Wikipedia:Peer review/September 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.

---

Abul A'la Maududi

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the last review was in 2007, and it has come a long way since then. This page is part of WikiProject Islam, and one of the tasks is uplifting the quality of Muslim Scholars articles.

Thanks, Fasi100 (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Ugetsu

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this film is regarded as a cultural milestone, and I feel the article is in need of improvement.

Thanks, Slowends (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori back from the dead? He started the last PR asking for "improvement," ending it with a new paragraph and "Thanks,". Ribbet32 (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely JoshuSasori. Blocked (again). People more familiar with peer review than I am can decide what to do with this request. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I noticed that Slowends was JoshuSasori back in May. Under one of my alternate accounts I asked the community to deal with it on that account's user page three days ago (I had been encouraged to retire, and didn't see any more reason to keep the info to myself). The page got deleted as an attack page. (>_<) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As the nominator is blocked and therefore unable to respond to reviewers, I don't think this article will get many review comments. Probably best if it's closed and reopened by another editor willing to take responsibility for it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association Awards 2012

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this for peer review because, based on my understanding of the Featured List criteria and a review of similar awards lists with Featured status, I believe it is a good candidate. Since this will be my first Featured List nomination, I am hoping for feedback that will lead to a smooth nomination process. - Dravecky (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Dravecky (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Paul Henderson

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A Canadian hero who scored one of the most important goals in ice hockey history. I'd like to take it to FAC at some point soon, but suspect it needs a good once over for prose quality beforehand. Thanks, Resolute 01:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC) I'm going to give a few comments, may come back and add more in the next few days if I have time:

• WP:NUMERAL - five not 5
• "Played at the height of the Cold War, the series was viewed as a battle for both hockey supremacy and way of life." -- I know this might be expanded upon within the article, but I'm not sure about this statement.
• "He scored the game-winning goals in the sixth, seventh and eighth games, the last of which has become legendary in Canada and made him a national hero." goals or goal?
• "They married in 1962, and though Henderson had the opportunity to play professional hockey by that time, he considered giving up the game to become a history and physical education teacher." - I think this needs to be reworded, doesn't read particularly well.
• I think you should be a little weary of jargon, even with wiki-linking, it may be good to try and either reword it, or explain it (on occasion, not all the time). For example the statement " In his second, he took a slashing penalty on his lone shift." is really full of jargon. Taking a penalty? I know you linked slashing penalty, and earlier linked shift, but even so, this may be over-doing it for some readers who have only passing familiarity with ice-hockey.
• "Henderson estimated that he took nine penalties in minutes in less than 20 seconds of total ice time over the two games." -- this is another example, it's probably worthy of expansion (unless his estimate is way-off) anyway.
• "Failing to make" -> "After failing to make" ?
• Link the first use of "tie" - just to be sure, most people probably know what it means, but much of the world would use "draw" in this situation. On second thoughts it's probably unnecessary, but maybe worth considering.
• "Playing healthy in 1970–71, he scored 30 goals and 60 points was the most of his NHL career" - prose

I'm going to leave it for now. Pretty happy with what I've read so far. Pretty interesting and can't see any glaring problems! I'm not an expert and prose, but this seems pretty good. I notice that you cite Henderson's book a lot. I haven't done any spot-checks on refs yet, but you may want to avoid citing anything controversial, or other than clearly his opinions. It may be nothing, but then it may be something. Anyway - enjoyed the read. - Shudde ^talk 11:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the positive feedback! I will look to address the points you raise soon, though I think some of the issues with jargon are unavoidable given the nature of the topic. Cheers! Resolute 13:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed most of these. A couple - mostly on terminology - I'm going to think on for a bit. Thanks! Resolute 23:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

More:

• "Canada had long been held at a disadvantage in international tournaments as its best players were professionals in the NHL and therefore ineligible to play at the World Championship and Olympic Games while European teams masked the status of their best players." -- This statement could probably be refined, probably no need for "in the NHL", and I'm not sure "masked" is the best term. I'm guessing you are referring to boot-money (a footballing term) or something. Maybe a note at the end of the sentence to clarify what you mean by masked. May also be better to find a more recent reference, especially if discussing amateur/professionalism at the time.
• "causing Hockey Canada to withdraw the nation from all international competition in 1970." -> maybe "causing Canada to withdraw all international competition in 1970." -- not really sure mentioning Hockey Canada is important
• "At the same time" was this Summit a result of them withdrawing from international competition, or would it have been arranged regardless?
• "between the world's two greatest hockey nations" -- may want to be careful here. Can this be quantified? Even including a quote from the reference, or a note or something to placate any readers whose ears may prick up at a statement like this.
• "Canada lost the fourth game, 5–3, and were jeered by the fans in Vancouver as Team Canada headed to Moscow for the final four games with a 1–2–1 series deficit." -- close repetition of Canada; maybe try rewording
• "In the first game at Moscow" in Moscow?
• "two-handed slash" -- I'm guessing this is like the slashing penalty that is linked earlier in the article. Maybe this can be reworded to be more descriptive/explicit?
• " It was also viewed as a battle between contrasting ways of life; of western freedom vs. Soviet communism." -- I think this should be worded more carefully. The article you cite does a good job ([1]), there was an ideological element to the series, on top of the usual jingoism that would accompany an event such as this. I think it's worthy of expansion. For example who viewed it this way? Was it promoted in this way by the media, politicians, players?
• "but the Soviets led after two, 5–3, and made it known that if the game ended in a tie, they were going to claim victory in the series as a result of scoring more goals." -- I think you're missing a "goals" in there. Also how did they make it known they'd claim a victory if the series was tied since the game had already started?
• All up, despite my comments above, I think the Summit Series section is done very well!
• "Henderson signed the contract, though he later regretted doing so before completing his term with his NHL club." -- this doesn't read quite right, but I can't put my finger on why
• " An angered Ballard never forgave Henderson, and never spoke to him again" -- I think you're going to have to find an additional source other than just Henderson himself for this statement.
• "Following a 24-goal campaign to end his tenure with the Maple Leafs" -- this isn't quite clear. Do you mean a season where Henderson scored 24 goals?
• "He signed a two-year contract with the Flames on the promise that he would stay in Birmingham unless the team needed his services as a result of injury to other players" -- does this mean that he would not travel with the team, but only play when they had matches in Birmingham?
• " a role player" -- what is this?
• " the team ceased operations during the season" -- it's the "during the season" I don't understand. Do you mean mid-season?
• "It was the most famous goal in Canadian hockey history" -- was or is ?
• see WP:CURRENCY – you have a few currency figures throughout the article, and it's not always clear if they're in US or Canadian dollars
• "He became health-conscious, an attitude which saved his life in 2004 when a blockage in his own heart was discovered." -- his attitude save his life? Is this meant to imply that had he not been as careful with his health he would have died due to heart disease?
• He was diagnosed with cancer in 2009, what is the status of the disease now?

I haven't checked the references. Was an interesting read, especially the second half of the article. The Summit Series section was well done, and the Legacy and Personal life sections were also well done. Hope my comments have been helpful. Good luck improving the article; it's already in very good shape! – Shudde ^talk 04:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Your comments are most helpful, thank you! Resolute 14:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • And most of these dealt with. The Currency issue is tough because the sources simply don't differentiate. I can assume that most currencies are Canadian dollars, but I can't say with any certainty. Resolute 23:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    

---

U.S. Bank Center (Milwaukee)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what can be done to bring it up to A or GA status

Thanks, Zonafan39 (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Some general comments from Ruby2010

I see that this has been sitting uncommented for a while, and thought I'd add my two cents. :) (I lived in Milwaukee for a few years).

• I recommend breaking up the first sentence in the lead
• Make sure all sentences have reliable sources (I see that this is currently uncited: The visible trusses at the top of the building near the U.S. Bank sign are also sometimes lit in appropriate colors to signify events such as holidays. In the week leading up to the 2007-08 NFC Championship Game they were lit in green and yellow in tribute to the Green Bay Packers. This was done again during the week leading up to the Packers appearance in the 2010 NFC Championship Game on January 16, 2011 in Chicago.)
• Topped off August 29, 1972 -> Topped off on August 29, 1972; also, is "topped off" the right phrase to use here? It sounds a bit colloquial (but then again I know next to nothing about architecture!)
• I noticed the lack of a reception section (how is it viewed by architects? the general public?) I'm not sure if this is a typical section for architecture articles though
• Use {{Template:Press release}} for Ref 25
• No dab links but I noted one deadlink

This doesn't seem that far off from a GA. I would solicit the advice of someone from WP: Architecture if you like, or you can just see what the GA reviewer has to say. Ruby 2010/2013 21:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, you have been very helpful. Zonafan39 (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

---

2008 UCI Track Cycling World Championships – Women's scratch

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because in the last year I expanded the article and I think it's now quite complete and may become a GA. However, I'm not native English and I'm not sure whether the article is good enough for a GA, so I think a peer review might help.

Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Family Guy (season 4)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to know if the article Family Guy (season 4) could make it as a featured article and/or Good Article as Family Guy (season 1).

Thanks, Blurred Lines 18:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• British vs American? Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), modeling (A) (British: modelling), programme (B) (American: program). -(t) Josve05a (c) 16:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Dead links. The article has 5 dead links. -(t) Josve05a (c) 16:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  

---

List of Hammond organs

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This list was recently split from Hammond organ as that article was getting too long and cluttered. In my view, it's reasonably close to being factually complete. I'd quite like to put it up as a featured list candidate, but I've never done one before, so I'm putting the article up for Peer Review first to see what needs to be done. We don't have many musical instrument FLs, so it would be nice to get another one. AFAIK everything is correctly sourced, my main concerns are that the lead is a bit short and not all the entries have free images. Advice welcome. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Port of Paulsboro

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it appears to be comprehensive and well-ref'd. Will continue to grow as port itself does. An outside, objective review for quality might catch things missed and further improve quality/rating. Djflem (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, Djflem (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly include picture of artist rendition of completed omniport. Consider adding info box for omniport, similar to Port of Wilmington (Delaware). Fill in with info as it becomes available prior to official opening.Wondering55 (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

---

List of Golden Martín Fierro Award winners

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for featured list, and I tried to make it similar to similar featured lists (such as the daytime emmy awards featured lists), in the issues that may be applicable. Still, I would like to know if there is something that I may have overlooked.

Thanks, Cambalachero (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have some comments like you requested:

• Remove the bolding in the title, per MOS:BOLDTITLE, unless you begin with "This is a list of...", which would not be acceptable.
• I believe "twince" is a misspelling?
• You need more content in the lead, if you can find any. But more importantly, you need the cite the statements you make in the lead.
• Because there is only really two tables, see if you can write some stuff above the table under each section explaining how each table is organized and describing any special circumstances. See List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film as a pretty good example.

Good luck. --haha169 (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Botany

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because 4-5 of us editors have been working hard for a couple months to make this key article as good as we can. We hope to receive good feedback here in hopes of eventually reaching featured status.Thanks, 512bits (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by Praemonitus: It's a decent article, although I found quite a few sentences that appear in need of copy-editing. Overall it varies widely in difficulty, ranging from fairly easy reading to more dense technical text. A more even comprehension level would be preferable, and would perhaps make the text more engaging. Here's a few other points that stood out for me:

• Technical terms that lack a link at first use: evapotranspiration, stomatal aperture, photosynthesis, genome, monoecious, sporophytes, tetraploid, hexaploid, diterpenes, acetyl CoA, methionine, and phytohormones. The first use of 'stomatal' should be linked.
  • Linked stoma. Did NOT do other items.512bits (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, well if you decide take it for FAC, then you'll need to satisfy the style guidelines, including MOS:JARGON. I could live with links, but some would prefer that you explain the jargon. If you do neither, then your FAC may fail. Praemonitus (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
      • OK, did the ones I could find, could not find stomal aperture 512bits (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I think it is sorted - stomatal redirects to stoma Plantsurfer (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Quite a lot of work has been done to link technical terms and soften language. Does this still need more attention, or has it been dealt with?? Plantsurfer (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• "...studied by mycologists, phycologists and botanists, respectively, and these groups remain...": I'd suggest inserting the 'respectively' here for clarify.
  • Done. 512bits (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Botany originated in prehistory as herbalism..."
  • Done. 512bits (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• "The spice trade was of great economic and political importance during the Middle Ages, driving world exploration. Medieval physic gardens, often attached to monasteries, contained plants of medical importance.": how are these connected to botany? The first sentence isn't mentioned in the article body.
  • I've removed the first sentence for now, as it wasn't in the body. In the body I've noted how medieval physic gardens were forerunners of university botanic gardens (at least according to the source used in the article). Peter coxhead (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• "...new techniques were developed for the study of plants, including new methods...": both uses of 'new' are redundant here. Likewise with "...exploited the new techniques of...".
  • Done 512bits (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• The 'Early botany' section is inconsistent about identifying the name and profession of the various individuals, particularly in the last paragraph.
  • Done. 512bits (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• "...had arrived in Europe from newly discovered countries and the European colonies worldwide and a larger number of plants available for study...": multiple 'and's make this unclear. Perhaps change second 'and' to ', making'.
  • changed512bits (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Botanical guides from this time were sparsely illustrated": this observation seems out of place. Please try to fit it in the context.
  • Ihave removed this sentence for now. It point is not clear, and it looks like a non sequiteur. Plantsurfer (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• "...life cycles quickly led to the realisation...": 'quickly' here is vague and unnecessary since dates follow.
  • changed 512bits (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• "...later classification by Bentham and Hooker...": who are these people?
  • Done. Linked the individual authors and their system. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• In the 'Early modern botany' section, the last two sentences of paragraph two appear incongruous and seem to belong in the next section. The last sentence is also unsourced.
  • Good points. I have moved these sentences to the end of the modern botany section. The unreferenced second sentence you refer to is now sourced in the following sentence. Is this adequate?? Plantsurfer (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• "...impetus for the concept of plant community, succession, community change, and energy flows": this sentence throws multiple concepts at the reader that aren't well explained. I think it fails in its objective.
  • I have copy-edited this in an attempt to improve it. Please feedback. Plantsurfer (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• "(a minor constituent of the atmosphere and an important greenhouse gas)": this sentence is mostly irrelevant to the context, so it seems political in origin. Climate change is already mentioned further on in a more appropriate context.
  • I agree. I have removed that phrase and copy edited the paragraph.Plantsurfer (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Botany includes both the internal functions...": the wording doesn't seem quite right. It might be better to begin the sentence with: Botanists examine...
  • Changed512bits (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed further with minor tweaksPlantsurfer (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• "When this kind of study is turned to the investigation of plant-people relationships in past times, it is referred to as archaeobotany or paleoethnobotany": The tense of this sentence appears improper.
  • Copy-edited. I hope I have managed simplify the construction and improve clarity. Plantsurfer (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• "...directly from the plants": 'the plants' should be just 'plants'.
  • fixed.512bits (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• The 'Plant biochemistry' section is almost entirely about the beneficial products of plants. Was this the intent?
  • No. This certainly needs more work to summarize primary metabolism.Plantsurfer (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Done now, I think. I have added in sections on photosynthesis and other unique aspects of plant biochemistry. Plantsurfer (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• ...to promote outcrossing" <<-- misplaced double-quote mark?
  • Cut.512bits (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• "This is one type of apomixis": this sentence seemed awkwardly placed. In this context I think it should either explain the term or be merged with the previous text.
  • I have copy edited this section in an attempt to make it clearer. Does this address/resolve the issue? Plantsurfer (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• "...giving rise to a number of extinct groups...": now-extinct? Otherwise it appears paradoxical.
  • Done. 512bits (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• "...molecular genetics and epigenetics, the mechanisms and control...": is the second part of this sentence in addition to the first, or is it a clarification?
  • Clarification. I changed the wording a bit.512bits (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Another remarkable work from Ancient Greece...": 'Another' is redundant; 'remarkable' seems unencyclopedic.
  • Cut.512bits (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Examples of elements that plants need to transport are nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and sulphur from the soil, transported in the xylem and sucrose produced by photosynthesis, which is transported in the phloem and plant hormones, transported by a variety of processes.": this sentence is pretty confusing at first. It is mixing elements, compunds and transport mechanisms in an unclear manner. Please rewrite it.
  • I have copy-edited this section extensively. I hope it addresses the issues.Plantsurfer (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Few plants live in stable unchanging environments": this represents a change of topic and should probably start a new paragraph.
  • Done 512bits (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed. But opening a new paragraph with it is only part of the problem. This looks like an orphan sentence that hopes to lead a topic, but in fact generates no useful information. I have removed it for now.Plantsurfer (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Per WP:SEEALSO, some of the 'See also' links should instead be linked in the article. Flower, Tree, Plant community appear unlinked in the article. Seed, Botanical garden, and Evolutionary history of plants are already linked in the article so they can be removed from here.
  • Done 512bits (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• The Porley and Hodgetts (2005) should be given the same format as the Renner and Ricklefs (1995) and other journal citations.
  • Done. 512bits (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Some of the journal articles could be linked:
  • Morgensen (1996) has JSTOR 2446172
  • Savidan (2000) has doi:10.1002/9780470650158.ch2
  • Schell and Van Montagu (1977) has PMID 336023
  • Sobotka et a (2000) has PMID 11471754
  • Sprague (1939) has doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.1939.tb01598.x
    • Did all those journal links.512bits (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope this was helpful. Praemonitus (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thank you. I'll start working on them. 512bits (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, very helpful and constructive. Please keep kicking (when you have time) until we get it right. Plantsurfer (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding 'epigenetics', the lead calls it one of the 'Dominant themes in 21st century plant science'. However, it does not appear to be covered in the 'Molecular genetics' section. Does it deserve a paragraph or two? Praemonitus (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Done, but it's rough right now. I'll ask Plantsurfer to improve that section.512bits (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Done - seems OK to me now. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
      

---

Tiruchirappalli

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to take this to FAC in the near future. It's been almost two years since the article passed GAN and it already underwent a PR before the first FAC was archived. Issues raised during the previous nomination were addressed. However, from an FAC perspective I might be missing a lot. I would like to get some constructive comments before advancing further. Thanks —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at this later in the week, but offhand I've noticed that all of the books are in italics, even publisher names. Only the title should be italicized. I'd place all of the books at the bottom and only use sfn page notes for the notes, something like William Burges. Personally I'm not a fan of digit access dates either but to my knowledge that isn't compulsory. I also I think more than just a paragraph in Art, society and culture should be dedicated to architecture/cityscape, my biggest requirement for a city article is a comprehensive coverage of notable things like palaces, museums, temples, churches, monuments etc as they make up the city itself. I'd like to see a sizable section documenting it in a little more detail. I'd split Society from Art and culture and simply name it Culture and then move architecture to its own section. I'd also move Transport nearer the bottom. Also I can't see anything on healthcare.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably part of the Administrative section, starting with "The Lok Sabha seat" to "in the 1998 and 1999 elections", could go (all references 177 to 189), and Kumaramangalam could be mentioned under a separate section under the List of notable people of Trichy. I have referenced ref 2 now correctly. It should be "Sfn" and not 'sfn'. I will do more editing as I go along.--Nvvchar. 16:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is the prescribed url User:Ucucha/HarvErrors for harv referencing with Sfn.--Nvvchar. 18:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• First, it's great to see a city article getting readied for FAC. Wish you all the best!

I have not yet read anything in the article. Just scrolled from up to the end. The"look" is kind of ok, except that there may be some relatively short paragraphs, however those can be addressed much later. First question, are you confident about all the references? Have you checked/cross-checked all those? In the fac, you can expect a random spot check. A few wrong results would be harmful. By wrong, I mean either the sentence is not supported by the ref, or, close paraphrasing. So, even before going on to detailed review, I'd ask how much familiar are you with the article? Yes it's important to be completely familiar with the article, since city articles are large in size. Also, I see there is a mixture of sfn and regular citation style. This is not an error. But it would be best if you use sfn for all book/printed sources, while regular ref style for online sources.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Being the second major contributor, I'm very much familiar with this article. However, I was not much into content addition during the GA—FAC 1 period. It was solely expanded by User:Ravichandar84, who seems to have retired now. Though I've not checked each and every source, I trust Ravi. Everything will be checked before submitting the article to FAC. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Mention the approx time of Ptolemy.
  •  Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Mention the approx time of the Kallanai dam building, or, the reign of the king who built it.
  • It's mentioned in the article that it was built by Karikala Chola. Time added —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• " demise of Pallava" is probably not the best usage.
  • Replaced with "downfall" —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• a descriptor for Malik Kafur would help. Who was he?
  •  Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• the victorious armies of Delhi sultanate... ravaged the kingdom. Which kingdom?
  •  Done The whole of Madras presidency, which included the present day Trichy —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• so, the Chanda Sahib who was captured in 1741 by Maratha defeated the Carnatic Nawab Wallajah in 1751? And where was Wallajah based prior to this defeat?
  •  Done Ambur, a place in the province of North Arcot. He was defeated at the Battle of Ambur by Sahib. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• between Wallajah restored to throne and Nanjaraja attacking Trichi, perhaps it would be easy to understand if you can explain the role of East India company. The Company was protecting the city?
• TipuSltan's attack needed in a stalemate. What exactly was the stalemate in this case? The city was prevented from attack, but Tipu was actually not stopped?
  •  DoneHe was indirectly stopped from attacking the city as he was closely followed by the British army led by William Medows. Considering the strength of the opponent Tipu was forced to withdrew his attack. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• the sentence describing the annexation of Carnatic kingdom by British is not clear. By British, you mean East India Company, right? Also, Madaras government was British? Nawab at the time... Of where?
  • Can you be more specific about which one needs clarification? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I think it's well explained. After finding out the secret communications between Tipu and the Nawab, the Britishers decided to take over the territory. Yes Madras government refers to British, and Nawab refers to Nawab of carnatic. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• any other important things in history during independence movement, or, in the independent india? Any significant recent history?
  • They are explained in the sub page. Do you want to include all those here? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Subpages may have further details. In this article we definitely need summary. Post-independece, nothing is mentioned in the current form. Regarding other points, those atre for clarification only; if not clarified, those may hault easy reading.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done I've added a few stuff. Still think it needs further expansion? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• the older part of the city situated within the fort... What fort?
  •  Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• the penultimate paragraph in Geography and climate does not read very well. Some info is actually better suitable elsewhere. For example, the drinking water supply suits in Utility services.
  •  Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• population data needs the year of census.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Demography section is in need of copy edit. Too many use of " total", pure structural error (the literacy rate sentence), what is the relationship between the South railway headquarter and Anglo-Indian population?
  • A large number of Anglo Indian people were employed in the Southern railway. Trichy was once the head quarters of the Southern railway during which a lot of people from the community came and settled here for employment. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • That needs to be explained in the article. Why were Anglo-Indians associated with railway?
      •  Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• what is meant by "traditional Chola heartland"?
  • Rephrased. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• home to film artists? Does the city have studios etc?
  • No, it does not have nay studios. However, film fraternities like MK Thyagaraja Bagavadhar, S. A. Ashokan, Ravichandran and musicians like Trichy Sankaran hail from the city. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • So, you mean "hail from" or birth place; not necessary their workplace. Need to be specific about that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
      •  Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Jallikattu tournament probably needs some elaboration.
  •  Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• second paragraph of culture seems hotchpotch. It says the festivals, then crafts, then tourism, then reason for lack of tourism. Too many themes, it seems.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The "heading" of the section explains. There is not much to say in detail about everything in this section. Anything specific ideas? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Brahminical culture" currently leads to "Brahmin". So, need to explain, even if in short, what exactly is Brahminical culture. Indeed I am curious to know what it is.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Added the corresponding link from Wiktionary. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    

---

 Doing...

Northampton

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd love for this to reach GA status. Could you give us a few tips? :)

Thanks, StJaBe (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Ugog Nizdast

• I've noticed that some of References are not fully formatted, use google books citation generator.
• Minor issues about content
  • Don't think the term 'regeneration' should be used in the lead, consider removing the piped link.
  • Can you clarify "it lies on River Nene"?
  • The town was also the site of two medieval battles in 1264 and 1460. Again, remove the piped links for these dates and put the name of the battle instead.
• For improving it to a good article, consider referring to these examples at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Geography_and_places#Europe.

I will do a more in-depth review if you are ready. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your great feedback already! The references are the weakest part about this article! Tidied up the Google Books ones; will get on the other ones. I think the mention to regeneration is fine as it, though I have removed the link. How should I clarify its location on River Nene? In terms of the battles, both were called the "Battle of Northampton"... wouldn't it feel a bit superfluous to say, The town was also the site of two medieval battles, the Battle of Northampton (1264) and the Battle of Northampton (1460), instead of retaining how it currently is? Thanks a bunch already! I can't wait to improve this article! :) StJaBe (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

More...

• A common problem in these type of articles: the word 'Northampton' is mentioned excessively, (Northampton is ...Northampton palace...battle of Northampton...Northampton also has). Consider reading the article once more and substituting wherever necessary.
• Comparing with GAs like Christchurch, Basingstoke and Birmingham,

• History section needs to be trimmed, or made into separate article if you have the resources, currently I see it relying heavily on reference 1 (British history.ac.uk) If there are no sources, trimming it seems like a good idea given the size of the article. I would also recommend renaming the sub-section titles for example, "modern" does not seem apt, since it describes 16th century as well as present.

• The 3rd para under sub-section "Ancient", "Following Danish invasion...whose territory extended to the River Welland", lacks any link and explanation about who and which place was conquered (Vikings?)
• "Medieval" sub-section especially can be trimmed, also I see two unsourced paras.
• "Modern" too, Stuff like Daniel Dafoe's quote seems trivial (no offence, I like the actor) Still, there's a lot that can be trimmed. Again, it seems to rely heavily on Andrew, Martin: Northampton The Francis Frith Collection, 2002.

• Some more sections that are weakly sourced; they can be trimmed down or split into separate articles like in other GAs.

• Northampton#Administration has some paras which are unsourced. (mainly 1st and 3rd sub-topics) There must be some refs from the main articles which it summarises, if I'm not mistaken.
• Northampton#Leisure, Northampton#Entertainment, Northampton#Sport Northampton#Media, Northampton#Notable_buildings and Northampton#Transport.

• Some section titles can be renamed. The "Leisure" and the "Entertainment" section can be merged I think, even the "Notable buildings" be under them. Refer to the GAs for better ideas.

• Consider checking them inlines, they seem excessive at some places, an overkill. A good guideline regarding inline citations: put them only for figures, big claims and at the end of each paragraph. Many piped links here are a bit...unnecessary. According to manner of style for links, we follow "the principle of least surprise". For example, see this edit I made.
• The list of notable residents seems to be swelling, as I mentioned above it needs to be a separated article. Even needs refs, see WP:NLIST.
• "Sister towns" needs citations too.

Final -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

When these have been answered, you can ask me again and I'll try to write some more suggestions. Also you can post this at the WP:GOCE for it to get copy-edited by a guild member.

Comments by Keith D Just a couple of minor points on references section

• The Harvard style links, such as "Leleux (1984)" do not appear to have the full details given where the link can go to.
• I would standardise in the date format usage in the references section, either day first or ISO format rather than the mixture that is currently used.

Keith D (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Squall Leonhart

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to try and get this article up to FA status. I'm looking for anyway to improve the article before it goes for an FAC.

Thanks, Bailo26 12:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is looking pretty good. The lead needs a brief intro to the reception section. Other well written Final Fantasy articles like Cloud Strife, Kefka Palazzo and Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) have leads that try to summarize every section and could be used as models. Further information about the voice actors would also be helpful. FA reviews might ask for another image too. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

With the help of a few others (and yourself), is there anything else that can be done to further enhance this article? I could find nothing where David Boreanaz says anything about playing Leon. --Bailo26 3:19 am, Today (UTC+1)

---

 Doing...

Grace Poe

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi, everyone. I'm submitting this article for peer review as I have been working on the topic for a few months now, essentially growing this article to its current size, and continuing to grow it in preparation for an FAC nomination which I hope to submit in August. I hope to solicit some feedback here prior to proceeding with FAC, and I will really appreciate it if I can get feedback.

Thanks and I hope to answer all your responses. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Ugog Nizdast

Since I'm totally unfamiliar with this topic, excuse my mistakes and silly questions. My suggestions are in terms of making it simple for our global readers. I think the main issue here is, it reads like a hagiography, lets see what can be done. Great work in writing this article and expanding it so far.-Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Initial glance

• Currently, there isn't a proper first para since in the lead; it needs to establish context, telling everything important about the topic, her achievements and her current status. The rest of the lead just summarises the article, which you have already written. (read this from WP:LEAD)
• Here are some suggestions to improve wording, take these as examples and apply it to the rest of the article.
  • "Valencia was also friends with Fernando Poe, Jr. and Jesusa Sonora (Susan Roces), who were newly married at the time. In particular, Valencia was a big fan of Roces,"-> Can this be made more simpler? I'm thinking weeding out the unnecessary information and restructuring the sentence. I've marked the terms which can be removed and replaced with more encyclopaedic words.
  • "... originally was hesitant letting Poe and Roces adopt the baby because she was not familiar with them, having entrusted the baby to Valencia, but was convinced by Jaime Sin, then serving as Archbishop of Jaro, to let the couple adopt her."-> This sentence is too long, chop it onto two sentences and arrange the commas, very confusing when read for the first time.
  • "as a form of silent rebellion in order to avoid the possibility of shaming her parents"->Feeling uneasy about the terms used here.
  • "graduating, Poe continued to reside in the United States, with she and her family living a quiet life in Fairfax, Virginia"->Give a better word or remove it altogether, I feel it's unnecessary.
  • woman named Chayong, also known as Sayong?->Seems unnecessary...
  • I didn't understand this term ->graduated from Assumption in 1986?

I will be answering this for now, but I cannot expect to do major work on the article until probably next week, when I expect to get my computer back from the service center. But for now, I'll answer some of the questions which don't require heavy editing.

• The thing here is that there's not that much to summarize to begin with, so I figured that it would be good to spread it out over three paragraphs instead of condensing everything into the first paragraph. I intend to do that when I pull up more information on her senatorial career—something which started only a few months ago.
• I would believe that the Chayong/Sayong line is necessary, as it makes it clear that they are one and the same person. Some sources use the former (including the MMK episode and previous interviews), while other sources use the latter. I'm trying to avoid the possibility of an edit war by stating both of them.
• "Assumption" is Assumption College San Lorenzo, which is mentioned earlier on in that section.

I actually agree on a number of the wording revisions, and I will see them through when I get my computer back. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

When you are done, I'll give in more suggestions as I've only briefly gone through it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Hurricane Liza (1976)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I guess this is a GA of mine that I want to improve. Thanks for any comments. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by Praemonitus

It's a decent read. However, I think it needs a copy-edit sweep for grammar and flow. Although I fixed several issues, it still needs more work. Some of the sentences seem a little terse and could perhaps be joined with neighboring sentences as appropriate. Here's a few specific observations:

• The lead says "...the hurricane made its second landfall north..." but does not mention where the first landfall was made.
• "...and 30 ft (9.1 m) dike": wide or tall?
• "...to configure the damage": what does 'configure' mean in this context?
• "Dozens of scores of huts...": dozens of scores??? More than 120 then?
• There are a number of redundant 'also's present, at least one of which starts a paragraph.
• "...though other authorities estimated...": 'other' than what authority?
• "During the aftermath of the storm, rescue workers searched the La Paz harbor, but had little hope in finding any victims": mixed tense
• "...within 72 hours following the passage of Liza, there was no electricity or fresh water access to survivors": does this mean 'for up to 72 hours?' Otherwise it is somewhat confusing wording.
• "...one ration of food and water within 3 days of the passage...": same problem
• "Subsequently, armed troops guarded gangs of looters that damaged additional homes": wait, what? Is that correct?
• "The nation's president ordered a plan to prevent a recurrence of Hurricane Liza": surely they can't prevent another Hurricane? Perhaps "...to prevent a recurrence of the disaster following Hurricane Liza"?
• The format of the author names is inconsistent in the References section. Some appear as "Emil B. Gunther", while others as "Blake, Eric S". You'll need to choose one style and apply it uniformly in order to pass FAC.
• "Mexico: 5 members feared dead in flood": publication name?

I hope this was helpful. Good luck. Praemonitus (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Mughal-e-Azam

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it has featured article potential and that issues identified here will be more productive and better prepare it at FAC…

Thanks, ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding content, Theme section needs more stuff. There should be more material on themes of the film available.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• I may not be able to edit the article, but there appears to be useful info in this site: [2] ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have used this reference.--Nvvchar. 14:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Info abt the DVD release can be added from here ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

I'm afraid I haven't time to do a thorough review, but here are a few comments that I hope you will find useful.

• General: you need to be consistent in your layout and punctuation of people's initials. Sometimes you use full stops, and sometimes you don't. Sometimes you leave a space between first and second initial and sometimes you don't.
• Lead
  • "Contemporary critics unanimously praised the film" – an impossible claim to prove: how do you know that there isn't one hostile review you haven't seen?
• Development
  • "followed suit" – I'd lose "suit"
  • "They roped in" – slangy – better to say "They recruited"
• Casting
  • "was reluctant towards the idea of acting" – "was reluctant to act"
  • why are "wig" and "twilight" bluelinked? See WP:OVERLINK. No need for inverted commas for twilight
  • There are three "significant"s in this paragraph, which I'd say is two too many
• Design
  • "The film's production design was in a massive scale" – "...on a massive scale"
  • "in 1960[a]),[22] a price" – some muddle over placing of notes here
• Principal photography
  • "Sir David Lean": not Sir at the time in question.
• Music
  • "The lyrics were penned – written?

I'll add more if have time. Best. Tim riley (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tim.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed all issues mentioned above by Tim.--Nvvchar. 14:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

I've made a few tweaks here and there: feel free to revert or tweak, as you prefer. First chunk:

Development

• I've left a {{cn}} tag on one unsupported statement. I'd also add that "the presently-known cast" isn't right and needs a tweak
• "However, Asif and Amrohi had a confrontation" needs re-wording

Design

• "paraphernalia": props?

Principal photography

• "a trilingual of Hindi/Urdu, Tamil and English": missing at least one word after trilingual, as it doesn't make sense here. Alternatively, "film was being produced in Hindi/Urdu, Tamil and English"

More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've made some further minor copyedits, which should be OK, but please feel free to tweak or revert if you feel appropriate. Some further points:

Infobox

• Re-release dates and runtime not needed (see WP:FILMRELEASE) as these can be adequately covered in the body.

Lead

• "a superior dancer" A senior dancer, perhaps? (Superior suggests "better")

Development

• "but the result is often likened to poetry"; verging into WP:peacockery here, and the "often" is not supported by the source. You've shown one source which calls it poetry, so the text should reflect that. I think it would have been stronger if you'd quoted the source too

It is not known how they collaborated or split up their duties, but the Times of India considers the "writers' mastery over Urdu's poetic idiom and expression is present in every line - giving the film, with its rich plots and intricate characters, the overtones of a Shakespearean drama".

Your call if you go down the full quote route here, but you shouldn't be claiming "often" based on one source (unless that source specifically says that the film is often compared to poetry)

• " that business tycoon Shapoorji Pallonji" - > " that the business tycoon Shapoorji Pallonji"

I am not sure that I agree with this, or most of the other 'the's that you added in the text. What is the need? Also, why change theatre to cinema? BollyJeff | talk 01:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not having the definite article when dealing with occupations is journalese. Having it is correct English. This also holds if there are a number of people involved (ie. "the journalist", or "the music director" even if there are numerous journalists or music directors involved). I was under the impression that IndEng followed BrEng in using the cinema to watch films and the theatre to watch plays: if that's not the case, feel free to revert. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get these rules? This guy (a professional writer) says that it is wrong, and should only used for unique occupations: [3]. As for the cinema, you may be right; I am American and we call it theater (er not re). BollyJeff | talk 12:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough if you don't believe me, I'll flash up the bat signal for Tim riley to comment on the use of definite article in these circumstances. I certainly wouldn't take the word of a blog, and especially when he is writing about the journalistic use, which is where the practice has become all too common. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Why can't us Americans and British just get along? :-) How am I supposed to contribute to this site when I have to purposely write everything differently than how I was taught? This "the" stuff just sounds bad; I will never get it. Also, what do you Brits have against the letter "z"? :-) BollyJeff | talk 12:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I know - I have the same problem when writing on American topics - and don't get me started on the different dating styles either! And why do Americans have an obsession in using "z" and not using the letter "u"...? ;) - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not being racist, but I think American English is casual and simplistic, in contrast to British English. And since British English is formal like the people who speak it, its better to follow it on Wiki. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a good example of the wisdom of Wikipedia's WP:ENGVAR rules. When writing about an American subject I write in American English (e.g. Cole Porter, Jerome Kern and H. C. Robbins Landon; when my respected American colleagues and sometime collaborators are writing about British subjects they write in British English (e.g. Neville Chamberlain and Noël Coward). We tweak one another's prose when our grasp of the other's idiom occasionally goes awry. As to the "According to premier David Cameron" construction, I know no British style-guide that countenances it, though I assume the tabloid papers' internal style guides must do, as the usage is common there. In scrupulous British usage it is avoided, but I shouldn't dream of quibbling about it in an American article, as the usage is idiomatic in the US. Horses for courses. What is best for an Indian article is not for me to say. Tim riley (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that this is the "right" way even though many writers in your own country as well as those in America see differently. Anyway, as long as I am writing on these subjects, I will do my best, and let someone else correct it. Concerning what Kailash said... no, I will just let it go. BollyJeff | talk 12:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Casting

• "When the author-backed character": I'm not sure what you're saying here
  • Author backed is an usage in Indian English. This means a role which has a favorable character/outcome in the story, often a meaty role. I guess this usage needs to be changed to some other word.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Post-production

• "over a million feet of negatives" You've already told us about that (in the section above), so remove it from there and leave it here

"A song titled "Ae Ishq Yeh Sab Duniyawale", picturised on Sheila Dalaya, was cut from the film"; firstly "picturised" isn't a word I'm aware of (fair enough if it’s acceptable in IndEng). Secondly, I'm not entirely sure what this is saying, apart from the song being cut.

Yes it is very common in IndEng, meaning that the song played during a scene involving her, or that she lip synched to it. BollyJeff | talk 12:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Themes

• "rendered by Anarkali" -> sung by?

Music

• "handed him a briefcase full of money": this may be true, but comes across as too unencyclopaedic as it stands. Perhaps a tweak to even "handed him a briefcase containing money".
• "a situation which attracted the attention of his surprised wife." Also needs some work here too
• "qawwalis": First mention of this term and no corresponding Wiki article to link to. Could you help the readers out with either a very brief explanation of what it is or (preferably) a stub/start to link to?

It was linked previously in another section. Link again? BollyJeff | talk 12:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• No need to link - my mistake: I missed the previous mention. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• "In the ultimate analysis": is no-one going to analyse the film further, which is what "ultimate analysis" suggests? I'd prefer to see that source who came up with the soul quote named instead.
• "and is often cited as one of the best soundtracks": again you've got one source saying something and are referring to it being "often cited".

Box office

• "A number of sources have stated that Mughal-e-Azam is the highest-grossing": again, only one source saying something does not equate to "a number of": tweak to say that The Hindu states that..."

Done down to the end of Accolades: will finish off later today, all things being equal. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I made notes and a few copy edits last week but didn't post my notes: apologies!

Colourisation

• I'd take out the "However" at the front of the sentence: it's a big no-no at FA nowadays
• "with the total number of frames numbering 300,000": this is a bit cumbersome. Perhaps "with over 300,000 frames"?
• "Additionally, Siddiqui" - > "Additionally" not needed
• "develop a software": - > "develop software"

That's it from me. Drop me a note when it gets to FAC and I'll have another read-through then too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Preservation

As Indian media does not often keep archives, the URL's have a good chance of becoming dead links. Even the popular archiving site WebCite appears close to discontinuation, which makes archiving URL's even more difficult. So I advise the editors to archive all the important URL's used in this article through the Wayback Machine ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wayback doesn't do on-demand archiving. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I discovered how it works — enter a URL in the Wayback Machine search bar, and the site will archive the URL in less than 24 hours. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    • That doesn't work for all sites (several ones I use regularly are not supported) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Crisco review

• pivotal roles - is this proper English? Leading roles is more common
• "often featured ... rioting in certain places." - Unpleasant implication, may want to rework that sentence
• an outstanding Indian movie of all times. - An outstanding, or the most? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Nice plot summary, well under the 700 word maximum. (no changes needed)
• principal wife - Have a link there? (Interestingly enough, in Indonesia there's a similar concept: the permaisuri is the queen, but the king may have more wives)
• M. Kumar - Muhammad Kumar? Do you have his full name?
• Sheila Dalaya as Suraiya, Anarkali's sister - She doesn't feature in your plot summary, might not be worth including here
• Other minor parts were portrayed by Vijayalaxmi, Khurshid Khan, Shah Gul, Jago, Syed Hussain, Khanna, S. Nazair, Khawaja Sabir, Mah Gul, Paul Sharma, Gulam Sabir, Surender, Johnny Walker, Tabassum and Gopi Krishna. - Is this really necessary?

Isn't it helpful?

• Not particularly, especially since they play no other role in the article. BFI can handle that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Imtiyaz Ali Taaj -Worth a redlink?
• Anarkali - Either version notable?
• They recruited four notable Urdu writers to develop the screenplay and dialogue: Aman (Zeenat Aman's father, also known as Amanullah Khan), Wajahat Mirza, Kamaal Amrohi and Ehsan Rizvi. - Notable or noted?
• Chandra Mohan or Chandramohan?
• presently-known cast. - What's this mean?
• However, Asif and Amrohi had a confrontation, - had a confrontation sounds really unnatural
• The role of Anarkali had previously been offered to Suraiya. - such a minor note, should be worked in with another sentence
• To get into the skin - not encyclopedic
• Jalal Agha - who was he?

The one who played yourg Salim, as described in cast section.

• Not what I was asking. You're telling us "so and so" was an actor, singer, etc. Any biographical information on this one? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• on a massive scale and expensive, - doesn't sound natural
• dress designers Makhanlal and Company --> dress design firm Makhanlal and Company
• Jaipur cavalry, 56 Regiment or Jaipur cavalry, 56th Regiment? Notable?
• http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/151890/Mughal-E-Azam/credits - what makes this reliable? It's not from the NY Times proper, but likely user submitted or from AllFilm

Interesting to know, thanks. Of course, then the question becomes where to find reliable sources for film cast and crew?

Try this page at the BFI. Most of the main cast is shown and an extensive credit list is there. - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Schro. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, lots of names there, but I noticed that it conflicts with the book source "Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema" as to who were the assistant choreographers, sigh. BollyJeff | talk 01:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• What does the film's credits say? Compare the two with the primary source and use the correct one. If the film doesn't list them, or both sources are wrong, then you can either ignore such a trivial point and not mention the assistant choreographers in the article, or highlight the discrepancy in a footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Credits did not say, so I took them out, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 14:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Kumar and Madhubala - no indication they were dating or married

That sentence is the indication, no?

• It a) comes out of nowhere, and b) is not explicit that they were dating. Readers need at least a little indication. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Ae Ishq Yeh Sab Duniyawale" - standardise italics (songs should not be italicised, so this one is okay, but your earlier ones were off). Make sure you standardise giving translations or not
• How is Jhansi Ki Rani not notable?

It re-directs to an article about a queen, not the film.

• I know that. How is it not notable? Judging by the individuals working on this article, that should have been an article 3 years ago. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Themes section needs better attribution

How so? Doesn't WP:CITEKILL say to not have identical cites in a row?

• Attribution, not citations. "According to John Doe of XYZ College,..." etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Any more discussions on themes?
• not as a boy as depicted in the film. - didn't mention this earlier
• There were also errors in sets, costumes, and music. The Sheesh Mahal, actually the royal bath of the queen, was enlarged and turned into a dancing hall. Music and dancing styles from the 19th century were shown, though the story takes place in the 16th century. - Any way to develop this more? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• such as the Raga Durbari, the Raga Durga, used for "Pyar Kiya To Darna Kya" - Not sure what you're getting at here
• Ustad Bade Ghulam Ali Khan - who's he?
• Standardise capitalisation of song titles'
• It is claimed that the song "Mohe Panghat Pe" was - by who? Also, why the passive?
• It is claimed that the song "Mohe Panghat Pe" was objected to by veteran director Vijay Bhatt, who was not directly involved with the project, since it spoke of the celebration of Janmashtami, an oddity since the song was depicted in the Mughal court. - run on sentence. Also, why passive?
• The premiere was held amidst great fanfare, witnessing - a premiere does not witness
• the entire film industry, - erm, really?
• Bookings witnessed - bookings don't witness
• historical whose - as in the original?
• Contemporary reviews?
• Another observation is that people go to watch Mughal-e Azam not to see the faded hero but to see the grandeur of the film. - that's terrible prose.
• as a tribute to Asif. - had he died by then?
• original running time - how long?
• Significance of Diwali release not clear; is it a time when many people go to the cinemas?
• the film witnessed - films do not witness
• One negative observation made about the colorization of the film is that all characters appear "constipated." - how?
• I think you should check for close paraphrasing; I have a sneaking suspicion about some passages
• fourth film certified for showing in Pakistan - overall, or fourth Bollywood film?
• During the making of the film, when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan visited the sets, - why is this sentence worth having?
• This is a testament to the passion that went into making the film. - POV much?
• Mughal-e-Azam often ranks on lists of top Indian films, such as the 2002 British Film Institute poll of "Top 10 Indian Films", - didn't you deal with this above?

Don't think so. Where?

• "Anupama Chopra included the film in her list of "Top 100 Films", writing "with its powerful performances, thunderous father-son drama and spectacular song-and-dance sequences, Mughal-e-Azam is the apotheosis of the Hindi film form.", for instance.

• Overall I think this needs a go-over from a native speaker of English who is fairly familiar with India; some sentences feel just tortured. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Crisco. I have a couple questions sprinkled in above. BollyJeff | talk 12:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Schrod and Crisco!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think that I have covered most of these points now, except for the complete read through. Maybe later. BollyJeff | talk 03:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's comments

• The film is blamed for creating the myth of Jodhabai as Akbar's wife. Historically, Jodhabai was Jahangir's wife. Should be noted in Historical accuracy. [4].
• Hindu Queen Jodahai Bai: typos
• "the Janmashtami celebrations of Krishna's birth" context missing -> the Hindu god Krishna
• Hindustan -> context. Hindustan = India for a western audience
• Inconsistency: Bahar v/s Bahaar.

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. I didn't add the part about Jodhabai and Salim because the article said that the complainers have "their own version of history". BollyJeff | talk 12:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The soundtrack section is big enough to have its own article now. Do you think it should be separated out or kept together with the film? BollyJeff | talk 12:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel yes. But there are only 2 reviews for the music alone. I feel that at least 3 more music reviews can be added, and when that is done, the soundtrack may look eligible for having a separate article. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Ranbir Kapoor

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a current good article, and I want to take it to the FAC. I would appreciate comments from other users.

Thanks, smarojit ^HD 16:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I know it's difficult to find production info about Indian films, but I just feel that the career section needs more depth if this is to attain FA.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Blofeld. I have included relevant production information in the career section. --smarojit ^HD 04:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Smaro, I will post my thoughts and analysis of the article soon. :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Ununseptium

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to FA. See the comments at the 1st FAC. Basically, please nitpick everything, and help me get it to use as simple language as possible (but not simpler) to avoid frightening off people with what is (or could be perceived as) masses of jargon.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by Praemonitus

Many parts of the article are decently written, but there are a few rough patches. Here's a few specific comments:

• "The Russian team desired to use calcium, an element they could not access...": Shouldn't it say berkelium here? I think the sentence may need a rewrite so it makes more sense.
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• "...natural calcium from the remaining natural calcium": redundant statement. You can probably just snip everything following the first use of 'calcium'.
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Sufficiently heavy nuclei have not been created as of 2013, however, and, in a table of nuclides, these isotopes tend to have fewer neutrons than elements in those island of stability": This sentence is a bit of a head scratcher. Could you do a rewrite or remove it?
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Before the synthesis of ununseptium...": the chain of logic in this paragraph seems confusing to me. Can you try and clarify it?
  •  Done Does this look better? Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• "...effect shown by that the...": 'that the' looks wrong here.
• I don't mind saying that many parts of the Chemistry section went over my head; I don't have nearly enough knowledge of quantum chemistry to review it properly. You might want to request an independent expert review of that section.
• In the References, no 'et al' should be italicized per MOS:Ety. During a FAC, you may also get dinged for inconsistent 'et al' placement.
  • I set up for all cases with 4+ authors the |displayauthors=3 parameter. Does it look okay now?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • All except for Oganessian... (2010). Praemonitus (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• In the 'Bibliography' section, the indentation is inconsistent.
  •  Not done Not sure if this is the right way to do it, but the last three entries are single chapters from the first entry. Double sharp (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay. Praemonitus (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully this brief review is of some use. Praemonitus (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is of use, indeed. Thanks for taking your time.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

---

List of How I Met Your Mother episodes

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in getting this list promoted to Featured List status. I've never gotten anything through WP:FLC before; and I've only tried once, so any help would be appreciated. I realize that a few of the episodes in the list are lacking sources for its viewership; and I am currently hunting down all the sources. All other suggestions would be extremely helpful!

Thanks, haha169 (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The "How I met your mather" of the begining should be both bolded and italic. "...of five friends, Ted Mosby (Josh Radnor) and his friends..." is a bit repetitive, try to reformulate it. The "As of May 13..." sentence is a single-sentence paragraph, try to expand it or move it somewhere else. Is "Pilot" the episde nome, or was it a pilot episode without name? Isn't the "2010s portal" too generic? Cambalachero (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"How I Met Your Mother" should not be bolded, see MOS:BOLDTITLE. What do you mean by repetitive; do you disagree with the parenthesis and the actors? That is a single-sentence paragraph, and I agree it should be incorporated somewhere else. I will definitely keep that in mind. By the time I hope to send this to FLC though, the series should be concluded, rendering that sentence obsolete. "Pilot" is generally the episode name for many sitcom pilots. I honestly don't know why it is in the 2010s portal, but I also don't see anything wrong with that... --haha169 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

---

List of listed London Underground stations

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I developed this list earlier this year, and wonder if it would meet the requirements for Featured List.

Thanks, Edgepedia (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... Here are some of my suggestions and observations:

• At first glance, the title of the list is not easily understandable. I realize that here the word "listed" refers to listed structure, but in a more general sense "listed" could mean being on any sort of list. Have you considered changing the title to something like, "List of London Underground stations that are listed structures"?
• This sentence reads awkwardly: "Early District Railway stations were similar and on both railways the further from central London the station the simpler the construction." I think it would benefit from the insertion of some commas, as well as splitting it into two sentences: "Early District Railway stations were similar. On both railways, the further from Central London, the simpler the construction of stations."
• This sentence is also fairly long and difficult to parse: "The City & South London Railway opened with red-brick buildings topped with a lead-covered dome that contained the lift mechanism that were designed by Thomas Phillips Figgis, such as the Grade II listed station at Kennington." It is ambiguous whether the red-brick buildings were designed by Mr Figgis, or the lead-covered dome, or the lift mechanism (although the last two options would imply a grammatical error).
• Perhaps the list would be improved by including a map of London with the listed Underground stations clearly labelled.
• Overall I quite enjoyed going through the list. It seems to be very well researched with many good sources. The lead is quite well written, barring the wordy sentences I mentioned. I think it is almost good enough to be nominated for Featured List. dllu (t,c) 01:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments:

• I'd prefer "List of London Underground stations that are listed buildings"; Although structures is correct, listed building is the common name (that's where the article is).

Although WP:LISTNAME says that starting with List of is standard practice, this appears to avoided with lists of listed buildings. All those listed at WP:FL have the form Listed buildings in Rivington or Grade I listed churches in Cheshire. Edgepedia (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've rewritten the two sentences you mentioned.
• A map just as you suggest is automatically generated by clicking on the {{GeoGroup}}. Reading the documentation, this belongs at the top, so I'll move it. Edgepedia (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think a title like "Listed London Underground stations" might work also. Perhaps discuss this with people from relevant Wikiprojects.
• The rewritten sentences are much better.
• The map generated by {{GeoGroup}} is quite useful. dllu (t,c) 18:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• A listed list lists a list listedly 176.249.186.180 (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you everyone, I'm closing this now and opening a move discussion to settle the name. Edgepedia (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Harry Glicken

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is nearing an FA level and I'd like some feedback, particularly on the prose and comprehensiveness of the article.

Thanks, ceranthor 04:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

Lead

• General: The lead is a little short, and needs to be extended to provide a more complete summary of the whole article.

Should be a little better now.

• Date rather than year of death should be given in the lead. Is his date of birth unknown?

Nope. I can't find it anywhere.

• "he claimed responsibility for the death of fellow volcanologist David A. Johnston..." That wording reads as though he was taking pride in an achievement. I suggest something more muted, e.g. "he felt responsible for the death..." etc

Fixed.

• You should also avoid the awkward "Johnston, Johnston" combination, e.g. "who had switched with Glicken so that..." etc

Yup.

Life and career

• Consider subdividing, rather than one section covering his life from cradle to grave.

I tried this before, but it didn't flow right... too many choppy sections.

• No details of early life, family background? (Birthplace, where he went to school, etc?)

If you can find it... please let me know! I have no idea where it would be, anyway.

• You should briefly explain why was it necessary to "monitor Mount St. Helens"? (No need to repeat the mountain's name in the same line.)
• What was the nature of the interview that took Glicken away from the volcano?
• "but Glicken was excluded from it..." What does this mean - that he was not allowed into the observatory? Were only PhDs allowed in?
• You say he was "only a student". You mention earlier that he had graduated from Stanford, so where did he continue his studies, and with what eventual outcome?
• "Glicken's offer to conduct his own research was declined". Declined by whom?
• "Glicken attacked his work" – what does this mean?
• "they puzzled together..." – odd choice of verb, and not clear as to meaning
• I think when you say that he "isolated" employees at the Survey, you mean he isolated himself from them. Perhaps better say he "antagonised" them.
• "he became depressed and pulled his hair out." Too glib, as though pulling out one's hair was a natural consequence of depression. And can this literally be true, whatever the source says? A little more detail, perhaps?

It is literally true, but I'll reword it.

• Mention of "post-doctoral studies", but no details given of when and where his doctorate was awarded. I imagine the University of California was involved, because of the plaque, but this needs to be made specific.
• When did he go to Japan? (This whole section is very short on dates, which makes the narrative hard to follow).
• "evacuated near the end of May" - year?
• "Beginning June 2" - year?
• "reaching 2.5 miles" - does this mean travelling a distance of 2.5 miles?
• There's an awkward double use of "remains" towards the end of the section, with distinctly differing meanings. You should find an alternative for one of them, e.g. "Glicken's body"

Volcanic landslide work

• The quotation in the box seems very long; quote boxes should be illustrative rather than exhaustive. You should consider paraphrasing some of this material and incorporating into the text.
• It would be better to begin the section with "One of the foremost experts...", and to re-site the present opening sentence at the end of the first paragraph, preferably with a summary of the dissertation's title. As mentioned earlier, there is some lack of clarity about when and where he studied for his doctorate.
• Second paragraph: "Glicken's report is titled..." - but in the immediately preceding paragraph you refer to his reports on Mount St Helens in the plural: "...are considered the most complete in the field to date and were later published..."
• The report includes "previous publications including that of Barry Voight." - can you explain what is meant here? The rest of the paragraph covers only routine information and barely seems worth including.
• The third paragraph I found quite hard to follow; I wonder if there is too much detail here for the non-specialist reader?

Legacy

• There are tributes here, but no discernible "legacy"
• Maybe you should state earlier, somewhere, that Glicken's rockslide report on Mount St Helens was not published until 1996, five years after his death.

Personality

• I'm not sure that Glicken's personal choice of nickname is notable enough for inclusion. Maybe "he was considered a 'nut' " should be in more formal language. The (presumably) slang term "spacey" is quite unknown to me, and I don't think the examples of quirky behaviour are details for an encyclopedia.

A quick glance at the sources reveals no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. I have a lot to do. Thanks so much! ceranthor 21:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually found a little more material in the Fisher source, so I'll add that soon. ceranthor 22:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought the Google Books edition had everything I needed, but it turns out it doesn't. Once I sort out my Amazon account info, I'll get the book and find it. ceranthor 02:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Wahbi al-Hariri

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… Have made significant updates and improvements; augmented scope and breadth with new information

Thanks, Baronsamedi88 (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Ralph Milne

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like an opinion on how it currently fares to Wiki standards, and any advice on how to improve it.

Thanks, ShugSty (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

- Article reads a little emotionally to me. One eg: third paragraph 'sadly'. Not factual, unbiased. Good read though! Good luck improving the article.

Yeah, I've rephrased that sentence now. Thanks. ShugSty (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

---

John Sherman

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, after a massive expansion, I'd like one of my fellow editors to tell me where it needs improvement. I'll likely submit it for FA afterwards.

Thanks, Coemgenus (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing … comments tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Here is the first tranche, it is a fairly long article about a man with a long public career. Very well written, as always, some picky points:

Lede

• Somewhere in the opening paragraph should appear the word "Senate". Sherman was a six-term senator in an era when that meant something (if you read Jay Bybee's article on the 17th Amendment, it was actually harder to be re-elected senator before 1913.

• I linked it.

• In the infobox, why is the senatorial service wedged between the State and Treasury?

• That's how I found it. Do you think a better arrangement makes more sense?

On consideration, let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "He was one of several brothers prominent in the United States at that time, including " perhaps shorten to "His brothers included …"

• Done.

• "Republican party" Why the lower case?

• Fixed.

• "as a Senator". Probably should be lower case, per MOS, where you are not using it as as a title before a name "Senator John Sherman" or naming the office formally, i.e. "United States Senator"

• Fixed.

Early life

• "Sherman's grandfather" I think you have to disambiguate with a "John" here before Sherman.

• Done.

• The travel of the Sherman ancestors is stated a bit oddly. I am guessing the sequence is England to Massachusetts to Connecticut to Ohio, but it could use a rephrase.

• There was a lot of back-and-forth by Taylor and Charles before the rest of the family moved out. I think it's clearer now.

• " elected by a majority of 2823 votes." I would strike "a majority of", which feels more like a British usage. Same when used later.

• Done.

Kansas

• "the anti-administration" Who was president? And it might be worth mentioning they were for the most part Northerners.

• Done.

House leadership

• "As the Congress would not meet for another year, Sherman and his wife went on vacation to Europe" Didn't the old Congress, of which Sherman was a member, meet on the first Monday in December as per the Constitution?

• I think it's better explained now.

• The word "amendment" is used many more times than it should be in the final paragraph of this section.

• Fixed.

• Did being chairman of Ways and Means mean he controlled the House's agenda, like Thaddeus after him? Might be worth a mention if so.

• Not as far as I can tell. It could be, but the sources don't say so.

• "several weeks of indecisive balloting" Given Sherman was sworn in on the 23rd, it was at most two weeks

• "Several" is from the source but, yes, it's incorrect. Changed it.

Financing the Civil War

• It might be worth a mention that the national bank system survived until replaced by the Fed in 1913.

• Done.

Slavery

• "It passed with overwhelming support in Congress" They did go to some trouble to scrape up the two-thirds in the House.

• Rephrased.

• "Radical Republicans" Needs link and exposition. It should probably be mentioned at some point that Sherman was a Moderate.

• Linked radicals and mentioned Sherman's moderation. Explained radicalism briefly.

• The discussion of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 seems a bit confused. It wasn't an act until it was passed over Johnson's veto and before that point is just a bill.

• Fixed.

• "With Ulysses S. Grant elected to the Presidency in 1869" 1868

• Fixed.

• "The next year, they passed" They? Congress is generally an it. And there's no recent noun to point to anyway to which the pronoun appears to refer.

• Fixed.

End of Part I. More later or possibly the weekend.Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I look forward to the rest. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Next batch

Resuming:

Post war

• "wished that the greenbacks be withdrawn from circulation" Perhaps "wanted greenbacks to be withdrawn from circulation".

• Subjunctive is best avoided, yes.

• "bonds to bonds" ahem

• That's more complicated than a mistaken word, but it looks bad. I clarified. (McCullough wanted to issue interest-bearing notes redeemable in coin; basically bond, but it's better to not call them that.)

I think there's an article on that kind of currency, though it's not really my field.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• " but those still circulating would be redeemable for the high-interest bonds of the war years" this seems singularly opaque.

• I tried to clear it up, but it's a confusing topic. Greenbacks were redeemable for 6% bonds, not coin. Sherman wanted to change it to make them redeemable in 4% bonds, now that borrowing costs were down. Instead, Congress passed a bill for gradual withdrawal of the greenbacks, but those that still circulated were redeemable for the 6% bonds. I didn't want to name numbers, because it's more complex than what I've just said (some war bonds were 6.25% or 6.5%, etc.)

• You should make it clear, rather than just imply, that the Contraction Act passed.

• Done.

• It might also be helpful to mention that we are talking about whether interest on bonds paid for in gold should be in gold, or paper.

• Good point.

Coinage Act

• I am glad to see those coin images put to good use!

• I looked at your coin articles a lot for this one, and our McKinley collaboration.

• Might want to look at Foraker, and Hanna.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• You might want to consult Seated Liberty dollar in the equivalent section (near the end). Some people recognized that silver was getting cheaper and that with the completion of the transcontinental railroad, that trend would continue.

• Will do. Some day, I'd like to do a big article on the gold-silver debate that we can direct all of these articles back to in a "see also".

We should do it together, probably.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's get together on it in November or December, I should have some time.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have about two dozen articles, on politics and coins, all referring the reader to Cross of Gold speech#Background. It would, I think, be better to have an article which treats the subject properly.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Sherman writes that "[a]lthough I was quite active in business ... I do not remember at that time to have ever seen a silver dollar."" Probably should be "wrote". I should also parenthetically add that the dollar coin circulated as little back then as it does today.

• Changed. I guess it was too heavy even then!

• Yup.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The list of legal coins duplicated that of the previous coinage act, leaving off only one: the silver dollar" That can't be right. The last big revisionary act was the act of 1837, at which time the three-cent nickel, nickel, gold dollar, three-dollar piece, and double eagle, all of which survived the 1873 act, had not yet been authorized. And there was no act between them that listed all the denominations being struck, see this very useful book I use a lot in my coinage articles. You can't even say that the 1873 act only eliminated the silver dollar, because that wouldn't be correct either, the two-cent piece and three-cent silver also fell to the 1873 act.

• I forgot the weird ones. I added some things to clarify. I got a new book in the mail this week that might help, too, so I'll check what I've written against that.

• "given the continued circulation of smaller silver coins at the same 16:1 ratio" Sherman's slightly bulshitting here. The half dollar and smaller silver coins were subsidiary, that is, one dollar of smaller coins contained less silver than a silver dollar did after 1853, when the content of those coins were decreased to deal because of high silver prices. Too much gold from California drove up the price of silver. So it wasn't 16 to one, it was a bit higher than that, just over 17 to one. And the seignorage on the silver went to the government, not to the silver producers. Sorry, too much time digging through those numismatic books. But I think the fact that there was an increased supply of silver from domestic sources should be mentioned as a factor alongside the increased demand because countries were going to the gold standard. It was a major factor in governments making that decision, regardless of whether it was in the US.

• I changed it a little to mention increased silver mining. I'm wary of adding too much to an already-long article, but I do want to be clear about this fairly opaque (to modern eyes) topic.

• At the risk of cluttering your article unduly with numismatic items, may I suggest this? I think it illustrates well the difference between what a dollar in silver was worth as a symbol of the government and as metal.

• Could be useful. I'll look at where I could squeeze it in.

• "the entire world to a silver standard" are you sure you don't mean bimetallic? He did not actually propose demonitizing gold?

• Fixed.

Bland-Allison Act

• I don't agree with the way you characterize the act. What the free silver people wanted was to sell the government silver at fifty or seventy cents which was returned to them in the form of a one-dollar coin. What the Bland-Allison Act gave them was a market for their bullion, sold to the government as silver, with the government getting the seignorage from monetizing that metal. Not quite the way you put it.

• I changed and added some to make this clear. This is why I'm glad you're doing the peer review!

:)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Didn't the Tenure of Office Act have something to do with Hayes's inability to sack Arthur et al? Might be worth a mention if so.

• I don't think so, but I'll take a look.

Election of 1880

• There seems to be an implication that 28 ballots took place in one day at the Republican convention. That would be remarkably fast.

• Fixed.

• Finish tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And the last bit.

Resuming with "Further presidential ambitions". Which I think should be "Campaigns of 1884 and 1888"

• "Joseph B. Foraker". Perhaps introduce with "former Cincinnati judge" or "1883 Ohio Republican gubernatorial candidate" and mention he was governor on next mention. It should be established he is an Ohioan prior to his 1892 senatorial bid.

• Done. You and I write about Ohioans a lot, considering neither of us lives there. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "After 1888, Sherman resolved that from then on "no temptation of office will induce me to seek further political honors," and did not run for president again" While that is certainly true, the fact that Harrison, as an elected president of the party, would almost certainly be the Republican candidate in 1892 meant that Sherman would be 73 at the time of the next presidential election with the nomination open.

• Added.

Interstate Commerce

• A mention that the act established the ICC is in order, I think.

• Done.

Silver purchase act

• An additional factor in the rise of silver, even at that point, was a fall in the prices for agricultural commodities, making it difficult for farmers to repay debts.

• Done.

• It might be worth a mention that the Senate was more pro-silver because of the recent admission of several western states, most if not all of which elected pro-silver senators.

• Done.

• You will probably have to put in convert templates for the various quantities of silver.

• Ugh. For the ounces? I'll look into it.

• " The effect of the bill, however, was the increased depletion of the nation's gold supply." I'm not sure that the cause and effect is as clean as suggested.

• It's not, but it seems to be the main cause. This material resists summarization.

• "at the beginning of the year" March 4? Hmmm.

• There is a part of my brain that refuses to remember the Twentieth Amendment.

• " subsequent bond issues replenished supplies of gold" Again, I question whether the bond issues (which were highly controversial; some said they benefited only bankers) really did the trick. A lot of that gold went right back out the door through redemption of paper money or silver dollars, which under the Silver Purchase Act was permitted.

• I've added a sentences to note that, with cite, but not too much, since the Silver Purchase Act is the focus here.

Final years

• "Sherman was elected in 1892 to a sixth term, easily defeating the Democratic candidate in the state legislature, despite an effort to elect Foraker in his place" Given that it took a lot of effort (and, probably, money) for Hanna to get Sherman the endorsement by the Republican caucus, which was the true battle in 1892, I think the emphasis on the vote in the legislature is misplaced. Speaking of Hanna, given his role in securing Sherman's re-election, and as he was not mentioned in 1884 or 1888, he should certainly be introduced here (say "Cleveland businessman" or "industrialist"). It might be worth an explicit mention of Foraker's flirtation with Blaine at the 1888 convention, which divided the party and was a major part of the division of the Ohio Republican party into factions (which made things hot for Sherman in 1892).

• Made this change.

• Perhaps more could be said about Sherman's decision to leave the Senate for the Cabinet. He would have faced a very difficult re-election battle in 1898, even though he would not have faced Foraker (whose election is probably worth at least a footnote to the 1892 battle) and the Secretary of State position was considered very prestigious and a fitting capstone for Sherman's career. A mention of Sherman's age in 1896 might be appropriate, given what is to follow. And it was already well-known that Sherman's mind was starting to go. McKinley didn't believe it, somewhat to his cost.

I mentioned the upcoming campaign being difficult, and that McK thought Sherman sound.

SecState

• "McKinley's plans for Hanna were also troubled, with many would-be Senators also scrambling for Sherman's vacated seat." By the time Sherman vacated his seat on March 4, Bushnell had announced Hanna's prospective appointment which occurred the following day. I'm not sure who these many would-be senators (lower case) are, the only person I am aware of who was seriously considered besides Hanna was Burton, who did not accept it.

• Took out that sentence -- it's not even about Sherman, anyway.

• I think you are being too kind to Sherman. He showed he was no longer up to the job long before April 1898. A mention that Day was an old Canton crony of McKinley and was basically put there to get around Sherman might be in order, and with Aldee (as we said in McKinley) was running the State Department under Sherman's nose.

• It's hard, because the Sherman biographies are both so fawning. I added some more from Gould, who is less kind to the old-timer.

Death and legacy

• Surely the anti-trust act is part of his legacy? It is what he is best remembered for, though I doubt if one in fifty Americans who have heard of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act could give Sherman's first name (I would think the leading guess would be "William").

• Worth a mention.

That's it. Good job. I'll give another run through once you've dealt with these.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm still concerned about overlength. Do you think there are some parts that can be removed without harming the article? I've debated the Chinese immigration section, since it wasn't his bill or anything, but I think it shows an interesting side of the man. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me take another look at it. I'll respond later today, gotta go do some stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I am juggling things while preparing for a trip. I looked it over, I would consider cuts to the ancestry area, the 1859 speakership battle and the postwar financial situation. The rest of it looks appropriate in length. One thing. I would say "bimetallic" rather than "gold and silver" standard, I think the term's widely enough known to want to use.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review. I'm going to leave this open for a few days to see if it attracts any other comments, then list it for FA. Enjoy your trip! --Coemgenus (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, let me know when you nom.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Dota 2

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article has come to an impasse in which it is time to strive for Featured Article status. I created the article and have approached it with scrutiny for nearly three years now, welcoming criticism and constructive contributions, with am emphasis upon the betterment of the page. At this point, I am hard pressed to find glaring issues, so I request that the community approach this in the same lieu of a FAC, letting it be heard what would be hypothetically necessary to make this a reality.

Thank you. DarthBotto _talk•cont 20:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't going to be hugely in depth as these are issues that arose from a skim read on the bus and what I had already been thinking, but here are my thoughts on a few things which need improving:

• Images - I feel there should be more than the 3 currently present, and the two gameplay screenshots desperately need updating. I did upload a newer version of the Dota 1/2 comparison image, but some users ended up reverting it to the old version for some reason or another. A nice addition to the article might be an image of the in-game map to show the general layout.

Looking again, the revert was to do with an overeager bot, and I have now reuploaded a more current version of the comparison image. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Gameplay section - There are 4 sources used in the section and large portions of it are entirely unsourced. It would be good to see more used here.
• Post-release - This section should be written better. As with most articles reviews are simply added to the end of the paragraph as they are published but now that most reviews seem to be out it's probably worth writing a summary paragraph or two on the aspects that were reviewed well/badly.

 Done - DarthBotto _talk•cont 01:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Professional competition - I think this could do with more mention of The International as there have been plenty of articles about it, especially regarding TI3, and they shouldn't just be limited to the TI article in my opinion. A paragraph dedicated to the tournament would fit in nicely I think.

I've now at least started a change in this direction. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to help with these points and will have a look at improving the article in the coming days. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments by David Fuchs

• I think the article has most of the content it needs, but the devil is in the organizational details. Reading the lead, I'm really not sure what's supposed to be the highlights and why other things are being specifically called out in the lead. There's nothing on development there, and there's a lot of stats which, given their non-evergreen nature, I would not recommend specifically calling out there.
• Dota 2 combines the real-time strategy elements of a traditional top-down perspective, while also incorporating the leveling and itemization functions of a role-playing video game. This seems like a poor way to introduce the game to someone who's not played it. Things seem a little out of sorts too, as it details where the player teams are on the map before actually explaining the composition of the map.

 Done - DarthBotto _talk•cont 19:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• If the gameplay section is only ref'd to those few refs, there should be at least be a citation at the end of each paragraph for clarity's sake.

 Done - DarthBotto _talk•cont 19:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• To me the tournaments section doesn't really belong in the same section as the critical reception; I'd make the reception its own paragraph and then the tournaments another one at the end.

 Done - DarthBotto _talk•cont 18:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• The prose is a big stumbling block; there's inconsistent tenses and awkward/unnecessarily complex sentence constructions that make reading through it difficult. When I have time I'll try and do a copyedit but I'd recommend trying to get a more dedicated person. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Re: your comments on my talk page, I am indeed eying those. "It has received significant attention for Valve's world championship invitational tournament, The International, which repeatedly broke the record for having the largest prize pool in the history of electronic sports." sounds awkward, and doesn't really impart the important details--Valve holds large cash-prize tournaments, such as the International, and more general comments on its eSports presence. In the eSports section, definitely mention when The International and International 3 are the top prizes in eSports. Also, I believe you mean to say that Dota 2 has a steep learning curve; the lead actually states the opposite: with praise for the engaging and rewarding gameplay experience, at the expense of a steep learning curve.. "At the expense of" suggests the gameplay came with losing that learning curve. I believe "at the cost of a steep learning curve" would go towards what you mean. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you, it at actually flows a lot better and seems less superfluous without the mention of The International! Would you suggest I keep or heave-ho the following: "The game maintains the record for the most-played Steam title of all time, with its concurrent player base outmatching the top ten most-popular Steam games combined."? DarthBotto _talk•cont 18:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I made some changes. Here are some of them as well as some proposed ones:

Lead

• A mention of the reception of the game's graphics and sound, and also any perceived flaws cited by multiple reviewers (negative reception of a specific element should not be expressed by one critic only, it should be included only if it represents the total feeling of the reviewers).

"Gameplay"

• Video gaming jargon (e.g. hero, boss) and terms found only in this game genre (e.g. lane) should be in quotation marks as they're not considered typical use of the language.
• Excessive gameplay details (e.g. "Allied heroes may also be denied if they are on critically low health and have a fatal spell applied to them", "which allows for a hero to instantly respawn if they are killed") should be omitted per WP:VG/GL and be substituted with a short general description. The source supporting the bit on Roshan's dropped items only mentions the Aegis, so it should be replaced with one mentioning that not only one item is dropped (there're two in total, Aegis and cheese).

Feel free to judge them mercilessly. Hula Hup (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• The gameplay image's caption should be changed into something more specific, as the current one is very vague, I'm afraid. Maybe replaced... I don't know... If I come up with more ideas, I'll let you know. Hula Hup (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The image previously had a bit about its context, but Nczempin removed it, saying that he didn't know how it was illustrated. I was going to revert his edit, but I decided that it was probably an opportunity to replace the image with a newer and more relevant one. I can fix anything with the article, but that image is a bit of a nuisance and I'm a little tripped up on what I can do to replace it. DarthBotto _talk•cont 00:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Keith Moon

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Keith Moon got to GA status in April, and it was remarked at the GA review that the article was a prime featured article candidate when the time was right. With that in mind, I'm putting it up for a peer review to make sure it has the best chance of getting through. Every source that I think has any possibility of being suspicious has been tagged, and I believe most can be replaced. Some editors have been continuously copyediting and generally improving the prose since it passed the GA review. What have we got left to do to get it to FAC?

Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Review from Cliftonian

This looks to be a very good article on one of my personal favourites (though I still prefer Bonham). I'll make comments as I read through. I've done a few copy-edits, feel free to revert these if you don't like

Lead

• We mention in the first paragraph his unique drumming style and the fact that it attracts praise, but we don't actually say what this style is. Just one or two words would do here I think

• Done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• We say in the infobox and the body that Wembley is in Middlesex but in the lead we say it's in London. I am aware of the situation regarding ceremonial and modern counties in England etc and so know why there is ambiguity here. Perhaps we can comprise on "Wembley, Middlesex, a north-western suburb of London" or something like that

• I'm going to go with "Wembley, London" because that's what's in reliable sources - try a google books search for "Keith Moon Wembley London" versus "Keith Moon Wembley Middlesex"! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Early life

• "in Central Middlesex Hospital"—shouldn't this be "at Central Middlesex Hospital"?

• Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Do we really need to mention that his father Alfred was nicknamed "Alf"?

• It appears in sources - [5] [6] Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe mention what The Goon Show was.

• Added "radio series" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• "one thing that could hold his attention was music". We've just said the Goons could hold his attention

• Replaced with "and for music". We know he was interested in music but no more

• "Moon failed his eleven plus exam and went to Alperton Secondary Modern School" Did failing the 11-plus cause him to go to Alperton? This wording could imply that.

• I've expanded on this a bit, mainly for the benefit of non British readers who don't understand what the tripartite system was. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• "but traded his position to be a drummer" Do we know how long it took him to switch bugling for drumming?

• I don't think it's in any source, other than he quickly switched to drums. I'll keep looking. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• "in Easter 1961" shouldn't that be "at Easter 1961"? or even "around Easter 1961"? Maybe mention he was only 14 at the time.

• Changed to "around Easter 1961" 15:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• "which led to a job repairing radios. This enabled him to buy his first drum kit" The job itself didn't, the money he earned from it did. Maybe alter this slightly to "Money saved from this salary enabled him ..." or something

• Changed to "he used money from his job". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Career—Early years

• "Moon's favourite musicians were jazz artists, particularly the flamboyant style of Gene Krupa" This wording impies that Krupa's style was itself a jazz artist.

• Reworded Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• "As well as drumming, Moon was interested in singing, particularly with backing vocals that involved a light-sounding falsetto and the vocal styling of Motown soul music" I think we need to remove the word "with" before "backing vocals"

• Copyedited this down a bit Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• We have "the Beach Boys" but "The Who", "The Beachcombers" etc. Shouldn't it be "The Beach Boys"?

• Fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• "he auditioned for The Who, replacing Doug Sandom" should probably be "hoping to replace Doug Sandom"

• According to Fletcher, Sandom had already left by the time Moon arrived. Reworded this accordingly.

Career—The Who

• "commonly heard" maybe "commonly recounted"

• I've gone with "commonly cited"

• "when asked how he joined the band" should probably be "when asked how he had joined the band"

• Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• "His style of playing affected the musical structure" Whose? It isn't clear from the last sentence we are talking about Moon.

• Reworded this bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Antics like these earned him the nicknames "Moon the Loon" and "Mad Moon"." We need a source here

• Can't find "Mad Moon" but you can certainly have a source for "Moon the Loon". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• We have "The Beach Boys" here again

• I think this has been fixed

Other work

• "session man The Who's Nicky Hopkins" what?

• This wasn't in the version that passed GA - Jb423 (talk · contribs) added this here. Not sure whether it's good faith or vandlism (the user has a track record of leaving personal attacks on user talk pages), but in any case it's wrong. I've replaced with "pianist Nicky Hopkins". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Page remembered Moon's odd expression and later adopted it as the name of a new band" But we've just said in the last sentence that it might have been Entwistle who said it?

• Replaced with "the" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Smash Your Head Against the Wall should be in italics

• Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• "claiming it helped distance the album from the familiar sound of The Who". "claiming" is an odd word to use here, maybe "writing" or "opining"

• I've gone with "saying" - important thing here is to state it's just one man's opinion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Destructive behaviour

• The two big quote boxes here are kind of intrusive and distracting. I think the stories would be better integrated into the text itself.

• Agreed. The second one is duplicated in the prose, and copies a little bit too much directly from Fletcher's source to the extent it's a borderline copyvio. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• "a local drummer in the audience" But Halpin was from Iowa, from California. Maybe "an American drummer in the audience"

• "A drummer in the audience" will do. Halpin is only relevant in the context of Moon's life of being an emergency dep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal life and relationships

• I think the quote box under "Friends" would be better in the text itself

• To be honest, this is a caption looking for a picture. I'd quite like to have a montage of this, this, this, this and / or this, but none of them are free images so it can't happen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Death

• Make clear that this is in London

• Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• "NOT TO BE TAKEN AWAY" this should be in smallcaps

• Looks like somebody else did this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• "with the digestion of six being sufficient to cause his death, and the other 26 of which were still undissolved when he died" maybe "with the digestion of six being sufficient to cause his death; the other 26 were still undissolved when he died"

• Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Small Faces/Faces drummer Kenney Jones became an official member of The Who" When?

• November 1978 (and sourced) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• "joined the live band as an unofficial member." no source. Also when?

• Sourced. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Jones left The Who following their performance at Live Aid and drummer Simon Phillips toured with the band in 1989 as an unofficial member. Today, the Who's drummer is Zak Starkey, son of Ringo Starr. Starkey learned to drum from Moon, whom he called "Uncle Keith"." No source for any of this

• How did that last one slip past the GA review? Sourced (and some of it was factually incorrect according to the sources)!

Referencing

• I am not sure about some of the sources here; particularly WhoTabs, Mess and noise, Modculture, Contact music

• Couldn't agree more about Mess and noise, which is why I tagged it as {{better source}}. I left it because I assumed it can be replaced with Fletcher's book
• Contact music has a few appearances in WP:RSN and as far as I can tell is a news aggregator of other sites and the consensus is "proceed with caution". I have found the same anecdote in an online edition of New Musical Express and used that, though the quotations were wrong.
• In my view, the modculture article is a primary source, that provides a few additional quotes and anecdotes from Dougal Butler. A substantial chunk of the article's content is also found in more reliable sources (see Butler's own article for a wider range of sources on this subject), so I could perhaps make a convincing argument for Butler being an expert on Moon, the article only citing himself and a dead person, and hence coming under the "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter" proviso of WP:SPS. What do you think?
• WhoTabs is an awkward one. If I recall correctly, we let it pass an an "expert" source at the GA review, but both of us remarked it would probably fail at FAC. It's the only decent source I can find for technical information on Moon's drumkits. I think our options are to find better sources (back issues of NME or Melody Maker from the 1960s would be suitable), or conclude that the spec of Moon's 1966 Premier double-bass kit just isn't that important in the field of all human knowledge. I'll get back to you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Some references need formatting work (for example New Musical Express is a work, not a publisher)

• I left a number of these until now, hoping most of not all could be ultimately converted to {{sfn}} or {{sfnp}}, but I don't think that's practical. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ending the article

• I think a good way to end the article might be to move the London 2012 story to the end of the "Legacy" section.

• Possibly - though possibly a better way is to pull a quote out of another news article talking about his blue plaque and why he deserves one. I'd rather the article ended by saying how people still remember his life even today, rather than a dark (if humourous) reminder that he's dead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope all these help on the way, and well done again so far. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm a little busy over the weekend, but I'll do what I can. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a while to come back. Most of the above looks good, there are just some places throughout the article where we need citations (look for ends of paragraphs with no references). —Cliftonian (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've tagged those with {{cn}}, or found good sources. I think all of them can be easily cited to Fletcher, but I don't know where my copy has gone. As soon as I can dig it out, I can fix that. References also need a general going over. I'll leave the PR open for a while longer to see if anyone else wants to comment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Update

I think I've done everything I want to do with this now. Every paragraph is sourced, all sources have been checked and justified, news sources should be cited correctly and I've copyedited everything again. I'll leave it open for a few more days, but if nobody else makes any more edits in that timeframe, I'm going to look about closing the review down and taking it to FAC. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll help out at FAC as well. Well done so far —Cliftonian (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

By "help out", do you mean be a co-nom or do you just want to chip in for comments. I've ordered new copies of Marsh and Fletcher's books as the copies I used to get to GA might have been accidentally left somewhere and now stuck in someone's lost property. :-/ Still, it was only 7 quid. I think I will need to call on them during the FA review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant just chip in; I don't feel I've really contributed enough to justify a co-nom but if you want me to help out that way I am happy to do so. Good luck in getting new copies of the books—this stuff happens sometimes. I was dumb enough to lend a Rhodesian book to a friend here in the army to read while he spent a week confined to barracks, and it inevitably somehow went missing during that week. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Benjamin Disraeli

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. Disraeli was one of the most flamboyant and unorthodox politicians of his era. User:Wehwalt and I have been working on this article over recent weeks; it was already a substantial one, thanks largely to ten years' contributions by User:Mackensen, and we have added considerably to it with a view to Featured Article candidacy. Considering how short a time Disraeli was in power it is striking how dominant a figure he was in 19th century politics in Britain and elsewhere. We hope we have done him justice, and invite comments on the article as it now stands: the prose, the balance, the clarity, the images—indeed, pretty well anything. – Tim riley (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

As prospective conom on the article at FAC, I'd also like to join in with what Tim has had to say, especially as regards Mackensen, who has given us a very solid basis to start from.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Tim and Wehwalt for their kind references, and reiterate my appreciation for the massive amount of work they've put in to the article. I have this review watchlisted and I'll try to help in any way I can. Mackensen (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Question (not a review, yet): Concerning the list of citations, is it a deliberate decision to have all 260 in a single column? This hasn't been the practice of either nominator in recent FAs; is there a reason? Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't suppose it is something we gave much thought to. I will play with it though.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Two columns, I think, on balance is better than three.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Two cols for notes, 4 for citations, looks good to me. Beginning my reading now, hopefully some helpful comments before I lay me down to sleep. Brianboulton (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hchc2009:

• Enjoyed reading it - I'm looking forward to this getting to (and through) FAC.
• I thought the lead perhaps underplayed his time in office, and would have expected a little bit more detail on him here.
  • Will revisit. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• The article doesn't really explain what the Tory position in the world was - it's wikilinked, but I'd advise a sentence or two breaking the reader into the political world you're describing. Same applies to the Whigs - otherwise its mysterious why Disraeli thinks of them as "anathema" etc.
  • Good point. Shall try to add a very brief encapsulation. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Too late! I've been beaten to it. Tim riley (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Ditto, I think many readers won't understand the post-1832 Victorian electoral system; may be worth a sentence explaining who Disraeli's voters were (or weren't!).
  • Another good point. Will do. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Done. Tim riley (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Although anti-Semitism wasn't as rife in the first half of the 19th century as it was later, it might be worth noting that it was a factor in the social elite (e.g. the Tory party)
  • I'm not sure this is my best drafting. There was a level of casual background anti-Semitism in Britain as everywhere else. Perhaps I ought to say something like, "In the first half of the 19th century Britain was not a particularly anti-Semitic society"? Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• "By June 1825 he and his business partners had lost £7000." - worth considering how to communicate to the reader the extent to which this was a large sum of money for the time.
• "Disraeli obtained a loan of £25,000 (equivalent to about £2.13 million as at 2013" - the CPI isn't a good mechanism for these sorts of sums, as noted at the top of the template that's being used in the article, [Template:Inflation], which advises it constitutes OR when used in this way. I'd advise either having a look at a specialist website like this, or finding a comparison figure from the period.

It's difficult to compare money over such a long history, I am of the opinion it is best to avoid it. Disraeli undoubtedly employed at least a couple of dozen people at his homes in London and at Hughenden. That was not a large expense back then, but today, it would cost him perhaps a million pounds. How do you compare such things?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As per the essays linked above, its challenging, but not necessarily impossible... Hchc2009 (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I rather agree with Wehwalt that this is a dodgy area. I used to use the Measuring Worth site a lot, but I have been persuaded by other editors that it is not necessarily a helpful guide. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd expected a short section on the historiography of Disraeli - how historians' opinions on him have altered over the years, given he is a major figure and the literature on him has shifted backwards and forwards over the years - and was a little disappointed that there wasn't one, given the decent writeups of his literary work etc. at the end. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

On the last, I looked for such information, but did not find sufficient detail for a writeup. I will look some more.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

NB: I'm not suggesting you actually use this (it's an introductory text book for 1st year degree students, so not the greatest RS), but something like B. H. Abbott's "Gladstone and Disraeli" covers a lot of the ground, at least up until the 1970s. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If it is relatively short, can you send me page images? I will have to send you an email that you can reply to and attach.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I will try scanning it tomorrow morning - if I can get a decent quality (my scanner isn't, um, great...) will happily send the bits over. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I consulted the book at the British Library this morning, and have quoted it twice in the "Legacy - Political" section. Please have a look and see if I have caught the gist. Tim riley (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Will do! 17:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is by way of a first instalment of comments. I have not looked at the lead – it makes more sense to do that last, when the necessary changes have been made to the text. The points listed are all relatively small ones, requiring minor textual revisions. I may have a few more general comments when I am done with the detail.

Childhood

• I would recommend that you say "Sephardic Jwish" rather than just "Sephardic", as not all readers will be familiar with the term.
  • Agreed. Will do. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Couldn't poor Napthali be given (born and died 1807) rather than just (1807)?
  • Poor love, yes by all means. It shall be done. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• "had the four children baptised" - you need to say into what, e.g. Anglican church, Roman Catholic, Dissenters etc - they all practise baptism
  • True. Will do. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• In the interests of clear chronology, the year should be given when D started at Dr Cogan's school
  • Yes. Will do. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

1820s

• "After that, Disraeli's influence on the paper waned, and to his resentment he was sidelined by Murray." Isn't saying that D's influence waned, and that he was sidelined by Murray, essentially saying the same thing twice?
  • Point taken. I'll redraw. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• I am not too happy with the description "Tory literary world". "Tory" has a rather specific political sense, though I gather that the objections to Disraeli's writings were as much on social (snobbish) grounds as political.
  • I think I'll mark this point up as one for the agenda of the PR post mortem by Wehwalt and self. I'm in two minds. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• 1830s
• There seems to be something of a lacuna around the period 1827–29, the years of his nervous crisis. How was he occupied, and what did he live on?
  • Have added that he lived with Mum and Dad. (The latter being very comfortably off no doubt subsidised him, though Benjamin hated, and avoided whenever possible, tapping Dad for a loan). Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• "it is quite impossible that anything adverse to the general measure of Reform can issue from my pen." They way the sentence containing this quotation is punctuated, it is not absolutely clear whether the quote is Croker's "high Tory" sentiment, or Disraeli's objection.
  • This is why PR is so valuable. I hadn't spotted that ambiguity and will revisit pronto. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• "the politics of the nation were dominated by members of the aristocracy, with some commoners". The wording "some commoners" does not give a very precise picture. Perhaps, "and a few powerful commoners"?
  • Yes. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• "Disraeli stood unsuccessfully for High Wycombe in each". I would add the words "as a Radical" somewhere.
  • Good. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• "electoral systems" or "electoral system"?
  • Singular, definitely. Shall do. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• "In 1835 Disraeli stood, unsuccessfully, as a Radical for the last time". At High Wycombe, or elsewhere?
  • Good grief! I can't remember. Shall look it up and add it. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• "In the same year he fought a by-election at Taunton as a Tory". This sentence is really part of a new thread, since it is relevant to D's dispute with O'Connell, and you give the result a couple of paragraphs later. At present, the comment reads as an aside. I suggest a little rejigging of the paragraph organisation, and that when giving the result you mention Torbay again.
  • Yes, good. Shall do. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Backbencher

• "Peel" has not been mentioned since the lead. He should therefore be properly described, and linked.
  • True. Shall attend to this. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• "After Disraeli in March 1842 won widespread acclaim..." the date is rather awkwardly inserted here.
  • I b-----y well knew this even as I was writing it! Why does one blank one's own infelicities? It shall be remedied. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I do much the same thing, though I think you mean "not blank".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Missing citations in fifth paragraph
  • Well spotted. Shall remedy. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• The paragraph beginning "During the twenty years between the repeal of the Corn Laws..." is chronologically misplaced, since it deals with events occurring after those discussed in the following paragraphs
  • This could do with being made a bit more general, which I'll do. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Bentinck and the leadership

• Third paragraph: the fate of the measure permitting Jews to enter Parliament is not clear; what was the result of the vote?
  • Voted down that time. Shall fix. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• The last paragraph of this section begins: "Within a month..." - within a month of what? We have not had a clear date for some time, and the chronology definitely needs tightening in the section.
  • Yes. Will do. And now over to Wehwalt for the rest of your comments on the main biog section (as we have divvied up the writing with me on the early years and lit crit and Wehwalt on the years in office.) Thank you, sir! Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

First Derby government

• Russell resigns in the first paragraph – but in the second, three months later, he is dismissing Palmerston from his cabinet. One assumes that Stanley's failure to form a government meant that Russell remained in office, but this needs to be made explicit.

Spelled out.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• What was the basis of the Queen's animosity towards Palmerston?

Blake doesn't say, but his citation leads here "the Queen seemed distressed". That's pretty weak, so I will remove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Again, first mention of "Victoria" in the text should be as "Queen Victoria"

I've tossed a mention of her across the Maginot Line to the time of King William's death.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest a link on "prorogued"

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Instead, the election had no clear winner..." - why make the reader use a link to find which election this is? Give date, e.g. "...the election of June 1852…"

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think "revenue-neutral" requires a hyphen

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

More later Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cliftonian (aka "an Israeli look at Disraeli")

Infobox

• You should probably have a comma here "Disraeli photographed" → "Disraeli, photographed ..."
• Under "religion" we have "Judaism" and "Anglican". For consistency we should have either "Judaism / Anglicanism" or "Jewish / Anglican"

Lead

• Does One-nation conservatism need a capital letter on "One"?
  • Usages vary widely, from "One Nation" to "One-Nation", "one nation" and "one-nation". As the WP article eschews the caps I have uncapped here. Tim riley (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• The sentences in the second paragraph seem very short and choppy. Might I suggest you have another look here?
• "ill-health" I don't think we should have a hyphen here?
• Comma after Queen Victoria
• "dominated by the Eastern Question—the slow decay of the Ottoman Empire and the desire of other countries, such as Russia, to gain at its expense" Maybe "... the Eastern Question, relating to the slow decay ..." As is, the wording isn't quite right to me
  • I think I prefer it as is. Tim riley (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• "in Afghanistan and in South Africa" why not just "in Afghanistan and South Africa"?
• "reinstitution" should be "reinstituting"
• "angering farmers" I don't imagine the American farmers were angry. Shouldn't we say "angering British farmers"?
• Endymion should be in italics.

Apart from the one mentioned above about the Eastern Question, all points attended to. Tim riley (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Early life

• Should have a comma before "née Basevi"
  • Yes. Done. Tim riley (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Brian above, you should put Sephardic Jewish rather than Sephardic, many people will not know what this means
  • Done Tim riley (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with Brian re Naphtali
  • Done Tim riley (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• As Brian says above, say into which church he was baptised (Church of England).
  • Done Tim riley (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• "Isaac felt free to leave the congregation following another dispute" maybe say "another subsequent dispute"

That might be redundant. Perhaps "a subsequent dispute"?

I've made it "a second dispute" Tim riley (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Why don't we wikilink Sharon Turner, who is notable as a historian?
  • So he is. I didn't know that, I'm afraid. Now linked. Tim riley (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• "Colombia and Mexico (1825)" maybe clarify "(both 1825)"
  • Done Tim riley (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• £7000 → £7,000
  • Yes, done Tim riley (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Disraeli's age, when over 10, should be given in numbers, not words (there are a few incidences of this)

Per WP:MOSNUM, if the number is expressible in one or two words, it is acceptable as prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I didn't know that. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• We wikilink Radicals twice
• Agree with Brian above re: Taunton by-election
• Also re: Peel
  • Above three done. Tim riley (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Office

• Make clear that although Russell resigned, he actually stayed in office a while longer

Brian also flagged this and I've dealt with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "and MPs prepared to divide—when Gladstone rose to his feet and began an angry speech, despite the efforts of Tory MPs to shout him down" I'm not sure this is worded correctly. I would suggest you review

I've rephrased, please take second look to ensure your concern was addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• You don't need an endash in "44–year"; a hyphen is correct

• Ive corrected this one with my new script toy. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "to seek to unseat the government" maybe "to challenge the government"

Someone changed to "defeat" and I agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1858, Baron Lionel de Rothschild became the first Jewish MP" Some would point out that Disraeli himself, despite having converted, remained Jewish by blood. Perhaps say that Rothschild "became the first MP of Jewish faith" or similar

I will finesse the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The new wording is very good, good job —Cliftonian (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Most Englishmen expected the South to win? What made them think that? I am aware that many of them wanted the South to win, but expecting them to do so is not the same thing.

That's what Baron Blake said. I wrote very close to the source there.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I imagine, incidentally, that they felt closer to the Southern aristocracy than to the Northern Republicans. After all, Lincoln was not born in a stone mansion, so sniff sniff..--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay then. Back later, I will have a chunk of spare time later today. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "met for the first time the Prussian Count Otto von Bismarck" Maybe "met the Prussian Coutn Otto von Bismarck for the first time"

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Schleswig-Holstein question should have a capital Q. Maybe also make clear this related to the territorial dispute between Denmark and the German Confederation

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "that neither would ever hold office again" perhaps "neither of them …"

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The Reform Act 1867 passed that August;[139] extending the franchise by 938,427—an increase of 88%—by giving the vote to male householders and male lodgers paying at least £10 for rooms." This isn't worded right. I'd replace the semicolon with a comma

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• fifteen → 15

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• "metropolises such as Liverpool and Manchester." I'm not sure I like this. Why not just "major cities"? (unless metropolises was an official term actually used at the time)

They were at the time both towns, but are no longer. I will change to "municipalities".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This is much better, well done —Cliftonian (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Down to "Prime Minister", more later

—Cliftonian (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will be working on the post-1852 ones, but I am way behind and trying to get another article written before I leave on a research trip on Thursday, and I will get these things done in fits and starts, certainly catch up before I go (I will have my laptop with me).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I won't post for a bit, (a) to enable you to catch up and (b) to let Cliftonian work through (he's a faster worer than me, being young and energetic), as two simultaneous reviews can be awkward if the reviwers disagree. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll join the queue for when others have finished. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Cliftonian is done, but as I have very limited online access until Saturday, I am suggesting to SchroCat that he step in meanwhile. Brianboulton (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Prime Minister

• As "Prime Minister" is capitalised in the text, shouldn't it also be in the title of this section?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1873 Gladstone brought forward legislation to establish a Catholic university in Dublin. This divided the Liberals, and on 12 March an alliance of Conservatives and Irish Catholics defeated the government by three votes." ... wait, what? Why did Irish Catholics vote against setting up a Catholic university?

Blake says "the Bill satisfied neither Catholics nor Protestants". Page 527.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Balloting began on 1 February and spread out over the following two weeks" Maybe "Balloting was spread over two weeks, starting on 1 February"

Done with slight modification.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Disraeli, in the campaign, devoted much of his attention to" Maybe just "Disraeli devoted much of his campaign to"

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• nineteen → 19

In that case, I think it needs to stay text to parallel the seven.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• "ill-health" again; shouldn't this be "ill health"?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The following morning, newspapers carried word of his ennoblement." Maybe "The newspapers reported his ennoblement the following morning."

• "though he took a commission on the deal, his capital was at risk as Parliament could have refused to ratify the deal" Not wild about this repetition "the deal ... the deal"; maybe review

Modified.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• "best seller"; shouldn't this be "best-seller"?
• You don't need to wl Bismarck again
• "The Congress of Berlin was held in June and July 1878; the central relationship in it that between Disraeli and Bismarck." Shouldn't this semicolon be a comma?
• "The Prussian chancellor in later years would show visitors" Maybe "In later years, the Prussian chancellor would show visitors"

All of above done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Der alte Jude, das ist der Mann!" Maybe give an English translation too ("The old Jew, this is the man!"); while this is very basic German, not all readers will understand it

It seems to lose something in translation. I'd welcome more comments on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Blake (p, 646) quotes the phrase without thinking it necessary to translate it. A swift dip into Google Books shows that of those other authors who include the phrase and offer a translation, the English differs subtly from one to another, from the literal "The old Jew, that is the man" to the nuanced "The old Jew, he is the man" and "The old Jew, there is a man". I think on balance it is probably better to follow Blake's example. If anyone waves Wikipedia:MOS#Foreign-language quotations at us during FAC we can reconsider. Tim riley (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps if it comes up at FAC a solution might be to put a footnote with the various translations, as the subtle differences are quite interesting in themselves. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The rest of this all looks excellent to me, and I can't find anything else to quibble about. This article really is first-class and you should both be very proud. I hope my comments above help. If there's any way I can help out please do let me know. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've gone through and removed image size forcing (substituting upright=0.5 in the two cases), and also added alt text to the images. I hope you don't mind me taking this liberty —Cliftonian (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Thank you for taking the trouble and for a most thorough review. Except for the historicity section, which I have not yet gotten to nor am likely to for a few days, I think we are up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

May I add my thanks to those of Wehwalt. Really thorough and helpful input. Tim riley (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Really no problem. I'm glad to have been helpful. I'm satisfied with all the responses above. I'll keep on looking over this but I think it is just about there now. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by the Dr.

Lead

• Shouldn't Liberal also be linked? Swap links from further down lead to top.
  • Will do. Tim riley (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• "His father left Judaism " doesn't quite sit with me in the way "Joe Bloggs left Christianity" wouldn't, can you think of a better way to word it? "departed from the Jewish faith or something?
  • To be pondered. Tim riley (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• House of Commons is not linked but Leaders of the House of Commons is.
  • Will do. And now done. Tim riley (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Early life

• 6 King's Road, Bedford Row, London, what area of London was this?
  • Bloomsbury-ish, fringes of Holborn. Rather hard to pin it down. It is just within the area of Bloomsbury as defined in the WP article, and I'll add that, I think. Excellent point. Tim riley (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Later: done. Tim riley (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• "T F Maples, one of the partners, was a friend of Isaac D'Israeli. He was not only the young Disraeli's employer but also his prospective father-in-law: Isaac and Maples entertained the possibility that the latter's only daughter might be a suitable match for Benjamin.[" I'd merge and rewrite this as the initial sentence looks unremarkable but if you say "T F Maples was not only the young Disraeli's employer and friend of his father's, but also his prospective father-in-law: Isaac and Maples entertained the possibility that the latter's only daughter might be a suitable match for Benjamin."
• Yes. Better, I think. Will do, Tim riley (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• "and the need for treatment for a sexually transmitted disease on his return". Seems a bit vague and immediately has the reader asking questions. Did he mix with Egyptian prostitutes? Was he promiscuous etc.. Please do dish the dirt hehe.
  • I'm sorry to say that biographers are agreed that he caught something dodgy but don't speculate in any detail about how he got it. I imagine brothels played a part, but there's no RS for it. Tim riley (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• "unrepentantly indiscreet gossip with a fondness for intrigue" seems a little wordy
  • Yes, it does. I'll lose the adverb Tim riley (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Lost. Tim riley (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• No link for Taunton or constituency but link for High Wycombe?
  • Thanks for spotting that. I'll attend to it. Tim riley (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Parliament

• "On the recommendation of the Carlton Club Disraeli was adopted as a Tory parliamentary candidate at the ensuing General Election" comma needed after Club I think.
  • Looks all right to me, but I'm happy to add a comma. Tim riley (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• 1867 Act -link?

Got that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• City of London -already linked earlier I believe.
  • Will attend to. Tim riley (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I think we need both links as the first is to the location and the second to the parliamentary constituency. Tim riley (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• "marvellous parliamentary skill" -should probably be attributed for such a strong claim.
  • It's from Hibbert, who is cited at the end of the sentence, which I think is probably close enough to the quote to suffice, Tim riley (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

-more tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. Thank you for your excellent points so far.

Comments from SchroCat

A few very minor edits from me earlier today and Monday: feel free to revert if you disagree or just don't like. A few observations, comments and suggestions from me. Again, feel free to adopt or ignore as you feel fit. On the first couple of read throughs this is a very good piece: covers all that it should and does so in a very readable way.

Lead

• "British Conservative politician who twice served as Prime Minister. He played a central role in the creation of the modern Conservative Party" Is there any need to link the Conservative Party twice? (I see that the overall philosophy Conservatism isn't used, let alone linked—although one-nation conservatism is—so perhaps this could be used instead? Your call either way.
• Endymion is the only reference to his writing "career", and it's sort of sprung on us at the last minute as the final novel – perhaps just a few extra words to suggest that the book was the last of seventeen fictional works?
  • Oddly enough I spotted that and added a few words last night. Tim riley (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    • That'll teach me to write on one day and not check before posting on the next! - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

1820s

• D "did not move in high society, as the numerous solecisms in his book made obvious". Grammatical errors were there because he wasn't a member of the right social class? Surely that's more an educational lapse than a class one?
  • The OED gives the grammatical error first, but also gives "A breach or violation of good manners or etiquette; a blunder or impropriety in manners, etc.", as here. Happy to change to another word if you can think of a better, but nothing leaps to the Riley mind. Tim riley (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah – an added part to the definition I did not know! Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

1830s

• Is the "[T]" needed where a "t" will suffice?
  • Not sure which capital Ts you have in mind. If in "Tory", I think so, yes. Tim riley (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    • " "[T]he impressions" - the beginning of the quote - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Of course. Dim of me – sorry! I've tried it with lower case and sans brackets but it looked rather peculiar, as though something were missing. I think I'd prefer to leave it as is. Tim riley (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
        • No problem – good reasons either way and if that's your preference then I'm happy too. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comma between " Carlton Club" and "Disraeli"?
  • That seems to be a strong working majority, as Dr B has suggested the comma too. Will add. Tim riley (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Back-bencher

• Link to maiden speech?
  • Borderline, I'd say. I think the meaning is evident from the words. Wehwalt, have you any thoughts on this? Tim riley (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd link, just to prevent people from doing it in a manner other than the very competent one you'll do it in.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Tim riley (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

First Derby government

• "prorogued" is a dab: perhaps a pipe to "Legislative session" (which is what the dab page does), or to Wiktionary [[wikt:prorogue|prorogue]]
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Opposition

• "Nevertheless, after peace was restored, and Palmerston in early 1858 brought in legislation for direct rule of India by the Crown, Disraeli opposed it, but many Conservative MPs refused to follow him and the bill passed the Commons easily.[126]" This is slightly clumsy—possibly because of the location of the date, which could precede Pam's name to make it smoother read.

I split the sentence, more or less. See what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks better, thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• "In responding to Disraeli Gladstone": comma between the names?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

More to follow later later today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Second bite

Opposition and third term as Chancellor

• "Reform Act 1867" – already linked above

Too far above, I think the relink is justified.

First government

• "Lord Chancellor" – already linked above

That was in the Lord Lyndhurst material, a long time ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Opposition leader; 1874 election

• "Balloting was spread over two weeks, beginning on 1 February[162] Disraeli devoted much of his campaign to decrying the Liberal programme of the past five years". Some form of punctuation needed twixt Feb and Dizzy.

Full stopped.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Second government

• "the smallest since Reform". The last reform we mentioned was '67, so I think we need to clarify that it's the '32 Act that we're talking about here

My understanding is that in British historical writing, "Reform" by itself as a past event is taken to refer to 1832. More comments on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree entirely (it's always been my immeditate understanding too), I'm not sure that it would be immediately obvious to those who were not as au fait with the convention, especially as the previous reference was to '67. Your call on this as I'm not going to push it too much. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• "and Sir Stafford Northcote Chancellor": I did a double take on this one as the first reading had me thinking that Northcote Chancellor was his surname…

"the" inserted before Chancellor.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Final batch to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Final batch

Congress of Berlin

• I think I'm certainly with Cliftonian's suggestion on the various translations of Der alte Jude, das ist der Mann being in a footnote: one of my lecturers at university thought the description and translation so interesting that she spent 30 minutes going over each permutation. Although that may have been overkill, a minor footnote is of interest.

I've reluctantly put a bare-bones footnote. Play with it as you will.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Political legacy

• "Tory democracy" Single quotes for this, within the double quoted section?

Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Refs FN178: Should this be single p, or double? Are all three refs from the same page?

Corrected to single p. Yes, all from the same page, much of the article is about de Lesseps' efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Further reading

• There's a couple of entries that need a publishing location;
• Some of the titles need putting into caps

I think I've caught the caps.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I did the titles, too, and caught a few ref inconsistencies. Probably more needs to be done on the further reading, and we will get to those.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

All very minor fare for you in what really is an excellent and informative article. – SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for dealing with these minor points. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It is more to the point to thank you, SchroCat, for your suggestions. Gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton resumes: I am back in full harness, and will try to complete my review in the next 24 hours. Here are comments on the next three sections:

Opposition

• "Disraeli spoke patriotically in support" – in support of what?

I trust you are well. I took "of the war" out last night, fearing that it would be deemed a repetition of "Crimean War". Do you have some thoughts on a substitute to avoid repeating "war"?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe just "in support of action"? Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Disraeli was early to call for peace..." Slightly odd phrasing (maybe "Disraeli had been an early proponet for peace..."), but this strikes me as a position of a few lines back, when he was speaking "patriotically in support" (of the war, I presume).

I'm not quite sure I fully understand your objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No, because I inadvertently missed some words out from my note. What I intended to convey was that, have spoken patriotically in support of the war, Disraeli is being spoken of a few lines later as an early proponent of peace, which seems a contradictory position.

• "Indian Mutiny" is a colonial era term, and I strongly advise replacing it with something less contentious. The WP article gives numerous alternative names; I'd avoid any that include the word "mutiny".

An oversight on my part, I must not have been paying attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• "nearly a third of those who voted against him were not Conservatives." This seems a convoluted way of saying that some of his own coalition voted against him. On a more general note, I don't think that this much detail is necessary, in an article about Disraeli. After the first sentence in the final paragraph I would simply say: "Palmerston's subsequent efforts to appease the French were widely disapproved, even among his own supporters. After being defeated on the issue in the House of Commons he resigned, and Lord Derby returned to office".

I hesitate to use the word appease. I've shortened it in my own words.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Second Derby government

• Lionel de Rothschild should be linked. You describe him as "Baron", but I don't believe he was – he would not have been in the Commons if he was a peer. I may be wrong, but I think the Rothschild peerage came later.

This should adequately answer that. He was entirely entitled to sit in the House of Commons with

Something missing from the response. I'm not sure that the link solves the issue, but as your missing words no doubt clarified, he held an Austrian barony which, as you say, did not disqualify him from sitting in the House of Commons. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the word "with" was extraneous.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Faced with a vacancy..." – someone resigned, died?

Ellenborough resigned, somewhat voluntarily, after nearly bringing down the government though his own personal idiocy. I'd rather not go into this in Dizzy's article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• "his decision then and previously to accept office". This only makes sense if you insert "whether" after "previously". Otherwise you should substitute "refuse" for "accept"

Touche. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The Tories pursued a Reform Bill in 1859, which would have resulted in a modest increase to the franchise." Marginal relevance to the main subject?

Disraeli was a major part of this, as second-in-command to Derby and Leader of the House in the Commons. It helps set up the 1867 Reform Bill. The need to revise the 1832 Act was becoming pressing.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Opposition and third term as Chancellor

• "Should "Cabal" have a capital?

I've avoided the direct quote, which apparently (Blake is a bit opaque here) is from Derby.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• The article uses British English spellings (honour, favour etc), but the expression "a quarter century later" is definitely AmEng. BritEng would include "of a"
• "defanged" looks very odd in print; I'm not sure it's even a real word (not in any of my dictionaries). I'd consider a substitute.

I've put in toothless, but if you feel a more appropriate synonym is called for for the word which my online dictionary had no trouble with.

• "to hold the government to a majority of 18" – I think you mean to "reduce" rather than "hold"

No … prevent a greater loss. Perhaps "limit"?

• "...though Disraeli refused to accept any from Gladstone." Surely it wasn't Disraeli's personal prerogative to decide what amendments were acceptable?

He refused to accept them as friendly amendments. Insisting risked bringing down the government which would mean the bill was lost.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Surely Tim will insist on "the Prussian Crown Princess Victoria"? "Prussian" is not part of her title.
  • True – one of the many bees in my bonnet. I think this usage is slowly becoming accepted in formal BrEng prose, but it ain't there yet. Tim riley (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

More to come Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the rest

• First government
• The section needs more specific dating. Other than the reference to the December (no year) general election, no timeframe is given for Disraeli's first ministry.

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Liberal majority of 170": please check this. My figures suggest rather less, perhaps 116 (L 387, C 271)

More or less correct. That's what I get for not checking.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not keen on the phrasing "having the Post Office buy up the telegraph companies." It's not wrong, but the tone is, well, rather transatlantic for Victorian England.

Considering the source, not entirely surprising, but given that, suggested language might be in order.

I can see what BB means, but I have pondered other wording and everything I come up with is wordier and woollier than the existing phrasing. I think we should leave it as is. Tim riley (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Opposition leader; 1874 election
• I think that when recording Mary Ann's death you should mention her 1868 peerage rather than leaving it until the next section

I am more inclined to put a mention at the point Diz leaves government in 1868, but will give it some thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not perhaps an issue for this article, but it would be interesting to know why the Irish Catholic MPs combined with the Conservatives to defeat legislation to establish a Catholic university in Dublin.

I give Blake's exact quote somewhere above but basically it didn't satisfy them. I gather what they really wanted was reforms at Trinity, but Blake doesn't actually say it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• "a Conservative victory of historic proportions" – I'm not sure that the scale of the "victory", in which the defeated Liberals actually outpolled the Conservatives by 52%–44%, deserves such a description. The Conservatives gained their majority in seats because of the quirks in the electoral system: 1.1 million votes gave them 350 seats, whereas nearly 1.3 million Liberal votes gave them 242.

I will rephrase but point out that given that they hadn't won an election since 1841, and a good portion of the party had split off, this was not a minor achievement. especially considering they got crushed in 1868

Second government

• Thought should be given to the internal organisation of this section. At present, after a preamble we have subsections headed "Domestic policy", "Foreign Policy", "Suez" (surely part of foreign policy), "Royal Titles Act" (not part of foreign policy), then three more foreign policy subheadings. Consider a general subdivision between domestic and foreign policy, with "Suez" and the other foreign headings collected under foreign policy. "Royal Titles Act", not really classifiable as domestic or foreign policy, could bring up the rear.
• Of more importance, however, is the imbalance in the whole Second Government section between domestic and foreign affairs, the latter given about fifteen times the words accorded to the former. While the foreign issues are of greater historical significance, the domestic programme should not be so completely overwhelmed. I am not suggesting that this already very long article should be augmented further, but it should be possible to increase the domestic policy content while at the same time reducing the foreign policy detail. I note that there are existing WP artles for the Congress of Berlin and for the Afghan and Zulu wars, as well as one on the entire Second Ministry, so there should be scope for reductions somewhere.

I will not go so far as to say that nothing of import happened in domestic policy in Disraeli's second premiership, but the bulk of attention was on foreign policy. I will look though Blake (the only volume on Dizzy I have with me, to see what, if anything, happened of importance in Shropshire and the Hebrides comparable in importance to Suez, the Congress of Berlin, and offering the Queen an imperial crown, which she did not refuse even once.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And I should add that I'm reluctant to send the reader to other articles, which may or may not be of good quality, These are aspects of Disraeli's career for which he is remembered, and hiding stuff from the reader on another page risks his never seeing them.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Really, the only thing that Blake covers in any detail is patronage on domestic policy. I will add a few notes and look for compensating cuts elsewhere. I've also restructured the Prime Minister section to avoid the fifth-level subheads.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Disraeli had passed near Suez in his tour..." I'd give the dates, to remind us this was about 50 years earlier
• "Gladstone opposed the measure, but less than half his party voted with him." Earlier, Gladstone had retired from public life; perhaps mention that he had returned to front-line politics
• You need to clarify that the Prince of Wales and Prince Edward are the same person.
• Robert Lowe is referred to as Disraeli's "old enemy", yet this is his first mention in the main text. Perhaps he should be described as "an old enemy"

I'll see if I can through a mention earlier, see talk page for request that we discuss him.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The cabinet discussed Disraeli's proposal to send Indian troops to Malta". This wording could be misunderstood. Clarify that the troops weren't sent to invade Malta, but to stand by for action in the Balkans. Also, if it's relevant I'd say "troops from India" rather than "Indian troops", otherwise just "troops"
• Perhaps "secret" rather than "quiet" negotiations
• "...but were determined to keep Bessarabia in Europe and Batum and Kars on the east coast of the Black Sea". Needs a little rewording; Batum and Kars on the east coast of the Black Sea was surely a geographical fact.

Hollow laugh. I will rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

1880 election

• "In December 1878, he was offered the Liberal nomination for Edinburghshire, a constituency popularly known as Midlothian." Clarify that he was offered the constituency for the next general election, likely to be in 1880, not to fight immediately.
• "Conservative chances of re-election..." I'd add the words "in 1880"

They could not know that the election would happen then. The term of this Parliament did not expire until 1881.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Final months, death, and memorials

• "Victoria was bitter at his departure as minister" – "prime minister"?
• "...on which he had started work in 1872 and laid aside before the 1874 election." Not quite grammatical as it stands - the "on" only applies to the starting. It could be "which he had started in 1872 and laid aside..." etc
• Last paragraph: three "memorials" in the first line. Easily avoidable, I think.

General comment: I have a slight problem with the article's overall length – 13000+ words. I recognise the importance of the subject, but with around nine subarticles I wonder if the prose is not a little too detailed at times. This is worth looking into. Otherwise my points are relatively minor, and I join with the other reviewers in acknowledging this as a fine article and a worthy future FA candidate. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your praise and your review. We will confer on the matters you raise, though I will note that not only is my usual "political career of half a century" justification applicable, there is also a literary career not usually present with politicos. Except as noted, I've done the ones with my name on the envelope, though not necessarily in the words suggested. Thank you again.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As to the length, I take Brian's point, and we could no doubt ditch a few incidents and trim a few hundred words here and there from the article, but it would still be a helluva length, and I am inclined to brazen it out at FAC on the grounds that (i) we have divided it into bite-sized chunks, easily digestible by any reader, (ii) it is not the longest WP article on a British PM (see Winston's), (iii) it isn't so very much longer than my own effort on Alec Douglas-Home, of whom it is often said, "Who?", and (iv) it is more than 10,000 words shorter than the ODNB's article on Disraeli. – Tim riley (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Concur. I split the Chamberlain one on advice from reviewers, and I have come to conclude that was a mistake.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I so agree about Chamberlain! It just ain't right to split so. Let us stoutly resist doing the same chez Disraeli. Tim riley (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Closing review

Warmest thanks to everyone who has contributed to this remarkably thorough peer review. On to FAC next. Tim riley (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Bonnie Tyler

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like further advice for article improvement. Biographical articles are a rather daunting task to complete with just one editor working on it, and though a failed GA nomination included advice for improvement, further word would be very welcome.

Some sections are still needing improvement, but I am fairly satisfied with the subheading content of "2012–present: Rocks and Honey and the Eurovision Song Contest", "2003–05: Covers album, French version of "Total Eclipse of the Heart" and Wings" and "1976–81: Early Success". Feedback and comments about these sections would be particularly helpful.

This is all in the aid of getting this article to a higher quality than a C Class, and I am aiming in the future to match the Hungarian version's Featured status. I know that it is a long way off, of course!

Thanks, Bonnietylersave (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

---

List of F.C. Porto records and statistics

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking for editors with fresh pair of eyes to sort out any kind of issues from this list, before I take it to the more demanding FLC evaluation.

Thanks, Parutakupiu (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

---

List of people who performed on Beatles recordings

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback before submitting it for further review (i.e. WP:FLC). matt (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by Ritchie333

• Sources - the balance seems to be tipped more towards Lewisohn than MacDonald. I don't know if that's necessarily a problem, but MacDonald would be my "go to source" as it lists just about every person who turned up to a session ever. It specifically credits The Mike Sammes Singers for Good Night, for instance.

• Lead - is it worth talking a bit more about the development of the band's studio career, which helps the reader understand why there are so many people listed. Mention that early on it was just the four of them with George Martin occasionally contributing to keyboards, then gradually, and especially when they stopped touring, increasing in arrangements. Also worth mentioning that Martin was vitally important in arranging and selecting musicians, the band couldn't have done it on their own.

• Voices and "found sounds", mostly on Revolution Number 9 - obviously listing every voice ever is just not practical, but it might be worth having a separate section listing some of the sound clips that MacDonald mentions? Same for Tomorrow Never Knows (not sure if there is anything on the loops that wasn't actually recorded by the band themselves though) Also worth crediting BBC Third Programme on I Am The Walrus (Lewishon p.128)

• Omissions - worth also mentioning why Jimmie Nicol is not in the list (because he never played with the group in the studio)

• Do we really need all those redlinks? I'd only include the link if there's a reasonable chance they are independently notable outside, say a single cello or horn part to one track.

• Billy Preston - you'll want a cite for Fifth Beatle, earlier I claimed Martin was just as important. There's an old copy of Mojo which actually had an article on various claims "The Fifth Beatle" (sorry, don't have it anymore) which would be an excellent source in that respect

• Chris Thomas also played keyboards on Savoy Truffle (according to MacDonald)

• Is it worth mentioning the group members in the context of unusual instruments outside their standard live set-up or tracks they don't play on? For instance, not McCartney on bass, not Starr on drums, any of Lennon, McCartney and Harrison on piano / keyboards. For example, MacDonald credits both Lennon and Preston for organ on I Want You (She's So Heavy)

• Are you sure Kim Moon actually sang on All You Need Is Love or did she just turn up to support her husband? The source doesn't look particularly reliable, particularly when it says "I posted a video but I could not locate Keith in it"

• Could we add some context to the use of Mellotron, most obviously the "Spanish Guitar" piece that leads into Bungalow Bill, which is a stock sound on the original instrument, recorded under the direction of Eric Robinson (see the Mellotron article for a source)

• Mike McCartney was, of course, better known as Mike McGear at the time

More later if I can think of anything.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

---

The Blind Leading the Blind

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of work on this, one of the great works of painting, and there are more than enough good sources to bring it up to FA quality. It could use a good copyedit, and I'm sure it could be expanded here and there—for example, there's a 250-year gap in the "Legacy" section, which then picks up with the painting's legacy in literature rather than painting. The images are a mess, but I'd rather not mess around with them further until the prose is worked out.

Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

moved discussion to Archive 2

---

Shreya Ghoshal

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… this article is well-written and I think that it deserves to be a featured or good article.

Thanks, Bubaikumar (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Si Tjonat

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FAC and would like feedback on what else is needed.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Leeds Blitz

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback before pushing the page's developement further.

Thanks, Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Initial work would be on the references as they are mainly bare URLs. Need to add some details, title, publisher, publish date, access date etc. for each entry. Sentences such as "The county's largest city, much of the region's economic, administrative and industrial activities were centred on Leeds which was also an important rail hub." need references to support these assertions. Keith D (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: G'day, good work so far. If you are looking to take the article further, I think you will need to expand its coverage. The lead mentions nine air raids, and the infobox provides dates of "1940-42", but the body seems to only focus on the raid on 14-15 March 1941. Additionally, you might look at the Imperial War Museum's catalogue to see if you can find any historical photographs. It can be found here: [7] Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments I agree with AustralianRupert's comments above, and also have the following suggestions:

• The official history of the Defence of the UK is likely to be useful, and is available online at: [8]
• Were any anti-aircraft units located around the city during the raids, and did the RAF contest them?
• Are figures for the number of people wounded available? Nick-D (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• An interesting topic for an article.
• Worth contextualising the events - was Leeds among the first or the last cities to be bombed in the war, for example? Was it a priority target for the Germans?
• Do we know where the German aircraft flew from, or their units etc.? Were there any German losses?
• Are there any social histories of Leeds during the blitz? You might find "Air-Raid Shelters of World War II: Family Stories of Survival in the Blitz", by Stephen Wade, accessible, for example.
• Was Leeds bombed during World War I? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall have a look through these areas and sources this week. I have to admit, I'm, not overly familiar with citation templates. If anyone could give any guidance that would be great. Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mtaylor, you can add those details with or without citation templates, as you prefer. There is a tool called RefToolbar that works well for the basic types of citation templates - you basically just fill in the blanks and it generates the template for you. WP:CITEX demonstrates a bunch of different types of citations in wikitext. If you have any more specific questions, feel free to ask me. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments Just some prose advice: - Dank (push to talk)

• "Leeds is a large city ... Yorkshire. The county's largest city": See WP:Checklist#repetition. "Yorkshire's largest city" should be sufficient.
• "The county's largest city,": In general, make an effort to keep things close to what they refer to, to make things a little easier for the readers. "it" or "Leeds" should usually follow immediately after, if you want to begin the sentence that way.
• "Many industrial manufacturers around the city such as Avro at RAF Yeadon (now Leeds Bradford Airport) which produced Lancaster bombers,[4] Kirkstall Forge,[5] Barnbow munitions works[6] and ROF Thorp Arch near Wetherby[7] adapted their output for war work providing likely raid targets.": Long sentences aren't a problem per se, but this one makes the job a little harder for the readers because you have to get to the end of the sentence, taking many detours along the way, in order to see the point.
• "9 pm of Friday": a little informal. "9 pm on Friday"
• "Beginning just after 9 pm of Friday 14 March 1941 around 40 bombers took part in the raid on Leeds ... Incendiary bombs were first dropped onto the city on the Friday night": In general, don't repeat a time frame. This can be compressed to: "Beginning just after 9 pm on Friday 14 March 1941, around 40 bombers dropped incendiary bombs on the city"
• "Targets hit in the city centre included the Town Hall,": Your source mentions a few "potential targets", which probably means "likely targets, from our point of view". "Targets" would mean that the Germans were aiming for the town hall. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Point set registration

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an important topic in computer vision and pattern recognition that deserves a well-researched and well-explained article. I would like some extra eyes to go over the mathematics and pseudocode to ensure that they are correct.

Thanks, dllu (t,c) 00:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Beyoncé Knowles

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After a considerable amount of copy-editing, re-organisation and ref-tightening, I think this article may be good enough to be proposed as a FAC and I'd appreciate any feedback!

Thanks, —JennKR | ☎ 23:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tomica

• Lead

• Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter,[3] also known simply as Beyoncé ---> Isn't simply known as more simple to use?

•  Done —JennKR | ☎ 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Born and raised in Houston, Texas and performing in singing and dancing competitions ---> How does her birth in Houston is related to singing and dancing? I think this sentence need re-organization.

•  Done (Is that better?) —JennKR | ☎ 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• she began her music career aged sixteen as lead singer of R&B girl-group Destiny's Child ---> The sentence misses the definite article.

•  Done —JennKR | ☎ 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• which established the singer as a viable solo artist worldwide, selling 11 million copies, earned five Grammy Awards and featured the Billboard number one singles "Crazy in Love" and "Baby Boy". ---> I propose: which established the singer as a viable solo artist worldwide; it sold 11 million copies, earned five Grammy Awards and featured the Billboard number one singles "Crazy in Love" and "Baby Boy".

•  Done —JennKR | ☎ 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• which saw the birth of her alter-ego Sasha Fierce and earned her a record-setting ---> two times her repetition.

•  Done —JennKR | ☎ 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• she has won 17 Grammy Awards, and has sold over ---> she has won 17 Grammy Awards and sold over.

•  Done —JennKR | ☎ 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

— Tomíca(T2ME) 23:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Early life

• The sections seems good according to me! Moving forward. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• 1997–2001: Destiny's Child

• based on a passage in the Book of Isaiah ---> Can you wiki link passage? It might be confusing for some people...
•  Done —JennKR | ☎ 14:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• In 1997, with Columbia Records, Destiny's Child released their major label debut song "Killing Time" on the soundtrack to the 1997 film, Men in Black. ----> hmm I think this need re-wording, it's kinda complex.
•  Done —JennKR | ☎ 14:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• The Writing's on the Wall sold more than eight million copies. ---> worldwide right?
•  Done —JennKR | ☎ 14:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• questioning herself and who her friends were. ---> This read like a magazine, I don't think the sentence is needed.
•  Done —JennKR | ☎ 14:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Franklin was dismissed, leaving just Knowles, Rowland, and Williams. ---> Hmm, maybe a sentence how Rowland came in the bend?
•  Not done This is established earlier ("Aged eight, Knowles and childhood friend Kelly Rowland met LaTavia Roberson while in an audition for an all-girl entertainment group...") —JennKR | ☎ 14:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Fuku Suzuki

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've noticed that an article on a similar topic, Mana Ashida, achieved good article status and I would eventually like to develop this article to a similar standard. Consequently, I would appreciate it if I could be informed on aspects of this article which need to be improved to bring this article a step closer. In particular feedback on: the general style, other aspects which need to be included/developed and the correction of any errors in the Wiki markup would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you in advance, JTST4RS (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Nelson Mandela

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is already a GA and I want to know if could possibly be a candidate for GA status? If not, what is it missing?

Thanks, Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 13:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean a candidate for FA status? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes Khazar2, sorry I meant a candidate for FA. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 15:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• The prose looks good, generally.
• "he established a new constitution": he promulgated a new constitution
• "kraal": Our article on the word says it's a corral, but you've linked it to something else, and "corral" wouldn't make sense here.
• "their transition from boys to men; the rite over, he was given the name": Would anything important be lost here by "... and was given the name"?
• "his BA ... his BA exams": his bachelor's degree ... his final exams [if they were final exams]
• I got down to Defiance Campaign and Transvaal ANC Presidency: 1950–1954. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Breakaway (Kelly Clarkson album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because because I feel it is now a humongous improvement than it is before. I've expanded it using reliable sources and I think it meets a GA criteria, at the very least.

Thanks, Chihciboy (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Museum de Oude Wolden

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve the article to B class quality.

Thanks, Editør (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have made some additional edits and promoted the article to B class. I would still appreciate comments that would help improving the article. – Editør (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

I've done a quick read through of the article, and it generally seems quite well written. A few things: First, the founding of the museum. It says in the info box 1973, but it would be nice to have a quick sentence in the body establishing who founded it, and what their motivations were. Also, a general statement like "focuses on ___ era dutch painters" would be helpful in the intro. Finally, it would be helpful (though certainly not required) if you could find a reputable source in English that describes the museum, as the only English source appears to be a passing mention of the museum. I'm certainly not an expert in this area, but the article seems to do a good job covering the topic.Forbes72 (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

• Details of foundation: I have searched for publications mentioning such details, but until now without success. The only publication I've found that mentions the museum's foundation at all is the list that I have used with the foundation year.  Done – Editør (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• General statement:  Done
• English source: I have also searched for additional English language publications, but so far without success. Most publications about the museum are local sources, or regional sources at best.

– Editør (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Amir Hamzah

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take this to FAC and wanted an outside look at grammar and accessibility (particularly how clear the context is).

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is shaping up into a very fine one indeed. A few pernickety comments, none of which detract from my admiration of the piece:

• Lead
  • The word "Amir" appears fourteen times in the lead. I think it would flow more smoothly if you replaced the name with a pronoun whenever possible, e.g. at "Amir was educated", "Even after Amir", "Amir was recalled", "Amir fulfilled", "when Amir first travelled", "Amir stopped writing", and so on.
  • "to marry his the sultan's daughter" – "his" or "the" but not both.
    • D'oh! Was going to go with "his uncle's daughter" but thought her position as the sultan's daughter was more important.
  • "Of the two, Nyanyi Sunyi" – the last mention of this and its companion was in the previous para, and perhaps "collections" after "two" would be helpful to the reader here.
    • Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Early life
  • "He remained a devout Muslim throughout his life. However, sources disagree on the period in which he completed his formal studies." – the "However" implies that the second statement somehow contradicts the first, but there seems no connexion between the two.
    • Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Second para – Lots more "Amirs" here, too, that would, I think, be better as "he" or "his": "Amir started", "Amir's first year", "Amir first studied". In fact I recommend you go through the whole article converting his name to he/him/his wherever you sensibly can. At present "Amir" occurs 154 times in your text.

• Java
  • "whence he completed" – do you mean "where" rather than "from where"?
    • Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "social organisation" – but in the lead you use the" –ize form rather than the" –ise in "idealized". There are other incidences of both forms elsewhere in the article, and I think you ought to go for consistency.
    • Will keep an eye out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "His time at school also introduced him" – something a bit strange here: it wasn't the time that introduced him
    • Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "meaning this his education" – meaning that?
    • D'oh! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "continued her studies to Lembang" – at rather than to?
    • D'oh! That's an Indonesianism right there ("melanjutkan pelajarannya ke Lembang"). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "Amir had to fulfill" – the OED spells the word "fulfil", though I have a vague recollection that the third "l" is given in American dictionaries. I just mention this and leave it to you.
    • Fixed — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Return to Langkat
  • "Now an heir to the throne" – that comes rather out of the blue. Was this heirdom because he had married Kamiliah? I think perhaps you might mention it if so.
    • Went with "Prince" instead, which is a bit more pertinent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Influences
  • "Multiple writers have commented" – can you multiply a writer? I think perhaps just "many" would be preferable here.
  • "Islamic dogma and doctrine" – possibly showing my ignorance here, but I'd have said dogma and doctrine are the same thing. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
    • Done and done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "influences from the Christian Bible is likewise evident" – either "influences…are or "influence…is"
    • D'oh! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "anthropomorphic" – worth a blue link, I'd say.
    • Sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Works
  • There is no single correct answer to the question of how to write numbers in prose, but I must say "1 original book" looks most peculiar. I think the old rule of thumb, words for one to ten and numerals for 11 and upwards, is not a bad one. On the other hand I see that at Nyanyi Sunyi later in the article you write "twenty-four", which looks fine.
    • Per WP:NUMERAL we're not supposed to mix and match. Have gone with full words instead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I didn't know about the WP:NUMERAL prescription, so I've learned something today. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Style
  • "He also borrows heavily" – just for once I think this "he" would be better as "Amir".
    • Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "different than his later ones" – different from, or at a pinch, to, but I've not seen "different than" before. But perhaps this is our old friend WP:Engvar.
    • Or me being silly. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Awards and recognition
  • "Dutch scholar of Indonesian literature A. Teeuw" – unnecessary repetition: you've already told us where Teeuw is from and what he does.
    • D'oh! That's what I get for moving these names around all the time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "Balfas describes Amir's works are "the best literary products to surpass their time" – Two things here: "are" should be "as", and what on earth does the quotation mean? I can't make any sense of it at all.
    • The quote in-context is here. Based on my reading, it seems Balfas is suggesting that Amir's genius was not fully understood during his lifetime, that the poet was ahead of his time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I think you're right. Still, don't be surprised if some other pernickety soul raises the same point at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That's all from me. If going on to FAC I hope you will let me know. – Tim riley (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the comments. Will do the non-Amir related stuff first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I think I cut back on the Amir's. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Afterthought: on another swift re-reading I found myself uneasy about the word "executed", which I take to mean a lawful process by due authority rather than a lynching by rebels. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "execution" in this sense as "the putting (a person) to death in pursuance of a judicial or authoritative sentence". Perhaps the neutral "killed" would be safer, but I certainly don't press the point. Pray ponder and accept or reject as you think best. Tim riley (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Very good point, and have changed the article to reflect this after consulting summary execution and seeing that it too presupposes at least some legitimate authority. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Just a few little tweaks and polishes here from me. I've made a few edits here and there: feel free to revert anything you don't like. Overall a very nice article which I found interesting and readable. First batch of comments below:

Early life

• "while Dini casts the relationship as vow to be always faithful." Needs a tweak here for clarity, even if it's just "a vow".

Java "he wrote his brother Jakfar": -> "to his brother"

Return to Langkat

• "the fleding poet": fledgling?

Influences

• The paragraph beginning "Many writers have commented" lists a number of people and their backgrounds: I note you don't use the definite article for the descriptions ("Others, such as Dutch scholar of Indonesian literature": the Dutch scholar...). I'm not sure which varietal of English the article is in, but BrEng tends to use the article; AmEng doesn't. I'm not going to be prescriptive about the use, but draw it to your attention for consideration.

Done to the end of Influences: more to follow shortly. Pip pip! – SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Done, I think. Glad you're enjoying this! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Second bite of the cherry...

Works

• "Within the collections, Johns writes, the poems appear to be generally arranged in chronological order; he points to the various degrees of maturity as a writer Amir shows within the collections." – duplication of "within the collections". The second part is a bit clumsy too, perhaps it could read "he points to the various degrees of maturity Amir shows as his writing developed", or similar?
  • Sure. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• "...world to show wholely" Does the quote say "wholely" or "wholly"?
  • Quote is Indonesian, translation is mine. Spelling fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That's it from me: nicely written, well put together and an excellent coverage of someone I'd only come across through your list—it's certainly good enough for FAC and I'll be happy to have another read through when it gets there. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for the feedback! Yeah, the list came out pretty nicely as well ... I had a good template to build on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  

---

La Martiniere Lucknow

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I believe it provides all the updated information regarding the topic and is well constructed

Thanks, Faizking321 02:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

---

List of most expensive paintings

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback on its quality. As it is changing list i do not think it is appropriate to try to raise it to feature list status (mainly extensive use of citation templates is making the code of article very confusing and thus liming updates to very experienced wikipedia users only) and there is not any other way to get feedback for lists (good articles are only for articles and for Assessment all lists are labeled only as list regardless of its quality). Thanks, Jklamo (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Nicki Minaj videography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like if people could leave comments on how to improve this page and make contributions where they see nessessary. The main section I believe needs improving is the opener as its pretty vague and undetailed. I would really appreciate any help I could get to hopefully to get this article to be a FL.

Thanks, KaneZolanski (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin: I was asked to comment, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I see an issue with the sourcing. Discogs is not a reliable source, and neither are Young Money HQ, Hip Hop Press, IMDB, Video Static, or Hip Hop Canada. These are just examples.
• Citation formatting could be much more consistent. Be sure to add works, publishers, dates and retrieval dates for all online references and be consistent with regard to linking works and publishers (first occurrence v. all the time).
• The lede/lead will need a good copy edit (for example, film titles, "Billboard" and other magazines should be italicized). There are various parts that need to be improved (eg. "animation movie" should be "animated film").
• An overall cleanup of the lede will be important. Avoid trivia like "Minaj was sued a fee of $11,589 by Hollywood Exotic Car Rental for unpaid rental charges, property damage, and punitive damage for the use of the pink Lamborghini Aventador which appeared in the 'Massive Attack' video."
• Avoid comma splice and replace with periods and semi-colons as needed.
• This constitutes original research: "With the latter, as of July 2013, having over 340 million views on Youtube and being the most viewed solo performance video for any black artist in history. Minaj has accumulated over 1 billion views on Youtube, making her the most viewed female rapper of all time." It is also crufty.
• My advice would be a more "even" discussion of her videography in the lead. You discuss some of her music videos in detail, but ignore her documentaries, TV appearances and commercial endorsements.
• Have multiple even sized paragraphs (two to three) for a proper and more informative presentation.
• Make sure the title column in "as a featured artist" is sortable.
• There are some recently promoted exemplary articles you can follow and see what the editors for those lists have done: Rihanna videography, Justin Timberlake videography and Madonna videography.

Hope these help. Try finding a good copy editor or see if the editors at WP:GOCE are willing to help. Good luck. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 09:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

---

The Age of Plastic

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Recently passed GA. Now i want to get this up to FA status, and any comments are welcomed. Thanks, 和DITOREtails 22:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Jefferson Davis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been substantially improved over recent months, and was promoted to Good Article status 10 days ago. I'd like to continue to improve it to the point where it can be a Featured Article. Thank you! Omnedon (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comments by Coemgenus
• In "Early life and first military career", you mention that Davis was the last of 10 children. I remember reading something about how his middle name was an indication that his parents wanted no more kids. Is that true? If it could be referenced, it would be a nice addition to the article.

This would appear to be apocryphal, or at least not well documented, but I will do further research. Omnedon (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• You've got a mix of long cites and short cites in the text. I don't know what the MoS says about that, if anything, but I find it easier to read and edit an article that has all the long cites below, with the in-line refs being all short cites.

I've not run into this before... Some inline citations are only used once, while others refer to works that are cited multiple times. In the latter case I typically use short cites which point to works identified in a separate section. This seems to be common, but I will check further. Omnedon (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm the odd one, here. Like I said, I'm not sure what the MoS says, so don't change it if you think it doesn't make sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd add a short description of the Eggnog Riot to the text -- no more than a sentence or so -- just to make it easier for the reader to understand what's happening without leaving the page.

Good idea -- done. Omnedon (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• In "Second marriage and family", I think it looks and reads better if you use prose instead of lists.

Good point; this has been done. Omnedon (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• In "Second military career", you say Davis resigned his House seat, but you never make it clear in the section above that he won his election or when he took his seat.

I had not noticed that, and have added a paragraph that deals with this. Omnedon (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Is there any detail on what he did in the battle of Monterey?

Yes, I have located that and added some detail. Omnedon (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• In this sentence "He attempted strategic offensives when he felt that military success would (a) shake Northern self-confidence and (b) strengthen the peace movements there." I'd take out the (a) and (b) and just use regular prose.

Agreed, and changed. Omnedon (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Some more detail on his imprisonment would be interesting, if it can be found and sourced. After his few days in irons, how was he treated? Was he held at Fort Monroe the whole time?

I've added some details on his treatment while in prison. Omnedon (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Some of the small paragraphs under "Legacy" could probably be joined up.

I see your point. Currently, though, each paragraph (large or small) deals with an individual aspect of his legacy. Perhaps the shorter ones could be fleshed out a bit. Omnedon (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• On the whole, a very nice article. Good luck with the FA submission.

Thank you for the excellent input; I'm working on these issues. The simplest have been fixed already. I appreciate your help with this! Omnedon (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. Leave a note on my talk page when you submit it for FA. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "His preoccupation ... and a tendency to": Series should be parallel ... this one expands to "His a tendency to".
• "but at its conclusion, his Colonel Zachary Taylor": and at its conclusion, his colonel, Zachary Taylor,
• "for their health; but both of them contracted malaria.": comma instead of semicolon
• "Being bored, and with Davis feeling somewhat better, the two men returned to Mississippi.": Being bored, and feeling somewhat better, he returned with Pemberton to Mississippi.

These four have been addressed. Omnedon (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I got down to Second marriage and family. - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Perspective (video game)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on this article a lot and would like to get it to GA someday; doing this peer review would help me figure out what else to improve.

Thanks, APerson (talk!) 17:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I read through the article and watched the trailer. Here are some suggestions.

• The first sentence does not really inform the reader what exactly the game is. Only when one reads the second sentence does it get somewhat clearer, but then again one could argue that all 3D games have a 2D screen that changes based on the camera angle. Consider replacing the first two sentences with something like "Perspective is an experimental puzzle video game in which the player moves an avatar through a 2D platform world that is the projection of a 3D world. Depending on the camera angle, the 2D platform may change to reveal or remove obstacles."
• The sentence "The player's goal is to move an avatar to a goal." is redundant. Of course the goal is to reach the goal. Maybe replace it with something like, "The objective of each level is to navigate the player's avatar from a start position to a target position."
• Some sentences could be made more concise, e.g. "Access is available to some bonus levels, which are unlocked by..." can be shortened to, "Some bonus levels can be unlocked by...".
• I don't think the last two external links are necessary.
• Overall it is a short and sweet article. Most of the important information is there. dllu (t,c) 01:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by DarthBotto

• While it is not pertinent at the moment, as this is quite a ways from becoming a GA/FA article, those references should not be included in the lede, but rather in the main content of the article.
• Aside from the first sentence, the sentences of the intro should be moved to the main content of the article. What should be there are mentions of what distinguishes this subject matter and its development history.
• The gameplay section is short and sweet... perhaps even too short and sweet. Perhaps expand upon it, without it becoming a game guide?
• We should hear the actual development history, rather than simply its release. If it warrants a Wikipedia article, there must be articles and features that discuss this out there.
• Really expand the reception section and don't just list out perspectives; organize them and give some summary.

I like the start and direction of this article and wish you all the best with this endeavor! DarthBotto _talk•cont 05:23, 06 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Fetal heartbeat bill

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want other people to notice it and help me improve it so it can climb the quality-scale corporate ladder, possibly all the way up to good/featured article.

Thanks, Jinkinson (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This article appears to be about fetal heartbeat legislation solely in the US. Is there such legislation in other countries? If so, it needs to be covered here, or the article needs to be moved to "Fetal heartbeat legislation in the United States" or something similar. Additional comments:

• The lead should be expanded to provide a summary of the entire body of the article, without including information not available, and sourced, in the body of the article.
• References should all include a publisher at the very least, and author names, publication dates, access dates and other information where appropriate.
• When using the name of an organization, first give the full name, followed by the acronym, then afterwards use just the acronym. For example, I see "CRR" late in the article, but can't find the acronym given after a full name, so I'm not sure exactly what it stands for.
• The Arkansas section starts out "Another such bill," but there is no mention of a previous bill, as this is the first one discussed in the section.
• The "by state" section is really choppy, because it's split into so many tiny subsections. The article is still fairly short, so more detail could be given on the bills in each state. For example, in Arkansas: When was it initially passed (before it was vetoed by the governor), and what was the process/any specific controversies regarding the state. As for the last couple of sections, that are just one or two sentences, couldn't these be combined? "Several other states have considered similar legislation. Texas yada yada yada. Wyoming yack yack yack."

Just some thoughts here. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have added a section on Ireland's abortion laws, including fetal heartbeat laws, and have also added the acronym for "Center for Reproductive Rights". One thing I'm not sure about, however, is whether I should add the template for abortion general sanctions to this article's talk page. Do you (anyone reading this) think I should? Jinkinson (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Law school of Berytus

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I did not get any help the first time. I'm not a native English speaker and it took me a lot of time to get the article where it is now but it flunked the FAC review. I need help with my prose in order to make through FAC review.

Thanks, Eli+ 12:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 Reviewing... Will post comments soon. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• "The Law school of Beirut..." — lowercase "Law" since it's not a proper noun.

indeed, fixed -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's stating the obvious, but you should say that it "was a center for the study of Roman law in classical antiquity located in Beirut."

okay, makes sense. Fixed -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sometimes you have "seventeenth century" and sometimes you have "19th century";

I think that was the last one. -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• According to Collinet's book, Ménage also supported Emperor Alexander Severus (not Septimius) as the school foundation promoter.

Indeed I had to re-read the passage for myself :S -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Parmi les anciens, Haserappelle et réfute les opinions de Scipion Gentilis qui en attribuait la fondation à Auguste, d'autres écrivains qui mettaient ses débuts sous Hadrien, de Ménage qui en plaçait le commencement sous Alexandre Sévère. Pour lui, l'École aurait été créée peu après la victoire d'Actium, opinion qui ne repose sur aucun argument solide

— Paul Collinet, Histoire de l'école de droit de Beyrouth

.

• "... based on the reference in Gregory." — I suppose you're referring to Thaumaturgus? Better use the surname instead.

Okay, fixed -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• What is the purpose of ref 11? To source the author? I don't see a point in that.

No purpose at all :(, removed -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "This function is first recorded for 196 CE..." — for or in?

Okay, fixed -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "From 425 CE onward..."

Okay, fixed -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "30,000 people lost their lives..." — Don't begin a sentence with a figure in numerical format. Either spell it out or rephrase so you can put words before it.

"In the aftermath, thirty thousand people lost their lives, including many students from abroad" does this sound better? -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "... and did not cover the local laws of the province of Phoenica." — typo: Phoenica→Phoenicia

Phoenica→Phoenicia, thanks -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "... fixed the duration of the legal course in the schools of Beirut and Constantinople at 5 five years."

Okay, fixed -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• ... but Justinian changed the name of the first-year students from the frivolous dupondii, which means "two-pennies". First-year students were henceforth designated to Iustiniani novi; and fifth-year students were dubbed Prolytae; while the other names remained unchanged."

I went by your suggestion, so much smoother -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• According to the source, the Prota part of the Digest encompasses books 1 to 4, not 1 to 5.

Typo, my bad :( fixed -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Who is Theophilus?

a law teacher and lawyer from constantinople, info added with ref -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Julian left Beirut and settled in Constantinople..." — Julianus

well ok :S if it makes things clearer -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "... it is presumed that Beirut and Constantinople's schools had 4 four teachers each."

Okay, fixed -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "While most of the law school's students names..." — students→student

okay... -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The first mention of the school's premises dates to 350 AD CE..."

all instances changed to CE -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "A degree in law became highly sought after following an edict issued in 460 CE by Emperor Leo I." — remove after or following

Okay, fixed -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "... the Christian faith was consolidated as an integral element of the jursitic training." — typo: jursitic→juristic

thank you -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

After you address these, I may do some copyediting myself to try and finetune prose issues. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this very, very thourough review. -Eli+ 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

More comments:

• Is Julianus Antecessor the same Julianus in "Three school professors who were contemporary to Justinian I are Dorotheus, Anatolius and Julianus."?

yes buddy, he's one and the same, Antecessor was a title or epithet given to law professors, I removed it since some sources mention it and others don't and to avoid confusion. -Eli+ 21:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I linked the names of the remaining Ecumenical Masters, even though they're red links. Do you intend on creating pages for them? If not, it's up to you to have them red-linked or not linked at all.

It's ok, I will get to them sometime in the future -Eli+ 21:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• The "periods" infobox parameter should probably list Late Antiquity, while the "cultures" parameters should list Roman and Byzantine. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

agree -Eli+ 21:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've taken another look at the "Legacy" section, and I feel that the next-to-last paragraph plus the one before it focus more on the Corpus Iuris Civilis and its impact in the legal systems of the Western world, than on the law school itself (as all the other paragraphs). Okay, it was a work assembled by Beirut law teachers, but that link was already mentioned before, and it seems enough to me concerning the school's legacy. No need to go over the work's legacy itself. Can you see where I'm going? Parutakupiu (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more!!! In previous versions i only implied this relationship but reviewer Quadell asked me to elaborate on this point in the FAC nomination. I was reluctant because i didn't want to engage in unnecessary detail and I had to chop thousands of years of history into tiny bits to fit into a paragraph. If you go the article's FAC nom and search for this passage : "The "Legacy" section implies that work done at Beirut helped shape the legal systems that would become Byzantine law and later Western law in general." you'll know what I'm talking about. I don;'t know if there's a way around this dilemma, i'm not convinced with that level of detail either. -Eli+ 11:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

and sorry for the really late reply but I'm having a terribly busy day :( -Eli+ 12:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(No worries.) If I were to decide, I'd chop away those paragraphs. I suggest you raise that specific issue in the FAC nomination page, to create more awareness to potential reviewers. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll do that buddy, thanks -Eli+ 18:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Nora Samuelli

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to get feedback for future improvements of the article.

Thanks, Adamdaley (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Adamdaley, would it be possible to include any information about the subject's earlier life? The article opens with her arrest in the 1940s - I'd like to know her background, how she became involved in spying, etc. At the moment the article seems almost more about the bills than about her as a person. I'd definitely like to see a lot more sources too, and the citation-needed tags should be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  

---

Taylor v. Beckham

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's been a while since I took anything to WP:FAC, and lest my skills get rusty, I started looking back through my GAs to see if any might be ready to make the leap. I think this one might qualify. Taylor v. Beckham was a 1900 Supreme Court case to resolve the disputed 1899 Kentucky gubernatorial election. I wrote this article from scratch in order to complete a featured topic on that election. I'm listing this for peer review for a couple of reasons: first, the prose probably needs some work in places, and I'd like some help finding those places; and second, I'm not a lawyer or anything resembling one, so there may be some areas where my terminology is wrong, or there may be some additional interesting points to this case that are missing, so a review by anyone with legal experience would be especially appreciated. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

Lead

• Find out of it's standard to write about cases is the past or present tense. Clicking through some other random case pages, I see a mix of "was a case", "was a decision", "is a decision", etc.
  • I'll see what I can find out. I think the difference would be whether the decision still has implications. (e.g. "Brown v. Board of Education is a decision that struck down the idea of separate but equal" but this case "was a decision" that settled a past gubernatorial election.) Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• "In the gubernatorial election, held on November 7, 1899, Taylor received 193,714 votes" Since you already wrote "gubernatorial election" in the last sentence, maybe this would be more elegant: "In November 7, 1899 election, Taylor received 193,714 votes"
  • Good suggestion. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• "exercising the authority of the governor's office" What are the rules for when to capitalize "Governor"? I would think here you are directly referring to the office and so it would be caps.
  • I'd consider it the same as "president". If it's a title (e.g. President Obama), it's capitalized. If it's the full name of the office (e.g. President of the United States), it's capitalized. But just in a sentence (e.g. Today, the president said blah, blah blah), it isn't. This would be an example of that last case, wouldn't it? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• "The suits were consolidated and heard in Jefferson County circuit court, which claimed it had no authority to interfere with the method of deciding contested elections prescribed by the state constitution, a decision that favored Beckham." Careful in your use of the term "decision" which has a very precise legal meaning. I'm not saying it isn't right, but to your point above, it would be helpful to get input from a legal person.
  • Yeah, I see where that might be problematic. I just changed it to "outcome". Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• "Justice David J. Brewer, joined by Justice Henry B. Brown, contended that the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction, but concurred as to the result in favor of Beckham." How about "concurred with" rather than "concurred as to"?
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Back with more later. --Laser brain (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Doctor Who

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get review on what needs to be done to this article to get it up to a good article status, I am also hoping after it has acquired good article status that it can be further improved and made a featured article in time for the 50th Anniversary in November.

Thanks, Kelvin 101 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

---

New Guinea Volunteer Rifles

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been completely rewritten recently, but due to the breadth of the literature available and my limited understanding of this period I am unsure if the coverage is sufficient. Have attempted to place the actions of the battalion into the wider context of the events of the New Guinea campaign at the time and hoping for knowledgeable editors to review and provide suggestions for any further improvements / changes before I take it to GA. Thanks, Anotherclown (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert: G'day, great to see a detailed article on this. Good work. I took a quick run through and fixed a few minor typos/MOS issues. I have a couple of quick comments for now, but will read through the article more thoroughly a bit later...

• "File:NGVR colour patch.PNG": I think the licence here should actually be "PD-shape" per the advice I received during the ACR for the 2/18th Battalion (Australia);
• "File:2-5 commando company.jpg": if possible, could a better quality version of this be uploaded? I think that the AWM has now cropped this if you follow the link on the Commons page;
• "File:Rabaul invasion beach 1946 (AWM 129857).jpg": if possible, I wonder if you could crop this?
• I saw some minor inconsistency in terms of the use of serial commas. For example "In February 1951 a small..." v. "On 17 May 1969, PNGVR..."
• probably add a link to battle honour somewhere.
• the motto is listed in the infobox, but not in the body of the article and is therefore possibly uncited.
• same as above for the Regimental March. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• you could probably also wikilink the Regimental Flower, although you will need to contend with a dab: Flame of the Forest. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ce and the comments so far. I've gone ahead and done these (except the commas - will look for them now). Anotherclown (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
    • G'day, I did a bit of copyediting this afternoon. Please check that you are happy with my changes. Also, I have a couple of extra points:
• "former AIF officer" (AIF hasn't been introduced here);
• repetitious: "...preparing to destroy key infrastructure to deny it to the Japanese. Meanwhile, another company formed at Lae under Captain Hugh Lyon for the same purpose. Both companies were ordered to destroy key infrastructure..." (destroy key infrastructure)
• not sure about the punctuation in the sentence beginning with: "These would be concentrated on the Japanese force at Heath's Plantation..." Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Quite right, that is poorly written. I had a chop at correcting these now. If you could have another look and let me know if you think further changes are necessary that would be greatly appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's better. I have a suggestion, though. Perhaps this might be clearer: "These would be concentrated in three areas: on the Japanese force at Heath's Plantation, where they formed an obstacle to any large-scale movement against Lae; on the Lae area to destroy the aircraft, dumps and installations located there, and to test the defences with a view to larger scale operations in the future; and on the Salamaua area to destroy the wireless station, aerodrome and dumps." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Have adopted this wording now, thanks for persisting with this. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
        • No worries; looks good. Good luck with taking the article further. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "whites-only", "mixed race", "Europeans": It's best to be careful with language about ethnicity ... and often, there's not a lot of logic in which words are recommended, what's "right" is generally different in different countries, and tends to change over time. So ... I can't say what's right, but I'd start with dropping the quote marks, and being as specific as you can. That is, instead of saying a unit was whites-only, say how it got that way ... was it left up to recruiters to reject anyone whose skin color looked wrong?
  • Will have to have a think about this. The quotation marks are used because that the language specifically used in the sources. Not sure of what instrument was used to prevent their recruitment and can't find it in the sources. Will keep looking though as that would be good to include I agree. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, several points. There are times when it's not a problem (if I understand MOS correctly) to put quote marks around one or two words to mean "This is what people tended to call it", but because of the sensitive nature of the statement, this would be a good time to go "by the book". (See :) quotemarks around "by the book" are fine because we're chatting, so you're not expecting any deeper meaning than the obvious; in encyclopedic text, people are more likely to wonder about the meaning.) And the book says: quotes need to be attributed in-text. But if you say that X called them "mixed race", that of course raises the question of what he meant, a question that probably needs to be answered here. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Gday again. I've removed the quotation marks now and changed mixed race to multi-racial. Added enlistment of PNG and Chinese pers to lead to clarify meaning of multi-racial. Does this work? Anotherclown (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• "Due to the provisions of the League of Nations": I'm not sure what this is saying ... which provisions?
  • Good point - clarified with a note. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• "Yet following the outbreak of war": I don't get what's unexpected enough to merit a "yet" here, at least in the sense of "nevertheless".
  • "Yet" is used to contrast it with the sentence before which said that no defensive preparations existed prior to then (due to the provisions of the mandate). Is that grammatically incorrect? Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I'll discuss this a bit more in the copyediting software, but yes, I don't recommend "yet" here, because it's not unexpected that people would undertake defensive preparations during wartime. Other versions of the sentence might support a "yet". - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
      • No worries - I've binned it. Anotherclown (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• "enemy aliens which were being deported": ... who ...
  • Mostly Germans and Austrians, added now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, you're right, if you know they're mostly Germans and Austrians, that's good to know ... but I meant "enemy aliens who were being deported". - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Oh yes I see what you mean. Changed "which" to "who" now. Anotherclown (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• I did some copyediting, and got down to Rabaul. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for that - I applied some of the changes you made to the lead to the body of the text as well (where I repeated certain phrases). Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    

---

Little Tich

This peer review discussion has been closed.

The music hall comedian Little Tich was as well known for his music hall acts as he was for his physical disabilities. He used these "peculiarities" as an enhancement to his act which included his acrobatic and comedic Big-Boot Dance for which he wore twenty-eight inch boots. He created many comic characters including The Spanish Señora, The Gendarme and The Tax Collector, and was a popular performer in the annual Christmas pantomimes at London's Theatre Royal, Drury Lane from 1888. I have worked on this for the last couple of months, and have FAC in mind. I would be very interested to see what others think of my efforts in trying to explain the complex life of the English music hall's biggest but smallest star. Thanks, Cassianto^Talk 08:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment GermanJoe

- only the lead so far, will try to add sections step by step.

• Captions (whole article) => please disregard this point, if you like short captions. But in my opinion 2- or 3-word captions are not really captivating and miss a good chance to provide some brief context for the reader.

• Extended some, which have helped a lot thanks. Believe it or not I did intend to extend these before PR but I completely overlooked them. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Born in Cudham, Kent, [Little Tich] ..." => I am not sure about the convention here, should his birth name be used pre-1884?

• I am worried that this could become confusing. I have adopted the same approach here that I took with Dan Leno (whose birth name was George Galvin), and Marie Lloyd (Matilda Alice Victoria Wood), which was generally agreed at both FACs. There, I consistently use the more notable name of Leno and Lloyd with no problems. -- Cassianto^Talk.

• "The performances were popular and he travelled to London where he appeared at the Foresters Music Hall in 1884." => The implication could be more explicit here. Did he travel to London, "because" his initial performances were so popular?

• No, I think he just took a potshot at scoring a success in the big smoke. Would this need more clarification to say so? -- Cassianto^Talk 16:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• I tried to separate the 2 thoughts a bit more, feel free to tweak (the second sentence is a little bit short now). GermanJoe (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• "In the later months of that year ..." => Trim, "Later that year ..." is clear enough

• Agree. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Tichborne" => Is it possible to squeeze in some background about that term's meaning here? (disregard, if too much info for a lead)
  • Now squeezed. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• "...during a tour of America" => North or South? Can you specify the area a bit?
  • Unambiguous, "America" unqualified always = USA. Rothorpe (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Granted, it's the most common usage. However, in an encyclopedic context we should strive to use the most precise terms to be as clear as possible for a world-wide readership. GermanJoe (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Note 14 lists the states which Little Tich toured. I'm not too hot with my American geography, but this looks like he toured the whole of America. As well as New York, he also took in Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Baltimore, St Louis, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, and Washington. Is it better to be less specific because of this, or does this indicate a particular area? -- Cassianto^Talk 10:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Already changed it to the better (imo) "United States", assuming no Canadian or Mexican city is hiding in the list. GermanJoe (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Thanks a lot. I have double checked and there are no mentions of Mexico or Canada. -- Cassianto^Talk 10:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• "Between 1896 and 1902 Little Tich performed in his own [musical theatre company]" => is the company name of interest here?

• Absolutley, although it is unknown and not listed in the source I'm afraid. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Among the songs in which the characterisations featured were ..." => Wordy. "Among the songs with/featuring such characters ..." or similar

• Reworded. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• "[He had a much publicised private life], he married three times and fathered two children." => A bit vague, what aspects were especially publicised (family life, affairs, ...) or was it his whole private life?

• Contrary to what I said, a lot of his private life initially went unreported, especially his second marriage as nobody had a clue that they were living separate lives. It was only after her death that everybody picked up on the estrangement and then found him a fascinating subject to report on. If OK! were around at that time, then I'm sure he would have been on their front cover every other week! Redundancy now removed. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I am intentionally only reading the lead here at first, that section should stand on its own without the need to consult the main text for summary information. It's mostly fine in that regard, just some minor tweaks needed. GermanJoe (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment (GermanJoe) (more during the weekend):

• Marriage troubles "and thought that without Little Tich's performance, the film 'would never have attained its degree of intelligence [which] is owed to [Little Tich], the giant of creation.'" => could you provide the original text for this quote please? Maybe Google Books is acting up, but i can't find that quote and removing the [] parts doesn't leave a full sentence. Seems like something is missing in the quotation. GermanJoe (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Removed for now, I'll work on it which may need the sentence before it adjusting. I think the pertinent point here is that Tati liked the film which is covered already by the existing quote. Cheers Joe! -- Cassianto^Talk 18:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

More Comments (GermanJoe) - did a few minor CEs, but a lot of points have already been covered, a few remaining nitpicks:

• "The Blacksmith's Arms" => Looking at the image this is the inn's proper name and should have uppercase "The".
  • Corrected. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• [Much to his delight was the prospect of] resuming his education, => sounds a bit antiquated, "He looked forward to resuming his education" would be more boring encyclopedic.
  • Changed. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• "The young Tich felt honoured at such a tribute and relished the rapturous applause of his classmates." => should be removed. It's a subjective first-person POV and pretty obvious - which young boy wouldn't feel that?
  • Removed. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Little Tich [sympathised with them and] agreed to seek full-time employment and ... => should be trimmed (first-person POV) and merged with the next sentence.
  • Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• "(an indication that he had still yet to establish himself in England)" => just checking, is that interpretation covered by the source? (possible OR)
  • Removed, yes it was a bit. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Flats of Julia => during their separation she moves "to a neighbouring flat, [bought for her] by her husband", later the article states: "in the flat which Litte Tich [had rented for her]. Is this the same flat, or did she move sometimes in between?
  • He rented it. Sorry, I got confused with this a few weeks back but must have forgot to change this. I think at one stage Tich was renting three or four properties both here and in France but only ever owning one (in Hendon). -- Cassianto^Talk 20:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• "at Caxton Hall, Westminster in a modest and intimate ceremony." => source?
  • Tweaked. Ref [133] covers this now. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Not sure about your preference for references, but ref #139 is missing date of publication and author (both details are provided online; i haven't checked other online sources for missing details).
  • Good spot. Date now provided. Is the author needed? -- Cassianto^Talk 21:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Don't know about "needed". But WP:CITE seems to recommend to add the author of newspaper articles, if the info is available. GermanJoe (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A note to point 2-4: of course it's OK to add some "emotional" background info for atmosphere and context (that makes such articles fun and interesting to read), but the main focus should be on good old encyclopedic facts. So it's not a matter of removing all of that kind of information, just trimming it a bit to the most relevant and notable pieces. GermanJoe (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Images (GermanJoe)

• Images File:The_Blacksmiths_Arms,_Cudham.jpg => added template (you can use Commons-template "geograph" for such images from the Geograph project).
  • Thanks. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• File:Mistinguett_by_Nadar.jpg => Do you know the "real" source for this image by chance? It's always the same annoying problem, when old images have been copied without their complete info from Wiki to Commons (a strict review would bring that point up later).
  • Swapped for this →File:Cadum 1912 Mistinguett Portrait.jpg. Will this do? -- Cassianto^Talk 21:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately not, my rule of thumb is PD-range + 50 years (1863 here, or 1893 for PD-70) to be reasonably sure, the image is free (and even that would be debatable under a strict view of the law). However, you have 2 other options, if you can't find another image with more copyright details:
      • Upload it to en-Wiki lokally with Template:PD-1923 and Template:Do not move to Commons.
      • Try to keep it on Commons with Commons:Template:PD-1923 and additional Commons:Template:anonymous-EU. To use this additional tag, you would have to provide reasonable evidence, that you searched for the photographer and that such photographs were unlikely to be attributed to their creator. GermanJoe (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Blast!I Ok, with that in mind, I went for the former here →File:Mistinguett in 1912.jpg which I messed up uploaded with the relevant tags. For some reason it is still showing my un cropped version. I'm hoping this will eventually go to the cropped version. Does the Commons one now need to be deleted? -- Cassianto^Talk 11:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
          • I can nominate them later, if you want - no problem. GermanJoe (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
            • Nominated the duplicate on Commons, kept the other Commons image (even if the license is a bit dubious - it's in use and i don't want to mess with others' articles). 15:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Another winner from the Cassianto stable. Less tragic than Marie, Joey and Dan, but still not without a decidedly sad side. Well told and well proportioned. I have some comments on which you may like to ponder, and I may need two or three goes. Here's the first batch:

• Lead
  • "for which he wore twenty-eight inch boots" – this is driving me mildly insane ("a short journey", I hear you murmur). The uninitiated reader will not know or even necessarily guess that this is 28 inches from heel to toe end, but I'm blest I can think of a pithy way of making it clear. 28 inches long could be from floor to thigh, but 28 inches from heel to toe invites the surmise that Tich's feet were that long. The best I can come up with is, "for which he wore boots with soles twenty-eight inches long", but I hope someone else can suggest something equally precise but more punchy.
    • I'll go with yours Tim. I did chuckle at the thought of Tich wearing 28 inch, knee length boots. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "due to his diminutive stature" – feel free to ignore this, as I am an old fossil, but I cling to the old BrEng rule that "due to" needs a main verb, and that in this case "due to his diminutive stature" should be "owing to his diminutive stature" or "because of his diminutive stature". ("Due to" used as here is perfectly good AmEng, I believe, but that's not to the present point.)
    • Agree and done. Amazing how much AmEng slips through into BritEng! -- Cassianto^Talk 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Family background and early life
  • "One of four brothers, Richard Relph…" – does it add anything to know that dad was one of four brothers?
    • Redundency removed. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "when he was aged 10" – later in the article you use "ten" rather than "10". I recommend the former here, too. On the other hand you may feel that "ten" closely followed by "4 feet 6 inches" looks odd. Over to you to ponder.
    • ten it is. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "growing to 4 feet 6 inches, a height he retained for the remainder of his life" – I wonder if "growing to 4 feet 6 inches – the tallest he ever grew" might have more impact. Just a thought.
    • Swapped. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "Unbeknown to him at the time" – I think I'd be inclined to lose this and start with "These experiences…"
    • Changed. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "Little Tich relished his local infamy – I wonder about "infamy" (cue Carry on Cleo) and wonder if "celebrity" might be more accurate.
    • Ha, I don't think at that age they "all had it infamy". I went with "celebrity status", would this be correct? -- Cassianto^Talk 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "the audiences laughter" – this needs a possessive apostrophe, but whether you mean "audience's" singular or "audiences'" plural I am not sure. The latter, probably, I think.
    • Quite right thanks. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Move to Gravesend and early performances
  • "all the jolly and sentimental pantomime songs of the day" – probably need an inline ref no and citation at this point for a direct quote like this. The same as ref 13 I imagine, but no harm in putting it in here too.
    • Now given. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

More to come. I'm enjoying this article a lot. – Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :) -- Cassianto^Talk 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Round Two from Tim

Short measure this time, but more soonest.

• Early London engagements
  • "having found out about it during a tour of Leeds" – is this geographical information useful?
    • Deleted. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "taught himself how to play" – I think I might omit "how" here.
    • Omitted. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• American success
  • There are, I think, more mentions of "Little Tich" than necessary. There are several places in this section where a simple "he" would do the job and would ease the flow of the prose. It's more of a problem in this article than with Leno, Lloyd, Holloway et al because you always use both parts of his stage name – he's never just "Tich". I entirely see why you have adopted this rule, but it comes at a price in the flow of the prose.
    • This section now reduced. I will go through the other later tonight. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "a rare white Bohemian Shepherd" – blue link notwithstanding I think I might add "dog" after "Shepherd". Guides the reader's eye along smoothly.
    • Added. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "£6 a week[n 15] wage" – I'd move the citation to the end of the sentence.
    • Now moved. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Must away for now. More as soon as I can. Tim riley (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Last lot from Tim

• American success
  • "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame in which Little Tich played…" – "perhaps The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, playing…"? Crisper, possibly
    • Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• 1890s
  • "at the London Pavilion in Piccadilly" – I think it may have been in Piccadilly Circus, which isn't quite the same thing, but don't take my word for this.
    • Checked with Arthur Lloyd and corrected. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "in his establishment's forthcoming pantomime" – you could lose "establishment's"
    • Lost. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Life at Drury Lane
  • "he introduced his big-boot dance" – you need to decide whether it's Big-Boot, as in earlier mentions, or big-boot, as here. You could argue it either way, but you ought to aim for consistency.
    • Changed. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Recording career and new family
  • "he was fined £103 for breach of contract" – "fined" seems the wrong word. I don't think it applies to civil cases. I think I'd go for something like: "The proprietors of the theatre sued for breach of contract and he had to pay them £103 in compensation."
    • Swapped. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's all from me. Onwards and upwards! Tim riley (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Tim for a sterling review, cheers! -- Cassianto^Talk 18:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

Read down to the start of the 1890s section so far, and very few problems. More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps his height should be added to the lead as well.
  • Added. I swapped it for the second use of "diminutive". I think I can get away with this? -- Cassianto^Talk 16:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Aside from the places where it is a variant spelling in the sources, "Titch" is used as well as "Tich" in a couple of times, for example in the second paragraph of "Family background and early life".
  • Nice spot. I have gone through and checked for other which I think I have caught. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• "He also experienced stunted growth when he was aged ten, growing to 4 feet 6 inches – the tallest he ever grew": I don't think he would suddenly experience it as the age of ten, where it sounds like a one-off. Maybe instead of "when he was…", have a new sentence "He reached 4 feet 6 inches in height by the age of ten, but grew no taller."
  • Tim picked up on this earlier and we threw it out there to others to come up with an alternative. I think this is better, but would you recommend a semi-colon rather than a full stop? -- Cassianto^Talk 16:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• "His physical differences, compared to other children": Maybe "His physical differences to other children"
  • Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• "from an early age" used twice in close proximity in the "Family background" section.
  • Deleted the first. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• "By now, Little Tich was becoming a valuable asset to his family": We've already said something similar so I don't think we need to repeat the idea.
  • Redundancy removed. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• "…Agnes who, under the instructions of Richard Relph, would chaperone her young brother…": Is there any reason this could not be "…Relph, chaperoned her young brother…" which is less clunky?
  • Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• The brackets in note 6 seem out of place.
  • Done with others to do. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • All done. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• I'm slightly uncomfortable with the description ""nigger" comedians" in note 7, and wonder if a way less jarring to modern eyes could be found, such as blackface used earlier.
  • Yes, it is an uncomfortable phrase to use in this day and age, but the term was very much an innocent one back then. The act was called "blackface" and the people who played them were "niggers". -- Cassianto^Talk 16:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • May I suggest then that "nigger comedians" would be slightly better as it less likely to be a problem as it makes it clear that that is how they were known. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes of course. I have moved the inverts further along the sentence to incorporate both. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• "a black faced attendant": "black-faced" perhaps? I'm never too sure on these. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Neither am I. Can anyone shed some light? -- Cassianto^Talk 16:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I believe the hyphen is correct here, as the two-word phrase constitutes a single attributive adjective. (Did that sound as though I knew what I was talking about? I think it's right.) Tim riley (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks Tim you convinced me! Now added.-- Cassianto^Talk 22:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

More comments, down to the end of 1890s. The rest to follow tonight or tomorrow:

• " The deal would see Little Tich star in two pantomimes and on a wage of £36 a week": I never like "saw" used like this, and I like "would see" even less, but it may just be me.
  • How does "The deal required Little Tich to star in two pantomimes for a wage of £36 a week" sound? -- Cassianto^Talk 23:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• "The production, which also starred Drury Lane regulars Marie Lloyd, Dan Leno and Herbert Campbell,[68] saw Little Tich play both the title role": Another use of "saw".
  • Swapped for "As well as the title role,[69] Little Tich also played the minor part of the Yellow Dwarf in the harlequinade." -- Cassianto^Talk 23:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• " The Derby Daily Telegraph called the comedian "one of the most amusing pantomime dames of all time".[74] Despite a budget of £30,000,[n 18] the production failed to equal the success of the previous two shows which caused Harris to rethink his cast": It's not entirely clear which performance is being spoken about here, after the aside from the newspaper. Presumably Robinson Crusoe, but worth making it a little clearer.
  • Clarified. It was Robinson Crusoe. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• "and became known by the German theatrical press as the first comedian to ever appear in two music halls a night": The grammatical pedant in me does not like to see split infinitives such as "to ever appear", but I know not everyone is bothered by this.
  • No problem, I have deleted "ever" which I think looks better. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• "The audience were described as being "very large" whose "bursts of laughter w[ere] frequent and loud",[80] while the critic William Archer dismissed Little Tich as being the "...Quasimodo of the music halls, whose talent lies in a grotesque combination of agility with deformity.": I'm not too sure that "while" is the best choice here as it does not really indicate the contrast between the two reactions enough.
  • I have moved some quotes about so it reads "A reporter for the Edinburgh Evening News thought that Little Tich was "the life and soul of the sketch" whose singing was "fairly good while [his] dancing was smart", while the critic William Archer dismissed Little Tich as being the "...Quasimodo of the music halls, whose talent lies in a grotesque combination of agility with deformity." -- Cassianto^Talk 23:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• "The show enjoyed a healthy provincial tour after opening in Newcastle with one reporter writing that "it ha[d] not very much to recommend it", but thought that Little Tich gave "some excellent fooling" and that it "[was] impossible not to laugh at some of the eccentricities".": Noun plus ing ("with one reporter writing"). Also, the healthy nature of the tour jars slightly with the negative comment of the critic. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Tweaked to "Despite the show enjoying a healthy provincial tour after opening in Newcastle, one reporter thought that "it ha[d] not very much to recommend it". -- Cassianto^Talk 23:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Final comments: To the end now. Looks good overall, as usual.

• I wonder do we need quite so many quotes from local newspapers saying how splendidly entertaining he was? I think a few could be safely cut.
• As an aside, what an odd relationship with Julia!
  • Yes it was an odd relationship. Reading the primary source it appears that she was a money grabbing old brass who knew of his affairs, but chose to ignore them as it was better to be Mrs Little Tich than not. He craved companionship and love which she didn't give him but similarly thought that it was better to be in a relationship than not. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• "The couple never publicly announced the separation": Maybe "their" separation?
  • Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• "Little Tich continued to financially support": Another split infinitive (which I doubt anyone but me really cares about!)
  • Changed to "...and he continued to provide financial support for his wife"
• "In 1905 he appeared in the second of a further three films for the French film industry": Is there a way to avoid "films ... film"?
  • I have used "movie" for the first "film" (although "movie" does sound slightly American to me if I was honest).
• "and now had to contend to life ": I think it is more usually "contend with".
  • Changed. -- Cassianto^Talk.
• Even with the semi-colons, I think the very long sentence beginning "He made frequent visits to Bedford Court Mansions..." needs splitting.
  • Split and now reads: " He made frequent visits to Bedford Court Mansions to organise Julia's paperwork and discovered that his wife had been having an affair with his friend Emile Footgers and that she was actually ten years older than she had led her husband to believe. Little Tich also found that she had used his money to buy a house in Golders Green for his granddaughter Constance without his knowing and that she had participated in a secret scam to blackmail him out of large quantities of cash."
• I wonder if a "legacy" section, or something similar, is possible which sort-of assesses him and puts him in the pantheon, so to speak. At the moment, all we get are bitty comments from various newspapers which covered his performances, but we don't get an overall summing-up and drawing together. Just a thought, and feel free to ignore this one.
  • I will ponder on this one. Is anybody of like mind? -- Cassianto^Talk 23:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That's it from me, and feel free to ping me when it goes to FAC. Another enjoyable read, nice work. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Thank you so much for your brilliant comments. Your thorough review has helped improve the article no end. Cheers! -- Cassianto^Talk 23:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Very good – as always – and just a few little tweaks and polishes here from me. I've made a few tweaks here and there: feel free to revert anything you don't like. A couple of bites at this I think, so this is the first batch:

Family background

• "one of eight children and 16 step-children": this reads as if there are 24 children in total. There were only 16 in total, I think? "He was the last of 16 children born to Richard Relph..." may be clearer (with subsequent clarification on the two batches of eight children to each wife)
  • Welcome back. Done I think (ignore "The"). -- Cassianto^Talk 00:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Return to London and West End debut

• You end the previous section with "He returned home to London with his wife and they set up home at 182 Kennington Road, Lambeth; Laurie later gave birth to the couple's son Paul on 7 November 1889.[44][56]" and begin this one with "Little Tich returned to London shortly before the birth of his son": one of them needs a tweaking to avoid repetition – probably the second, as it's in the 1890s section.
  • Yes quite right, done. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Life at Drury Lane

• "Drury Lane pantomimes were known..." by who?
  • I have provided a ref to V&A for this. Unless I can say "The V&A said that the..." which doesn't quite sound right. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    • You're right - it doesn't sound good! I had a spin over Google books, but most of them all seem to say the same thing, that they were "known" for being extravagant, but without saying by who! - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
      • lol - she emailed and told me all! ;) - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
        • ...from the computer I bought her now doubt! pmsl -- Cassianto^Talk 11:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• "Blanchard confessed": sounds like he was confessing to a crime: "said", perhaps?
  • Swapped. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Done to the end of Druy Lane for now; more to follow. Pip pip! – SchroCat (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Second and final bite of the cherry form me:

New theatrical ventures

• "The breach of contract at the Folies spurred the manager Édouard Marchand into taking legal action against the comedian." -> "Following the breach of contract at the Folies, the manager Édouard Marchand took legal action against the comedian."
  • Swapped, thanks. -- Cassianto^Talk 10:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Any idea what the result of the action was?
  • Explained. -- Cassianto^Talk 01:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• "Little Tich shunned the English variety theatre scene altogether": any reason behind this, or just 'because he did'?
  • Now explained. -- Cassianto^Talk 10:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Recording career

• "Paul who had become estranged from the family by the 1920s": any idea why the estrangement? The last we heard from Paul was the rather sympathetic "Poor, poor father" quote.

• Doing... -- Cassianto^Talk 00:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That's all from me—another very readable and high quality article. I know you will anyway, but give me a nudge when you put this through to FAC: I think this is good enough for the gold star, and it certainly deserves it! Pip pip – SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Quick visit from BB

Hi, Cassianto| With so much attention and so many comments, are you really looking for more? I'll willingly oblige, but I'm so tied up with other things that it's hard to find the time. If you're in no hurry, expect something, at least, from me by Friday evening. Otherwise, I'll catch up with it at FAC where I am sure it is heading. Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, Brian that's fine. I think the review has been quite through and the comments so far have been quite excellent; with four satisfied reviewers, I think we are just about done now for peer review. I appreciate that you're a busy chap, so I would be happy with waiting for FAC if you would like to comment there instead. All the best! -- Cassianto^Talk 20:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I am closing the peer review now so thank you to all involved. It has been a wonderful turn out from some excellent reviewers. Special thanks to Rothorpe for squirrelling away in the background fixing my punctuation errors. See you all at FAC! -- Cassianto^Talk 00:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

---

IPhone 5S

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to help it reach GA and FA status.

Thanks, Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't think we need to re-explain iOS on every single iPhone page. That's why there's an iOS article. At least focus a bit on the major changes made by the OS as introduced on the device, and any features that may be exclusive to that iteration (i.e. Touch ID, the camera stuff). ViperSnake151  Talk  23:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The article needs to tell what the phone does and how it functions. In order to do that, it'll need re-explaining. Zach Vega (talk to me) 11:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that we need to explain common smartphone functions on every page? Why don't any of the Android phone articles do that if it's supposed to be that way? We need a standard format for phone articles. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

We already have a de facto one (well, for iPhones anyway):

1. History - Tell how the phone was developed, the announcement, and production

2. Features

2.1 Software - Tell how the phone's operating system functions

2.2 Design - Tell the phone's outer design

2.3 Hardware - Describe the phone's inner hardware and how it functions

3. Reception

3.1 Critical reception - Reviews of the phone

3.2 Commercial reception - How well the phone performs in the market, usually with sales numbers

3.3 Other reception - Reception towards anything else that is notable (usually not needed)

This layout has been fairly consistent since the iPhone 4S in 2011. Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Clarence Chesterfield Howerton

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I am thinking of trying to get this (eventually) to FA, but I need to know if this is the best that can be done with the sources available, and what needs doing to the article to get it to a high standard.

Thanks, Matty.007 12:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I want this to go to GA first, fix issues, then FA. Matty.007 16:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather nicely written. I have a few suggestions for improvement. The reliance on primary sources in certain sections is conspicuous. I would simply remove the grave and census content if the information was not published elsewhere. The image in the lead is fantastic and really gives a good sense of the subject. Since Howerton performed in the 1920s, you might be able to find more public domain images. I think adding more quality photos would make this article stand out. Finally, I would have liked to have seen more detail about his film roles. DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

1. A quick look showed no other sourcing of his mother, but that was a quick look, I shall look more in depth later
2. I think the census is generally used just to confirm occupations, so I don't think that that information will be anywhere else
3. I don't know much about pictures, but will seek some help

Thanks for the suggestions, Matty.007 19:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

One paragraph I was specifically referring to started with "At the time of the 1940 United States Census". DPRoberts534 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that that source will likely be OK, as it states what occupation was give for the census. Thanks for the ideas. Matty.007 18:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Edward Jenner

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it was suggested, following consideration of the Good Article process.

This is an article about an important thing, and person, who is interesting for a bit more than vaccination. It is beset by antivaccinationists, hence protection. It deserves to be good, and then labelled as good.

Thanks, Midgley (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, this would fail to meet the GA criteria.

• 1. Well-written. Mostly not bad, but the lead is too short and does not adequately summarise the main text. The layout could certainly be improved: too many very short or single-sentence paras and a lot of leaping from topic to topic (e.g., Jenner's nephew → Jenner marrying → Jenner graduating). Either linking these more smoothly or creating separate sections (e.g., 'early work', 'work on smallpox', 'personal life') is advisable. 'In popular culture' should be before 'Publications', although it could be cut as being trivia. Some of 'Monuments and buildings' can be cut.
• 2. Verifiable. Both the refs and further reading sections need to be standardised, and the latter sequenced alphabetically. In-line citing starts well but soon fades – the final four paras in 'Natural history, science and marriage' have none, and there is at least one direct quote that has no source.
• 3. Coverage. Patchy. e.g., what happened between 1773 and 1788? What did he do at St Andrews? Any info on his personality, work style, etc.?
• 4. Neutral. You may disagree with antivaccinationists, but if they have something relevant to say about Jenner, then it could be included, or at least the existence of any controversy should be noted.
• 5. Stable. The protection would need to be explained.
• 6. Images. Fine; I haven't checked the copyright, but they support the article content.

Overall: sort out the structure first, then gaps in content will be clearer and can be filled, plus linking improved. Then adjust the lead and sort out the refs and further reading. I hope that helps. EddieHugh (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Wii U

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that this article has reached a Good Article status, and I'd like to know in what ways we could further improve it.

Thanks, Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 01:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

---