I haven't put in a direct quote, so I can reasonably italicise I think. Tim riley talk

• "romantically attached elsewhere" Is elsewhere really needed? It's implied
  • I think there's just the faint possibility that without the "elsewhere" it could be read as saying that she was romantically attracted to FP. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• The comma following "suddenly" seems unneeded.
  • OK. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• "Roger Nichols writes in Grove" before you referred to the words of Grove. What's the rationale for naming the author on the second go?
  • The Grove article is in two parts. Myriam Chimènes wrote the life and Nichols wrote the works sections. I've now named MC at the first mention of Grove. Thank you very much for spotting this. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

First compositions

• "Milhaud successfully suggested" given the following sentence I do not think the word "successfully" needed.
  • OK. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

1920s

• "Farceur" and what is that when it's at home?
  • The rule that we should avoid links within quotations is so widely ignored that I think I can get away with linking from here to farce, and have amended accordingly. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

1940s

• "In the early months of the war" That is late 1939?
  • And possibly early 1940: the sources are a bit vague. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Carmelites

• "by his last concert with Bernac, who then retired from public performance." who retired? This is not clear.
  • Redrawn. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Songs

• The word "favoured" is used twice in close succession. I like the first use more than the second.
  • I shouldn't have spotted that in a month of Sundays! Thank you. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Choral

• The Poulenc quote in the second paragraph does not have italics for the names of the various works.
  • It's how he wrote it, and I'm a bit dubious about italicising. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Opera

• "as an untrained young man" consider cutting.
  • Considered, and done. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Why does the Machart quote need inline citation?

• Not with you, I'm afraid. It looks to me to be the usual form. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reputation

• Why no quotes in the Larner quote?
  • This was originally a long blockquote, but Brian B thought it too long for comfort, and I paraphrased much of it. In fact I'm going to recast it further anyway at the suggestion of Cg2p0B0u8m, above. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Fn. 14

• "régions" again wondering about italics, and the need to use the French word, as well. You might just want to cut the descriptors to Alcase and Lorraine.
  • Done. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Fn. 15

• "Dialogues des Carmélites and La voix humaine received more than four times as many productions worldwide" I think there should be an "each" somewhere in there.
  • Done. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Fn. 20

• " notorious " hmm. Possibly a little strong.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Redrawn. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these points. Attended to or not as above, with the one query about the Marchart quote outstanding. Tim riley talk 14:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Rounding into the home straight

@Brianboulton:, @Cg2p0B0u8m:, @Crisco 1492:, @Wehwalt:, and anyone else kind enough to take an interest. I have replied – satisfactorily, I hope – to your comments and suggestions. Any further points from you would be greatly appreciated before I close the PR and head off to FAC. No rush: I have deliberately taken this at a leisurely pace, to the benefit of the article and my bien-être. Tim riley talk 15:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Good! We seem to have come to a conclusion, and so, with grateful thanks to all who contributed here, I'm closing the peer review and heading off to FAC. Tim riley talk 21:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Buffalo, New York

Previous peer review

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

I'd like tips on how to get the article to GA status and also tips on improving sources/current article references.

Thanks, Dekema2 (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'll try my hand at this peer review even though municipalities are not my thing. I lived in Western New York most of my life from 1969 through 1990. Fredonia, NY from 69-73, Orchard Park, NY from 73-75, Amherst, NY (Snyder, NY) from 75-83 and off and on in Buffalo proper from 87-90. My parents lived there until 2004 when my mother sold the house we grew up in (where she lived from 75-04) the year after my father passed. My mom spent summers there until 2007. I hope this is a bit of a trip down memory lane.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• P.S. I see from PR1 that 7 years ago the other Lake Erie cities of Detroit, Cleveland and Erie, Pennsylvania were FAs in July 2007 (Detroit is no longer) and that nearby Hamilton, Ontario was and is an FA. I may compare this to the 3 FAs, but I will mostly just run through the article looking with my own sensibilities.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• P.P.S. nice to see that 2 of my images are still in the article after all these years.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your time so far, and I'm interested in hear suggestions on what can be fixed and improved. Your history in the area should undoubtedly help while I know you do have a track record of improving articles. While I've spent all of my pre-college life in the area, now that I'm a semi-ex Buffalonian, I'll do my best to listen and make improvements. --Dekema2 (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Tags

• I see the tags at the top of the article. I will want at least one WP:IC from a WP:RS for every paragraph. If we can't provide any for a paragraph that content will have to be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

When I do that, I'll mark this as done. --Dekema2 (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am not the best source reviewer, but hopefully we can make some improvements.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

• I like the way the LEAD reads, but I don't think it actually summarized the article. Generally, I like to see a summary of each section in the LEAD. However, we want to keep this to 3000-3200 characters of readable prose. The lead is currently 2224 characters of readable prose so we have some room to play with. We can revisit this once I have run through the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

History

• On quick glance, I am troubled by the fact that the first paragraph of the main body has no WP:IC(s) from WP:RS. Please cite this content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Then merge or expand the stubby paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• I can see very quickly that there is going to be a lot of content that should be tagged with {{fact}}. Do you want me to do this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You can go right ahead so when I add new references, I'll be able to quickly go back and change to them. --Dekema2 (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

During the Talk:Buffalo, New York/GA1, I mentioned that the article had 46 entire paragraphs without ICs. I should not have to go through and point them out now 5 weeks later. You should have attempted to fix this before even coming to WP:PR. However, I will tag up the article as I review it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I remember that, I could've added just some before opening this up. However, these {{fact}} tags will help because I might've overlooked them regardless. This week I will find time to look for WP:RS around the web. --Dekema2 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've started adding references, do you have an idea offhand if they are reliable? That's one issue I have with them. --Dekema2 (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is up to you to develop an understanding of WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done The History section has had new citations added.--Dekema2 (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please add citations to any paragraph that has no citations.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Quick question: how are links that use the Wayback machine typically looked at as far as WP:RS is concerned? --Dekema2 (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• If the source is a WP:RS, it does not matter whether you can see the original or an archive of the original.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  

---

Emily Ratajkowski

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to determine the possibility of getting a WP:TFA for her 25th birthday in June of 2016. I want to see if this has WP:FA potential.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As stated below, I also need as much editorial guidance as possible in pursuit of FA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt

(having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. That is a laudable goal, because it's challenging due to the fact that there might be a lot more coverage in secondary sources of further developments in this person's career between now and then.
3. I would still strongly suggest copy edit from WP:GOCE and perhaps from people you can get who are previously uninvolved and have never even seen this article before as additional copy editors.
4. Section: Talk:Emily_Ratajkowski#Andy_Hardy_vs._Andy_Fitzgerald, this needs to be definitively addressed before FAC.
5. It would certainly be quite nice before FAC to obtain a free-use licensed image of the subject via the commons:Commons:OTRS process, through attempting to contact her representatives/agents.
6. External video -- I see three (3) External video boxes in main article body text, with a total of six (6) external links. Best to move these to External links sect, or at least trim them down to one box with maybe three (3) total links tops in main body text, otherwise starts to look a bit unencyclopedic.
7. Overly large quote box in sect Music video performances -- they hate those at FAC, I'd strongly recommend getting rid of the entire quote box.
8. And for that matter, I'd recommend getting rid of all quotes or as many quotes as possible and paraphrase instead.
9. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Duly noted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
2. I have just taken this to GA and DYK and intend to keep it up to date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
3. I am sort of here for a copy edit. I can tag this for WP:GOCE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

   I have listed this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Emily_Ratajkowski.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

4. The article seems stable. I am willing to revisit this when the movie goes to DVD and I can get clarification via Netflix.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
5. I have been in contact with both Ford Models and treats! to no avail.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Is there precedent at FAC regarding limitations on use of the external links template? I am not sure it is an improvement to move the links away from the text that discusses them or reduce the number of links.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

   Removed half of the ELs from the prose section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

7. I think there should be one quotebox on this issue. Would a smaller one be any better? What about this quote: "I think there's different kinds of nudity, and there's different kinds of sexiness, and obviously it's hard to distinguish those things. I think that the video was tasteful, beautiful, and there's nothing offensive about it."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
8. I am not going to get rid of all quotes. I may consider trimming down any that seem more pointless than others.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
9. Seems redundant with #1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Cirt, I was hoping you might have particular text issues that would require editorial response. I guess I misstated my intention with this PR. I also need as much editorial guidance as possible in pursuit of FA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand, TonyTheTiger, but I'm a bit tired out after leaving comments at ten (10) peer reviews and also successfully clearing out the entire backlog of peer reviews at the moment. :) My above comments are simply suggestions and recommendations based on my own experiences at WP:FAC, of things that I think will help the article have an easier time at WP:FAC and gain WP:FA quality. — Cirt (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Cirt in 2 weeks if no one else has commented on it, I may ask you to take a look at the prose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! You could also post to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects with a neutrally worded message asking for copy editors from previously uninvolved editors. Can't hurt, worth a try. — Cirt (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have left notices at WT:BIOG, WT:ACTOR and WT:FASHION.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Cirt, you are officially off the hook. This is one of, if not, the most widely-discussed PRs I have ever been involved in. 4 people with commentary and advice is very rare for a PR, especially in 2014 as ir has waned. I appreciate all the comments that I am receiving. The article is improving.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay sounds good, you're most welcome, and I'm glad it worked out Tony! — Cirt (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Lead

• Try to get an image for her infobox if possible
  • I have contacted both Ford Models and treats! to no avail.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • While not a requirement, it might be worth placing the photo shoot used into infobox Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• "British-born American"..... English-born, let's be more specific since she was born in London
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Much of the detail on "Blurred Lines" charting belongs on the song article, not here. Instead, include detail on Ratajkowski's role or at least focus more on the video itself.
  • The current prior content is "which became the number one song of the year 2013 in several countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom as well as the longest running Billboard Hot 100 number one song of the decade to date in the United States." What should account for the success in the following subsequent phrase "Following the success and controversy of 'Blurred Lines', she became a high profile sex symbol..."? At most I could see removing the phrase "including Canada and the United Kingdom"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I have shortened to "which became the number one song of the year 2013 in several countries as well as the longest running Billboard Hot 100 number one song of the decade to date in the United States." If another song remains number one for 13 consecutive weeks, I will remove the latter half of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
      • The commercial performance of the song isn't needed for this article at all. Since Ratajkowski was only in the video, this article should focus more on that than the song's commercial aspects. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• "recurring role on iCarly and, subsequent roles" has a stray comma that should be removed
  • Removed by another editor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Early life

• Rather than give ages at the time of Ratajkowski's birth, it would be better to give birth years or approximations for when her parents were born
  • If I had sourced birth years, I would make this swap, but I am not going to swap out facts for approximations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Mentioning her grandfather's religious affiliation isn't necessary, just say he was a Polish immigrant
  • I don't wish to remove facts that provide information to the reader. Being a Polish Jew is more precise description than being Polish. There is no reason to make the article less precise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • My point is that you don't need to go into much detail about people outside of the immediate family (parents, siblings, and children) of a subject, particularly when such family doesn't have separate articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • It has been my experience in creating biographies that WP include all ancestral information available in secondary sources. If a person is notable enough that their grandparents are mentioned in secondary sources that information is relayed to the reader. I have never been told to remove any such information in any biography that I have created.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• No need to mention the "Polish Israeli" bit when it is already mentioned that she has Polish, Irish, and German heritage.
  • Again no reason to make the article less precise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's just redundant to give two statements on one's background. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I think you are missing the point. First we say all the various ancestral components that we are able to identify, including Polish Jew. Later, we say what she considers herself: Polish Israeli, which is a different thing and additional information to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• "In fact" is not very encyclopedic, so I'd remove this bit..... Is it even needed to mention she spent her summers in Ireland?
  • Absolutely.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • At least remove the "In fact" bit before "Prior"
      • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• "Ratajkowski was quite comfortable with the naked body due to her background"..... awkward phrasing
  • I have rearranged the paragraph and made slight changes to the phrasing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Still could be better, maybe add a quote elaborating on how she is comfortable with it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Done (note that I have added the other half of a quote used elsewhere in the article).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• "she frequented nude beaches"..... frequently visited
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Career

• There should be quotes on what critics said of Ratajkowski's acting. The commentary on videos and her physique are nice to have, but those alone aren't enough.
  • The vast majority of critics did not comment on her role. I have included what I could find.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily for "Blurred Lines", I was also suggesting to include what they said of her in other roles Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Her only notable acting role has been in Gone Girl. I assumed you were requesting criticism of that acting. What roles were you talking about?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• The video EL's aren't really needed here
  • Gone.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Mostly, there's still four to remove Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I am not going to remove the one from the EL section of the article. The three in the prose section are at issue, but I don't necessarily think wiping them out of the article helps the reader. I might consider moving another one to the EL section, but I can't see removing them all completely.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• "After getting a lot of local youth acting experience"..... gaining local youth acting experience
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• "The earlier film roles were trivial enough"..... that phrasing isn't very encyclopedic
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• "Before she became well-known"..... famous
  • Sounds good.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• "As of 12 July 2014"..... you previously use month-day-year format, be consistent here
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• "As a curvaceous 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model"..... "curvaceous" is very POV and I'm not convinced it's the most encyclopedic term
  • We are a tertiary source responsible for summarizing and rephrasing secondary sources. This is from a secondary source paragrarph on the following topic (and I quote): "Emily sounds off on the curves that put her in a different class from runway models".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • In other words, remove "curvaceous"- it isn't needed Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • If I was saying curvaceous in a way that was WP:OR, I would remove it. But, I am using it to relay to the reader content about the topic of a woman with curves that are the central point of discussion. When a woman's curves are the central point of discussion in a secondary source, describing her as curvaceous in WP is not OR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• If possible, I'd try to get a free image of Ratajkowski.
  • Failure noted above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• In the image's caption, "large breasts" would be better than "big breasts"
  • What is this about?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • The photo shoot of Ratajkowski Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't see "large breasts" in the text anywhere.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• "a statement about our society not having advanced as far as it should on all fronts"..... this is absolutely not a neutral statement
  • No but it is a neutral summary of the secondary source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• "being controversial for the nudity of its video"..... creating controversy
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• "In a separate interview for Complex, she said" → "Ratajkowski also told Complex"
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• "Additionally she said"..... needs a comma after "additionally"
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• "extensive critiquing"..... criticism
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• The charting detail on "Blurred Lines" again should be in the song's article rather than here. The video should be the focus instead.
  • First, the charting detail is at Blurred_Lines#Charts. This is a very concise summary of the most important elements of that detail to provide context. I feel you would likely agree that it means one the to say she was in a music video and another to say she was in a music video that was the number one song of the year in several countries.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • See above. Charts don't need to be mentioned at all in this article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • So do you disagree that it means one the to say she was in a music video and another to say she was in a music video that was the number one song of the year in several countries.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'd remove "controversial" from "her controversial performance" for neutrality sake
  • Another editor addressed this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal life

• The information on breast surgery rumors and Karaoke are trivial, and I'm concerned with the tone of "was not really noticed". Since this section is rather short and would be even more so without the fluff, I'm thinking scrap this section altogether and integrate her residence and relationship with Andrew Dryden into the "career" section along with "early life" into a "life and career" section.
  • You might be surprised how common it is for female biographies to include content refuting breast augmentation claims.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Those articles probably shouldn't include it either. It's fluff, and so is the Karaoke bit. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Filmography

• Per WP:CRYSTAL, remove We Are Your Friends until it enters production AND has a release date
  • They have finished shooting so I think this satisfies WP:CRYSTAL.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Though the year isn't confirmed yet. I'd wait until that information is known. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't see anything about a year being necessary. I see "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". I think once filming has been completed on a major motion picture, that film is nearly certain to be distributed in some form in the future. Even if it goes Direct-to-video, it remains notable in the WP sense because of its stars.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

References

• FN1: Rolling Stone should be linked and italicized
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN's 2 and 5: Not FA-worthy, I'd remove
  • I believe that Fashion Model Directory (FN2) is a WP:RS for birthdates and place of birth. see its about page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I also believe that stylecastermediagroup.com (FN5) is a RS per its about page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    • While not necessarily unreliable and could be acceptable for GA standards, keep in mind that FA standards demand the highest possible quality sources Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• FN9: Link Esquire (magazine)
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN10: "Independent.ie" should read Irish Independent in italics
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN11: I'm really skeptical about how reliable this is
  • I concur. Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN13: reliable?
  • It seems to be a newspaper of some sort. I presume it has editorial oversight. I am comfortable it is a RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN15: Link Men's Fitness
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN16: Links to a general website rather than specific article
  • Delinked. Citation is still valid for print edition, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    • As long as there is a page number (which you've included), then yes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• FN17's and 18: reliable?
  • Yes Ocean Drive (magazine) (FN18) is a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • IntoTheGloss.com is likely a RS given its about page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN22: VERY unreliable
  • I am not sure why Daily Mail is unreliable. It is a tabloid format, but I don't know if that means it is suppose to be regarded as tabloid journalism. Many tabloid format newspapers are considered very reliable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • It is true that tabloid format is not the same as tabloid journalism, but Daily Mail most definitely is tabloid journalism. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• FN23: reliable?
  • Based on the about page, I would say that "The World’s Best Ever" is a RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN24: Complex (magazine) should be italicized
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN25: YouTube is generally discouraged when high-quality secondary sources can be used in place
  • I believe this to be the only source for this content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN26: Same as FN2
  • I still consider it a RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN27: should read treats! and be linked
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN's 30 and 31: reliable?
  • FN 30 seems to be a RS based on its about page--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • FN 31 seems to be a RS based on its about page--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN32: Not FA-worthy
  • The Huffington Post is a RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • While it might be accepted for GA's, I'm not convinced FA's would accept it since they demand higher quality sources than GA's. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • An RS is an RS. The fact and the source determine RS status, not the quality rating of the article. I am fairly certain I have used the HP in past FAs, but I'd have to check to make sure.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• FN's 33, 35, and 36: Same as FN25
  • For 33 and 36, these sources cannot be replaced to my knowledge.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Swapped out both instances of 35.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN's 37 and 40: Same as FN32
  • See above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN41: Same as FN25
  • I could remove it as a citation and include it as an external link somewhere.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Including it as an EL in "See also" would be fine" Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• FN42: FA-worthy?
  • The Daily Beast seems to be a WP:RS according to its about us page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I knew it was reliable, just am not sure if FA's would accept it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I am fairly certain this classifies as a RS even for FA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• FN43: Same as FN25
  • Same as 41 (now merged).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN44: Unlink Complex
  • Why?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Is this because there is a prior Complex link. Unlike prose, we do not assume that a reader has already had a chance to click through to the link in the fnotes. We don't assume readers have read all prior footnotes and are suppose to format each as if it is the first that the reader has seen on the subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is because you already linked it in a previous citation. Only needs to be linked in the first instance used (WP:OVERLINK). Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • WP:OVERLINK does not apply to citations. We assume that a reader has read all the prose above the current prose in an article, but we do not assume he has read all the citations above the current citation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• FN51: Should just read Yahoo! Music
  • Are you suggesting that the publisher Nielsen SoundScan be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes- since none of the other references contain publishers, it's best to be consistent. FA criteria 2c says to have "consistently formatted inline citations". Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Hidden.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• FN52: Unlink Esquire
  • Why?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • See above. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• FN55: Same as FN32
  • See above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN's 59 and 60: I've been told this isn't the most professional of sources to use
  • For anything other than the content presented it might not be a WP:RS. In this limited use it satisfies WP:V.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I know what you mean, but while I was trying to get Katy Perry up to GA, the reviewer at Talk:Katy Perry/GA4 said Askmen isn't a really professional source and content from that shouldn't be used..... even if used to list the site's rankings and such. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I think this would survive at WP:RSN.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• FN61: reliable?
  • Fashionista.com is likely a WP:RS per its about page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN64: Should read "New York Daily News"
  • I don't think this is correct. Look at the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Its official website and Twitter are titled "NY Daily News", and "NY" is an abbreviation for "New York". Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Until the name of the article on WP is changed, I am not convinced. I would be interested in seeing a WP:RM discussion on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• FN67: Same as FN22
  • see above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN71: reliable?
  • The Daily Caller seems to be a RS based on its about page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • In that case, it should read The Daily Caller rather than "Daily Caller" Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• FN74: Unlink Los Angeles Times
  • As above on redundant links.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN77: Twitter tends to be discouraged when high-quality secondary sources can be used in place
  • Swapped out.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN78: Same as FN22
  • See above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN80: EXTREMELY unreliable
  • I believe that New York Post Page Six is regarded as a RS for relationship breakups.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • It most certainly is NOT reliable, particularly when it comes to material on BLP's. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• FN81: Same as FN77
  • The tweet is presented for WP:V.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• FN83: reliable?
  • Mandatory.com seems like a RS per its about page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There's my input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• SNUGGUMS Thanks. That is what I need. I will probably start with the footnotes since doing the other things first will make it hard to see what you are talking about because the order may change.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Makes sense, and happy to help :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• SNUGGUMS, could you please evaluate my responses to your concerns. Maybe you could strike resolved issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Kiyoweap

Don't regularly review, but I am checking into how it is being conducted, and posting my two cents' worth.

/*Early life*/

• In this section, the last paragraph seems abrupt. This is on early life, but the "Ratajkowski appreciates the female form.." timewarps to comment now as grownup. So perhaps insert a transitional clause that reads something like "Exposure to nudity during her formative years would prepare her.... blahblahblah.. for her eventual career appearances au naturel before the camera.." I recommend bluntly saying "nudity" at the beginning, because in the original wording, I myself required a double-take to realize "appreciates the female form" was code for "nudity". I used "exposure" here, but you don't want to use the same word thrice, so your word choice. Alternatively you might retool the last sentence "..she is comfortable" as the introductory sentence.
  
  • I hope it is O.K. now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• To comform with the spelling "Majorca" here, I would change spelling of Mallorca earlier.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Helmut Newton is only a vaguely famous sounding name to me, so instead of "his books" (suggesting author) maybe replace with "the photography of".
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    

 Done This fix does it for me, regarding smooth transitioning from early life topic to current comment. For further word tweaks, I will minor edit and comment in edit summary.--Kiyoweap (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

/*Career*/

• Although it might be sort of a given that fledgling models are automatically budding starlets also, it breaks flow for me when you switch from one to the other and back without some guiding logic. The obvious logic would be chronological, but this is not followed, because iCarly (2009) is followed by signing with Ford Agency (2005?) for example.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• As another case of point, In her schoolgirl years, she was typecast for.. "bitchy girl" seems to be repeat of the same bad adolescent auditioning experience as "typically put forth for Nickelodeon, Disney mean girls, or cheerleaders", only that in the interim you are meandering to talk about modeling again.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• So, I think if you want to employ both "bitchy girl" (NY Times) and "Disney mean girls" (VF), one possibility would be to embed the first one in a "section lede" tersely summarizing the rest of the section. Though I can't point to a MOS page on this.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• The "she eschewed many auditions .. reads as if she's blowing off auditions, to me. Rough suggetion: "Although her modeling agency did send[?] her to auditions for acting roles during this period.. it [made her less than enthused about acting], etc." Obviously you have to use proper words like "disenchanted". This also addresses the subject-less "put forth" getting slapped with a {{by whom}} tag, though you might not agree "agency" as acting subject can be safely assumed here.
  • Another editor has addressed this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• As to "eschew auditions", there was a bit of something like that later on in her career: "offered roles.. but her manager, Evan Hainey .. is grooming her for something bigger" (NY Times).
  • Another editor has addressed this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• "Disney mean girls" is too colloquial to be encyclopedic, so either make it direct quote, or paraphrase it better as 'mean girl roles for Disney studio', etc.
  • Another editor has addressed this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• You have After her breakout with Duran here, and it is true that NY Times article calls this photoshoot her "breakout moment". But your /*Breakout*/ section seems to say it was her video that was her "breakout role". This may be overpicky, but my sense is that the article should select one single gig that gives her name recognition as "THE breakout moment", and qualify or reword the other ones as "minor breakout", or "became a fashion model icon of sorts", or something more suave.
  • She had a stepping stone break out. She got treats!, which got her "Blurred Lines", which got her Gone Girl. Each step was a breakout.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done - I think you have done nicely here. The article now adroitly juggles topic between the modeling to acting, with bridging phrasing in-between, and that must have taken a bit of doing. Sticking to chronology now really helps information sink in more easily, IMO. The{{by whom}} has been finessed around nicely too.--Kiyoweap (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

/*Break out*/

• For section name, I checked supermodel articles elsewhere, and renaming as /*Rise to fame as model*/ or /*2013–2014: Modeling career */ might be a suggestion.
  • How about just "Rise to fame"?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• The "glossiesography" here of magazine appearances may be bit overly comprehensive. Probably you need no reminding, but the list wont be allowed to mushroom, and by the time 2016 comes around will have to be culled, as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Even right now, her supporting actress role Gone Girl material lies buried within. One cheat way to insert excessive detail that I use is to sneak it in explanatory notes ({{efn}} and {{notelist}}) but I'm not sure how well the usual FA reviews tolerate this.
  • Kiyoweap, I am not quite sure how to address this issue. Can you tell me what you think should be in the article regarding magazine appearances? I think at least the GQ and Cosmo covers should be mentioned. I have eliminated a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   Done The "Rise to fame" section name sounds more standard-use to me. As long as you're aware of the stepping-stone breakout here, and bigger one there. On the lengthy glossiesography, I didn't say specifically what to cull, so whatever you decide to reject is fine with me, and if you say her first Cosmo and GQ covers are major milestones in her career at this point, I'll buy that too.--Kiyoweap (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

/*Music video performances*/

• I think whole section should revolve around "Blurred Lines", so recommend structuring sentences so "Blurred Lines" is always mentioned first. Example: "'Blurred Lines' was the blah video that blah blah famous. Prior to this, she had been shot in two other videos, although one of these did not see its release until after 'Blurred'".
  • The section is probably 3/4ths "Blurred Lines" already. I don't think it would be correct to omit the other to videos from this article/section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Next paragraph, "For 'Blurred Lines'.. decision to cast Ratajkowski in the music video came from.." sort of thing
• Adam Levine might be identified as member of Maroon 5 here, and "barechested" instead of "topless", him being a guy?--Kiyoweap (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  I agree that if you keep reading, it gradually becomes clear the section is 3/4ths about "Blurred lines". But my thought was your description of how "Love Somebody" got taped before but was released after "Blurred" got a bit mired in detail, affecting readability as well as rhythm and speed in reaching the topic of the "Blurred" video. So, maybe you might keep the beginning very short, like: "Before 'Blurred Lines', Ratajkowki had been cast in two other music videos, 'Fast Car' by Taio Cruz (2012),[32] and Maroon 5's 'Love Somebody' (2013),[1] though the latter was not released until after 'Blurred'...", and maybe tuck away smaller details (e.g. pinpointing the taping date of "Love Somebody" to January) in an Explanatory note ({{efn}}), or leaving that detail to the wikilinked articles.--Kiyoweap (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  I'll try to address this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Kiyoweap, did you notice what I did?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done OK, since you ping'd me I re-read the versions, and I do believe with the new version the information sinks in a lot more smoothly for me.

The sentence "Both "Love Somebody" and "Blurred Lines" were produced in 2013." has a bit of a tack-on feel to it, placed as an afterthought to patch the omission of the release year earlier. You could've just as well inserted "2013" in the first sentence thus:"Pharrell Williams' 2013 'Blurred Lines' video", and that wouldn't be so cluttering. But up to you.

Possible syntax fix: "she interpreted the video to be about ", and a typo:"perfomrance" is there.

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

All in all a nicely written and laid out article, and I wish you good luck with obtaining a photo for placement at the top of the page for promoting it to an FA article.

--Kiyoweap (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sigeng

• Photos
  • Here are two photos of her with Creative Commons licenses on Flickr[10]. One appears to be copied from her instagram (not usable) but the other might be usable.
    • Sigeng, Are you saying the one from the set of We Are Your Friends with Zac Efron is usable. Note that it seems to be from another source that has no licensing indication. I suspect flickr washing on this one too.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I think you're right. Good catch. -Sigeng (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It would probably also be fair use to pull a still photo from Blurred Lines (maybe the "red car" shot from the PG version) single it's become iconic/memetic - a fact that can also support its use.
    • I doubt that the iconic nature of that role is sufficient to pass WP:NFCC. The debate regarding the treats! image was so rigorous that I don't want to put that one at risk by adding another borderline image. I have had iconic images taken out of bios before. E.g., I have not been allowed to include a FU image at Demi_Moore#Vanity_Fair_controversy. She is young and we expect many PD images of her to surface over time. We should probably wait for one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • P.S. I might be convinced to try a screenprint of a scene, if you could convince me that any one scene in the video is iconic in the sense that the media consistently portrays one scene as representative of the video. Then, I could make the argument that this one scene is the one that the media says is iconic. Note that the one FU that has survived is considered to be the one single photograph of her that all media sources point to as propelling her career.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The treats! magazine cover photo should be moved up closer to the text "March 2012 cover of treats!", especially if other photos are introduced
    • No other photos have been introduced, but I moved the image.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 14:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• The "aside" quotation needs copyediting, and an explanation such as "–Emily Ratajkowski on her participation in Blurred Lines". I did a bit.
  • I am not actually sure what is being suggested here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I didn't explain that well. See my recent edit. -Sigeng (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I have restored the original quote. You can add whatever you want in single brackets, but the quote is what it is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• I rephrased a little around "bitchy girl". I've tried to capture more of what was meant rather than what was said in the sources.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• While she is a sex symbol, the article text occasionally borders on titillation or needlessly sexualizing and objectifying her.
  • "various states of dress" - makes it sound like she was found in a compromising situation. I changed that.
    • Well done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "In her schoolgirl years": "adolescent years" will do. I fixed that.
    • Well done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "curvaceous" and "ample": not ideal (probably best to quote a source's description of her)
    • I have changed from "curvaceous 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model" (not in quotes in the article) to 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model with "curves that put her in a different class from runway models" with the latter part in quotes. I still sort of think a summary rather than a quote might be better. How about uncharacteristically curvaceous, atypically curvaceous, abnormally curvaceous, or something similar?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Christina Hendricks uses quotes for all opinions on her figure (other articles like Kate Upton omit the discussion of body altogether). I think "curves", "curvy" and "curvaceous" are all supportable abbreviations of that quotation. The key is that we're quoting an opinion rather than asserting it in the article text. -Sigeng (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Let's not use start-class articles as a guide.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
          

---

Warsaw Uprising (1794)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article used to be a Featured Article since 2006. However, with time Wikipedia grew more serious and the referencing style used in the article quickly became obsolete. In 2009 the article was demoted, mainly due to insufficient in-line citations. As the original author of most of this article I recently decided to update it and perhaps improve it back to FA status.

In October 2014 I completely revamped the referencing system, added plenty of in-line citations, added additional references to statements that could raise concerns, applied various MoS fixes, added OCLC numbers to pre-ISBN refs and so on. However, since most of the article was written almost a decade ago, it might need some more love. Any suggestions on how to improve the article would be highly appreciated.

Thanks, //Halibutt 21:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

I'm approaching this as someone with almost no background in Eastern European history. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits.

1. What ENGVAR is this written in? I see "radicalisation" and "organizing", and both "center" and "centre", "maneuvers"...
2. You don't need {{en icon}} for the English sources—it's assumed they're in English unless otherwise noted.
3. Alt text would be nice for the images
4. You might want to look into {{sfnm}} and {{efn}} (not neccessaary—just a suggestion)
5. Did you know that when you specify "|ref= harv" that you can use {{sfn}}s like {{sfn|Pistor|Prawdzic-Chotomski|p=37}} instead of {{sfn|Pistor & Prawdzic-Chotomski|p=37}}?
6. Times of day should be in figures rather than words per WP:MOSTIME; also, it's not clear whether the times are in the morning or afternoon
7. Sometimes there's "toward" and sometimes "toward"—should settle on one
8. Uncited material needs to be cited:
   1. However, all the Russian assaults were repelled with heavy losses on both sides and the Poles started a counter-attack towards the Russian positions at Miodowa, Senatorska, Leszno and Podwale Streets, but with little success.
   2. Also the Russian battalion under Major Titov, stationed at Bonifraterska Street, had been attacked around 7 o'clock by the Poles. After four hours' fighting, the Russians retreated toward the city's western outskirts.
   3. This marked the end of the first day of the uprising.

Okay, one by one then:

1. It's supposed to be BrE but apparently I missed some spots. Plus as a non-native speaker I'm a little lost when it comes to the -ise vs. -ize Oxford rule.
   1. My understanding is that in BrEng you can choose either -ise or -ize, but you can't mix them—so just choose the one you prefer. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Yeah, I know, but it looks better that way (when the icon is there for other languages). Personal preference I guess.
   1. Alright, well, I don't think there's a rule against it&nsbp... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Done
4. Thanks, I'll bear that in mind.
5. Actually no, I didn't. Thanks!
6. Done
7. Good spotting! Fixed.
8. ...
   1. Actually all those are sourced in the following sentences, but I added refs anyway, just to be sure.
   2. same here
   3. No can do. I can't remember any source mentioning explicitly. However, as there were no further major actions, it's pretty much a case of WP:BLUE. Otherwise I would have to add a note explaining that available sources do not mention any further actions. Bizarre if you asked me. //Halibutt 02:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Is there a reason to mention #3? I mean, as the narrative continues the next day anyways, I don't see what this sentence adds to the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead

1. per WP:LEADCITE, he lead normally doesn't require inline citations, as all that information should be cited in the body, unless the info is particularly controversial and subject ot people trying to change it. Are the inline cites in the lead for controversial aspects? If not, get rid of them.
2. |place=[[Warsaw]], [[Poland]]: should this not be to Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth?
3. [[Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth|Polish]]: same question
4. A witness to the fighting was Jan Piotr Norblin, a French-born Polish painter who created a set of sketches and paintings of the struggle.: Is this really notable enough for the lead? And would the artwork likely have its own article?
5. The isolated Russian forces resisted in several areas for two more days.: This reads like a cliffhanger—they hung in for two days, and then what happened? They were annihilated? captured? surrendered? Russian reinforcements arrived and turned the tide?

1. Done
2. This one's tricky. Technically speaking the Constitution of May 3, 1791 along with the Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations abolished the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and created a single unitary state called Rzeczpospolita Polska - the Republic of Poland. However, as soon afterwards in 1792 Poland was invaded and in 1793 the Grodno Sejm declared the constitution null and void under pressure from Russia. Finally, as the uprising was precisely against the people behind the Grodno Sejm and in support of the provisions of the constitution, it's pretty complicated to state what was the official name of the country at the time. For sure everyone referred to it as Poland back then, but whether the full version was "Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów" or "Rzeczpospolita Polska" is disputable. I chose Poland for simplicity and because Warsaw was never in Lithuania, so it's safe to use Poland, leaving up to the reader to decide whether he/she uses it as a geographical or political term. However, as the article on Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth covers the entire period, regardless of the actual name changes, it's better to use that link at times, as it's more descriptive than the link to Poland.
   • Okay, best to leave it then, I guess. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
3. No idea really. Any article/book on the uprising is filled with Norblin's sketches and he is mentioned in almost every one of them. But whether he is that important? Not sure. I'll move that part further down.
4. All of the above, see the last sentence in "18 April" section. Any suggestions how to word that? //Halibutt 03:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Prelude

1. the Polish Army was being reduced: why was it being reduced? Was it legally required to? Lack of funds?
2. Upon receiving news of Kościuszko's proclamation: what was this a proclamation of?
3. The King dispatched [[Hetman]] [[Piotr Ożarowski]] and the: with the two links bumping into each other, it appears as if "Hetman" were Ożarowski's first name. As Hetman is an unfamilar term, I'd give it a brief description—maybe something like: "The King dispatched Piotr Ożarowski, who as Hetman was the second-highest military commander after the king,".
4. Marshal of the Sejm Stanisław Małachowski: what's "the Sjem"?

1. You're right, that one was definitely unclear. Explained now.
2. It's wikilinked to a separate article. Do you believe we should expand it in this article?
3. Done
4. Wikilinked Marshal of the Sejm. In short: a little more than a speaker of parliament :) //Halibutt 03:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Opposing forces

• the royal uhlan squadrons: what's an "uhlan"?

Wikilinked uhlan. As the word is present in most English dictionaries ([11], [12], [13]) I doubt it needs to be explained in the body of the article. Or does it? //Halibutt 03:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• • There are lots of words in the dictionary most people won't know. As an encyclopaedia is aimed at a general readership, I would assume they didn't know terms like this. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Opening moves

• [[pułkownik|Colonel]]: this is an WP:EGG as it appears to link to Colonel rather than the Polish term
• to the Castle Square: as this is a proper noun, does it normally take "the"?

As to the military ranks, I'm lost. I used to stick to Polish ranks, especially in historical contexts. However, many people tend to dislike them for some reason and "correct", say, Chorąży to Warrant Officer. Which is definitely a step in a bad direction. Which is why I used [[pułkownik|Colonel]] here. Anyway, the article links to Polkovnik and not Colonel. I will follow any advice you give.

• Hmmm ... I'm not much familiar with military stuff, so maybe a specialist should chip in here, but I don't think it should stay the way it is (per WP:EGG). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

As to Plac Zamkowy - no idea. Back then it was not an official name as such but rather a descriptive name ("market place" vs. "Market Place"), but in modern times it's a proper name. //Halibutt 03:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• If it's a descriptive, then it should be in lower case. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

City Centre

1. attempted to use to take them under crossfire: I don't understand
2. two companies and armed with two cannons: two cannons each, or total?
3. the Warsaw Castle: again, is "the" normal here?
4. leaving Igelström to his fate: what fate was that?
5. the Capuchin's churchand monastery: what's "the Capuchin"?

1. changed to [they] captured the Krasiński Palace which the Poles had been using to fire on them from behind.. Is it better?
   • I think so. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
2. two canons in total. Any idea how to clarify that?
   • "two companies, each armed with a cannon"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
3. No idea. I used the article instinctively. As you probably know Polish doesn't have articles, but in Polish usage some names are kind of stronger than others. Hence when someone says Zamek (literally "Castle", but used to denote a group of officers surrounding the president of Poland in pre-war years), it's clear the translation would be "the Castle" rather than "castle". But in this case - I'm not sure.
   • Unless you're sure the "the" should be there, it probably shouldn't in these cases. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
4. It's described in full in the "April 18" section. Any suggestions?
5. It used to be wikilinked right above, only a couple sentences back. However, I switched the link from capuchin order to this particular church (red link, but we'll work on that). Is it better now?
   • Yeah, I think so. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to take a break here. Ping me if I don't stop back in the next few days. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: - no rush, just pinging you to let you know I replied to all of your questions above - and fixed what I could. Thanks again for all the hard work you're doing. //Halibutt 03:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'll be too busy for the next couple of days to continue with the review. If I don't return after that, ping me again. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I picked up where Curly left off and copyedited the rest per my standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

---

God Help the Outcasts

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it has recently achieved GA status, and I think it has real FA potential. I originally created this article, and have seen it go from strength to strength as @Changedforbetter: has completely altered and improved it. I added bits and pieces along the way too. I hope we can all work together to create was great article. :)

In particular, source checks, prose copyedits, and image/sound checks are good places to start.

Thanks, Coin945 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

---