Wikipedia:Peer review/October 2013

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.

---

179 (number)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to improve the quality of number articles on Wikipedia, 179 seems like a nice one to start off with. I know the article is very short; I reduced the size drastically from this previous version because the information seemed to trivial to be worth mentioning.

I'd also appreciate comments about (the lack of) references, and whether more should be added. Any other ideas/suggestions/complaints/questions are of course welcome as well. Thanks, Ypnypn (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• My first suggestion is to completely re-write the article so that it isn't a series of sentences that begin with 'it' or '179'. That style of prose isn't very interesting or engaging to read. Try mixing it up—writing the sentences in different ways—and avoid repetitive wording.
• Since the article is so brief, my second suggestion is to spend more time developing and clarifying the jargon. You need to explain the terminology so the meanings are clear to a non-mathematician, while showing why the information is relevant to the number 179. If you do it well, you may fill out the article to a satisfactory degree and make it more interesting to read. Praemonitus (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• What I usually do when working on number articles such as this one: Search OEIS for the number + the keyword "nice", scan through all of the search results looking for the most interesting of the properties that it finds, and add a sentence for each of these properties, using the {{SloanesRef}} template as the reference. Sometimes it is helpful to search Wikipedia for the OEIS sequence number: for instance, you wouldn't be able to tell just from the OEIS entry that A006450 corresponds to the Wikipedia article on super-primes. In the current article, being a prime or an Eisenstein prime are not particularly interesting (they are important properties of numbers, and the prime one at least should be mentioned, but 179 is too far from the start of the lists of these numbers to make it notable for having these properties). The Chen and reptend properties may be more interesting. Properties that depend on decimal representations such as being a palindromic number are rarely interesting so should be mentioned only in moderation. Properties like "prime congruent to 3 mod 4" or "prime power" that basically follow just from being a prime should not be mentioned at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Genetically modified food controversies

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we need to nail down the scope and format of the article. We also need to decide where to include a section about an incident that covers multiple controversies. This being the Taco Bell GMO recall which covers health, public perception, labeling, testing, economics, etc.

Thanks, Canoe1967 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Sporcle

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this is a great article, yet I have no idea what level other people think it is.

Thanks, buffbills7701 01:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Review by W Nowicki

Personally I would assess as "start" class, but then I am more familiar with the technical subjects and not "culture". The major problem is that most sources appear to be "primary". Of course a company's own web site is going to be biased (intentional or not) in talking about their own product. To survive a notability delete challenge, you need to cite a reasonable number of independent sources that cover the subject in depth. There is nothing in the article about the company behind this. Is it just one student and an app? Does the company have perhaps any capital or employees? Private companies of course do not need to make that information public, but that is one reason why articles on such small enterprises is questionable. A quick look at the TechFlash article for example has the founder saying "we" but it implies that there is no funding nor perhaps dedicated development resources, though perhaps at least one employee, as of 2010. It too is just some quotes of the founder. I would say reduce to one or two citations of the company's own web site. Certainly remove the "slogan" and "mission statement" since they are totally self-provided and give no information about the subject. Delete the second paragraph of the lead. As for style, one nit is inconsistent date formats. The body uses USA style Month day, Year, which makes sense if the company is located in the USA. But then references should use that format too. And each citation needs to be explicit if it is sourced to the company web site or is independent. W Nowicki (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Tea Party movement

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to work to improve what has been a rather controversial article. However, it might be good to get an outside set of eyes on the article. I would like to improve this to WP:GA and maybe WP:FA. Thanks, Casprings (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

---

List of new religious movements

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there's been extensive discussion and an RfC on the talk page about whether or not it is appropriate for Landmark Worldwide (a personal development training company) to be on this list of "New religious movements". It seems to me that this issue has important implications for the way in which Wikipedia lists are conducted. Thanks, DaveApter (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you want the entire article reviewed or is this a question about whether Landmark Worldwide should be on the list?

Looking at the Article Talk Page (which is a lot to absorb), it seems like there are several ongoing conversations about the content on this list and the sources used. Is this request for a review intended to get some fresh eyes on the article or to bypass the discussions on the Talk Page? Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

Thank you Liz; to answer your questions:

• Yes, I'm primarily asking about whether Landmark Worldwide should be included as this seems particularly anomalous, although any other observations would be welcome;
• Yes, this request is to get some fresh eyes on the matter rather than to bypass the existing discussion, although I brought it here because that discussion seems to have become stalled with the various participants having become entrenched in their positions;
• And yes, I agree it's a lot to absorb, and the issue essentially turns on whether the cited sources do provide adequate justification, and much of the debate on the page revolves around that point. The matter is complicated by the fact that many of them are not readily accessible online, although I've managed to track down enough extracts to form my own opinion;
• Finally, I am aware that my own reading of the sources is inevitably coloured by my personal perspective as a former satisfied customer who took several of Landmark's courses during the period 2002-2005, and saw nothing that could remotely be characterised as religious. DaveApter (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Lionel Palairet

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been a Good article for a while now, and I feel that it has the content to be Featured. I appreciate all feedback, copyedits and thoughts.

Thanks, Harrias ^talk 06:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• The comma before "comtemporaries believed he deserved more Test caps" should probably be a semi-colon instead.
• "and was selected to captain the side in each of 1892 and 1893." You could probably remove "each of" without affecting the meaning.
• University and county cricketer: "At the time, The Daily Telegraph reported that the pair remained together for three and half hours". Does British English usually exclude the "a" before "half" in such a structure. We in the U.S. would include it, but maybe this is one of those language differences I encounter from time to time.

• No variation, just me being silly. Harrias ^talk 14:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Since C. B. Fry was linked in the last section, I don't think another link is needed here.
• From our article on the subject, it looks like Corinthians shouldn't have the last letter.
• England recognition: "Harry Altham is more direct in claiming that Palairet should not have chosen" feels like it needs "been".
• Style and technique: The last sentence forms a stubby paragraph. Perhaps it could be expanded or merged into the previous paragraph.
• There's some red text in ref 90 indicating that the ISBN number may be incorrect. That's worth checking out quickly. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I have enacted most of them. Every source with the exception of Wikipedia that I have come across uses "Corinthians" rather than "Corinithian", so I have stuck with that, and I remove the last sentence of the Style and technique section altogether, I don't feel it really adds any relevant information. Harrias ^talk 12:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

One more thing from a second look, which I don't think Sarastro listed below: ref 20 (from a book) could use a page number. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, added that. Harrias ^talk 14:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro: Looking good generally. I've a few fussy points, but nothing major. I just wonder if we need quite such a detailed list of his scores in a few places, but not a big deal. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Palairet was frequently described as having one of the most attractive batting styles of his period": Unlike Palairet, this lacks a certain elegance. Although I'm loathe to go for the old "Critics regarded…" What about "Contemporaries judged Palairet to have one of the most attractive batting styles of the period", and maybe move "A graceful right-handed batsman" to the start of the previous sentence.
• "An unwillingness to tour during the English winter limited Palairet's Test appearances, contemporaries believed he deserved more Test caps": Something not quite right here. A semi-colon instead of a comma perhaps?
• "Educated at Repton School, where he played in the cricket team for four years, captaining the side in the latter two, Palairet then went on to Oriel College, Oxford.": Too much going on here? What about "Palairet was educated at Repton School. He played in the school cricket team for four years, as captain in the latter two, before going to Oriel College, Oxford".
• "He achieved his cricketing Blue in each of his four years at Oxford, and was selected to captain [captained] the side in each of 1892 and 1893"
• The date from note 1 could be updated. I think there is a template (something like "as of") which does this automatically.
  • What's the point in something that does it automatically, surely the whole point is that the fact should be checked before changing the date? Harrias ^talk 12:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm inclined to agree, and have never used it myself (although I think someone once added one to one I'd expanded), but ... it's there if anyone wants it! Sarastro1 (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• "In that season, Palairet made 1,343 runs at an average of more than 30, and was named as one of the "Five Batsmen of the Year" by Wisden.": Do we need these numbers in the lead, as they are not particularly impressive.
• "He played in the only two matches that the near-invincible Yorkshire team lost from 1900 to 1902.": While it's always nice to be reminded of this(!), I'm not too sure why this is in the lead. The general reader will not really know the context. And some of us do not care to be reminded of the context…
• "His only Test matches were the remarkably close": Editorial judgement?

• Both of these were added by another editor; I have removed the first, and tidied the second. Harrias ^talk 14:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Early life

• Thinking out loud here, I always think it would be nice to give some context to these school figures as they are often faintly ridiculous from players of little talent. But I have not yet found a way to do it, unless Wisden mentions them in the schools reports. And obviously few of us have access to these really old Wisdens. (I'm not suggesting you do anything here, btw.)

• Yeah, and like with the seven in seven, I expect they are heavily exaggerated by terrible opposition. Harrias ^talk 14:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Some of Palairet's early success can be attributed to his father, who paid the professionals Frederick Martin and William Attewell, both later Wisden Cricketers of the Year, to bowl at his two sons during the Easter holidays, to help them prepare for the upcoming cricket season": Is the second comma really necessary?

• I think so, but I have a love affair with commas. I've left it for the time being. Harrias ^talk 14:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Although a Lancastrian by birth, his family home was at Cattistock in Dorset, and it was in the south west that he chose to play his cricket, qualifying for Somerset on the basis of residence." The previous sentence is about Somerset, which makes "his" slightly ambiguous. Perhaps the Somerset sentence could be made a footnote?

• I've left the Somerset sentence in, as I think it provides context that is more worthy of a place in the article than a note. But I often get a little confused writing these articles and start writing about Somerset, rather than the person, so it might be better reduced to a note. I'll think on it. Harrias ^talk 14:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Cricket career

• "Palairet entered the first eleven for Oxford in his first year at the university": Entered seems an odd word. What about cutting it back to "Palairet was selected for the university cricket team during his first year there…"
• "Oxford's batting was described as unreliable during Palairet's second year at university": Described by who?
• "placed him fifth amongst his peers": Perhaps a little grand for an encyclopaedia?

• I don't know, it wasn't intended to sound grand. I've left it for the moment. Harrias ^talk 14:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Although he is mentioned in the lead and the caption to the image, the main text here does not mention Hewett's name in connection with the record partnership.
• "despite helpful conditions": Perhaps better as "despite favourable/good batting conditions"
• I'm not sure of the value of the direct quote from Bolton as very little concerns LCH. Maybe paraphrase as something along the lines of Bolton questioning his place in the team.

• Uhmmm. Me neither. I've left it in, purely because its inclusion seems so odd that I can only assume there is a reason I've forgotten, and didn't explain in the article. I'll have a look at the source, and come back to this. It might be another case of me getting caught up and writing about Oxford, rather than Palairet. Harrias ^talk 14:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Cambridge had a "powerful" team": I don't think we need quotes around one word like this, unless we are saying "According to X, Cambridge had a "powerful" team…"
• "Despite this relatively poor season by his own standards, Somerset still relied heavily on him": Can we tell this from the batting averages?

• No, this is a bit of.. well.. not original research, but probably original extrapolation. I'll have a look around my sources and see if anything supports this better.

• "was against Somerset at Headingley in Leeds.": I'm not sure, at that time, that Headingley was technically in Leeds.
• "Faced with a heavy defeat, it is said": By who?

• Again, this was added by another editor. I've taken it out for the moment, as I'm not sure how much encyclopaedic value it adds, but I'm not overly opposed to its inclusion in some form. Harrias ^talk 14:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe crop the Spy image to remove the border?
• "on what Sir Home Gordon described as a "rain-ruined wicket"": Could we explain this for the general reader? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. Probably. I'm not sure how to at the moment though, I'll give it some thought. Harrias ^talk 14:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for your kind review: I have made changes to the article for most of your points, a few I have replied directly to, and a few I have not yet done, which I have noted (more for my own purposes than yours!) Harrias ^talk 14:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple more: I managed somehow to miss the style and technique section yesterday. But otherwise, I think it's just about there for FAC.

• "He played predominantly off the front foot, and tended to be less effective on soft pitches": Could we make this better for the general reader? I'm not sure of the best way and usually end up with a pile-up of words when I try to do it.
• "and helped him to score more effectively": Than...?
  • Everyone else? Not quite sure how to phrase this, and the comment above to better explain it. Harrias ^talk 14:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Is CB suggesting that this was a good or bad thing? As he was a pretty nifty legside player, I wonder if it was a criticism?
  • Certainly in the article it doesn't sound like criticism: he seems pretty full of praise; but either way, I think it can be read as an analysis rather than being either good or bad. Harrias ^talk 14:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Is the comparison with Viv really useful to the general reader? And it seems a random inclusion in an article about Palairet, for whom there is no other connection other than county.
• Ditto with the "modern game" comparison, which was a favoured inclusion of seemingly all historical cricket writing in the 1980s. And technically, if sourced from 1983 is hardly the modern game anymore. (And in my opinion is pretty worthless anyway)
  • I removed this entirely. Harrias ^talk 14:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Also, was there anything worth including in Fry's autobiography? I think I sent you the relevant pages, but can't remember what was in them. I suspect not a lot. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the autobiog stuff was more personal than substance. Harrias ^talk 14:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    

---

Cancer and nausea

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an important and relevant medical topic which I would like to see to GA status after having started the article. Present concerns that need help and advice include spelling and grammar, flow, general coherence and clarity, simplicity of language (use of technical language), and structural adherence to WP:MOS and WP:MEDMOS. Also some sections may be underdeveloped, while some may be overdone? I am at odds and fresh minds are needed. I would really appreciate suggestions and help. Thanks, Ochiwar (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:BODY, there are far too many brief sections: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." Praemonitus (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment. I have merged quite a bit, changed sections to bullet lists where appropriate, and you are right: it does seem to flow much better. But, too many bullet lists and too little prose? Ochiwar (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Anticipatory is pretty much a subsection of chemotherapy as the phenomenon is entirely related to it, so the two should be merged or at the very least placed adjacent to one another. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Y Done. Thanks, makes sense. Moved ANV to be under CINV. The only reason I did not merge both sections as suggested is because there is no seperate article on ANV, so I am thinking that as long as it has a subsection in this article, at least anybody searching for the term will end up on the subsection ANV in this article. Ochiwar (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Article is looking much better. Still requires some basic copyediting (spelling; punctuation). Also, is there another image that we could use? I am pretty sure the reason for the depicted vomiting is not cancer... it could be, but it's not been in my experience a common theme amongst renaissance art. LT90001 (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• I am reading this very interesting article and wondering if some patients might report nausea when they have a foul taste in their mouth?
• Chemotherapy and nausea. What is the mechanism? I know that persons undergoing chemotherapy often report foul tastes in their mouth/bad breath. Is this part of the nausea? I am not sure if these represent genuine symptoms (i.e. pulmonary excretion of the drug or its metabolites or secretion into the saliva) or chemosensory dysfunctions such as dysgeusia.
• Radiotherapy to the major salivary glands commonly reduces salivary flow rate, leading to dry mouth (xerostomia). Xerostomia is again linked to complaints of foul taste (e.g. metalic)/bad breath, and this mechanism again might be genuine or phantom. Lesion (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 1: "Cancer and nausea are associated in about fifty percent of people affected by cancer." The sentence is rather awkward, probably because of the attempt to shoehorn the article's title in. How about "Nausea is associated with cancer in about 50% of people with cancer." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 1: "While seventy to eighty percent of people undergoing chemotherapy experience nausea and/or vomiting, they may also occur in people not receiving treatment." Non-treatment related nausea was mentioned in the preceding sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 1: "Nausea and vomiting may be experienced as the most distressful side effects of cytotoxic drugs and may result in patients delaying or refusing further radiotherapy or chemotherapy." Side-effects from cytotoxic drugs lead to patients refusing radiotherapy? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 1: "Some medical conditions associated with a high risk of nausea and/or vomiting include chemotherapy and radiotherapy induced nausea and vomiting, anticipatory nausea and vomiting and malignant bowel obstruction." Chemotherapy/radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are associated with a high risk of nausea and/or vomiting? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

From "Causes", paragraph 1: "These include malignant bowel obstruction (MBO), chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), anticipatory nausea and vomiting (ANV), and radiotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (RINV)." The phrases "chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting" and "radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting" should include hyphens. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating this article for FA. The article is currently a GA.

Thanks, Typing General (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert: G'day, I only took a very quick look, but what I saw impressed me. Good work. I have the following observations/suggestions:

• Watch out for date format consistency. For instance compare "27 January 1126" and "January 28"; either format is fine, but if you are looking to take this to A-class or FAC it should be consistent;
  • Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• "File:Battleofzhuxiancounty.jpg": not sure about the licencing for this image. The licence that is currently being used is for the photograph, but surely it should actually be for the painting itself.
  • Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• "File:Wanyan Wuqimai.jpg": probably needs a freedom of panorama licence as well as the licence that is currently being used. More information can be found here: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you. Working on it right now.--Typing General (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC) I'm reading this as an absolute "babe in the woods" when it comes to Chinese history, so you can compare me with someone coming to this article wanting to know more about something they have a vague idea happened. Many of my comments reflect my confusion about who is who, and I believe the article needs to be tightened up considerably in respect of terminology and clarity for the lay reader.

• the terminology between dynasty and empire seems a bit mixed throughout, weren't the campaigns by the autonomous Jurchen generals against the Song Empire? The article also refers to Song China. Needs some consistency.
• on November 1125 perhaps in November 1125?
  • Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• decided to invade the Song? perhaps the Song Empire?
• the Song are introduced in the Background section without explaining who they were
• Khitan and Liao seem to be used interchangeably, suggest you use one or the other
  • See the comment below.--Typing General (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• "their Chinese allies" is unclear. I assume you mean the Song?
  • See the comment below.--Typing General (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• when you refer to people or groups as Chinese, it is not clear what this is being contrasted with, Manchurian?
  • "Chinese" is a common shorthand for Han Chinese. "Han" could be used, but it may confuse readers because there is also a dynasty by the name of Han.--Typing General (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• suggest you provide a conversion of taels
  • To which currency? USD, EUR, RMB or GBP? I don't think its necessary, and converting pre-modern currencies is difficult and likely OR.--Typing General (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• "Song diplomatic oversights were unable to restrain the rising Jurchen power" needs clarification, I can't tell what you are trying to say.
  • Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• It is not clear how if the generals were autonomous, the Jin Empire declared war rather than just the generals.
  • The war was formally declared by the emperor, but the generals were a large part of the decision making process.--Typing General (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Chinese general (see above comment about Manchurian etc)
• there seems to be far too much use of alternate names for peoples, things etc, which is very confusing. Jin/Jurchen, Chinese/Song, Khitan Southern Capital/?
  • See the comment below.--Typing General (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• "the army had seized control of two prefectures and re-established Jurchen rule over the Sixteen Prefectures", is confusing, they seized control of two, but re-established control over 16?
  • Sixteen Prefectures is the formal name for the contested territories. Once they captured the remaining prefectures, the Jurchens were in control of the entire Sixteen Prefectures region.--Typing General (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• towards the Taiyuan
  • Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• provincial capital fell to "the" Jurchens?
  • Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• "Corpses of soldiers who died during the siege further diminished Song morale" ok, but were they lying around the city, or what?
  • The Song soldiers did not dispose of their corpses, leaving them on the walls where they died. I have rewritten the sentence.--Typing General (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• scholar elite?
  • Reworded to scholarly elite and linked to Scholar-official.--Typing General (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• reign in? "rein in"
  • Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• and accordedrewarded them with different titles?
• need to introduce Emperor Hailingwang, then a consistency issue with "Hailing"
  • Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• defected to the Jin oin 1206
  • Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• "a multitude" is a bit WP:WEASELLY
  • Wording changed.--Typing General (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• I would examine additional categories that might be appropriate, like Category:History of Manchuria if appropriate.
  • Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That's it. Well done so far.

Jurchens/Jin, Han Chinese/Song, and Khitan/Liao are synonymous. Jurchens/Han Chinese/Khitans are ethnic groups, while Jin/Song/Liao are political dynasties ruled by the aforementioned ethnicities. I will work on the article to make this distinction less ambiguous in the text.--Typing General (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments. Just some basic copyediting advice, if you're looking to take this to A-class or FAC.

• "The Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty were a series of military campaigns conducted by the Jurchen Jin Dynasty against the Song Dynasty. The conflict began with a declaration of war on November 1125.": See WP:Checklist#repetition. "A series of Jurchen military campaigns against the Song Dynasty began with a declaration of war on November 1125." It's not forbidden to bold it, but I wouldn't, per WP:BOLDTITLE.
  • Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• "decided to invade": Avoid "decided", more often than not, per WP:Checklist#mindreading ... even though the word is quite common elsewhere. Wikipedians generally have a preference (in historical narrative) for reporting what people did, rather than what we think they were thinking. Usually, the solution is to be more specific ... if an order was given to invade, or if a council agreed to invade, then say that instead.
  • Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• "The Jurchen campaigns were a milestone in the history of gunpowder": Avoid expressions that raise more questions than they answer. I like what you say below: "The battles between the Song and the Jurchens spurred the invention and use of various gunpowder weapons." - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment

• I have made a statement regarding the name of the article Timeline of Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty which I think is wrong as it is unclear and does not meet the article content. It can be read over here. As I never got any reaction and it does meet this article 1:1, this is my review-comment. I would highly recommend an answer here or over there on the lists talk page. Regards --Bomzibar (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Answered on the talk page.--Typing General (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    

---

Stanford University

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a B-Class article, and I would like to help it reach Good Article status.

Thanks, OCNative (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this PR still effective? I hope it is not too late to provide criticisms and advice. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 13:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

---

OpenOffice.org

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to GA or FA. I've worked quite hard on it over the last several months, reviewing sources from the past ten years in several languages. The content should be clear and is referenced to the hilt. But is there anything that seems missing to a fresh reader? - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by APerson

• As it stands, I like the article a lot and it has a lot of good references.
• The lead answers all the questions I would have about it (what is it? who made it? etc.)
• In the lead, the paragraphs containing more "pertinent" information, such as the well-known successors and the authors of the project, could be moved above those containing information that might not be as interesting to the reader who is just skimming, like what file types it was supposed to read.
• The fact that it was supposed to supplant Microsoft Office could be given greater weight (and maybe even another reference).
• The opening sections (History and Features) nicely describe the important properties of OpenOffice.org.
• The "Discontinued" section might be summarized a bit more.

APerson (talk!) 01:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That was enormously helpful, thank you so much! I've reorganised the intro - the first para now tells the casual reader all that stuff by itself. I also merged all the minor discontinued forks into the big list (with some refs for further reading where warranted), leaving only the ones warranting separate articles in the section - David Gerard (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And I'm now looking for more sources on an intention to compete with MS Office (though it's really obvious it totally did) - David Gerard (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The 1.0 announcement, an official Sun press release, also talks up its power to compete with MSO. I've also found a zillion contemporary (within a coupla years) documents on openoffice.org about how to migrate, should anyone question Sun's intent further - David Gerard (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Alberta and Great Waterways Railway scandal

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a frustrating article, which I first wrote back in 2008. While it passed the good article process easily, it did so without must feedback, and I think it remains deficient in some respects. Feedback from two other editors (User:Politizer on the article's talk page, and User:Doncram in a previous peer review) suggested that it might read too chronologically, if I can put it like that - the article reads too much like a recounting of events from when the scandal brook until the royal commission gave its report. I think that there's probably something to that, but I can't figure out an alternate organization that will work. I have completely re-worked the lede to (I think) give a better overview of just what the scandal was, rather than just the sequence of events, which I hope helps somewhat.

Anyway, like I said: it's a frustrating article. I'd appreciate feedback on any aspect of it, but organization is probably what most concerns me right now. Steve Smith (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Just at a glance: the lede is great, summarises the scandal nicely. When I got to the body text, the sections themselves and each paragraph felt too long. I'll look more closely later - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  

---

List of Detroit Red Wings general managers

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take the page to Featured List status and am seeking input from the community on how to get it there.

Regards and thanks, Rejectwater (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any glaring issues. Which isn't to say there aren't any, but I don't see them. Good job. Anthony (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind words and for taking the time to look it over. Rejectwater (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments

• "11 men have" -> "Eleven men...
• Link franchise appropriately.
• "The first was Art Duncan for the 1926–27 season; Duncan also served " -> he also served... (no need to repeat his name)
• Consider placing refs at the end of the sentence, it looks nicer.
• "Adams served as coach" -> He served...
• General Managers or General managers?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• All done. Thank you once again for the excellent input. Rejectwater (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Barfi!

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because both me and Prashant! feel that the article is a strong candidate for a FAC. But before the FAC, I like to list the article for a peer review to improve the quality of the article. Thanks, --Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 15:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Carrière des Nerviens Regional Nature Reserve

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am French, and a new contributor to WP: EN. Please excuse me in advance if I make mistakes.

This article is a translation of w:fr:Réserve naturelle régionale de la Carrière des Nerviens, whis is candidate to the status Article de qualité. I wanted to translate it to let you know that little French reserve, especially as Anglophones are numerous in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais.

I'm not familiar with the English wikipedia and its requirements, but I would like to continue, knowingly, my English investment, in parallel to the French WP. Please, would you tell me if this article is at the level of a status GA, A or FA

I thank wikipedians who have already reviewed and revised this article and all those who will respond to my request. Christian COGNEAUX (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• The main thing it needs is slightly smoother English prose. I'll copyedit it later.
• The "Other references" in the bibliography seems a bit long and out of place. This information may be digestible into the main article body as footnoted references. (Or it may not :-) )

- David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

---

HTC One

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've maintained this article even before this smartphone had an official name, and clearly, over the months since its unveiling, I've made this article a showcase of why this device is very important to HTC. Just yesterday, this article reached GA status. But now, I'm wanting to take it to the next level; featured article. But first, I think it could use a nice peer review.

Sincerely, ViperSnake151  Talk  16:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Monsters University

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article is a strong contender for GA. Any suggestions for further improvements will be welcome. Thanks, --Jionpedia ✉ 13:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have only two suggestions so far: the lead could be expanded (the third para is too shot), and the plot appears a little more than 700 words (the last para about Mike and Sulley's expulsion can be copy edited). The plot also lacks many links. If I find anymore suggestions, I'll tell u. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

---

MNIST database

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to make it a Good Article and would like some feedback first. Specifically, I would like suggestions on what content should be added to the article and how the writing in the article can be cleaned up.

Thanks, APerson (talk!) 20:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reads OK, I was reading with interest and then it ended after two sections! So the first thing it needs is more. Possibilities:
  • Some of the more notable scientific results from it
  • Some production technologies that have come out of it
  • Caltech 101 and LabelMe in the "See also" looked of non-obvious relevance at first glance, but looking at them obviously they're highly relevant. Perhaps a section mentioning other such image databases with relevance to MNIST? Not sure how to make that really clearly on-topic ...
• I see you've done a pretty good scouring of the available sources.
• I did the obvious Google search for sources, or other general articles on it, and do you know, this is about the best writeup of what it actually is that exists. So it's a useful thing. Well done :-) - David Gerard (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the peer review! APerson (talk!) 13:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

---

University of St Andrews

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like comments and suggestions relating to the content. What should stay what should be removed.

Thanks, Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

---

She Wolf

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed GAN once and I want to make sure it doesn't happen for a second time. I think this peer review will sort out problems before it is nominated again.

Thanks, WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel obligated to chip-in here - I have a few ideas.

The sentence structures in "Songs and repertoire" follow this formula, at least for the most part:

• • A song's influences
  • Lyrical content
  • Writers & producers
  • If a Spanish-language equivalent exists and was used on the album

I'd like to suggest attacking each of these ideas in separate paragraphs. For example, "The songs on the album were largely influenced by [genres]," listing and describing the influential genres from most-influential to least.

Then, summarize the album's lyrical content, grouping similarly-themed songs together and describing them in brief sentence clauses.

Finally, the last paragraph can denote whether Spanish-language versions exist and where they were used.

I'd recommend against reiterating who wrote or produced what unless it proves particularly vital to the nature of the song; for example, if a producer stated during an interview what kind of vibes they were going for and said something creative, it might be worth quoting that, but again avoid the songwriters & producers for the most part as they're already listed a few sections below with the track listing. LazyBastardGuy 06:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed after your GA review. Please take a look. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Very well done! It's much easier to read now. Sorry if I was beating a dead horse here, I hadn't thought to check the article before posting here. LazyBastardGuy 18:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Are there any other problems with the article? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Danny McGrain

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've added considerably over the last month to the article and would like a review of how it stands quality-wise.

Thanks, ShugSty (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Shudde

• Obviously having a free image or two would be valuable – I understand how hard this may be, but it'd still be good to have.
• I think the opening sentence could be written a little better. It's trying to convey a lot of information, but this makes it a little hard to read.
• Have a look at WP:NUMERAL
• Caps should probably be wiki-linked, many people will be unfamiliar with the term. Done 25/9/13
• "during Jock Stein's 9-in-a-row glory days" -- apart from the fact this may not be understood by many people, if you say 9-in-a-row to refer to nine league titles in a row, then adding glory days seems like a case of WP:PEACOCK.
• "1970s saw him described by many as being one of the best full-backs in the world." -- don't really like this statement ("by many"? - who), but if it stays then it needs a citation, even in the lead.
• "playing for nearly 18 months in the 1970s, causing him to miss Scotland's campaign in the 1978 World Cup in Argentina." - the bit about the 1970s seems redundant if you mention he missed the 1978 world cup Done 25/9/13
• " and is now currently part of Neil Lennon's coaching staff at Celtic." - might want to be more specific - what is his role? Since when (the year)?
• "Anybody who saw him at his best had the unmistakeable impression of watching a great player, probably one who had no superior anywhere in the world." - is this supposed to be italics? Done 25/9/13
• Regarding the years in the infobox, should they be 1967–1987 or 1967–87 ?
• The statistics could probably use a citation
• Many of the paragraphs are only one or two sentences long. I'm wondering if you could avoid this with a bit of a copy-edit
• A lot of the paragraphs start with "McGrain"
• Some hyphens should be dashes - see WP:DASH Done 25/9/13
• Try and be consistent with some terms. For example you use "right back" and "right-back" -- either seems fine, but don't switch between the two Done 25/9/13
• "McGrain was voted into the team, which was; Simpson, McGrain, Gemmell, Murdoch, McNeill, Auld, Johnstone, P McStay, Dalglish, Larsson and Lennox" -- missing a fullstop Done 25/9/13
• Be a little careful of repeating yourself or having redundancies. For example you say "McGrain is a member of the Scotland Football Hall of Fame, courtesy of the 62 caps he won during his career.", but that he gained 62 caps was mentioned in the previous sentence. Done 25/9/13

I will give the article a more thorough read through later this week if I have a chance. -- Shudde ^talk 12:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Werner Voss

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

I received a treasure trove of new information on Werner Voss, even as the article cleared A Class Review. Resultant rewrite may be somewhat verbose and/or over-detailed. Would welcome feedback, judicious trimming and tightening before going on to FA Review. Thanks, Georgejdorner (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• I've looked at the changes since my last edit, down to Voss in command, and done some copyediting. I don't have an opinion on how much of the new text to include for FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Mutation

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

Thanks, StefanieStrohl (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this article, StefanieStrohl. Could you be more specific what you are hoping to achieve through this review? Some examples might be thoughts on direction, general quality concerns, preparation for GA status, sourcing, or opinions about particular issues. A more specific question may elicit more responses. LT90001 (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that PR requests from new users who don't appear to be actively engaged in the article they are submitting and for articles that are technically difficult subjects aren't going to get very far. ResMar 15:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Da Nang

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review after seeing that an editor recently changed its assessment to A-Class without any further comment or explanation. IMO it's definitely not Start-class anymore, but it's not at the level of A-Class for sure. It's been a while since I've made any major contributions on Wikipedia, but, as a major contributor to the article over the years, I figured I'd request peer review to get an idea of how to improve the article, with the aim of eventually raising it to at least GA-Class.

Thanks, dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 19:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It's way off GA class let alone A class, GA comes before A class. It needs a lot of work throughout, many poorly sourced sections, dubious sourcing in the lower sections in particular. I'd close the peer review for now, a lot of the issues are obvious, I can help you with it over the next few weeks if you like but have a look at something like Aalborg which I recently promoted for what is expected for cities. But it really needs a rewrite from scratch I think and needs an awful lot of work and I'm not sure I want to commit that much time to it without further assistance from the others. If you want to start somewhere:

• Culture onwards to the end needs sourcing.
• Convert education, infrastructure and transport into decent prose and avoid bullet points.
• Try to use google books if you can and avoid some of the shoddy tourist sites if possible throughout.
• Ensure that every source is adequately filled out with Template:Citation info, publisher, date etc.
• Administration section could use some chunks of text about the city government and administration
• Ensure that every paragraph is sourced.
• A good article on Da Nang should have a fairly detailed section on Landmarks, think temples, theatres. museums, monuments, hotels and restaurants, notable squares/streets etc.

As I say see articles such as Aalborg and Marrakesh for some ideas and also note how books are used and notes. Hope this helps for starters ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

OK—thanks for taking a look. I agree with your assessment, and I agree that the peer review can be closed. I don't have the time to put into improving the article just yet, but maybe these suggestions can serve as a guideline for future attempts, whether my own or those of another dedicated editor. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 15:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

---

2012 Philippine Peace Cup

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to GA, it is an historical event for the Philippines for winning their first international title, and I want to recognize this to everyone, I've expanded and rephrase the sentences, but I want more opinion to make this page, outstanding to the readers.

Thanks, FairyTailRocks (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I had a quick glance at the article, and I realized that there are no text about the matches in the tournament; you should add a decent paragraph called "tournament summary" or similar. 1930 FIFA World Cup is a similar article that has FA-status, you should have a look at that one to see how it could be done, though I understand that it is hard to add as much information for a minor tournament like this. A good article should also meet WP:LEAD, which means that only the most important aspects of the article should be summarized in the lead and citations should only be in the body of the article. Hope this helps, Mentoz86 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Currently working on it.  Done FairyTailRocks (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edits was correctly reverted. The citations in the lead shouldn't be removed, but you should move them into the body of the article. The main text should consist of well-sourced prose, while the lead should be a summary of the prose (without citations). The text you added in the "tournament summary", should also be sourced. If sources doesn't exists, then it is no point to try to get this article to GA. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Goodman Beaver

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a current GA, and I'd like to get some more eyes on it before submitting it as a Featured Article Candidate.

Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Xiaxue

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present for peer review, this short, but interesting, article about a Singaporean celebrity blogger! Please support my quest to counter systemic bias by pointing out any and all ways that this article falls short of the GA criteria. Hope you enjoy reviewing it as much as I enjoyed writing it! Thank you! 谢谢! Terima kasih! நன்றி! J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I would first question if this is notable. That aside...the controversy section should be renamed or removed in line with BLP articles being npov. Also make sure the refs are consistent. I'm sure some of the refs without links can have them with a google search or something. other things to check for (I haven't read through it all) is ENGVAR consistency (Brit English in this case) and perhaps list it for copyedit at GOCE. (to get other input)Lihaas (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

urther, while the refs are consistent, I would still suggest reflinks as that is more detailed.

I made some changes (as in the "controversy" section title) and tagged stuff and also added hidden notes. Try and answer them. This should be good for a GA then I reckon.Lihaas (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I would still questions its notable with only local sources.Lihaas (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Local high profile newspapers are fine I think - I think she passes notability guidelines. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian is not a local source. Although the rest of the sources are of Singaporean origin, she has won Best Asian Blog at the Bloggies and Wizbang Weblog Awards. The iPhone video controversy involved Daniel Lyons and Gizmodo, both based in the USA. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Make sure you do straighforward stuff like put as much information in the references as possible - accessdates for web only - authors etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  Doing All the web references already have access dates. Adding author information where available. For reference 1, the author is obviously Xiaxue herself. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd describe her as a blogger, not "celebrity" blogger as that word means nothing really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  Done See my reply to Ruhrfisch. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Fleshing out material in the blogs and other media sections would be good too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  Considering I have to stick to information that the sources provide. No point adding fluff, original research or worse, BLP violations. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I think she is notable too.
• I agree that "celebrity blogger" is confusing (and is not repeated in the article). Does it mean she blogs about celebrities? Does it mean she is a celebrity because of her blog (I think this is what is meant). If so, why not say something like "is a Singaporean known for her blog about her life, ..."

  Done Decided to just remove "celebrity". From the second sentence of the lead, readers can infer that she is a celebrity. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Per MOS, at least her birth year should be in the lead (since birth date and year are in the article itself)

  Question Is that section of the MoS one of the five that the GA criteria mentions? Where in the first sentence of the lead section (which mentions both her real name and pseudonym, in both English and Chinese) should it be placed? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  WP:WIAGA says a GA has to follow WP:LEAD, which refers the reader to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies which says the lead should have the dates of birth and death if know - see WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  You could add the birth year after her chinese name, but enclosed in the same bracket, i.e. (Chinese: xxx; born xxx) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  Done Thanks for the pointers! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• There are some fairly basic things that should be in the article but are not. Most of them are about providing context to the reader
  • Where was she born - assume part of Singapore, but the article does not say

    Clarification In Singapore, yes. Singapore is a tiny country. Most Singaporeans are born at Kandang Kerbau Hospital. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

    Then please add to the article that she was born in Singapore. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

    Done Added in Personal life section --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  • What is the name of her blog?

    Clarification Her blog does not have a specific name. Sources usually call it just "Xiaxue's blog" or "xiaxue.blogspot.com". The tagline "Everyone's reading it" is not its title, since she has changed the tagline before; past taglines include "Why are you worshipping the ground I blog on?" and "Chicken pie blogger". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

    Then have the article say her blog does not have a specific name or title, but does have different tag lines. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

    Partly done Changed her main blog to her untitled main blog (usually known as xiaxue.blogspot.com). Information about the taglines is difficult to verify, so I did not add it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  • The whole thing about her writing 10 blogs was not very clear to me.

    Question What do you not understand and how could I make it clearer? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

    You yourself refer to her blog (singular) in your reply to my previous point. The section of the article is "Blog" (singular), not "Blogs". I went to her blog and did not see 9 other blog links. If nothing else, shouldn't all of the public blogs be linked in the EL section? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

    Partly done Changed section title from "Blog" to the more accurate "Blogging". Also changed the external link description from "Xiaxue's blog" to "Xiaxue's main blog". Did not add links to her other blogs as most are not notable and . --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  • What language(s) does she blog in? From her nickname, I assumed it might be written in Chinese, but the link I followed was to an English language blog.

    Question Where would be the best place to mention that her blog is in English? I considered Xiaxue...is a Singaporean English-language blogger but that does not read well to me. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

    Nothing should be in the lead that is not in the article. I am not sure this belongs in the lead, but how about making the first sentences of the "Blog" section something like this to address this and the previous comment: Xiaxue blogs in English. In addition to her main blog, she also writes a geeky blog, her media centre and several private blogs.

    Done Since her pseudonym is a potential source of confusion, the sentence about the pseudonym would be the best place to clarify that she writes in English. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  • There are not a lot of dates / years. So when was she a "columnist for national newspapers TODAY and The New Paper, Maxim magazine and Snag magazine"? Were these one-time columns (guest columnist) or did she have regular writing assignments for these publications? Is it possible to reference the actual columns she wrote (and not just the story about them)?

    Clarification with question She had regular writing assignments for these publications, but referencing the actual columns does not seem feasible. The PDF source does mention the years where she was a columnist for these publications. How should I include such information in the article? Due to...notably as a columnist for national newspapers TODAY (2004) and The New Paper (2005), Maxim magazine (2005) and Snag magazine (2005) could be misread. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

    The article cites lots of print sources, so I do not see why it couldn't cite some of her print blogs. These could be looked up in a library. I would imagine the first and last blog she wrote for each publication would be sufficent (and it may well be that these would give details that might be useful here - she might write in the first blog for a paper that she has been hired to write for a year, or she might say in the last one that she wrote 50 columns here in the past year (these are made up examples). How about something like Due to the popularity of her main blog, Xiaxue's work also appeared in mainstream media. She was a columnist in the national newspaper TODAY in 2004, and in 2005 wrote columns for The New Paper, and Maxim and Snag magazines.[5]

    Considering Newspaper articles are easy to find through Factiva. Magazine archives are much harder to obtain. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think that the ref for this sentence In April 2008, she made a video about the iPhone, which she insists "was meant to be funny", but was dubbed "the worst iPhone review" by U.S. technology writer Daniel Lyons and ridiculed on other technology websites, including Gizmodo.[13] should include citations to Gizmodo and wherever Lyons made his remarks (not just a story in the New Paper)

  Considering Online references can go dead quickly. I believe the Fake Steve Jobs blog was shut down after the real Steve passed away. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  Not sure what you are talking about here. A fake blog does not sound like a WP:RS. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  Clarification American technology magazine writer Daniel Lyons started a blog under the pseudonym "Fake Steve Jobs". His ridicule of Xiaxue's video was made through the Fake Steve Jobs blog. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• The lead seems pretty short, though the article is not very long.

  Clarification Lihaas had removed a sentence about her family from the lead section, making it look shorter than it should be. I have reverted his change. Is the lead still too short? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

  Noted As far as I know, there are no copyright violations or close paraphrasing in this article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

---

List of ineffective cancer treatments

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get feedback from experienced editors on ideas for improvement, with a view to making this article a featured list. All and any type of comment are welcome, but in particular:

• Is the coverage good (I believe we are listing anything that is notable enough to feature elsewhere in Wikipedia)
• Is the MO of having one-or-two sentences per list-item suitable?i
• More pictures? fewer?
• The very best sources are used, but this leads to a certain sameness of sourcing. Is this an issue?
• Would it be appropriate to head each section with a short introductory paragraph giving general commentary on the type of treatment in the sub-list that follows; or does that take us too far away from being a list article?

Thanks, 08:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not a very experienced editor and this is my first peer review, but some comments from Ochiwar:

• General

• The one or two sentence MO is suitable IMO since most list entries are sufficiently linked to articles that give further information.
• The article is not overloaded with pictures. A few more good, relevant images will do no harm.
• IMO an introductory paragraph in the sub-list is not needed because (again) most list entries are sufficiently linked to articles that give further information.
• Coverage is quite good for such a young article. As more readers and editors bring up further suggestions, the coverage will probably improve with time. I will leave some suggestions to missing content and possibly useful references on the article talk page.

• Lead

• A caveat that the list is not all inclusive may be needed to avoid suggesting to a possibly naive reader that all other therapies not included on the list are automatically sanctioned.

Ochiwar (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• "but which lack medical evidence of effectiveness": it may be pertinent to point out in some way that the lack of evidence of effectiveness in cases on the list has been established after independent scientific testing or review. This is to make the distinction between items on this list and any other purported cancer remedies which may exist but are not included on this list simply because they have not been tested and no second and third party published data exists yet.Ochiwar (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks for this (and for your other helpful points above which I am working to address). I think an issue here is that some of the entries on the list are so "far out" that they're not subject to much/any in-depth scientific scrutiny. But I think your proposed wording of "testing or review" covers that nicely. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, to provide my two cents, I thought this article gave good coverage and had an adequate amount of well-placed pictures. I think adding introductory paragraphs would deviate from the list nature of the article and that the titles are sufficient to explain the nature of each grouping. I do think the sources are a bit samey, but if something's verifiable then it's verifiable, no need for variation just for the sake of it. As an aside, you may be interested in including several Cochrane metaanalyses on the effects of intercessionary prayer in cancer. LT90001 (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead starts out with "This is a list..." FL no longer uses that format.
• Comprehensiveness how do we know the list is comprehensive? Can it ever be comprehensive? What is the difference between this page and Alternative cancer treatments?
• I have not researched any of these things myself. Are you certain that all of these things are proven to be ineffective, not just lacking in evidence of effectiveness? And this is supported by the sources? My concern here is the title of the article may have NPOV issue, specifically use of the word "ineffective." Rejectwater (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, taking these in order:

• Aha - what is the preferred wording for FLs at the moment?
• The list is not comprehensive (nor can it ever be) as there is a simply enormous numbers of things in the real world which have been touted as cancer treatments; hence the list description says these "some of" the proposed treatments. The MO for deciding whether something is included is to ask whether is has coverage elsewhere on Wikipedia (so: each entry links to some other article). Is there some way to mention this in the opening without it seeming too much like a self-referential editorial strategising?
• The Alternative cancer treatments article is a narrative article giving a general description of that topic, and including some embedded lists with examples of alternative cancer treatments (some of which correspond to items here).
• The nature of the evidence-based medicine is such that none of these treatments can be (formally) proven ineffective, since the assessment is always ultimately a statistical one made using evidence and probability. The supposition is that the null hypothesis (i.e. no effect) pertains, and this is overturned only when evidence of effectiveness is found: this is unpacked in the opening words of the article which sets out the inclusion criteria normatively (and which the sources used need to support). I think "ineffective" is probably the most accurate/NPOV compromise word we could use in the title without it expanding into something very wordy. However, it might also be worth mentioning evidence-based medicine in the lede by way of further explanation? There are different views here: Vickers argues[2] that for cancer treatments the word "disproven" should be used even when something is "unproven" or "shown to be ineffective"; on the other hand "unvalidated" and "unproven" might falsely imply these are conditions whose time is yet-to-come. "Under-evidenced" is technically correct in some cases, but unhelpfully so. Maybe it's worth getting some views from the WT:MED and WP:FT/N noticeboard on how policy applies here ... ?

• Some pictures are missing alt text. See WP:ALT. Also, some of the alt texts that are there read like captions.
• For the lead, a good example may be List of states and territories of the United States. The lead there briefly explains what the United States is, then goes on to explain how it is divided into states. The list you are working on would probably start out with a sentence or two about cancer, then move into the realm of alternative treatments.
• Comprehensiveness: see Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. I am getting the impression you will have a very hard time with this list at FLC due to 3a and 3b. You have already stated it is impossible for the list to be comprehensive, therefore the list fails 3a. Also, I can't help but feel this is a fork of Alternative cancer treatments, as previously discussed. Any list that is a fork fails 3b. I know you disagree, but there is just way too much overlap. Basically List of ineffective cancer treatments is a list format version of Alternative cancer treatments. You mentioned that Alternative cancer treatments is a narrative article; all Featured Lists on Wikipedia are narrative articles to whatever extent necessary to cover the topic. See, for instance, List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game.
• The title won't matter without settling the possibility of a fork situation. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks agaiin for the feedback. So it seems a priority is to talk to the folks at alternative cancer treatments and see if we can start getting consensus on how the content might be disposed across these articles (or combined into one) ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome for the feedback. It was my pleasure. Take a look as well at Wikipedia:Summary style for a discussion of splits vs. forks. Also remember that this is, of course, my interpretation and opinion and others may disagree. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

---

The Joy Luck Club (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is graded a B-class, and I'm planning to nominate it as a Good Article. I also want to make it a Featured-quality article, but I guess a lot is demanded. Any suggestions to make it a Good or Featured Article?

Thanks, George Ho (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi George. I saw this PR request languishing and thought I'd jump in. I should be able to add my comments over the next day or so. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 05:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• I would review WP:MOSFILM for film article guidelines (I've found it useful when expanded some of my film articles, such as Sense and Sensibility)
• The plot section seems a bit on the long side; is there anything extraneous that could be cut?
  • Cut out the irrelevant, yet poignant scene of re-telling and swan feather. --George Ho (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • MOS:FILM says that there is no recommended limit if a plot is too complex. As you see, mothers' and daughters' stories are different from each other. Skimming them down is too detrimental to readers. --George Ho (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• The article could use a good copy edit, particularly in the plot section
• The lead is too short; more content should be added about its release and reception, for example
• Many of your sources need accessdates
  • Accessdates.... are too redundant and a waste of space. Either archives or newer/updated links are enough. --George Ho (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• I notice a dependence on newspaper and magazine articles; I found some useful links in Google Books that might help with your expansion: [3] [4] [5] [6]

I am pleased with the time and energy you have invested in this article (especially when compared to its previous state)! Hopefully these comments help with its further improvement. Ruby 2010/2013 04:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

---

World's largest airlines

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate the list as a Featured List. I ask you to check whether this list is easily comprehensible and would appreciate any suggestions for improvements or changes.

Thanks, FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Autism omnibus trial

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I know there is a lot of room for improvement, and I would do it myself but I'm not all that experienced on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Jinkinson (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The lead of this article needs to be trimmed down to properly summarize the article and the excess material moved down into the body of the article. Additional WP:RS sources are needed but they can wait until the material is moved. --Daffydavid (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Daffydavid. I have shortened the lead, and was wondering if you could tell me exactly which sources the article uses that are unreliable. Jinkinson (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Generally court transcripts are considered primary sources and thus require a secondary source to validate them. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the 3 cases tried in these hearings were on three different issues. 1- thimerosal and mercury, 2 - mercury alone, 3 - thimerosal alone. I could be wrong about this since I haven't had time to look it up but if this is the case then more info is needed to clarify this. Also the information in this article seems to center primarily on Cedillo with very little info on the other 2 cases. Fleshing these out would be helpful. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean "thimerosal and MMR", "MMR alone", and "thimerosal alone" since otherwise you would be repeating yourself. Jinkinson (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, didn't notice that but you understood anyway.--Daffydavid (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have also added WP:LAW to this project with the hope that there might be some input into this peer review. From my point of view, I believe this article could be improved if some sections were combined to reduce the odd layout of the article. Some thoughts:

• Could combine Plaintiff's experts, Plaintiff's representation and Proposed mechanism to make a more discursive structure.  Done
• Plaintiff's claims and judges' conclusions could be split to a Plantiff section and Judges' conclusions merged with the rulings to  Done
• Second set of cases and Reactions merged into an "Impact" section.  Done
• Article could also include a picture.
• Of whom does "special masters" describe?

I hope this helps. Kind regards, LT90001 (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

OK I have reworked the article considerably, and in doing so have done most of the things LT910001 suggested. I was wondering, though, what should I include a picture of? Because this article used to have a picture in it, but Daffydavid removed it. Jinkinson (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it and I have removed it again. The article is about the trial not the court itself. Would you include a picture of the courthouse seal if it was an automobile class action lawsuit against a major manufacturer? No, you would include a picture of the vehicle involved.--Daffydavid (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, sorry that this review got lost in the ether. I've made some changes myself to the layout to make this article more readable. An image might include an image of the people involved, or even the courthouse where the verdict was delivered, to give the article some flavour. I'm still not entirely clear as to whom "special masters" describes. Do you mean "affected children", or is this a legal term? Suggest you wikilink to disambiguate the meaning. Other than that, the article's looking pretty good now. Most parts are well cited and I hope this experience was educational =P per your original intent. Would you consider this PR concluded? Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I am closing this peer review per here (WP:PR), as this article is now a GA candidate. LT910001 (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Amphetamine

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve it to FA status; consequently, any feedback on improvements relevant to FA criteria would be appreciated. The article is currently GA nominated.

Thanks, Seppi333 (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from LT910001

Hello! A detailed and thorough text. I can't confess to know much about Amphetamines academically, but relating to the article: The following paragraphs or sentences do not have citations:

• "heightened cholinergic activity likely contributes to its nootropic effects."  Done
• The paragraph in 'derivatives'  Done
• "Recreational use of amphetamine generally involves far larger doses and is therefore significantly more dangerous, involving a greater risk of serious side effects"  Done

This source doesn't have an access date: "Jump up ^ Australian Drug Foundation. "Amphetamines (speed): what are the effects?". myDr.com.au."

 Fixed

Citations in this paragraph "In addition, amphetamine is also used by some professional" could be lumped together

 Done

There is a double line before the paragraph "Dopamine"

 Fixed

Many of the side-effects listed in "physical" could be moved to sub-sections: for example, hypo and hypertension could be moved to the 'cardiac side-effects' section.

  I decided to move the information from the subsections into physical and overdose instead, since they contained a mix of information from both; I figured it would be a bit cumbersome to have therapeutic dose and overdose information in each subsection. Seppi333 (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• One notable side-effect you may like to refer to is the development of the serotonin syndrome

 Done

This will get some of the lower-hanging fruit out of the way. There doesn't appear to be any major problems with the article that would stop it from being promoted to GA status. Kind regards, LT90001 (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Seppi333 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Just finished the last of the edit suggestions. Thanks again for the ideas/advice. Seppi333 (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've closed this review per WP:PR as it's now a GA nominee. Good luck! LT910001 (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

---

NATO

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We recently had a WP:GAR that looked at referencing, but I would like to have outside editors comment on the organization and prose. For example, how can we make the "Participating countries" section clearer? It used to have more subsections, but they just had tables in them, so now the section is divided by a combined map/table. And do we need/how do we better integrate the table of military strength there? Organizationally, we sort of have three history sections with "History", "Military operations", and "Military structures" overlapping somewhat, like repeating changes as part of the end of the Cold War and eastern expansion. And any comments on the prose throughout are much appreciated!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments regarding the "Participating countries" section. First impressions regarding the clarity were as follows:

• I was admittedly slightly surprised by the content - I was expecting more information regarding the participating countries themselves, qualities of the country significant from the perspective of NATO and their individual relationship with NATO (i.e. although NATO acts as one body, I am assuming that individual members hold different ideologies and attitudes towards events in a way that would affect NATO's response - perhaps even friction between members, if such exist). Instead it feels like it reads as a "Future expansion of NATO" section with what I was expecting bolted on the end. I am not saying that the information was irrelevant or unnecessary, simply not what I was expecting. Simply put, I do feel the table needs to be integrated better, possibly by considering the content points I have raised.
• With the table bolted on at the end of the section, it feels a little out of order/not chronological. The section appears to work its way from future members, associate members and then to current members. I think it would be less confusing (and possibly more logical) if it were in the opposite order.
• Regarding the future members, I feel it would be less confusing if the time scale/likelihood of individual countries acceding were briefly covered - Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and FYROM appear to be lumped together as future members but I get the impression that they are not all going to join simultaneously.
• I do not feel that the "Global Partners" are covered particularly well. I cannot help but feel that different issues are being discussed between different "Global Partners" and this could be clarified, in particular one of the sources (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/51288.htm) mentions that "some contribute actively to NATO operations either militarily or in some other way", these countries/operations in particular could be expanded upon.
• Another issue is that of Colombia. The aforementioned source does not include Colombia as one of NATO's "partners across the globe" and the source concerning Colombia does not mention the issues of "counter-piracy and technology exchange" associated with the "Global Partners". Consequently, I have been left a little confused as to the level of cooperation between Colombia and NATO, i.e. is it of the level considered to be a "Global Partner", is it just a few steps after "early talks" or is it a completely different relationship?
  

I hope that this is what you were looking for, since it is my first attempt at a peer review I apologise in advance if it was not, JTST4RS (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments Just some suggestions on the prose, in case you want to take this to A-class or FAC. - Dank (push to talk)

• "For its first few years, NATO was not much more than a political association. However, the Korean War galvanized the member states": NATO was not much more than a political association until the Korean War galvanized the member states
• "de Gaulle protested": Capitalize the first word in a sentence, always.
• "became drawn": a little informal. "was drawn", usually.
• "with former Cold War rivals, which culminated with several former Warsaw Pact states joining": with states previously in the rival Warsaw Pact, several of which joined - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• "The 11 September attacks of 2001 signaled the only occasion in NATO's history that Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty has been invoked as an attack on all NATO members.": It's better, when possible, to keep words close to the words they modify; "an attack" refers all the way back to "attacks" here. One option: "Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the 11 September attacks of 2001." - Dank (push to talk) 23:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I've made changes to the lead and membership sections as you've suggested. Much appreciated!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to try to eventually make it into a GA.

Thanks, Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

Hey Kudu, welcome. A few comments in reference to the GA criteria:

• I didn't check this article for close paraphrasing or accurate representation of sources, but you should definitely consider doing so as a precaution before nominating for GA
• I think the lead section could stand to be a bit longer. It tells us what he's best known for, which is great, but ideally it would serve as a brief summary of the entire article
• I would recommend a thorough copy-editing of the article. Avoid using contractions, and try to vary the length and phrasing of sentences rather than having a lot in the form "He did this. He did that". You'll probably want to convert the article to use Canadian English, per WP:STRONGNAT. Check for appropriate grammar throughout - for example, "On December 5, Justice Denis Jacques sentences Nadeau-Dubois" should probably be in past tense. You could, if you like, ask the Guild to take a look.

Other than those points, this looks like a promising article. I don't know much about the individual so can't speak to whether any major details have been missed, but no gaps stand out. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jojalozzo

This is a great start. I agree with everything that Nikki suggests. In addition, here are a couple of suggestions about the sources, most of which are in French.

• I recommend you review WP:Verfiability#Non-English sources (if you haven't already done so) and do what you can to comply with those recommendations.
• Try to find as many reliable English sources as you can and use them to supplement the non-English sources.
• Where there is no English source, add an English translation quote of the relevant portion of the source.

As Nikki recommends, Recruit a copy editor to help you improve the flow and tighten the prose. Good work! Jojalozzo 02:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

---

GateKeeper (roller coaster)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed a FAC and I hope to re-nominate it once it has been reviewed. All comments are welcome! Thanks, Astros4477 (Talk) 18:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• At a glance: the writing in the lede needs smoothing. The rest could do with going over as well. The prose needs to flow better. (I realise this is not a very specific thing; I might have a hack at it later.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Copyediting now. The list of company names in the "Construction" entry seems excessive detail to me; none of these are generally notable, certainly not for Wikipedia, and don't seem to me to particularly inform the reader of anything they might be interested in - unless they're otherwise particularly important to name. Apart from that - nice article! - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    

---

Priestess (band)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I recently had this article assessed to see whether it fit a higher Class than Start-Class. The comments there are immensely helpful, but I am the only one working on this article at the moment, and would like some input on a number of things:

• I've been told the tone of the article is too informal. Any suggestions for what to cut?
• The discography needs to be fleshed-out. Problem is, their singles discography is sparsely-verifiable at best as I've only been able to ascertain that a few of their songs have even been released as singles. Any suggestions, perhaps, for sources I can use to improve this? (Also, just as a note to myself, I should integrate single release dates into the history section as much as possible once I have them.)
• I was also told to "find cites to talk about their influences". Nothing pertaining to their influences is included if it's not cited; am I perhaps missing something here?
• When typing on a keyboard as opposed to writing by hand, I tend to lose track of what I'm trying to say and in an effort to recapture my original point I go way overboard and make things way longer they should be. Anything I can do to boil the article down a bit further?
• They are a Guitar Hero band, as in they did have a song featured in the series and it had such an impact on their history as a band that it warrants mentioning and detail. But I thought the way I had it before was just fine; maybe at the time the article was reviewed it did not have much in the way of their Guitar Hero fame, but as the article stands now, does this bit need to be improved in any way?

That's all that comes to mind, but please know that I am interested in whatever feedback you have to offer (directly pertaining to my questions listed above or otherwise). So if you see anything wrong with the article, please tell me.

Also, I've been using Nirvana (band) as a guide since that is a featured article (and Nirvana are one of my favorite bands). All layout features are designed to emulate those of that article (in case anyone was wondering). And yes, I am aware that a "reception" section is missing; perhaps I could migrate some stuff from the history part of the article down to it?

Thanks in advance for whatever assistance you can provide, LazyBastardGuy 19:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Ashley Tisdale

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because my goal is to have it promoted to FA status. The main problem with the article is the prose - therefore a FA-styled copyedit is mainly what I need. I'd like if someone could take a look at the references and see if there's any info missing (I think they are alright but you never know). Anything else that can help this article get a promotion to FA status is highly welcomed.

Thanks, Decodet (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Geodesics on an ellipsoid

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's close to its final form. Feedback is asked for concerning:

• the figures -- are they clear enough? Should the captions be expanded?
• the depth of the coverage -- I've attempted to cover the main ideas so that someone with a mathematical bent can follow them. On the other hand, I don't give the series expansions typically used in computer programs for determining geodesics. I consider this unnecessary detail and interested readers can look these up in the references.
• the references -- I've included the important ones in the development of this subject.

Thanks, cffk (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I am going to review it. I have a peer review coming and they said this was sort of kharma, to do one for others. I checked a few interesting ones (Stanford, Mutation) but the peer review prompters were not doing work on the article. Heading off to read...71.127.137.171 (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

1. It has some of the attributes of a typical math article, in too much attention to logical rigor and too little to explanation to the reader. Who do you consider your audience? Ph.D. geometers? People who have taken calculus? People who have not? Really, it's all of them and you need to think how to reach them all. You can't satisfy everyone equally, but a really useful trick is to make things simple at the start and hard further on. That said, at least this is not one of those damned Lie group articles. Really...for a math article, it's readable...but math articles are shockingly unreadable (even for Ph.D. chemists and engineers).

2. the lead is the most important part. Make it clear for as much of an audience as you can. Again, it's better than some math articles, but you have some good chances to name drop the Earth, great circle, etc.

3. I assume that a geodesic of an ellipsoid is a great circle of a sphere (of the Earth). Put that up front. It's something people have heard about when they took navigation classes.

4. Are there any commercial or engineering applications of this topic? sattelites, geology, etc? If there is any kind of human interest...play it up.

5. Can we do spherical trigonometry instead of spheroidal (simpler word). Also, wikilink to it. and it used to be a class people took in school.

6. A nice explanatory graphic might be helpful here: draw a table of 3 images left to right. Show a sphere (all axes same), a spheroid (one axis different, 2 same) and then an ellipsoid (all axes different). you can display it centered. The reader gets a quick understanding of the hard words.

6. I'm not crazy about the Harvard citations. I hate bugging you about something like that...but realize you are already with one hand behind the back trying to convey a technical topic to a general audience. Now you mess up the prose with all those speed bumps.

7. "See for example Hansen (1865, p. 69)." Cut this. A citation would be sufficient (ideally not Harvard).

8. Could you sex it up a little with some pictures of the major derivers? Like this picture of Cassini almost seems to be geometrical...

9. Wikilink Cassini

10. Try to write in the normal Wiki flow (rather than discussing papers in the text and linking to the citations with whole words, link to the people's articles and just use numbered citations).

Here's what you have (with all the bluelinks to papers):

For an ellipsoid of revolution, the characteristic constant defining the geodesic was found by Clairaut (1735) in application to Cassini's map projection for France. A systematic solution for the paths of geodesics was given by Legendre (1806) and Oriani (1806) (and subsequent papers in 1808 and 1810). The full solution for the direct problem (complete with computational tables and a worked out example) is given by Bessel (1825).

Instead write like this:

In 1735, Clairaut first defined the characteristic constant of an ellipsoid of revolution when he solved the problem in application to the astronomer Cassini's map of France. In 1806, Legendre and Oriani produced the systematic solution for the geodesic path. In 1825, Bessel published the full solution of the direct problem with computational tables and a worked out example.

Do you see the difference in the two approaches? In the first, we are describing the history of papers or even discussing the topic while referring to papers. In the second, we get a story of how PEOPLE solved problems over the years. Which do you think resonates more?

11. On the other hand, this is a nice para "Much of the early work on these problems was carried out by mathematicians—for example, Legendre, Bessel, and Gauss—who were also heavily involved in the practical aspects of surveying. Beginning in about 1830, the disciplines diverged, with those with an interest in geodesy concentrating on the practical aspects such as approximations suitable for field work, while mathematicians pursued the solution of geodesics on a triaxial ellipsoid, the analysis of the stability of closed geodesics, etc."

12. I'm not sure if a perpendicular to the meridian is same as a geodesic. The former sounds a lot like a rhumb line, not a great circle.

13. Redraw figure 1 so the geodesic (the line from A to B) is the only part in red. Make things CLEAR.

14. "This article concentrates on the problem on an ellipsoid of revolution (both oblate and prolate). The problem on a triaxial ellipsoid is covered near the end." Nice explanation, but I don't see how this explanation is followed out in the structure. Not like there is a heading for oblate, then prolate, then tri-ax. also, consider my comment before on showing the globes. The reader does not know oblate and prolate. maybe my mix of 3 could have 4 pictures now, with clarity that oblate and prolate are in same class of "2 same".

15. The green and blue of figure 18 are hard to distinguish. Redraw with greater contrast (by color choice or thicker lines, or a less dense grid).

16. I don't understand the swaths of grid and non-grid in the pictures further down.

17. Work on the applications section. Not just a bulleted list. give me a little more about what is developing. Show me how the article helps me make money, or avoid getting killed, or kill a commie with an ICBM, or get laid.

18. Any cultural allusions (even broadly, perhaps to ellipsoids)? What about Mission of Gravity?

71.127.137.171 (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have a bunch of corrections I have to make. Then I'll try to address your concerns. cffk (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to rip into you too hard or to be repetitive. Just trying to put enough out there so you get the very fundamental point. The topic could be written (with a lot of work) in a way that gives the general reader at least a grasp of most of the topic before heading off to hard core math land. Of course, if you just want to write a math "proof style" article to other math profs or graduate students, feel free. There is a lot of that here and the mathies have de facto sort of protected that. But I can't help further than and I doubt you get much interest in polishing that sort of piece.71.127.137.171 (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I still have plans to update the article in the light of your comments. In particular, I'm planning on greatly expanding the lead so that the main points (esp. the connection to the great circle) and made before plunging into details. (I hope this article isn't quite as intimidating as the one of Geodesics.) You will note that I redid the figure on the triaxial grid. cffk (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for heart in right place! 71.127.137.171 (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead considerably and added pictures of the principal players. cffk (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Progress. Now cut 80% of the equations (you don't need to show all derivations). Remember what Steven Hawkings's publisher said...69.255.27.249 (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for constructive criticism that helps me take this article to GA level.

Thanks, MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• The lede needs to be trimmed. I'd suggest saving all the awards until the main body aside from a quick mention of the highest that he received (date not important). Remember that it's supposed to be a summary of the main body.
• Military reserve force should be shortened to reserves or somesuch. If there was a formal name for them at the time, use that in parentheses.
• I thought that the German custom was that each of the male children was granted the title of their father, or is that just a courtesy thing and the eldest male inherits the title proper?
• Translate Garde du Corps (Life Guards) and use the English term for the rest of the article. Gardes looks like a misspelling.
• He owned distilleries in both Groß Stein and Alt Siedel?
• Not sure that we really need a listing of his property by size.
• I think that this should be feral cattle and horse breeding: feral, cattle, foal
• 1st and 3rd Panzer-Brigade add an "s" to brigade. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "Post-war, Strachwitz fought": "post-war" is an adjective, not an adverb, in the usual dictionaries, though it's used as an adverb occasionally.
• "At the outbreak of World War II, Strachwitz was appointed ordnance officer participated in the Invasion of Poland and the Battle of France. ": Something's missing; also, he didn't participate in the Battle of France at the outbreak of WWII.
• "he fought in the Invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 and Operation Barbarossa": dates on both or neither
• "until his death from lung cancer on 25 April 1968 and was buried": until his death from lung cancer on 25 April 1968. He was buried
• " the then Kingdom of Prussia": "then" is overused in this sense. "the Kingdom of Prussia". - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback so far. I believe to have addressed most. I want to keep the property size for now. My reasoning is that in other countries his rather large property may be considered small by local standards. The data may help compare size. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The list is too much detail for what we do here. Better to simply say that he was relatively wealthy by local standards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I moved the info to a footnote. I want to keep it there for now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Singaporean Mandarin

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to see if there needs to be further improvement. And then I hope the article can be rated.

Thanks, Yhjow (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! What an interesting article. I've rated this as C class, because although it is quite comprehensive, it is quite lacking in sources. I think a good suggestion to improve this article would be find some good sources and use these to support what is written in the article. These might include books, magazine or news articles, or other published sources. I think this will help improve the article's breadth and help support its claims. I hope you can improve this article because it certainly has a core of quite good-quality, solid content. Kind regards, LT90001 (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

sure.. will need to dig out sources. (Yhjow (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

---

The Firebrand

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FA status. A recent GA, it has received a great, thorough copy-edit from Baffle gab1978. It is about Marion Zimmer Bradley's re-telling of the Trojan War, and is hopefully an interesting read. Any comments would be much appreciated for its improvement. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 05:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Live from Paris (Shakira album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first live album article I plan to GA nominate, and I think it would be better to solve all problems in a friendly PR before the main nomination.

Thanks, WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I read through the article and it looks pretty good, but here are few things that you can do to improve it:

• The article makes reference to Shakira's official website but doesn't mention the website's name. Can you add that?

The name of the site is Shakira.com. Does it need anything more than that? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. --1ST7 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Carlos Quintana from About.com gave the DVD an extremely positive review..." It's better to use the word "very" rather than "extremely".

Done! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Noting them to be reflective..." Wikipedia:Words to watch discourages using "note" or any of its variants as a synonym for "said".

Replaced! Thanks for telling me too. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• This phrasing is a little awkward: "found the video versions much impressive..." Do you mean "much more"?

Lol this sentence is so funny must admit! I'm almost tempted to leave it that way --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Please mention that Adam Markovitz is from Entertainment Weekly.

Mentioned. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

--1ST7 (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Also, in your opinion, does this article lack proper coverage? Should I add a synopsis section? I've seen a video article like Britney Spears: In the Zone which doesn't. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! I don't think a synopsis section is necessary for this to pass the GA review, though it would be an improvement to the article for it to have more coverage. --1ST7 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Information on Live from Paris is very limited and this was all I could find. I think it is enough. Shall I nominate it now? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks ready, in my opinion. Good luck! --1ST7 (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Michael Tippett

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Tippett was generally linked with Benjamin Britten as one of Britain's leading composers of the second part of the 20th century. Since their respective deaths, Britten in 1976 and Tippett in 1998, Britten's standing has remained high, while Tippett's has fallen (some might say "plummetted"). Tippett was much less naturally gifted than Britten He took ages to get going, and having established himself to a reasonable degree in one style, changed it to another with markedly less success. Much of his music is rarely performed; he remains best-known for a handful of still-popular works mainly from his earlier years, including the secular oratorio A Child of Our Time. He was warm character, much loved by his followers, many of whom believe that his time will come again. Your comments and suggestions will be gratefully received. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

An interesting and well-crafted article on a figure of significance.

Lede

• "who rose to prominence during and immediately after the Second World War." That being deemed enough to feature in the lede sentence, I am somewhat surprised to find nothing further on this subject in the lede as to the circumstances of same.

• It is simply a summary of the chronology of his carer. Before the war he was barely known; he became much better known during the war, particularly after Child, and his profile continued to rise in the postwar years. I believe this is fully reflected in the prose. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Until the mid-to-late 1950s his music was broadly lyrical in character; this period was followed a change to a more astringent and experimental style." It's a fine point, but I'm not sure what "this period" means time wise, whether it is his career up to the mid to late 50s, or merely the mid to late 50s. In a way, it's a moot point as they terminate at the same time, but I would still advise clearing it up.

• Tweaked

• "although his stance remained leftwards and humanitarian" The "remained" troubles me somewhat as it clearly refers to his youthful flirtation with communism. It can be read to affirm that the Communist Party was humanitarian. I have no strong views on the subject, but others do.

• I've removed the phrase, to avoid possible misinterpretation. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Family background

• "suffragette" I do not believe that is the favoured term these days. It would be interesting to know if it was before or after entering the bond of wedlock that Mrs. Tippett entered the bonds of a more material kind. Surely before she had children?

• The sources refer to a "suffragette" rally; the term is not generally considered perjorative over here. Her imprisonment would almost certainly have been after 1906; there was very little militant suffragism before then. More likely 1912 or 1913 – I will dig for a bit more detail. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Childhood

• "that refuted the existence of God." Did it? Perhaps a little less definite "to refute the existence of God"

• Tim has raised the same point. Kemp says "refute", but I have softened this to "challenged"

• "His overtly expressed atheism" Presumably he said he was an atheist; perhaps also he sought to persuade others. I would say so directly.

• He doesn't seem to have tried to persuade others. He expressed his atheism in various subversive ways, in particular by boycotting daily chapel, a heinous offence in such schools in those days. I may tweak the wording a bit. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would make clear Tibbett's age at suitable intervals. Unless you've memorised his birth year, it can be difficult to associate events with his age.

• This has been done.

Friendships etc.

• "his consciousness was raised" This seems unduly abstract.

• Simplified a bit.

• "Both works proved hugely successful" Financially? Critically? People whistling it? I note at the end of the section he's still seeking to be recognised as a musical contributor.

• "Hugely successful" in local terms, i.e. the work campers greatly enjoyed the works. I have clarified this. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Birthday Suit, I mean Suite, for Prince Charles". Perhaps it could be made clearer that this work was by Tippett too. Also, when you mention it later, it is italicised differently.

• Both points dealt with

A Child is born

• "Kristallnacht (Crystal Night)" consider rendering the translation as "Night of Broken Glass"

• I think, with the link and the parenthetical translation, genug ist genug Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sehr gut danke--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• "A Child of Our Time, taking the title from A Child of Our Time, taking the title from Ein Kind unserer Zeit For those whose German is unmentionable, may I suggest "A Child of Our Time a translation of Ein Kind …

• Sorry, your sentence seems to have got mangled. Could you restate the point? Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps more simply instead of "taking the title from", say "translating the title of"--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Morley etc.

• " no apparent prospects" perhaps "no immediate prospects"

• Yes, better. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Recognition

• "This perception was strengthened " Which of the two in the sentence preceding?

• Pluralised now.

Wider horizons

• Two university notes. First, it is probably not necessary to say "at Austin" after the University of Texas as it is the flagship campus. Second, Northwestern University, at least the main campus is in Evanston, Illinois, a bit north of Chicago. Of course they may have facilities in Chicago, or had.

• Both points taken.

Later years

• I do admire his productivity into his nineties. Nearly as long as Meeker.

That is it for now, I will resume tomorrow if I have energy after a rather long drive.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

General Character

• "Bowen has described Tippett as "a composer of our time", one who regularly engaged with the outside world. Beyond a smile at the sound bite, I will admit to not taking away much from this passage. Can the second part of it get down to cases?

• I will ponder further on this. The section is not intended to be more than a brief overview, and I don't want to complicate it with too much detail. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Rather than turning his back on such barbarism," this passage troubles me as "turning ones back" can have varying meanings. Perhaps "Rather than ignore that barbarism"?

• Agreed.

• This short section seems to move to the specific to the general in a slightly confusing way. The first paragraph seems to be referring to Child, the second paragraph could be continuing that theme, or it could be talking about Tippett's works throughout his life from internal agonies, such as his need to come to terms with his sexuality.

• Again, I need to ponder this. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Influences

• "to end English music's perceived provincialism" If it is only perceived, it may not be there to be ended. Perhaps "to end the perception of English music as provincial".

• Agreed

Withdrawn

• "Tippett's early compositions cover several genres." I would expect a list, or at least examples to closely follow that. Instead, we have to wait until the next paragraph.

• Earlier in the article, the listing of the works played at his 1930 concert give a pretty good idea of the range of hie early compositions. In this short section, I dont think it necessary to provide another list. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

First period

• As a style suggestion, when italics causes overlap between a letter and a quote mark, a non-breaking space before the quote mark is often useful.

• Can you point to where you mean? Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• The Ridout quote, the end quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• The second sentence in the third paragraph is overlong and should probably be divided at the words "in a work". If you are minded to keep the sentence whole, I will then complain about how far back "in a work" has to go to find its referent.

• Split and reworded

Reputation and legacy

• The first paragraph might well be divided.

• I think the paragraph has a unity. I can't find a point which suggests a natural break, and would prefer to leave it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• "who argued that the decline followed Tippett's abandonment of myth—seen as the key to the success of The Midsummer Marriage and King Priam—and from his increasingly futile efforts" I think a verb like "stemmed" might be needed before "from", but perhaps I am mistaken.

• Agreed, tweaked

General comment

• Could a thumbnail sketch of Tippett's personal life be included somewhere? It is alluded to in passing but perhaps something all in one place might be useful to the reader.

• Good idea, I'll do this. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite good, expect it will shine at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would not bank on that. Many thanks for a thorough and thoughtful review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would. I will give it another read either before or during the FAC, depending on time commitments and how quickly you close this. I've promised TCO to review Fluorine, and my chemistry knowledge is very rusty.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

A few minor tweaks here and there: feel free to revert if you don't like anything. Minor fare from me, although I'll need to do this in bits and pieces because of a glut of activity in RL that keeps interrupting. Having said that, the first tranche of my suggestions are::

Childhood and schooling

• You mention Frances Tinkler twice, both times with the full name: do we need the "Frances" second time round?

• Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Royal College of Music

• "strained relationships between teacher and pupil": surely there is only one relationship here?
• Link to Vaughan Williams?

• Both fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A Child of Our Time

• I think the OED have "co-ordinated", rather than "coordinated"

• Dictionaries seem divided on this, e.g. Collins prefers the unhyphenated version, while allowing the other. I think either can be considered corect. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Refs etc

• FN 150 isn't consitent with the others: should be "pp. 186–18", I think?

• – if not 186–88 (it's become 151 now, btw)

More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far. More will be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Done down to "Withdrawn compositions" without complaint: rest to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry this has dragged on a bit! All done now, with the final section all beautifully balanced and written, as always. Many thanks for such an interesting piece and please drop me a line when this goes to FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Not much to add, in truth. Balance between life and works strikes me as perfect, and the research and writing are as impressive as always.

• Lead
  • "his near-contemporary Benjamin Britten" – I'd be inclined to call them contemporaries without the "near"

I suggest deleting the term. Except for the relative few who died between 1901 and 1905, he was the contemporary of everyone else who lived in the 20th century.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think the word is generally taken to refer to those of a reasonably common age. I was (very briefly) alive at the same time as Sibelius, though I don't think of myself as his contemporary. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Childhood and schooling
  • "a precocious essay that refuted the existence of God" – I'd be careful with "refute": it means disprove rather than (as in this case) merely dispute or deny.

• • Changed to "challenged" (see Wehwalt's comment above) Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• A Child of Our Time
  • "using secular North American" – not so very secular, surely? My Lord, Jesus, Moses, the gates of Hell, and the Lord all feature in them.

• • Yes, not really secular (though hardly sacred). I have dropped the word. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Morley, war, imprisonment
  • "With the London Symphony Orchestra temporarily disbanded" – as the LSO's Vicar on Wikipedia I wish to deny (and can actually refute) the statement that they temporarily disbanded. Besides, this is the first we've heard of them, and it ain't clear why they've popped up here.

• • No idea why I satd LSO. I meant, of course, the South London Orchestra. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Recognition and controversy
  • "his first major opera project" – do we need "project" here?

• • I suppose not. Deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• • "perplexed the opera-going public and critics alike" – I'm not wholly persuaded. Maybe the public boggled, but The Times (presumably Frank Howes) and The Observer (Peter Heyworth) were most enthusiastic, and though dear old Philip Hope-Wallace in The Manchester Guardian confessed himself a bit puzzled here and there, he too praised the work. I can send copies of their reviews if wanted.

• • Both Gloag and Bowen record that the majority of critics were unsympathetic, specifically citing Ernest Newman and The Musical Times. I have altered the text to "a division of critical opinion". I'd be obliged if you would email the Heyworth, and I'll incorporate a more positive quote. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Sent. Tim riley (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • "implied blame on the composer" – "blame of…"?

• • I have reworded to "...a wording that implied the fault was the composer's."

• Third period: 1977 to 1995
  • Something has gone wrong with the punctuation or possibly the structure of the first sentence. Perhaps a full stop rather than a comma after New Year would do the trick.

• • (first stce of third para) – yes, the comma s/b a full stop. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Reputation and legacy
  • "The acerbic critic Norman Lebrecht" – if you're going to indulge in a POV label, what about **** or §§§§§§ or even ¶¶¶¶¶¶ for Mr Lebrecht? Mere vulgar abuse is not libel.

• • Damn! I thought I could get away with "acerbic". Regretfully I've dropped it, and resisted the urge to insert a choicer phrase. He did write a perfectly reasonable book on Mahler, though. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That's my lot. A pleasure to read and review. On to FAC! – Tim riley (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tim, for these comments and nice words. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Alfietucker

Hello - Tim Riley suggested I might pop round and have a look. Just three things caught my eye on a quick read-through (plus another two when on the following morning I re-read some of the latter sections, fearing I might have skimmed through these too lightly: Alfietucker (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)):

Lead

• "broadcaster" – not an activity I was aware of, nor one I suspect most readers will know of. It might be helpful to mention in parenthesis "from the mid-1940s".

• I've made it "radio broadcaster", which should be clear enough. I think "much of his life" will do for "from the mid-1940s".

Sorry, I didn't explain clearly enough - I got you meant radio broadcasting, but I didn't know Tippett made spoken broadcasts on the radio, and my natural reaction was to think "when?". I had to read through a good deal of the article before I found the answer - hence why I suggested supplying a decade when he started. But maybe that's just me? Alfietucker (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Childhood and schooling

• "Peter and Michael remained at school in England, travelling to France for their holidays." Peter is only mentioned once before, quite briefly. It might help readers to say here "Michael and his older brother, Peter, remained at school [etc]"

• I've tweaked this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Royal College of Music

• C.H. Kitson, aka Charles Herbert Kitson, has his own Wikipedia article: shouldn’t that be Wikilinked? (I see that's now been done.)

Reputation and Legacy

• "such comments represented a more general critical sense that Tippett's creative powers had begun to decline". I’m not sure about this as English, though I guess the meaning is clear enough. Perhaps reword as "a more general view among critics that Tippett's creative powers [etc]"; or as "a more general critical consensus"?

• Altered, per your (first) suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1991 he published an episodic autobiography" – any reason not to give its title?

• Title added.

Altogether, a very impressive achievement. Alfietucker (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time. I am very grateful for your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Note to reviewers: I don't know if there will be any more comments added to this review, but I shall be away until 24th October and therefore unable to respond before then. I'll leave the review open on the offchance; meanwhile, thanks to all who have contributed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

---

The Holocaust in Albania

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I plan to nominated it for MILHIST A-Class review and would appreciate some constructive feedback prior to taking this course of action.

Thanks, 23 editor (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Hi again. I'm quite surprised that our article on the Holocaust seems to imply that the majority POV is that non-Jews (including "most" of the 11 million non-Jewish victims, according to our article, Holocaust victims) who were killed in the concentration camps, including people with disabilities, various criminals, homosexuals, transsexuals, political prisoners, trade unionists, Freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Romani, Slavs, Poles, and Russians, weren't victims of the Holocaust, but victims of ... something else that was exactly like the Holocaust. I don't recall off the top of my head a single GLAM, film or book that has taken that position ... although I'm definitely no expert and I'm sure my fellow Milhisters can come up with some. I'm not offended by either position on this. But we may not have that problem with this article ... it's conceivable that the situation was different in Albania. We have to go with whatever sources we've got ... are they sure that only Jews and no one else was deported to concentration camps and killed? - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • As I understand it (and I'm no expert on the historiography of the Holocaust), the term is mainly applied to the murder of the Jews, and other terms are generally applied to the programs of murders of other peoples. The debate over the suitability of this terminology is pretty muted (for obvious, and sensible, reasons), but it exists. Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks Nick, and see my reply to 23 below. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• "newly-Communist": no hyphen per WP:HYPHEN
• "An estimated total of approximately": All estimated totals are approximate.
• "Albanian schools, something that had previously been prohibited under Yugoslavian rule": We just had this in another article ... if this is the same as "Albanian schools, which had previously been prohibited under Yugoslavian rule", then go with that.
• "ethnically-cleansed": no hyphen
• I got down to Aftermath. - Dank (push to talk) 01:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi, Dank. I've addressed your comments with this edit . As for non-Jews being murdered en masse during the Holocaust, I completely agree that all the groups you've mentioned (especially Romanis, Poles, Russians and Serbs) were targetted for extermination during The Holocaust. However, the situation in Albania was somewhat different. There weren't very many non-Albanians living in the country, and Jews were targetted (more so by the Germans than Italians) and about 600 were killed. Serbs in Albanian-occupied Kosovo were also targetted, but this seems to fit into World War II persecution of Serbs (see: Template talk:The Holocaust#Inclusion of Serbs in template) rather than The Holocaust. As for homosexuals and Freemasons, I'll try to find some info on the treatment of these groups in Albania during the war. 23 editor (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks. The terminology per se isn't important to me, but I guess I do take the position that our articles shouldn't cover some victims and not others ... particularly in cases where there were a lot of others, and where specific groups were targeted. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi all, "The Holocaust", as distinct from "a holocaust" is discussed in some detail here. Simplistically, most scholars refer to The Holocaust to cover the systematic killing of Jewish people by the Nazis. Some scholars include the mass killing of Romani people and those with disabilities. Few include all the various groups that were killed by the Nazis and all their helpers (such as the Ustashas in the Independent State of Croatia, who were focussed on killing Serbs, but also killed Jews and others). @Diannaa: is quite knowledgeable on this subject. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks for pinging Diannaa. - Dank (push to talk) 02:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I've read your comments at the Talk:The_Holocaust link ... if many or most scholars want to reserve "The Holocaust" for the Jewish victims, or any subset of victims, I have no problem with that. That's not what I remember from the Holocaust Museum, but maybe I'm remembering it wrong, and it's not hard to understand if that's the case ... I can certainly understand the desire to push back against decades of Holocaust denialism and attempts to "water down" the impact on Jews and on Jewish identity, and words can be very personal things ... I think all ethnic groups deserve a lot of deference in matters like these. My only request is that we not ignore other victims .. for instance, if it turns out there were a significant number of non-Jewish victims of the concentration camps who were deported from (in this case) Albania, then even if there's some good reason not to cover them in this article, there should at a minimum be some well-written article that does cover that story. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments and will add what I can about non-Jewish persecution to improve the article. Closing. 23 editor (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Namantar Shahid Smarak

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I know the article could be better, but I'm not sure what to do.

Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 00:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Shudde:

• I'm completely unfamiliar with the subject of this article, and I have read the first few sentences a few times now, and am still completely confused as to what the subject is! My advice is give the first couple of sentences a rewrite so that after reading the first sentence, someone such as myself (who is completely unfamiliar with the subject) knows what it is about, and why it is notable.
• Once that is done, consider giving some more context to much of what you have written. For example:
  • "In response to the Maharashtra Legislature's renaming of Marathwada University decision in 1978, there was a giant backlash." -- why was there is backlash? What for? Why was the University renamed in the first place?
  • "The Dalit community was under siege for two years." -- before or after the renaming? What does this have to do with the previous sentence?
  • "Anti-Dalit pogroms included murders, torture, rapes, burning of colonies, poisoning of wells, property damage, boycotts and lockouts." - when were these progroms? Why did they take place? What do they have to do with the memorial?
• Who is B. R. Ambedkar? This should probably be established early in the lead. Why is he important and why did so many want the university named after him?

I'm not sure what else to say. Clearly this article is on a notable topic, but I did struggle to understand the exact reason for the memorial (clearly there is a good reason, I'm just not sure what it is). Hopefully my comments are helpful. -- Shudde ^talk 04:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@Shudde and Bhooshannpy: Your feedback is great. Here's a fresh draft of an introductory paragraph. The information removed from the existing first two paragraphs could be moved further down in the article.

The Namantar Shahid Smarak is a large memorial sculpture dedicated to those who died in the Namantar Andolan. The Namantar Andolan was a movement in India by Dalits (formerly known as Untouchables) who wanted to rename a university in honour of a leading Dalit, B. R. Ambedkar. The movement was vigorously opposed by the Hindu community. During 16 years of struggle, there were murders, torture, rapes, burning of colonies, poisoning of wells, property damage, boycotts and lockouts. In 2013, 19 years after the movement’s success, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation erected this monument in memory of the valour and the sacrifice of Dalit martyrs.

I look forward to further feedback from Shudde, Bhooshannpy and anyone else who can help. SchreiberBike talk 21:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. A big improvement. This definitely makes a good start, and could be expanded on in the article proper. As for the the main article. The first thing I would have is a Namantar Andolan section. Using {{Main}} and just summarising Namantar Andolan (this article could use a better WP:LEAD by the way) in a paragraph or two. If you do this, then someone like me should have a good idea what the movement is, why it would need a memorial etc. The next section would be on the memorial itself: when was it proposed, what it was exactly meant to commemorate, who commissioned it. The last section would be on the memorial: who created it, what exactly it is (a description) -- you've already got some information on this: "The memorial has 27 sculptures of Bhim Sainiks who died during the pogroms[1] and they are shown in the act of their struggle. The memorial also has a monolith to pay homage to the martyrs. Along with the monument, there is a mini-theater for plays and discussions." -- but it could be expanded. That would give you three sections, and hopefully cover the topic adequately. Hope this helps. -- Shudde ^talk 09:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Shudde and Bhooshannpy:I tried summarizing the Namantar Andolan, but found that I couldn't get it shorter than three paragraphs. I need to explain what it means to be a Dalit, the significance of B. R. Abedkar and then give an outline of the movement. The following would come after a Background heading.

The Dalits of India had been on the bottom of the Indian caste system for millennia. In Hinduism, there are four castes and the Dalits were below the lowest of them. Dalits were considered polluted and this pollution was considered contagious. They worked in jobs which were considered ritually impure, they were not allowed to enter Hindu temples, they had to draw their water from separate wells and they had to live outside of villages.

In the early 20th century, one of the first Dalits to earn a college education was B. R. Ambedkar. Fighting discrimination, he attended Elphinstone College in Bombay, earned a master’s degree from Columbia University in the United States and then earned a doctoral degree from the London School of Economics. As part of the movement surrounding the independence of India from Britain, major social changes took place and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was appointed to lead the committee to draft a new constitution for India. He proposed, and the new country passed into law, a wide range of civil liberties for individual citizens, including the legal abolition of untouchability.

The Dalit community in the state of Maharashtra proposed to rename Marathwada University in honor of B. R. Ambedkar. The chief minister, the legislature, and the university’s leaders approved the change, but a storm of opposition arose from the Hindu community. On 27 July 1978 riots began and the name change was stopped. The riots affected 25,000 Dalits and at least 27 were killed, some by the police. The Namantar Andolan (Name Change Movement) continued for 16 years before the university was renamed Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University.

The next paragraphs would actually be about the monument. I'm working just from what I've learned by reading Wikipedia and a few other sources, so I may be missing things that I should know. Thanks for the feedback. SchreiberBike talk 23:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Shudde Thank you for raising so many questions.

Dear SchreiberBike sorry for the late reply.

The Namantar Shahid Smarak is a large memorial sculpture dedicated to those who died in the Namantar Andolan. The Namantar Andolan was a movement in India by Dalits (formerly known as Untouchables) who wanted to rename a university in honour of a leading Dalit, B. R. Ambedkar. The movement was vigorously opposed by the Hindu community. During 16 years of struggle, there were murders, torture, rapes, burning of colonies, poisoning of wells, property damage, boycotts and lockouts. In 2013, 19 years after the movement’s success, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation erected this monument in memory of the valour and the sacrifice of Dalit martyrs.

The Dalits of India had been on the bottom of the Indian caste system for millennia. In Hinduism, there are four castes and the Dalits were below the lowest of them. Dalits were considered polluted and this pollution was considered contagious. They worked in jobs which were considered ritually impure, they were not allowed to enter Hindu temples, they had to draw their water from separate wells and they had to live outside of villages.

In the early 20th century, one of the first Dalits to earn a college education was B. R. Ambedkar. Fighting discrimination, he attended Elphinstone College in Bombay, earned a master’s degree from Columbia University in the United States and then earned a doctoral degree from the London School of Economics. As part of the movement surrounding the independence of India from Britain, major social changes took place and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was appointed to lead the committee to draft a new constitution for India. He proposed, and the new country passed into law, a wide range of civil liberties for individual citizens, including the legal abolition of untouchability.

The Dalit community in the state of Maharashtra proposed to rename Marathwada University in honor of B. R. Ambedkar. The chief minister, the legislature, and the university’s leaders approved the change, but a storm of opposition arose from the Hindu community. On 27 July 1978 riots began and the name change was stopped. The riots affected 25,000 Dalits and at least 27 were killed, some by the police. The Namantar Andolan (Name Change Movement) continued for 16 years before the university was renamed Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University.

I believe following addition would make above paragraphs accurate.

• "University was renamed as “Dr Bababasaheb Ambedkar Marhwada University” to pay homage to the work done by Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar for the educational development of the Marahwada region". [citation http://www.bamu.net/history.htm]
• four castes?? varna is right word. Hindusim ----- Varna --- Caste -- subcaste etc.. this is social pyramid.
• The riots affected 25,000 Dalits and at least 27 were killed, some?? by the police. - five by the police.

Many thanks.-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Shudde and Bhooshannpy: I think the first quote from http://www.bamu.net/history.htm would be appropriate in the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University article and might fit well in Namantar Andolan, but since this is just a summary we should go with the simplest language. For "four castes", I linked to Varna (Hinduism), and will add a link to Caste system in India. Specifying that five were killed by police makes sense to me. I've got this set up now in a scratchpad and I'll work on integrating the references into it there.

Are there any other English language or translated Marathi references for the monument? It would be great if we could get some of the information that Shudde suggested ("when was it proposed, what it was exactly meant to commemorate, who commissioned it"). I'd also wonder: How was the design selected? Was there trouble getting the money to pay for it? Who paid for it? Does the artist have anything to say about it? Have there been any negative responses from the Hindu community or the police? Has it suffered any vandalism since it was unveiled? What were the politics of the decision to build it? Is it being well maintained? What kind of events have happened in the mini-theatre or around the monument? I'm full of questions that it would probably be hard to find answers for. Thanks for the ideas. SchreiberBike talk 22:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@Shudde and SchreiberBike:, I have moved our discussion on Article talk page. I think we could link some previous discussion with current discussion. Many thanks.-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear @Shudde:, Do you have any comments now? Many thanks.-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

---

List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review to take it to FL status. I hope I will get helpful comments.

Thanks, —FRANKY! 13:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Rejectwater

• There is a link to disambiguation page "National Film Award".
• There appear to be multiple external links for many of the references. I have never seen this format before. Not sure if this complies with WP:CITE. Please advise.
• Refs 2 and 11 have malformed url.
• Ref 20 link doesn't work
• Ref 19 link asks for a password
• Multiple other problems with various reference urls
• All tables must comply with MOS:DTT
• The first paragraph of the lead has several sentences which discuss her career. Should launch into a summary of awards and nominations won, which is the scope of the page.
• Consider adding a portalbar such as the one seen on Vidya Balan. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your helpful comments. I'm working on the article to fix all the problems. —FRANKY! 15:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I've fixed all the problems so I'm closing the PR, Reject Thanks for your comments —FRANKY! 16:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
    

---

Laurel and Hardy filmography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Laurel and Hardy are among the most beloved and innovative comedians in the entire history of cinema. I believe they warrant an excellent filmography page. Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Gemini (2002 Tamil film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I would like to take the page to Featured Article status and am seeking input from the community on how to get it there.

• I believe though the coverage is sufficient, the language and style may not be upto FA criteria.

Thanks, Sriram ^{speak up} 16:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll do the best I can, but that only means avoiding foreign preferences such as MDY format and American English. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Frederick Russell Burnham

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review with WikiProject Military History because I will be co-nominating with PumpkinSky talk this article for FA. This former FA is currently a GA and while it received substantial support during the most recent FAC, it was not quite enough to reach FA. The article is free of major cleanup banners, it has not been through PR recently, and all of the actionable issues that came out the most recent FAC have been addressed. I hope you enjoy reading about Burnham and I welcome your constructive input.

Thanks, Ctatkinson (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

• I'm confused by the image licensing here - several images are tagged as pre-1923, but why are some of those also PD-user? Also, if the latter tag is kept, you'll probably want to correct the username
• File:Esperanza_stone_burnham1910.jpg: possible to give more specific source information? Also, I think caption would read better if we switched the period for a comma
• No citations to DeGroot
• Infobox says he was honorary president of BSA; article says he was honorary Scout and honorary president of Arizona Boy Scouts. Which is correct?
• "learning scouting from some of the last of the old cowboys and frontiersmen of the American Southwest" - not sure this is supported by the article
• "He later worked as a civilian tracker for the United States Army in the Apache Wars" - the way it reads in the article, this came before the material it follows in the lead
• "his rank of major was formally given to him by King Edward VII" - wasn't he promoted before Victoria's death?
• "Burnham returned to America in 1905" - article isn't clear on date, particularly given his time in Mexico. Unless you meant America as in North America rather than US?
• "he and his business partner John Hays Hammond formed the Burnham Exploration Company and became wealthy from oil discovered in California" - article doesn't associate Hammond senior with either the company or the oil wealth
• Per WP:SEEALSO, that section should contain only relevant internal links, not external
• Can you explain why you're including title coordinates? The infobox template documentation specifies inline
• Dab links to Harry White and Charles Bentinck; not sure which, if any, of those listed are the correct individuals
• The first sentence of Early life isn't supported by FN5, so you'll probably want a different citation after it; FN5 also doesn't specify where Edwin was ordained and refers to him as Congregational, which I understand to be distinct from Presbyterian
• FN9 says that Burnham's father was in Mankato at the time of the attack, not New Ulm
• FN11 also discusses Burnham's first experience being 'under fire", which he states "influenced [his] entire career"; that might be worth including
• FN18: my copy gives a different version of this quote: "it is imperative that a scout should know the history, tradition, religion, social customs, and superstitions of whatever country or people he is called on to work in or among" - can you double-check?
• FN68: part of this quote appears to be missing. Confirmed from the second source, the quote as presented omits the phrase "which you have from time to time been engaged"
• FN69 doesn't seem to mention a burst blood-vessel
• Neither FN10 nor 11 specify where he met Blanche
• The bit about the orange grove is in FN10, but I don't see it in FN23 - am I missing something?
• I don't see any mention of high school in FN10
• There is no PD attribution tag for FN10, and yet "regretted this as much as Burnham and paid him a great tribute in his book" is taken verbatim from that source. Do further attributions tags need to be added for sources other than Real Soldiers of Fortune?
• "During the 1880s, sections of the American press popularized the notion that the West had been won and there was nothing left to conquer in the United States. The time when great scouts like Kit Carson, Daniel Boone, and Davy Crockett could explore and master the wild and uncharted Western territories was coming to a close. Contemporary scouts like Buffalo Bill, Wild Bill Hickok, and Texas Jack Omohundro, were leaving the old West to became entertainers" - source?
• "shower of bullets and spears" should be quoted, as it's directly from the source
• FN32 does not identify to whom the quote was addressed, although FN34 does
• "It was here that Burnham uncovered many artifacts in the huge granite ruins of the ancient civilization of Great Zimbabwe" - from my reading of the source, the ruins were discovered during an expedition that included not only "here" (his tract) but also areas of "Barotzeland and other regions to the north of Mashonaland"
• I'm not sure FN48 supports any of the material it's used to cite: it says basically only that they killed Mlimo in a cave, and also says that they tried to capture him first (the article seems to imply otherwise)
• "American news reports of the time described him as having a cruel, crafty look" - source?
• "Field Marshal Frederick Roberts, one of the British Army's most successful commanders of the 19th century, was appointed to take overall command of British forces, relieving General Redvers Buller, following a number of Boer successes in the early weeks of the war" - given source appears to support only that Roberts was appointed
• "Soon after arriving in South Africa on the RMS Dunottar Castle" - source?
• " Cape Town is at the opposite end of the globe from the Klondike" is quite similar in phrasing to "Although Cape Town is at the opposite end of the globe from the Klondike"
• "In an unusual step for a foreigner, Burnham received a command post from Roberts and the British Army rank of captain" - source?
• "Burnham spent much time behind the Boer lines gathering information and blowing up railway bridges and tracks" is quite similar in phrasing to "He spent much time behind the Boer lines...gathering information he also hlew up railway bridges and tracks"
• "The six-shooter Burnham purchased as a teenager in Prescott, Arizona, which he kept all his life and later used in Rhodesia, East Africa and Mexico" - source?
• The Battle of Paardeberg article gives its dates as 18-27 February, while this article uses 17-26 - which is correct?
• In that same sentence you link to Driefontein, which states that it is a separate location from where the Battle of Driefontein took place - the latter would seem to me a better link in any case, and British Cape Colony over Cape Colony
• I'm not sure that the description of the Lovat Scouts merits a full paragraph
• FN78 says the Lovat Scouts were formed in 1900, not 1899
• "the backgrounds of these two scouts was as strange a contrast as it is possible to imagine" - would suggest replacing this statement with a quote to that effect from the source
• "It was also here that Baden-Powell began to wear his signature Stetson campaign hat and neckerchief, like those worn by Burnham, for the first time" - not sure the source supports connecting this to Burnham; it seems to imply more the influence of the cowboy shows
• "During their joint scouting missions, Baden-Powell and Burnham discussed the concept of a broad training program" - I'm not sure this is supported by the source
• "a guide to outdoor fun"? The source connects this book to skills and training, but a later one to a less militaristic approach. However, the phrase "used by boys' groups as a guide to outdoor fun" does appear verbatim in FN92
• "At the urging of several youth leaders, Baden-Powell decided to adapt his scouting handbook specifically to training boys" is quite similar in phrasing to "At the urging of several youth leaders, he decided to adapt the manual for the training of boys"
• "There is an especial significance..." is long enough to need blockquoting
• FN105 mentions that details of Burnham's involvement in the Shangani Patrol were "held in some suspicion in later years", and our article on the event elaborates - this article does not appear to discuss this? Why not?
• This article states that he declined the Victoria Cross - is there any merit to that claim?
• "Frederick Russell Burnham II, was a leader in the BSA" - source?
• FN115 doesn't appear to mention the Wa Syndicate at all
• "one of the garden spots of the world" is quite similar in phrasing to "be the garden spot of the world"
• "Burnham together with Charles Frederick Holder made important archaeological discoveries..." - from what I can tell, both sources suggest that Burnham made the discoveries and that Holder came back with him later
• "Roosevelt had been an outspoken critic of Wilson's neutrality policies, so even though Roosevelt had made several attempts to come to an agreement with Wilson, the President was unwilling to accept any compromise" - not sure this is supported by the given source
• "These relentless attacks helped the Republicans win control of Congress in 1918" - you might want to clarify this a bit. By "relentless attacks", do you mean just the publication of the book, or something else? Also, someone unfamiliar with American politics would not realize the significance of Republicans controlling Congress with Wilson as president, or why attacks by Roosevelt on Wilson would have that effect
• "Roosevelt might have been a serious candidate for president in 1920, but lingering malaria kept him out of the race" - not sure this is quite accurate, as the source indicates that during his last hospitalization he was planning to enter the race in June 1919, and does not connect that hospitalization to malaria
• FN134 says the spy ring was jailed in 1941 not 1942
• "Duquesne was twice arrested by the FBI" - source?
• "the largest spy ring conviction in U.S. history" does not appear to be supported by the given source
• FN147 mentions a different Burnham serving in 1934; how do we know that this Burnham's term ended then?
• "president of the Southwest Museum of Los Angeles from 1938 until 1940, and he served as both the Honorary President of the Arizona Boy Scouts and as a regional executive for the BSA throughout the 1940s until his death in 1947.[148]" - the next page of the source states that Burnham was president of the museum, but not when, and does not mention Scouts at all; source?
• Most of the paragraph about the Bighorn sheep is quite close in phrasing to FN149
• FN93: "travel in wild country without either a compass or map" is quite close in phrasing to "tavelling without either compass or maps in wild country"
• "Burnham's eyes possessed a far-away look such as those acquired by people whose occupation has caused them to watch continually at sea or on great plains" is quite similar in phrasing to "grey-blue eyes that have in them a far-away look such as those acquire whose occupation has caused them to watch continually at sea or on great plains"
• "steady, grey-blue eyes" is a direct quote from the source
• "fearing these habits would injure the acuteness of his sense of smell" is quite similar in phrasing to "fearing, as he told me, lest it should injure the acuteness of his sense of smell". Several other passages are also quite closely paraphrased or near-verbatim from this source (FN160)
• The van Wyk book says he died of a stroke; why have you chosen to go with the Lott source? What do other sources say?
• "He and his father became minority owners" - source?
• "She was buried three days later in the town's Pioneer Cemetery, plot No. 144" - source?
• FN166 says that Rod spoke "Kaffir", a group which includes far more languages than just Sindebele - how do we know which he spoke?
• "Burnham's first son, Roderick (August 22, 1886 – July 2, 1976), was born in Pasadena, California" - source?
• "He attended the Michigan School of Mines (now Michigan Technological University) in 1910" - source?
• "helping to develop the first wells in Mexico" - source?
• "On his arrival in England, Burnham was commanded to dine with Queen Victoria" is quite similar in phrasing to "On arrival in English he was commanded to dine with Queen Victoria"
• "to spend the night at Osborne House" - source?
• "Roderick awoke screaming and rushed to tell his grandmother about his nightmare. The next morning, a cable arrived" is quite similar in phrasing to "Roderick awakened screaming and ran into his grandmother's room to tell her of the nightmare. The next morning, a cable from his father"
• "Hemingway was already behind schedule with other commitments, however, and no work had been done on the movie when he committed suicide" - this doesn't appear to be supported by the cited source
• "Another epic film, On My Honor, was conceived and begun by Cecil B. DeMille" is quite similar in phrasing to "On My Honor is an epic film conceived and begun by Cecil B. DeMille"
• "It was to document the founding of the Scouting movement" - I don't think either source supports this, and in fact FN201 directly contradicts it; the sources also say it's about Baden-Powell and neither mention Burnham
• Source for the details of the coin? The given source provides only number, year, issuer, and event commemorated
• Why do Birchard and Davis have the same ISBN?
• "the young Burnham also learned much...Burnham learned much" seems repetitive
• "fading from the frontier" seems rather colloquial in tone; check for other instances
• "In spite of a shower of bullets and spears, the three made it to Forbes, but the battle raging there was just as intense" seems rather non-neutral in tone
• Consider evaluating this article with WP:W2W in mind, as there are multiple instances of phrasing that I feel conflict with that guideline
• Also be careful to adhere carefully to WP:NPOV; phrasing like "as strange a contrast as it is possible to imagine", for example, would seem to be too non-neutral
• Avoid using a narrative tone: "together they dreamed of some day becoming great scouts", for example, seems more appropriate to a story than to an encyclopedia article
• Is there a particular reason you've chosen not to cite either ODNB or ANB? They both include details not covered by this article
• The ODNB describes an inquiry into the veracity of the account of Mlimo's death and suggests that Burnham was let go from the British South Africa Company as a result - you would probably need to at least mention this version of events
• On that note, be careful to avoid presenting the subject in a positive light by minimizing or not including contrasting viewpoints or disputes - in order to be comprehensive and balanced, we ought to present all views from reliable sources (with due weight, of course)
• ANB notes that Burnham was essentially broke as of 1914 and returned to the US
• "In an astute display of political trickery" - suggest using a direct quote from the source
• "even though Roosevelt had made several attempts to come to an agreement with Wilson, the President was unwilling to accept any compromise" seems, particularly without clear sourcing, to be a rather one-sided view of events
• Much of the first two paragraphs of Personal life seem a bit subjective
• "world traveling adventurer" -> "world-traveling adventurer", if that phrasing is kept - you might consider rephrasing anyways
• Be consistent in whether you use "bighorn" or "big horn" for the sheep
• "she returned to find their house burned down, but the baby Frederick was safe, fast asleep in the basket with the corn husks" could be more concisely expressed as "she returned to find their house burned down but baby Frederick safe and asleep in the basket"
• "The young Burnham attended schools in Iowa and there he met Blanche Blick" - should be either repunctuated or rephrased
• "He had lost all of his family in the Indian wars" - given the number of conflicts that can be so described, is it possible to specify?
• I believe American grammar generally requires a comma before "and" when it connects independent clauses; in any event, there are many instances where this type of phrasing seems a bit awkward
• Per WP:ALT, alt text shouldn't repeat captions
• "Judge Aaron Hackney, editor of the local Arizona Silver Belt newspaper and friends with Burnham" - should be "friend of Burnham's"
• Newspaper name should be italicized in text
• Tombstone or Tombsone?
• "found their way through the Matopos Hills to a sacred cave not many miles from the Mangwe district, to a sanctuary" - this phrasing is a bit unclear
• "100 huts filled with many warriors" - "many" is redundant
• " Once inside the cave, they waited until Mlimo entered...Burnham and Armstrong waited until Mlimo entered the cave" - repetitive. Check for other instances of repetition or redundancy
• "Burnham decided it was time to leave Africa and move on to other adventures. The family returned to California. Soon after, Fred traveled" - why the shift in naming?
• "it was directly caused" - I think you might mean "more immediately caused", given what precedes this?
• "who he should appoint" -> "whom he should appoint"
• "when received the following telegram" - grammar
• "In an unusual step for a foreigner, Burnham received" - confusing: as Burnham didn't take the step, "for" is incorrect, and probably "step" would be better replaced
• Read through the article and consider where the phrasing might be more concise
• "to obtain information on the enemy, which he did, and then he escaped" -> "to obtain information on the enemy; having done so, he escaped"
• "plodded steadily on" - colloquial
• "out of the Pretoria"?
• "Burnham reasoned that a dam could provide year-round water to rich alluvial soil in the valley; turning the region into one of the garden spots of the world and generate much needed electricity" - punctuation is incorrect here, check for other instances
• You might find it helpful to seek out a copy-editor, perhaps at WP:GOCE
• "Boy Scouts" should be consistently capitalized in that manner
• Be consistent in what variety of spelling is used - it's mostly American, but I see some British, for example "centre of Bulawayo"
• "300 acre (120 ha) tract of land" -> "300-acre (120-ha) tract of land". You might find it helpful to review the article with WP:HYPHEN at hand
• Kit Carson is linked twice in Early life
• Why are you repeating a cited source as an external link?
• "35 min. silent b&w video" -> "35-minute silent black-and-white video"
• Can you explain your rationale for including http://www.howardburnham.com/ as an external link?d
• Is Amebelodon burnhami worth a redlink or redirect?
• " feature length Shangani Patrol (film) (1970)" - should pipe that link
• The MTU history gives previous names as "Michigan Mining School" and "Michigan College of Mines", but not "Michigan School of Mines" - can you verify?
• The bighorn sheep species is usually not capitalized; "Giant eland" usually has eland in lowercase
• WCU is now called IUCN
• Suggest wikilinking commander-in-chief directly to the US section
• Be consistent in whether you use "field craft" or "fieldcraft"; check for similar inconsistencies
• Don't link the same terms in section hatnote and first sentence, as for example in the Second Boer War section
• "Spanish-American" and "Pretoria-Delagoa Bay" should both be converted to endashes; check for similar problems with WP:DASH
• "Wild West Show" or "Wild West show"? Check for further inconsistencies in capitalization
• Closing punctuation should usually be outside of quotation marks - see MOS:LQ for guidelines
• "Burnham was born on May 11, 1861 on a Sioux Indian reservation" - should include comma after 1861. See WP:COMMA for further usage guidelines
• " Following his investiture, the British press hailed him as: "The King of Army Scouts"." - don't need colon here
• "his book: The Wizard" - no colon here either. Check for further examples of colon misuse
• Don't include spaces before colons, even in titles
• Spell out unit names in prose
• "Burnham Exploration Company paid out $10.2 million in dividends" - how much approximately would this be in modern currency?
• Suggest putting the Bibliography image on the left
• Is there somewhere to wikilink mescal to? If not, at least link aloe
• Should identify briefly who the Gordons were, as they aren't mentioned in the Pleasant Valley War article
• Should wikilink Sonora on first appearance
• "but he soon went back to herding cattle and prospecting...but soon he was back prospecting and scouting" - repetitive
• Suggest wikilinking burro and malaria
• "6,100 km2" - missing superscript
• Suggest wikilinking Silver Buffalo Award, Santa Barbara, and Three Rivers in article body
• Is there an article that explains Wilson's neutrality policies that could be linked?
• The Foes Of Our Own Household is worth a redlink
• "endure the most appalling fatigues" should be phrased in a more encyclopedic manner
• "The Fire that shall Never Die" - volume/issue formatting doesn't match other periodicals
• FN5, 27, 29, 49: page formatting; stopped there, check for others
• FN163, 200: spacing; check for others
• Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges or not: use either the model of "pp. 493–495." or of "pp. 338–48.", but not mixed
• FN35 needs endash
• FN50 harvlink isn't working
• Be consistent in whether author initials are spaced or unspaced, and in whether they include periods
• Baden-Powell 1908: the GBooks link and ISBN resolve to two different modern versions of this book; which of these was consulted, and does it match the pagination of the original version?
• References list should be in alphabetical order
• Barnes: WorldCat and GBooks for that ISBN both say published 1992; is another edition being referred to?
• Barrett: my search suggests that the second author is Vallance not Valiance; also check formatting, add issue and page numbers
• Bryant is missing volume number and should probably also include complete pagination for consistency with other periodicals
• You are in several cases including an ISBN for a modern edition while citing the original edition of a work - it would be preferable to either cite the modern edition (including orig_year if desired) or use an OCLC or other identifying number rather than the incorrect ISBN
• Burnham 1944: WorldCat suggests Mary Everett as a co-author
• Colby: link given leads to a different article and publication
• Be consistent in whether you abbreviate state names in references, or indeed whether you include state names at all (for example, you have both Los Angeles and Los Angeles, California)
• Be consistent in whether you include country names in refs and if so how - for example, you usually have just "London" but then "London, England"
• Burnham 1912: punctuation doesn't match other books
• Davis: are you citing the paperback or hardcover version?
• Why is formatting for Du Toit so unlike the other books?
• Emdashes should be unspaced
• Farwell 1976: link gives different month and volume
• Fisher 1930: quote marks within quote marks should be single; check for others
• Who is Michael Forster and what is his area of expertise?
• Please double-check bibliographic details for Forbes et al; GBooks gives a different author order and publisher name. Please also include volume number
• Be consistent in whether editions are spelled out or in numbers
• Gann: GBooks and WorldCat both give a different title for that ISBN; please double-check
• Haggard 1896: GBooks and WorldCat both give a different title for that ISBN; please double-check
• Haggard 1926: Project Gutenberg of Australia was not the original (1926) publisher, and are they really headquartered in London?
• Hamilton College: title needs endash, check for others
• Holder: doi returns error
• Juang: series and volume shouldn't be italicized
• No spaces before colons
• Be consistent in what capitalization rules you're using for titles and subtitles
• Compare publisher name for the first two Lott sources
• Compare treatment of volume for the other two Lott sources
• Lott 1976: ISSN and OCLC resolve to two different publications, neither of which is entirely consistent with the given citation. Same for Lott 1977
• Marston: publication date is actually 2009, the GBooks listing is incorrect
• Be consistent in how volume numbers are treated/formatted
• Be consistent in what punctuation precedes subtitles
• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when in references - for example, Blackwood's is linked the first two times but not the third, should be every time or first time only
• Be consistent in whether you include location/publisher for periodicals and in whether you include full page range in References (probably you should for journals and possibly magazines)
• Plaster: ISBN leads to original edition; given the updates in 2006, should clarify that this is a new edition and include the new ISBN
• Prichard: given citation mixes details of the original and 2004 editions - linked version is the original and has different publisher information. Which version did you consult?
• Roosevelt: why does this have page number in References rather than short cite?
• Los Angeles Times or The Los Angeles Times? Be consistent
• Thrapp: which volume? Be sure to include volume number for multivolume works, and for encyclopedias you may want to include entry name as well.
• van Wyk: link goes to GBooks search; should either link directly to the publication in question or not link at all
• Weideman: link includes a second author
• West 1935: ISSN? Volume?
• Wilson: Gale Research is in Detroit, isn't it?
• ISSN given is for the Atlanta Constitution is for the index rather than the publication itself
• "Animals from Africa": given ISSN is for neither publication
• "Arizona National Wildlife Refuges": missing the actual publication name
• "Classified Advertising": which issue?
• "Ecclesiastical and Clerical": doubled period
• ISSN 03624331 is for the Sunday edition of the NYT; there's a separate ISSN for the other editions
• "The Fauna of the British Empire": doi goes to a completely different article
• "Finest Hour" is actually the name of the journal; what is the title being cited? This ref needs reworking
• "Killed the Matabele God: Burnham, the American Scout, May End Uprising" has the ISSN for a different publication
• "Personal": link requires login; should either use one that doesn't or note "subscription required"
• Press Reference Library is the series name, not part of the title.
• Why are we fixing the image size for the lead image? See WP:IMAGESIZE
• First note needs clarifying: "latterly" should be "later", and "Congressional" means something quite different from "Congregational"
• What is the function of "he met a man he describes as" at the end of the second paragraph of Early life?
• Note 2 doesn't really clarify who the Gordons are in relation to the feud, and needs editing for grammar
• Marston problematizes Gann's vision of the Shangani Patrol here
• Your presentation of the historical debate concerning the Wilson patrol seems to me to be a bit one-sided, particularly in phrasing like "as shaky as it is"
• You mention the "findings of the Court of Inquiry", but don't actually say that an inquiry was held or what its findings were
• Who are Coghlan and Wools-Sampson?

More later...Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments Hi again, guys, I just have some prose suggestions:

• "Burnham was distinguished in several battles": Burnham distinguished himself in several battles
• "the age of 3": the age of three
• "attacked New Ulm, Minnesota, a town near where the Burnhams lived": attacked the nearby town of New Ulm, Minnesota
• "how to track Apache by tracing the odor of burning mescal": how to track Apache by detecting the odor of burning mescal
• "could follow the mescal odor": could follow the odor
• "he met a man he describes as": he met
• "he did not yet view himself as a criminal": Why "yet"? Did he view himself as a criminal later on?
• "Arizona-Mexico", " "soldier of fortune,": If dash and WP:LQ mistakes are no longer capital offenses at FAC, they at least still raise grimaces.
• "Thirty-second Degree Mason": I think "Thirty-Second ..." is more common, but I'm not sure what MOSCAPS says.
• I got down to Military career. Bottom line: I don't have a lot to teach you guys, and you have quite a few things to teach me. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dank. Your comments are on target. I've changed all except "age of 3" to "age of three". Either way is just fine with me, but I'll wait to hear if there is a consensus for this change. Ctatkinson (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Close This PR was opened one month ago and no new comments have been posted in the last two weeks. Thanks to everyone for your input. Ctatkinson (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

---

History of women in Puerto Rico

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of its importance to Puerto Rico and Wikipedia. We need eyes that are impartial to the subject to offer their criticism and feedback. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Fakih Usman

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to polish it better for FAC. I have been unable to find very much on Fakih, and this is definitely the best English-language source on the individual, so I think prose would be the main point of concern.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

A few copyedits here and there: nothing major, but please feel free to correct any errors or revert anything that you don't like.

Lead

• "In his early years Fakih was criticised by conservative Muslims for his involvement with the modernist Islamic organisation Muhammadiyah, but today remains warmly remembered by the organisation." If he was criticised, he can't remain warmly remembered: did the "thaw" in opinion take place during his lifetime or afterwards?

• No, the critics were anti-Muhammadiyah. Muhammadiyah is a separate entity.

Work with the Muhammadiyah

• "the group was formally recognised": by who?

• the central Muhammadiyah administration

More to follow – SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Second batch:

Early Life

• "and his housewife mother": who's "his"? The previous "he" was Usman Iskandar.

• How so? "His" in the first instance in this sentence is still Fakih. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Work with the Muhammadiyah

• "transferred to the branch in Surabaya": was the Surabaya branch larger or more important? I think it would probably help explain his rise in importance.
  • Source doesn't say membership, but Surabaya is easily the biggest city in East Java (and has been for quite a while). Noted comparative size of city. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Masyumi

• "General Hein ter Poorten capitulated": did they capitulate, or did they surrender the territory to the Japanese?

• Added a clause. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Fakih worked with Masjkur and Zainul Arifin to start an armed resistance using the Japanese-trained Islamic units Sabilillah and Hizbullah, with Fakih": Fakih ... Fakih this could be re-phrased slightly to avoid the repetition

• How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "When the Natsir Cabinet began collapsing and Masyumi put forth Fakih as a potential Minister for Religious Affairs – an act which was controversial because four of the five allocated slots for the party were already filled by non-NU members – the NU pulled out of Masyumi, effective 5 April 1952": this is quite long and a little convoluted and I took a couple of readings before I got to grips with it properly. You could split out the sub-clause into a second sentence and rework the remainder slightly.

• How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Further work and death

• "Fakih spearheaded the magazine": I'm not sure about "spearhead": did he launch the magazine, or was he editor (or both)?

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

All good – and an interesting read! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Lede

• "in these Islamic groups and politics during the Japanese occupation" Does "Islamic" modify "politics" or no? Suggest a tweak

• Reworked — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Early etc.

• "the children were unable to receive an education at Dutch-run schools" hm, maybe "ineligible" rather than "unable"

• Better word, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Masyumi

• "On 9 March 1942—after the Japanese occupied the Indies earlier that year—" the dashes and "earlier that year" make these events sound almost unconnected, when they of course are quite the opposite

• Didn't think of that. Reinserting original text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think you should say why the organisation reformed so promptly.

• Will try to find information. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Found it. Seems to have been "Okay, just one organisation". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• " the outbreak of a battle at Surabaya" This is rather out of the blue. You had just told us of peace, and government coming to the Indies. What war? Looking ahead, it's quite a ways before you let people know who they are fighting. The non-Indonesian will make heavy weather of this.

• Added a bit of context. Surabaya was one of the first major battles between Republican forces and Europeans (the Japanese and Indonesians had clashed in Semarang and some other places). Do you think a more detailed footnote is required? That the Dutch had returned to the Indies, at least in Jakarta, wouldn't flow as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "included handling the large number of hajj pilgrims who left Indonesia yearly" Can this be more elegantly stated?

• Tried rephrasing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

" 1955 Constituent Assembly election, Fakih was made a member of the Constitutional Assembly of Indonesia." Can the first Constituent Assembly be buried in a pipe?

• Not a good idea as 1955 was also a year of national elections. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "spearheaded" It's unclear what is meant here. Did he found it or take over an ongoing organisation?

• Got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well done as usual, an interesting read.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

• "He served as the Minister of Religious Affairs on two occasions, first under the Halim Cabinet in the State of the Republic of Indonesia in 1950, then in the national government during the Wilopo Cabinet from 1952 to 1953.": Some redundancy. Perhaps "He twice served as the Minister of Religious Affairs: under the Halim Cabinet in the State of the Republic of Indonesia in 1950, and in the national government during the Wilopo Cabinet from 1952 to 1953."

• I like this wording. Changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "...which remembers him warmly.": Can an organisation remember? Or does it commemorate?

• A commemoration would imply celebrations. I haven't found a "Fakih Usman Day" or anything of the like. I can't really think of another word. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1925 he became involved with Muhammadiyah, rising quickly through the leadership until he became the head of the Surabaya branch in 1938; he was also active in local politics.": I'm not sure the link between these two parts really warrants the use of a semi-colon. They seem quite disconnected.

• Split. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• There are several consecutive sentences beginning "he" at the end of the lead, which makes it a bit choppy.

• Tried rewriting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "his housewife mother": Seems a bit forced, and almost tabloidy, to use housewife as an adjective.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The couple, who were of modest means, had four other children; the family's lack of a noble background meant the children were ineligible to receive an education at Dutch-run schools.": Again, I'm not too sure about the semi-colon as the two parts don't seem especially linked, and wonder if the clause after it may be better moved to the following sentence, which is also about education.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "At the age of ten he began studying at a pesantren (Islamic boarding school) in Gresik, finishing in 1918.": I wonder would a range work better. E.g. From the age of ten until he was fourteen, or From 1914 until 1918..." But not essential.

Changed to "four years later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The following year he continued his studies at several pesantren outside the city, including in rural Gresik and in nearby Bungah": "including in" seems a bit uncomfortable. What about "including those in..."?

• "ones", but okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Fakih's father brought him into the trading business": What trading business? The family's business?

• Yes, at least initially. Tried reworking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Can we briefly state what Muhammadiyah stood for, to save lazy readers clicking the link?
• "Through his work with the Gresik branch, Fakih became better known and later transferred to the branch in Surabaya, a much larger city": branch...branch
• "Through his work with the Gresik branch, Fakih became better known and later transferred to the branch in Surabaya, a much larger city; in 1929 he was also chosen to sit on that city's council.": Maybe avoid some redundancy: "Through his work with the Gresik branch, Fakih became better known and later transferred to the branch in Surabaya, a much larger city where, in 1929, he was chosen to sit on the city council." But may not be an improvement.

• How's this? (Goes for the two questions above this comment) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "For the period of 1932 to 1936": Maybe better as "from 1932 to 1936"

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "However, conservative Muslims disapproved of Fakih's work": Why? It's not quite clear from the article why they would.

• It had to do with Muhammadiyah itself, not necessarily Fakih as a person. I will pull together a footnote to address your issue above which will also include information regarding conservative Muslims' disapproval. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Have added the footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

More to follow. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "After the Japanese occupied the Indies in early 1942, on 9 March 1942 ": Do we need to say both "early" AND the date?

• Tried reworking that sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• "It was reformed on 5 September 1942 following a meeting of 30 ulamas in the Des Indes Hotel in Jakarta and given official recognition by the occupation government, which allowed it to continue as the sole Islamic organisation in the country.": Maybe this sentence is a touch long?

• shortened. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• In the Masyumi section, I get a bit lost with the Indonesian history. British, Republican and Dutch forces are mentioned but not explained. As I'm far too lazy to follow links (!), could a touch more context be added to these events?

• Doing... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• The new section seems perfect, and does the exact job that I had in mind. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• "the Indonesian and Dutch governments held a several-month long conference": I've a nasty feeling it should be "several-month-long", which looks bad but is probably right. And should it be "month" or "months"? Perhaps rephrasing somehow may be better.

• Just rephrased, much simpler. Though several-month-long seems right. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• "When the Natsir Cabinet began collapsing and Masyumi put forth Fakih as a potential Minister for Religious Affairs.": Something a bit off here. What about "When the Natsir Cabinet began to collapse, Masyumi put forth Fakih as a potential Minister for Religious Affairs."

• D'oh! Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Do we know what his illness was?

• Sources don't say :-( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Fachruddin would serve as chairman for 24 years.": Any reason this can't be "served" instead of "would serve"?

• Agree. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Former Muhammadiyah chairman Ahmad Syafi'i Maarif described Fakih as the "calm, cleansing water"[c] who served as a calming influence for Muhammadiyah when the organisation was in turmoil": We have "calm" twice here, inside the quote and out of it.

• Have replaced "calm" with "tranquil" in the quote (as the quote is in Indonesian and such a translation still accurate, completely allowable) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

That's everything from me. I followed it all fairly well, although some of the Indonesian history loses me a little at times. Perhaps a little more context would help, but not a huge deal if you don't think it would help, or would be too complicated for this article. Nice work as usual. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The new section added allays my minor concerns over context. Good stuff. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Hugo Award for Best Fancast

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hey all, I listed this list for PR before, but it got closed without any comments. I'm going to take it to FLC in the future when it gets a bit longer, but for now I'm trying to get a peer review so that I can add it to the Featured Topic for the Hugo Awards, the other lists in which are already featured. Any comments or criticisms about the list are welcome!

Thanks, --PresN 17:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Juhachi

• "The Hugo Award for Best Fancast is awarded to any generally available non-professional audio or video periodical devoted to science fiction, fantasy or related subjects that has released four or more episodes by the end of the previous calendar year, at least one of which appeared in that year, and that does not qualify as a dramatic presentation." -- This is a long run-on sentence, and need rewriting as it is confusing.
• "In order for it to become an official category, it needed to be ratified at Chicon 7 in 2012, which it was." -- This needs rewriting, with less commas, and less ending sentences with 'was'.
• "a one-off Hugo" -- What does this mean? 'One-off' seems pretty colloquial.
• "which closely followed the proposed language for the Best Fancast category which then began on an official basis the following year." -- I might suggest using 'and' for the second 'which'.
• "by supporting or attending members" -- This needs clarification. Wouldn't any supporting member also be attending?
• "the presentation evening" -- This is oddly written. Why is presentation being used as an adjective to modify evening?
• "out of the same field of five fancasts both years." -- I would rewrite this as "with the same nominees for each year."
• "Note that the 2012 award was actually for Best Podcast, not Best Fancast." -- Can this be referenced?
• The winners and nominees section needs   *   Winners and joint winners as in the other articles.

--十八 22:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• I believe I have addressed all these points. --PresN 19:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've made some additions to this page over the past few weeks, mainly the History and Format sections (as part of the ISCB wikipedia competition) - I've listed this article for peer review to get some unbiased advice on areas for improvement, particularly on the sections mentioned above. Hopefully one of the outcomes could be raising the rating on the quality scale (it's currently at Start-Class).

Many thanks, Amkilpatrick (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Praemonitus – Here are a few suggestions:

• "In recent years" is WP:DATED
• "Since 2007, ISMB has rotated locations between North America and Europe": to clarify this, the lead should mention where was it held before then.
• The "Format" section doesn't appear to be summarized in the lead.
• "National Library of Medicine": please be specific about which nation.
• "National Library of Medicine" is WP:OVERLINKed.
• "artificial intelligence" and "computer science" should be linked;
• Names such as "Lawrence Hunter" and "Russ Altman" are presented without context. Please list at least a nationality and profession for each name.
• "David Searls", "Jude Shavlik", "Christopher Rawlings", and "Alfonso Valencia" should be WP:REDLINKed, unless you don't think they can satisfy WP:GNG.
• In the "List of conferences" table, consider listing the title and presenter for each Keynote speech. Presenting the conference themes, if any, would also be beneficial.
• For comprehensiveness, some information about budgeting and attendance requirements would be of interest. How much does it cost to finance a conference like this? What's the standard rate for attending the full conference? Presumably speakers get their attendance costs picked up? Is it limited to professional academia or can students and other interested participants attend?

I hope these comments are useful for you. Praemonitus (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments, really appreciated. I'll have a good look through them shortly and get back to you once I've made some changes. --Amkilpatrick (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I've made a couple edits now, mostly expanding the lead and rewriting some of the early history section - completely agree with your comments. These should cover all but the last two bullets. Re the list of keynote speeches, I had thought about this and had started to create a table (see User:Amkilpatrick/draft1), but it was going to be a lot of information and I couldn't find an elegant way of collapsing this bit while keeping the rest of the List of Conferences visible. Maybe this could be put in a new article, perhaps List of Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology Keynote Speakers and linked to from the ISMB article? Agreed about the info for budgeting and attendance - I will have a look for some sources, probably ISCB reports, but it might take a little while. Where do you think would be best for this to go in the article? I'm thinking with the recent meetings but perhaps it calls for a new section. Again, thanks for your comments, it's been really helpful! --Amkilpatrick (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well if the keynote speech information is going to take up that much room, perhaps it's not such a good idea after all. As for the budget and other details, I don't know why those couldn't just go in another section under 'Format'. Perhaps consider revising the section name to something like 'Operations'. Anyway, glad I could help. Praemonitus (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Maurice Leyland

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to go to FAC fairly soon. Any comments on prose, accessibility to the general reader, balance, etc, greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Tintin

• "One Kent supporter wrote that Leyland was a "leaden-footed cart-horse"" - I would like a confirmation that you checked Lemmon directly, and not a secondary source that could have misinterpreted him. 'cause, I have across some writing to the effect that Leyland was a "cross-batted village greener" while Phil Mead was the "leaden footed cart-horse". The article where I came across it isn't particularly authentic, so if Lemmon is confirmed, he will easily override my source. Tintin 04:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• I did check it directly, but that is no guarantee. I just checked it again and realised I'd managed to confuse Mead and Leyland. Now fixed, hopefully. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Great. Thanks. Tintin 16:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Bowling style : Slow left-arm orthodox" - an error in Cricinfo ?

• It's repeated in CA too. I think it's passable, as he did bowl the orthodox stuff quite a bit too, I think. We'd better follow the sources. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "He was one of the first to bowl left-arm wrist-spin," - is "one of the first" a little bit of an exaggeration ?

• The only person I can think who preceded him was Roy Kilner. Achong was after. Perhaps I'm missing someone, but seems fair enough. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

And just remembered Charlie Llewellyn as a potential unorthodox wrist spinner (according to Cricinfo) but not sure how reliable that is. That still places Leyland among the first three that I can think of. Let me ponder some more. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Cricketarchive has nobody listed as chinaman before Leyland's time. The earliest is some New Zealander named Stan Lay. But then none of Llewllyn, Kilner, Leyland and Achong are listed as chinamen either. Tintin 18:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Roy Kilner explained, 'It's foreign stuff and you can't call it anything else" - just saying - the significance of Kilner saying that stuff (if he really did) is that he was dead long before the Achong incident happened. Tintin 16:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Personally, I think the Achong thing is bollocks anyway. Probably just Walter Robins being his usual charming self. But the Kilner quote is from DCF Burton (and I'll attribute that in the text) writing in the 60s, and he hardly played with Leyland. However, others say that Kilner invented "chinamen", both the name and the delivery. Though I wonder if someone in Trinidad "invented" it before Achong. Maybe Victor Pascall? All very interesting (although it doesn't help Leyland much!) Sarastro1 (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, there are various sources for the "foreign stuff", including Burton, the general Wisden obituary and possibly something from Bill Bowes, although it's opaquely written. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Crisco comments

• groundsman - link perhaps?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• He played once, against Essex, scoring ten runs in his only innings, but this was his only appearance that year. - way to avoid repeating "only"?

• Switched to sole. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• and he was awarded his county cap. - how is cap related to potential?

• It isn't usually, and I'm baffled why they did so here. Possibly for his fielding ability, which is unusual. But the sources are quiet. I think I've written it too strongly to read that he was awarded it for potential, so I've reworded it to avoid the impression that the two were linked. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• a successful batting side. - consisting of? (footnote maybe)

• Added footnote. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• this team was one of Yorkshire's strongest, but that the team - team ... team

• Cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• This environment, "was a hard school for a young cricketer, but Leyland thrived on such discipline, and he has never lost his laugh." - should have in-text attribution to the writer here.

• Writer unknown, but attributed now to the just-mentioned report. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• the newspaper's cricket correspondent - who?

• They were not named in the Times at this stage. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Leyland and Dolphin played a handful of matches for the MCC. Leyland played twice in November 1926 and once in February 1927 for the team. - repetitive

• I don't think we need it anyway, so cut it completely. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• a side named "The Rest" and scored 102. - how many sides were there?

• Several. In this case, it was a sort-of England second team, but teams such as this could be pretty strange, and rather than one "team" which played together, it was often "Who is available? Let 'em play!" It's hard so say (without OR) which was the case here. Hence the slightly awkward wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Skipping ahead ...

• He also served as a representative of the paper manufacturers Thomas Owen - So Mitchell served as representative (check your sentence)

• Fixed Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• 1. Later life has "Leyland" 5 times

• Had to add one to fix the above, but trimmed the others. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• His bowling was extremely effective at times, but other players were used in the main spinner's role for Yorkshire in preference to him, and he was generally used as back-up, for example when a stubborn partnership need to be broken. - confusing

• Tried rephrasing in non-cricket speak. Better? (This is a tricky one) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Somewhat better (though I still think having this as two shorter sentences would be easier) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• What about the last one ? - space before question mark in original? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Like Leyland, the Yorkshire bowler Roy Kilner coached in India during 1927–28, but in doing so contracted a fever and died shortly after returning to England. - Could be read as if Leyland had died after going to India too (still "like Leyland" after all)

• Reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Chapman stood down from the final Test; although it is not clear why he did so, one possibility is that he wished to give as many members of the team as possible a chance to appear in the Tests. Alternatively, he may have felt that his batting form did not warrant a place in the team; whatever the reason, Leyland took his place. - Lots of semi-colons

• Removed one of them. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• he took five wickets in an innings - link to five-wicket haul?

• I'm not sure how useful the link is, but added for the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• After watching this last performance, the cricket writer Neville Cardus judged that Leyland had bowled well and with spirit on a wet pitch which favoured spin bowling, but that he lacked the accuracy and flight required in left-arm spin bowlers and exemplified by Rhodes, who missed that match with an injury. - rather long sentence

• Reworked this part as it was a bit of a mess. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Watch out for an overabundance of Leyland. I see five in #Test regular alone (that section could also lose some "Test"s)

• Tried to prune some throughout. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Leyland was not particularly successful. Assessing the tour in Wisden, Sydney Southerton wrote that Leyland "fared on the whole extremely well ... he had batted finely in the Test matches at Adelaide and Brisbane". - what's with the contrast?

• Reworded. Basically, his figures are not good if looked at in terms of statistical success, but he scored runs in some very pressured circumstances. This hopefully comes across better now. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Rest tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ripe in technique, rich in experience, like granite in battle, he was in this season England's greatest batsman." England lost the series 2–1; the Australians were heavily dependent on the bowling of Clarrie Grimmett and Bill O'Reilly, but Leyland began a spell of relative dominance over O'Reilly at a time when the latter was regarded as the best bowler in the world, and one of the best bowlers of all time. - Also quite long

• Reworked. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ah can tell thi one thing now for certain ... Ah's got thee where Ah wants thi, Bill—and Ah thinks tha knows it. - as in the original, misspellings and all?

• Yes (or perhaps that should be "aye, lad"). Welcome to the world of Yorkshire dialect. I didn't think it required (sic), but you may be a better judge than me! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I do love when newspapers and writers reproduce accents phonetically </sarcasm> (Seriously though, some of the most hateful news reports I read from the May 1998 riots of Indonesia were those which pretended to be sympathetic, but reproduced an overdone pseudo-Chinese accent, with l's instead of r's and everything). MOS-wise, if that's how Cardus wrote it, that's how it should stay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• missed a substantial amount of cricket in 1937 with a broken finger, - how'd he break it?

• The source doesn't say, but I'd imagine he was hit on the finger when batting. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Bradford League - notable?

• Possibly, but I'm never too clear on how the cricket notability guidelines work on local leagues. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• He ended his first-class career with 33,660 runs at 40.50 and 466 wickets at 29.31. - what year? 1948? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• Lead
  • "he may have been a leading bowler" – I think this needs to be "he might have been…"
• Established county cricketer
  • "In his history of Yorkshire" – on balance I'd make this "…of the Yorkshire club" or "Yorkshire CCC" or some such.
  • "Anthony Woodhouse suggests" – presumably he does more than suggest: I imagine he states it.
• Test debut and selection for Australian tour
  • "then in mid-July" – "then" is not a conjunction, and you need a stronger punctuation mark than a comma before it here. I'd make it a semicolon.
• Bodyline tour
  • "Other Australian commentators had a more favourable opinion towards Leyland." – I'd be inclined to omit the last two words.
• Peak years
  • "at a time when he was regarded as the best bowler in the world" – it is of course pretty clear that the "he" is O'Reilly (silly way to spell Riley) but for absolute clarity perhaps you should say "at a time when the latter was regarded …."
  • "outfielder" – needs either a blue link or a brief explanatory footnote for the uninitiated
  • "toured West Indies" – looks a bit odd without a definite article, to my eye
  • "lumbago—[6]" – I think, but don't take my word for it, that the usual rule of citation after punctuation mark is suspended for em-dashes.
  • "with injury—[5][62]" – ditto
  • "England could only score 76 for nine" – of which Leyland scored how many?
    • All of these above done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Style, technique and personality
  • "His use of the cut shot was mistrusted by some Yorkshire critics" – and possibly colleagues: when coaching at Harrow, Rhodes forbade the boys ever to cut as it was risky. Their objection, "But, Wilfred, a cut's the greatest fun," was met with the unanswerable reply, "Cricket's not meant to be foon".
    • I seem to remember a Cardus match report in which the writer took great glee in Rhodes getting out trying to cut! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "His bowling was extremely effective at times…" – There's a "main" and a "mainly" in the same sentence; the latter could be "generally" or similar.
  • "he may have developed" – as in the lead, I think you want "might" for "may" here.
  • "alternate theories" – you mean "several" or "many", I think.
    • All done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That's my meagre gleaning. This is another top-notch cricket biography, and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. It was a pleasure to read it now, and I shall enjoy reading it again then. – Tim riley (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Postscript on referencing format. You sometimes add the date of publication and sometimes don't: very proper for Cardus, as there are two of his books cited, but Woodhouse, as at refs 10 or 91? Tim riley (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I dated Woodhouse as he was also the author of the 2004 ODNB article. I'm not entirely sure it's necessary, but tend to do it to avoid any confusion. However, I'll happily take it out if it looks inconsistent. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps best to leave as is and see what the FAC referencing experts say. Tim riley (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and kind comments. I'd say something nice here, but having read the reply on your talk page, when God's Own County was insulted by someone from the wrong side of the Pennines, I'll say nowt! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You've given us A C MacLaren, so I shall refrain, pro tem, from making rude remarks about the opposition. Tim riley (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

• "Leyland was born in Bilton, an area of Harrogate, to Edward (Ted) Leyland and Mercy Lambert." -- Was Leyland born out of wedlock? If not, you could word it like this: "to Mercy (née Lambert) and Edward (Ted) Leyland.
• I would link Lancashire for our non-English readers.
• "In the latter part of the 1922 season Leyland played..." -- pronoun would be better here seeing as we mention only him in the previous sentence.
• "In the latter part of the 1922 season Leyland played more regularly, replacing Norman Kilner in the team. Although his batting figures were unimpressive..." -- Who? Leyland or Kilner? I would replace with a Leyland pronoun in the first sentence and change the pronoun in the second sentence with its noun counterpart.

• All these done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "and the outbreak of war in 1939" -- Why do we mention both the war and 1939?

• I've been pulled up for lack of precision using "war" before, so I went for the date too. I'd cut the mention of the war but for the fact that he would probably have continued to score lots for a few more years. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "At the end of July, the MCC named the team to tour Australia for the 1928–29 Ashes series. Leyland was named in the team..." -- Not essential, but could we combine this: "At the end of July, Leyland was picked for the team who toured Australia for the 1928–29 Ashes series". Or, "At the end of July, the MCC named the team to tour Australia for the 1928–29 Ashes series, in which Leyland was included". Or something like that. It would also do away with the second "named" which we currently have.

• I prefer the two sentences but took out the second "named". Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Leyland's selection was controversial in the south of England, and particularly in Kent." -- This would work just as well without the "and" here.

• I think we might need the "and" as the point in the rest of the sentence about Frank Woolley concerns a Kent batsman, and using "and" I think clarifies that. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Leyland began 1932 in similarly poor touch." -- I take it "touch" is a cricketing term? I want to say "form" here for some reason. In fact, looking at the previous word, this says "form" so this maybe incorrect to use it again.

• Yes, "touch" was to avoid repeating "form" but it is a bit jargony when I think about it. Reworded the sentence to avoid it. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Everything between looks very nice.

Last years as a cricketer – and onwards

• Why do we link "sergeant instructor" but not "lieutenant" immediately after it?

• Now linked both. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• And I just realised, it was linked, but someone keeps running a script which unlinks it. I suspect a MoS or similar reason. So I'll leave it unlinked. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Between his army duties, he played cricket in the Bradford League, and played for various wartime teams, including ones representing the army.[5] In 1945, he played some non-first-class games for teams representing Yorkshire and a first-class game for Yorkshire against Lancashire.[5] -- Why do you repeat ref 5 in close succession? Surely only the last one will do in light of there being no bold claims or quotes?

• Not sure why I did it. Removed the first one. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think we have had "wrist spin" link so far in the body.

• Linked. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced the caption in the image requires a full stop.

• OK, done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• "At times, his desire..." -- Leyland I'm sure, but we do talk of Cardus before.

• Crisco kindly got this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• To satisfy my morbid side, I don't suppose we know how he died?

• Some sources say he died of Parkinson's Disease, but as I understand it, this could not be a cause of death by itself. So there is nothing definitive. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• In the interests of aesthetics, could we break the huge second paragraph up at all?

• I've had a go, although it's a slightly forced break. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Maurice Leyland (20 July 1900 – 1 January 1967) was a cricketer..." Would we be correct in giving his nationality before "cricketer"?

• Should be OK, I think. Added. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead prose looks very good. Another winner from the Sarastro stable. If you carry on making these interesting articles, then by next summer, I will probably become interested enough to start playing the game for real! Good work! -- Cassianto^Talk 09:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and kind comments. By all means play cricket, but far more important that you follow Yorkshire. With scoundrels like that Riley chap supporting The Enemy, we need all the help we can get! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It is true that Yorks CCC need all the help they can get, but pray refrain from attempting to lure innocent Essex men into the clutches of Headingley. I'm sure there's something in the Manual of Style about this. Tim riley (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Innocent!? Before Sarastro came along with his FA cricket articles, we in Essex thought the bats were used for something else! -- Cassianto^Talk 22:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Sahara4u

• ...was Wisden Cricketer of the Year in 1929. → was on of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year in 1929.

• Went for "a Wisden Cricket of the Year..." as I think that may be better. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• After military service in the First World War, Leyland became a professional cricketer for Harrogate between 1918 and 1920,[2][3] from where he made appearances for the Yorkshire Council,[4] and Yorkshire's second team,[2] for whom he bowled regularly; when he reached the first team, he bowled infrequently in his first seasons.[5]→ A very long sentence.

• Split. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• ..he was dismissed for 0 by Herman Griffith in his only innings.[30] → zero, there may be others

• I don't think that is necessary. Figures are fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Most of the quotes in sentences start with capital letters??

• That is the convention when quoting the way that I have used here. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Link dismissal

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• publisher for refs #2 and #6

• There is already a publisher there: the publisher was John Wisden & Co. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Zia Khan 23:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Giants2008

• This is the typical high-quality cricket bio that I see on a regular basis. The only glitch I noticed was the all caps in the title of reference 74. Otherwise, it was a great read and I look forward to seeing it go to FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Got that one, and much obliged! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Brianboulton

The galaxy of earlier reviewing talent hasn't left me much to get my teeth into, so here are my usual nitpicks and quibbles, plus a few sugggestions for minor improvements. I'm about half-way through, and hope to finish tonight.

Lead

• As he was registered at birth as "Morris" and adopted the "Maurice" spelling later, I think this needs to be apparent in the first line of the lead rather than in a footnote. See Georges Bizet for a possible way of doing this.

• Adopted the Bizet way, but left in the note for the reference, and because it is not quite clear otherwise. (Basically, his parents changed their mind, it seems, and were calling him Maurice by 1911) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would qualify the statement "He was successful with the ball...", since he had little bowling success in Tests. Perhaps: "Outside Tests, he had some success as a bowler..."

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Early life and career

• We have "around this time" and "during this period" in close succession, but without a clear indication of the timeframe you are talking about. The first is probably OK, but I'd be a bit more specific in the second case, e.g. "During the early 1920s, ..."

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• "scoring 52 not out against Leicestershire, averaging just over 19." – reads a bit confusingly (the two achievements are quite separate). I suggest: "scoring 52 not out against Leicestershire and averaging just over 19 for the season".

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Established county cricketer

• Will readers unfamiliar with cricket jargon understand "he aggregated four figures"? I suggest: "...reached 1,000 runs in first-class cricket, a total he exceeded in each..." etc

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• "He scored seven fifties and averaged 27.89" – that is, in 1923. This needs to be clearer, e.g "In 1923 he scored... etc

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Quote marks round "gained valuable experience" are surely unnecessary (common wording)

• OK, done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• "By the end of the 1926 season, Leyland had established himself as one of the most reliable batsmen in the Yorkshire team.[14] He scored 1,561 runs at 39.02 and hit five centuries." To avoid any confusion in the minds of those less famiiar with cricket, I'd reword this to: "By the end of the 1926 season, in which he scored 1,561 runs at 39.02 and hit five centuries, Leyland had established himself as one of the most reliable batsmen in the Yorkshire team."

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Test debut and selection for Australian tour

• "In later years, it was rumoured that Percy Chapman, the captain of the MCC team, was jealous of Woolley and responsible for his omission." I wonder if this conjecture is worth including in an article about Leyland.

• Probably not. Cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• It might be worth mentioning that the 1928 Tests were the West Indies' first, and that the matches were not considered of any great account at the time.

• Added a little, but the selectors took the games pretty seriously as preparation for the Australian tour. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's not quite right to say that the first five positions in the England batting line-up were settled, since as you say Mead (no. 3 in the first match) was thereafter dropped. The six who held their positions until the final Test were Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Jardine, Hendren and Chapman (not always in that order). A little rephrasing, perhaps.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• In discussing Chapman's motives for standing down from the 5th Test, it might be worth including that England were 4–0 up in the series at the time. Australian readers may wish to be reminded of this.

• Done. Always happy to cater to our Australian readers, particularly given upcoming events... Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Test regular

• The match was against Oxford University, not Oxford

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I am slightly unhappy with the wording "left-handed googly (wrist spin) bowling". First, I thought the left-handed equivalent of a googly was called a "chinaman". Secondly, the wording suggests that googly and wrist spin are one and the same thing. I don't have this Cardus book; can you check exactly what he said?

• I took out the mention of wrist spin; Cardus merely mentions the googly, that was my mistake (and I'm none too sure why I put it in). The term "chinaman" was not in use at this time, so he didn't call it that. There was a little more he said (I think about Roy Kilner), but I don't have the book to hand, and I can't check it for a day or two. I'll have another look when I can check the book. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just to confirm, Cardus said that Leyland was "trying his fingers at a 'googly'", and that Kilner had predicted that "left-handed 'googly'" bowling was going to be the next big thing. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• When you say: "hit his highest score against Lancashire" do you mean the highest score of his career, his highest score of the season, or his highest against that particular county?

• Clarified. (And if Tim is still watching, it's always good to highlight performances against Lancashire!) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Likewise, does his "best bowling performance" refer to his career or just to the season?

• Clarified. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's the rest

Bodyline tour

• "but was not selected for any of the three-Test series between England and New Zealand." The words "any of" are awkward in this phrasing. Suggest omit, or rephrase "for ant of the Tests in the three-match series between..." etc

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Try to avoid "...Essex. Essex..."

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say that 102 runs in 6 overs is unusually fast scoring for any period.

• Removed qualification, but I see you are not a huge Twenty20 fan! (And I have to agree...) Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• "In total, he contributed only 45 runs to the partnership". According to the Cricinfo record the stand amounted to 149 runs in all. It might be useful to add this, as otherwise "only 45" is fairly meaningless.

• The 149 runs is mentioned earlier. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Peak years

• "In the game against Leicestershire..." – Yorks played Leicestershire twice in 1933. The match you refer to was the second, at Leicester in August

• Clarified the date, but I don't think the venue is particularly important. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Leyland only played in the first Test" → "Leyland played only in the first Test" – and I would say "his single innings" rather than "his only innings", to avoid repetition of "only"

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• "...but was far more successful in Test cricket". With what is the comparison being made – far more successful than what?

• I have not a clue! Removed now. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• A benefit of £3600 was pretty high for the times, perhaps one of the highest up to 1934? If there are any comparable statistics available, it might be worth mentioning this.

• Hirst had £3700 in 1904, Macaulay £1633 in 1931, £4106 for Kilner in 1925. So it was good, but not a record. Worth mentioning any/all of these? Or, I might be able to dig out a little more on this to compare a little more systematically. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Probably not worth taking time over this unless he information is readily available. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I found a list for Yorkshire players, and have added the relevant comparisons. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• The account of Leyland's performances in the 1936–37 series is somewhat muddled. It mentions his century in the first Test, then jumps to the second innings of the third Test before referring back to the first and second Tests. Then on to the first innings of the third Test – you see what I mean? And his series record of 441 runs at 55.12 is given in the middle of the muddle.

• Hopefully fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Last years as a cricketer

• "...but Wisden commented: "The inclusion once again of Leyland was a move which yielded splendid results."[73] The "but" is inappropriate, as there is no connection with the first part of the sentence. I suggest you remove the "but", then make the sentence beginning "Wisden commented..." the opening sentence of the next paragraph.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• "but this was his final match". Add "for England".

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• "and later as lieutenant". I'd say: "and was later commissioned as a lieutenant"

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Style, technique and personality

• "His bowling was extremely effective at times" – I would drop the "extremely"

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Later life

• "After his retirement from the Yorkshire team, Leyland returned to play for Harrogate until 1950,[94] and then he became chief coach, along with Arthur Mitchell, at Yorkshire in 1950". Needs tweaking, to avoid the repetition of the year 1950.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

General point: you need to check out the red error messages in the references (minor format breaches, no doubt)

Got them. There was a space where there should be none. Sigh. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That is all I have. Well done in making Leyland a little bit interesting (bet you couldn't do that with R.E.S. Wyatt). One interesting thing about Leyland is his evident resemblance to a much later Yorkshire hero, Darren Gough. At least, I can see it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I know what you mean about Gough (or I may just be humouring you to keep a good reviewer happy!). I don't find Leyland too bad. Wyatt is on my list and is perhaps a more interesting story than he was a personality. My personal low would be Phil Mead, about whom I would find it hard to say anything interesting. Thanks as ever for the review. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I await Wyatt with interest...zzzzzz Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

---