Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/March 2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Banker horse

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in preparation for FAC (maybe...).

Thanks, Yohmom (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need a little help with the vote tallies, they look awkward.

Thanks, Spinach Monster (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Spinach Monster (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick Comment: First of all, the references should all be cited properly and in a consistent manner. I'd recommend the cite web and cite news formats, which can be found here. Currently, references 6-10 look good--all other references should appear this way as well. -Whataworld06 (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: The article depends on information that seems to be changing daily. It will be hard to get it into anything like finished form until all the cabinet seats are filled. Even so, here are a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead will need to be re-written to summarize the main points of the article. That won't be possible until the main sections are relatively complete.
  • I'd suggest moving the confirmation votes table to the bottom of the article. It's awkward at the top. When you add the votes for all of the candidates, the box will not be wide enough. You will probably have to divide it, which will make it even longer. You could make the columns narrower by using just the last name of the cabinet member or by stacking the first name on top of the last name. Ditto for the voters. Another way to compress might be to use H. Clinton and M. Baucus instead of full names. You might also abbreviate the state names.
  • The "support", "oppose", "confirmation" arrangement for Geithner seems more logical than the "confirmation", "support", "opposition" arrangement for Clinton since the for-against arguments chronologically precede the confirmation hearings.
  • To keep the article from getting too long and to avoid including unnecessary detail, you might choose a couple of representative "for" statements and a couple of representative "against" arguments rather than including a large number as you do with Geithner.
  • When you quote a politician speaking pro or con about a political nomination, it's helpful to include the speaker's political affiliation as you do with Jim Bunning.
  • Many of the citations need to be fixed, as mentioned in the review above this one.
  • The image Baucus Finance lacks a verifiable source, an author or agency author name, and a description. Ditto for Cornyn Judiciary.
  • All of the verb tenses will have to be checked because a lot of the story is essentially breaking news. For example, the sentence, "Republican Senator Lindsay Graham supports Geithner's nomination," doesn't make sense since Geithner has been confirmed.

This is not a complete review, which would be premature at this stage. However, I hope these brief comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ring of Honor employees

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like this page to become a featured list. I think it has the qualities to become a featured list if not now then in the future.

Thanks, The Scarecrow...

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear a lot of work has been done on this article, much more is needed before it is close to ready for FLC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The article has no inline references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The article has a one sentence lead. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article needs to provide context for the reader - the lead should do this on the Ring of Honor itself, and the Notes should do this for individual wrestlers. Would it be possible to give the years the wrestler has been active, for example? This seems to be a list of current employees only - again needs to be made clear.
  • Any free images that could be included?
  • Are all of the "Other Personnel" notable?
  • Any third-party independent sources to cite?
  • A model FL is useful - there are many Professional Wrestling FL lists at Wikipedia:FL#Sports_and_recreation. I can see a list of champions, but is a list of all employees really notable?

Please see WP:LEAD Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of White Marsh

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because substantial expansion and revisions were made to article. Looking for feedback to develop and improve even further.

Thanks in advance!, Alphageekpa (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Natural Cut: In the lead, I suggest 'A series of skirmishes rather than a single battle,' in place of 'The battle, which took the form of a series of skirmish actions'. The rest reads well. I also thought it worth mentioning that throughout the article you link terms like Lt. Col. You're possibly in the right policy-wise, it felt a little excessive to me though.

A general suggestion is that Napoleon's article provides an excellent example of distinguishing notes from references and how to format sourcing for your notes.

In the background and movement section, a map of the larger area would be useful. Since for example Germantown is part of Philadelphia today, a historical map would be ideal. Also, getting as detailed as 'turned left on Forty-Foot Road' might be overkill unless it has special significance (there's no wikilink so I assume not).

Methacton redirects to Methacton High School; unfortunately, the location it gives on that page is also a red link. Eagleville is listed in the infobox there, so 'near modern-day Eagleville' in parentheses seems like the best solution.

Any special reason the council of war (paragraph 2) voted against an attack? Aside from the aforementioned state of their forces.

You say 'in retaliation' (paragraph 3) without stating what he's retaliating against. Were the Americans starting the fights we just described or was there an incident?

First day, paragraph 2: 'and sent the heavy baggage' - I'd elaborate if that's a military term, if it's literally just supplies and whatnot then it's fine. (Side note: In lieu of the barefoot soldiers, I personally thought of Princess Vespa's matched luggage in the Spaceballs desert scene. :-P)

We may as well merge the second and third days since the second is a single paragraph and the third starts at 1am I had inserted that Howe was deciding on the next day's strategy, then saw the second day didn't really end per se.

Third day, paragraph 2 provides a perfect example of a place to differentiate between notes (the bit about being the subject of a painting, etc.) and references, as well as a place (McGuire 249) where a note can indeed have a reference in it. It also feels like it ought to be split. I'd like to get your opinion on that.

Unless there's a discrepancy in reports for paragraph 3, we can just say the 4th Regiment and 23rd Regiment killed one American and had 9 killed, 19 wounded on their side. You may have had a separate sentence about reporting one American killed for a reason.

'[T]hey fought Indian style, from tree to tree.' - I sort of get the idea here, but further elaboration such as a cat-and-mouse comparison would help.

'The morning of December 8 was foggy and the temperature mild.' - This doesn't seem to have a major impact on the paragraph. Perhaps incorporate it as a side note into a place where it's relevant, e.g. the fire-lighting strategy if that was meant to take advantage of the fog. It does suggest there was no weather-related reason for the Brits to withdraw, but it's a weak paragraph and section starter.

Nothing really to note in the aftermath section other than that I merged the casualties with Washington's disappointment. The 'destructive modernization' bit at the very end raised an eyebrow of curiosity when I read it, but the reader can look it up themselves. :-) Natural Cut (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Bahrain Grand Prix

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I can't really think of a rationale for this, other than to say that I want to get it to GA level. The 'Race' section is a little short, but I'm confident that with Diniz's help it is comprehensive. That says more about the quality of the race than the quality of the article :). Thanks in advance for the comments, Apterygial 23:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AlexJ's Peer Review

Lead

  • "The Ferraris then dominated at the front of the race, guaranteeing their one-two finish." - Kinda hard to explain why this doesn't sound right. I think it's because it suggests a direct connection between dominating a race and guaraneeting a 1-2 finish, a car can dominate a race and blow up on the last lap.
  • "Hamilton stalled on the grid" - not 100% true. He put the car into a position where it would have stalled but the anti-stall kicked in (which basically dips the clutch in for the driver). Once an F1 car stalls, it needs a mechanic to get it going again. Need to address it differently.

Background

  • "Ferrari, McLaren–Mercedes, Renault, Honda, Force India, BMW Sauber, Toyota, Red Bull Racing, Williams Toro Rosso and Super Aguri." - Williams and Toro Rosso needs a comma. BTW, any particular ordering to the team list?
  • "Ferrari driver Kimi Räikkönen was second with 11 points. Behind them in the Drivers' Championship, Nick Heidfeld was third, also with 11 points, in a BMW Sauber" - I guess it's personal choice whether you choose to class KR and NH as tied for 2nd or use the tiebreaker to separate them.

Race

  • That photo at the start of this section, that's one of the best F1 photos I think I've seen on Wikipedia. Stunning shot! Anyway...

Post-race

You know the drill... AlexJ (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You might want to check a few of my changes, particularly those relating to my inability to describe an almost stall. Apterygial 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Manning pass to David Tyree

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A great sign of wikipedia's versatility that a single play play from only a year ago can have an article. But at the moment it's a bit of a mess and I'm not if any of any of the images in this article should really be their. I'd like to give this article a bit of a clean up and expansion, but with such an unusual subject, I'm not sure where to start.


Thanks, BUC (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments by doncram. I hadn't known about this play before, and it was a fun article for me to read. Great pics. Good development of the topic; i like the brief lead in and i like the topic sentence or two for the section about the naming of the play. Brian will have noted this already, but there is copyediting needed within one paragraph: "Due to the Patriots pressure, Tyree was unable to run his intended route"[citation needed], etc. It should be "Patriots' pressure" with plural possessive. Also i suggest stopping sentence at "down the field.", then new sentence could be: "He stopped at the 30 yard line." Following sentence is garbled: "Initially Tyree caught the ball with both hands, but a swipe by Harrison with his arm, caused his left hand to but knocked off the ball." Then, should be "able to secure possession" rather than "able to secured possession". Otherwise, I don't see any grammar or other low-level problems. Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a Sports Illustrated article that could be useful for expansion purposes: http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1143346/index.htm Giants2008 (17-14) 03:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

I have made numerous fixes for punctuation, grammar and sundry typos. You had better check that I haven't inadvertently altered a meaning. One sentence I couldn't make head or tail of, perhaps because something is missing: "...a swipe by Harrison with his arm caused his left hand to but knocked off the ball".

My main problem, however, is that the article is virtually incomprehensible to me, and I suspect to all who are unfamiliar with American football—probably anyone who isn't a North American, in fact. A general encyclopedia article has to written in a style that allows it to be broadly understood by the general reader. This is, I know, a problem with many sports articles, because individual sports have to an extent developed languages of their own. Thus, phrases like "Manning took the snap in the shotgun formation..." and "Had Manning been sacked, the Giants would have faced a 4th down with around 8 yards to go for a 1st..." are meaningless to those unfamiliar with the sport—I have encountered the same sort of problem with wrestling articles.

Don't the wiki links cover this sort of thing? BUC (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you have tried to resolve the problem with links on some technical terms, though you have omitted some obvious ones such as "reception" and "touchdown". But an article should not require readers constantly to use the link in order to follow its meaning. Some parts of this article need to be redrafted in a form which makes some sense to the non-initiated. A further example of the exclusivity of the article is your assumption that all readers will know what "with 2.42 remaining" means. I assume this is minutes and seconds, but it wouldn't do any harm to be specific.

Other points:-

  • The Names section, with its list of 18 terms, seems disproportionate in length to the rest of the article. I would have thought a shorter section, maybe half a dozen names, written in prose rather than list format, would be more appropriate.
  • The "Quotation" section consists of excerpts from commentaries. There are no obvious instances of memorable phraseology that justifies them being quoted. Perhaps some commentary could be weaved into the main account of the incident, but five separate excerpts is, in my view, overdoing it, and a separate section is unwarranted.
  • In the "spoof" section the wording is: "The catch was spoofed by Justin Timberlake at the 2008 ESBYs. It 'reveals'..." etc. For clarity could you not say "ESBY awards ceremony"? Then, what does "it" refer to, and why is "reveals" in quotes?
  • In the same section, you refer to "their accepatance speech". More than one person can't give one speech, so speciify who gave it.
  • The Sports Illustrated cover is lacking a fair use rationale. Even with it, two non-free images out of three might be thought unacceptable, but I'm not an image guru.

I am asking a North American reviewer to cast an eye over my review, and also the article, to eliminate any unhelpful advice that I might inadvertently be passing on. Good luck with the article, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments Per Brianboulton's request, I read the article and have some suggestions for improvement.

  • I agree with Brian, this article needs to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. For example the lead does not even give the year of the game, nor does it make explicitly clear which team the players making the play were on. I would also mention that the Patriots were undefeated in the regular season and playoffs to that point, so the Giants were real underdogs. A breif recap of the game to that point would also help - for example Tyree scored the Giants first touchdown in the game, or saying how long that drive took would help readers understand how difficult it is to move a football long distance in a short time. Or point out the distance to the goal line remaining when the play started (not just where they were).
  • There is also very little of the article devoted to coverage of and reaction to the pass play in the media. The various names proposed could be put into a discussion (who proposed these names and when). The Sports Illustrated cover article is not mentioned explicitly that I saw - for fair use it should be.
  • There are multiple WP:MOS issues with the article - the biggest is a lack of references in many places. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • NOt sure the refs all meet WP:RS - what makes what callers to a radio talk show said notable too? See WP:NN
  • The lead is not really a summary of the whole article and should be expanded. Also, as a summary, nothing should be in the lead only (but the NFL films quote is). See WP:LEAD
  • I think first, second, third and fourth should be spelled out (for downs).
  • Units are supposed to be given in both English and metric units - the {{convert}} template is very useful here.
  • The Quotations section did nothing for me - again, put this into a "Critical reception" section or axe it.
  • I did not read all of the AfD comments, but there might be some useful ideas there.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Air Lines Flight 007

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this somewhat controversial article for peer review because it has undergone a major overhaul since it was last submitted for GA by Bert Schlossberg a month ago. In particular, before submitting for GA again, I'd like a second opinion on any potential remaining neutrality or weighting issues, given that Bert, who took the initiative to start developing this article, has an association with the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors. Thanks, Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Korean Air Lines Flight 007/archive1.

Texnikoi Engineering Honorary

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

From the article creator

[edit]

I'm requesting peer review for this article. Please be kind lol. This is my first wiki article so I'm still learning. I'm very interested in your constructive criticism though.

Thanks for your time. OlYellerTalktome 22:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: The first thing I will say is that your first wiki article is better organised than my first article was, in November 2007. There are, however, some immediate things which you can do, to bring the article more into line with wiki policies.

  • Familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia Manual of Style (WP:MOS)
  • Do not use bolded characters in your text
  • Do not use capitalised words in your text
  • Do not use bullet point format for short "lists" of two or three items. These should be rendered into prose.
  • Do not use bald links within the article, such as the TNK Homepage link in your infobox. This should be shown as an external link, in the appropriate section
  • The infobox information is largely inappropriate. Birth date and age are appropriate for individuals but not for organisations. I suggest that you look at the infobox of another article on a college organisation, perhaps Phi Beta Kappa, and remodel yours on that.
  • Terms in the article should be wikilinked at first mention, not thereafter. You have linked The Ohio State University at each mention.
  • Look for other opportunities to link to other articles, e.g. GPA, sophomore, Mercedes Benz, Columbus, Ohio, perhaps others.
  • I am uncertain as to the focus of the article. It is called "Texnikoi Engineering Honarary", which is a student organisation, yet some of the article, including a long list, is about outstanding alumni, a different matter altogether. What is the connection?
  • The article is very thin on detail. For example, what is the Armenian connection, mentioned in the first line but not thereafter? Also, although you have detailed the organisation's values, you haven't said anything about what Texnikoi Engineering Honorary actually does. Does it have activities, meetings, etc?
  • Format references properly. Each reference should give, minimally, a title, a publisher and an access date. Consult WP:Citation templates for information about how to do this.
  • The article is seriously under-referenced. What, for example, is the source of the "values" that you enunciate, or of the statements in the commentary on these values? What is the source of the long list of "other notable founders"? What is the source for the statement that the £250,000 provided by Avril's donation is the source of thousands of dollars of scholarship money? Basically, every statement of substance in the article requires a source, either by direct citation or in a list of sources.

I think that is enough from me. I am sorry if this all sounds rather negative, but in Wikipedia we all rely on others telling us what to do, and learn that way. I have not checked out the prose, although I have made a few punctuation edits. Good luck with the article, and I hope you are able to knock it into shape. Brianboulton (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000 (U.S.)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to check the quality of the prose and the comprehensiveness of the lead.

Thanks, Efe (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification, Savage Garden reached number one in 1997 with "Truly Madly Deeply". Frcm1988 (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Another in the series that looks pretty good so far, some of the same comments I've made before will apply - here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I have said this before, but I would clarify that the rule about not counting something if it started its run the year before is a Billboard rule / method. Perhaps in an explanatory note, and if there is a ref to explain this, give it.
  • I would make this Destiny's Child's "Independent Women Part I" is the longest-running single of 2000, topping the chart for 11 consecutive weeks,[2] four of which chart run were published in the 2001 issues. clearer, perhaps something like "Independent Women Part I" by Destiny's Child is the longest-running single of 2000, topping the chart for 11 consecutive weeks,[2] the last four of which were in 2001. would be better?
  • I like the picture - are there any others that could be used in the article?
  • As I have said before, it seems odd to have all the refs on Billboard's chart be from Billboard. Is there any general music book that says the chart is the most influential / popular/ whatever that could be cited in the lead for an independent third-party source?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)
  • "singer Santana's "Smooth" began its pole position in 1999" - surely this should say something like "began its run at pole position", as to me "began its pole position" doesn't make sense. Although personally I wouldn't actually use the slangy term "pole position"......
  • "either as a lead artist of featured" => "either as a lead artist or featured"
  • "each topped the chart for four weeks." => "each of which topped the chart for four weeks."
  • Also, maybe it's just my shaky understanding of grammar, but is it correct to say that such-and-such a song is the best-selling (or whatever) of the year when the year was nine years ago? Surely the past tense should be used.....?
Not much else to say, hope these few pointers help though.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

System Shock 2

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm really serious about getting this article up to FA quality, so I could use some FA quality criticism. I've recently copy-edited the article, and I can honestly say its the best its ever looked. But is it good enough? Thanks for taking time to look it over, Noj r (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/System Shock 2/archive3.

Metroid (series)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I want to know what this article needs in terms of content and comprehensive before I begin making major overhauls to it, because I'd like to ultimately bring it to FAC eventually. Gary King (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

Whoops, Ruhr just reminded me about this. I've been sucking into my own world of projects. Anyhow...

  • You telling me you can't have a 3 paragraph lead for 23 KB of info?
  • I know you were bugging me about 'shopping a logo, but IMO Samus is actually more representative of the series as a whole anyhow, so it's a better fit. A more substantial FUR would be nice, however.
  • Metroid (series)#Antagonists reads just like I suspect it was created; a chopped up and combined hash of non-notable character articles. It's poorly stitched together and overly long. Covering only the important antagonists from multiple games (metriods, ridley, dark samus, etc.) would be a better route.
  • The story secition looks as though its trying to decide whether it's an integrated list or summaries with subsections. Organizing it in a table like Myst (series) or just streamlining it to prose like Halo (series) might be better options, especially since you then just have a bare link to list of media right below it, which should go regardless.
  • There's some sections which have excessively clunky prose, such as the litany of "also"s in "In other media".
  • Not sure about how defensible the gameplay shots are in development.
  • What makes [1] a reliable source? Why is Overclocked Remix a reliable indicator of music popularity?
  • In short; less story, more real world content if possible. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, will get to this in due time. I have yet to begin editing on this article (I opened this PR to receive feedback on how to proceed first, since I have absolutely no idea). Gary King (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Boys (film)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has gone into improving this page. Any suggestions and/or contributions would be more than welcome in an attempt to make it eligible for promotion to GA status.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I saw and enjoyed this movie. This seems fairly close to GA, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I think the lead needs to do a better job summarizing the article. Some of it is too detailed for the lead (I would just say it was filmed in and around Pittsburgh, perhaps include the main university used as a location). Some sections such as the soundtrack are not mentioned in the lead at all. Saying After Wonder Boys failed at the box office, ... seems a bit POV - perhaps something more specific on how much it made and cost would be clearer / less POV.
  • Per WP:OVERLINK I would link the same item no more than once each in the lead, infobox and article (first occurence). For example, Pittsburgh is linked twice in just the lead.
  • Is the cast and characters section really needed? Almost all of the information is already in the plot section. By the way I think plot sections are supposed to be no more than 900 or so words long - this seems a bit too long.
  • The box office section is only two sentences and should be either combined with another section or expanded if possible (probably the Re-relelase section).
  • Prose is generally good but there are some rough spots that could stand a copyedit or just printing it out and reading it out loud.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Space Station

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm nominating this article for Peer Review as a final step before another FAC - following the last peer review, which led to a huge number of improvements in the article, we've passed GAR and gone through one FAC, fixing the issues brought up during it. As a result, comments would be appreciated with regards to the final polishing of the article, and, therefore, a full A-class review would be fantastic. Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to this stone cold. I haven't reviewed anything. I hope that these are of use, and don't re-open old issues. If consensus was reached barely on any of these items, please don't consider this a "vote". I'll join that discussion myself. Let me know, please.

  • General order - Bearing in mind that I'm an engineer myself, I suggest that the order could be re-arranged to better grab attention of general readers:
  1. Origins
  2. Overview - This would be a new section.
  3. Scientific research
  4. Political and financial aspects
  5. Space station
  6. Life on board
  7. Station operations
  8. Visiting spacecraft
  • Overview section: I don't see a crisp two paragraph overview of the station's general purpose (research possible nowhere else) and layout. We dive right to the high tech detail. Unfortunately NASA's site isn't much help. It dives right in too. But it's a fair question: "So, what exactly is this thing we're spending gajillions of dollars on?" The average American doesn't believe in evolution (God help us.), so we need to be really clear. Think sixth-grade science class as the audience for this.
  • Visiting spacecraft - Currently docked sub-section: This is a dynamic list. Consider adding a direct link to NASA so that the reader can check this directly.

I'd love to see this an a FA. MARussellPESE (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! With regards to the dynamic list, was this the sort of thing what you had in mind? [2]. I agree with you on the overview section, although I'd be at a loss as to how to go about writing it - could be interesting... :-) As far as the structure goes, if, from an engineering standpoint, that makes sense to you, go ahead and change it! :-) I'll also get on to adding some of those APOD images to the sightings section - some of them are gorgeous! Colds7ream (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Liking the reorg - hopefully that'll make things a bit clearer to folks. However, i've made a couple of changes - firstly, I've switched the Origins and Overview sections around so the overview comes first - I figure it'd be best for folks to have an idea of what they're reading about before the more detailed sections begin. Also, I've moved the configuration image back into the infobox - it's a standard layout used in all space station articles, and, if people want to read the labelling, all that's needed is a quick click. You'll also note that I've added that live link you suggested to the docked spacecraft section. However, we're going to have some difficulty an APOD image to sightings section, as they're all copyrighted and WP:NONFREE says Fair Use images are non-permissable if they're of an existing building - I'm not entirely sure how to apply that rule here. Colds7ream (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the most strict sense (unfortunately for the encyclopedia). I'll see if i can find a NASA sighting shot, but it will be rather difficult I think. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see an image has been found! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Pax85

[edit]

I think this is a wonderful article. It has a wide breadth and scope, and provides plenty of information about the station. Looking over the other peer reviews, input was recieved and taken into serious consideration. Many changes have been made to the article, and I think that it is up to muster to get to get through a FAN. Let's look at FA criteria (my comments in bold):

  1.  Done - Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
  2.  Done - Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
  3.  Done - Factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
  4.  Done - Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
  5.  Done - Stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  6.  Done - Style: It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
  7.  In progress - Lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; - This is my only area of concern. While I believe the lead is good, I think it can be get better. It starts off with a lot of specs and tech, and may scare off some readers. Perhaps something to move some of the more technical details to a bit later, or constructing a lead out of the origins section?
  8.  Done - Appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
  9.  Done - Consistent citations: where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).
  10.  Done - Images. It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. (Although I will say that the modules section is a bit cluttered, but they are good photographs, and I like the layout otherwise.)
  11.  Done - Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

I think that the lead issue is small, and can be easily resolved if there is consensus on what to do with it. That was just my personal opinion, and I don't believe it will stand in the way of a FAN. A wonderful article, and I feel privileged to be involved. I would also like to thank for everyone's help on the couple of questions that I had on conventions! Pax85 (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-class Vote

[edit]
  1. Support Colds7ream (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Pax85 (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support -MBK004 07:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --GW… 00:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support AikiHawkeye (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing review

[edit]

OK folks - I believe that this review has served its purpose in ironing out the last few niggles with the article. Many thanks to the reviewers and copyeditors, all the hard work is appreciated. In summary, I believe we have a consensus to promote the article to A-class, and I'll put the article up again for Featured Article Candidacy! Thanks again for all the help, looking forward to seeing people at the FAC! Colds7ream (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Sandy's comment, I have retracted the A-classification. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering ethics

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

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

I'd like to see this topic be treated solidly and be a Featured Article.

Thanks, MARussellPESE (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting topic for an article, but needs a lot of work to get to FA quality. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the current lead seems too short and not detailed enough. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article focuses on the United States, with a bit on Canada and the UK, but this is a worldwide issue / topic. One FA criterion is comprehensiveness. Another issue is POV if the article does not give enough of the world view. What about the EU, Japan, the rest of the world?
  • Article should start with an image if at all possible.
  • Article uses {{cquote}} where it should use {{blockquote}}. Even there WP:MOSQUOTE says to only use block quote for 4 or more lines, and these quotes are less than one line on my monitor.
  • Article really overuses direct quotes - put things into your own words, summarize, and use quotes more sparingly. The quote of all seven Fundamental Canons seems especially extreme and probably is pushing the limits of copyvio.
  • Also the article as written is very choppy and does not flow smoothly - there are many bullet point and numbered lists that could be converted into prose for better flow. There are many one or two sentence paragraphs and short sections that could be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • Some of the article seems to be original research - for example who picked the list in the Case studies and key individuals section? See WP:NOR. This should be referenced and explained to be put into context for the reader - see WP:PCR
  • External links section seems way too long - see WP:EL
  • References do not always include enough information to allow an interested reader to find the original material. For example, Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Why isn't the Canadian postage stamp a copyvio / fair use image?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Homeopathy has been a controverial subject, but has finally reached a reasonably stable, high-quality form. I think it's time that we begin - finally - to move it towards FA. Please review it in that light, with advice on moving forwards.

Thanks, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive3.

Lahore

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to nominate it for FA.So comments and edits are welcome.

Thanks, User:Yousaf465 19:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huntthetroll comments: This is a beautiful article about a beautiful city, but it's not quite FA-quality yet. A few nitpicks, mostly about grammar and style because I only have a passing knowledge of Pakistan's history:

  • The following sentence in the introduction needs to be re-written for clarity: "Mughal structures such as the Badshahi Mosque, Ali Hujwiri, Lahore Fort, Shalimar Gardens and the mausoleums of Jehangir, and Nur Jehan are popular tourist spots in the city." The multiple conjuctions and inclusion of scholar Ali Hujwiri as a "structure" could confuse some readers—I mean, you and I can tell, for instance, that the sentence is referring to Hujwiri's tomb rather than the man himself, but less astute readers might not.
  • The next sentence states that some older structures in Lahore "still retain their Mughal-Gothic style." This piques my curiosity. What, exactly, is "Mughal-Gothic style"? Is it a kind of architecture? I can't tell from this sentence, or, for that matter, from the rest of the article—indeed, this is the only mention of Mughal-Gothic anything in the entire text. Perhaps a link or two would help, or maybe additional information in the body of the article.
  • In the second introductory paragraph, the comments about linguistic change in Lahore and the nickname Lahori Punjabi could definitely use some citations.
  • Throughout the article, there are quite a few glaring [citation needed] tags that need to be addressed, especially in the History and Culture sections—which, come to think of it, might also benefit from being broken into subsections. The citations themselves could use some formatting; I tend to use templates from Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Citations_of_generic_sources when I have to format citations.
  • There is also a light smattering of subtle grammatical errors throughout the article: missing definite articles, run-on sentences, random capitalization, random boldface, etc. I think some of it is just sneaky vandalism.
  • Finally, a big no-no: one of the citations refers to another Wikipedia article, the List of countries by GDP (PPP). We can't have Wikipedia articles citing other Wikipedia articles; otherwise the encyclopedia would tend to become a giant echo chamber, entirely divorced from anything resembling objective reality.

I can definitely help out with fixing the grammar and cleaning up the style, but the lack of citations worries me. I'm not sure I can help with that, as I suspect that I would have to sift through sources written in languages that I do not understand (like Punjabi and Urdu). All in all, though, this is a detailed and fascinating article with great FA potential. Keep up the good work representin' Pakistan on Wikipedia. Huntthetroll (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: To be honest, this article needs a lot of work. It's full of dubious information, and often poorly written misinformation at that. However, it also contains a lot of useful, relevant and verifiable information. I think that you could greatly improve the article simply by finding more references, and double-checking what's already in the article against those references. Given the size of the article and the importance of its subject, it needs at least twice as many citations as it has. If you can fix that, this article will be much, much closer to being FA material. Huntthetroll (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zaprešić

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently passed a good article nomination and I'd like to make it a featured article. Thus, I need some brushing up and fixing some things before nominating at FAC.

Thanks, Admiral Norton (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Natural Cut: I would definitely like to see an audio link of the name if possible, see Hawick, Bordeaux and Gdańsk.

I'll put it on the to-do list, since my nose has gone crazy last week and I'm not exactly good at pronouncing words right now.

'The refugees brought the Ikavian element preserved for a long time in some small Zaprešić communities' - Should be changed but I'm not sure how to reword it. Ikavian redirects to Yat, a letter of the Cyrillic alphabet.

Ikavian, Ekavian and Ijekavian are variants of Croatian that differ in the pronunciation and writing of yat (written "i", "e" and "ije", respectively). The problem present here is the fact that we don't have articles about these variants. I'll create some stubs to fix that in the near future.
It's okay if there's no article, but you should (briefly) explain what you just told me. To an outsider such as myself, the sentence made little sense until you explained it. Natural Cut (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about the 30 November forming of the Town of Zapresic needs some work. It says that 'the settlements of the new Zaprešić (excluding Merenje) were incorporated into the town from parts of the surrounding municipalities' but would be better stated as 'parts of the surrounding municipalities of Pusca etc were incorporated into the new Zapresic' or something similar. Bring up Merenje after that. Also, there is mention elsewhere in the article about how the settlement of Zapresic was present before this time, so you should mention where it figured into the equation.

I re-worded the first part according to your suggestion. However, there is a slight issue here, as "settlement" is a translation of the Croatian word "naselje", that describes an administrative division below the level of a municipality or town. They mostly conform to single villages and are used similar to census designated places in the US, but that is not always correct.
I see, that makes sense. It sounds good the way it's written now. Natural Cut (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also took out the '(exists as of 2009)' because only one of the three places ceased to exist. If there was a reason for the note, such as Pušća's current existence being in danger, you can make a separate sentence about the impact the reorganization had on Hruševec Kupljensk and Pusca.

Under culture and media, 'a 20-year-long citizens' struggle to invite electronic media to the town' sounds a bit odd.

It's not in the citation, although I'm sure I read it somewhere. I'll try to find it, but I deleted it for now.

Under notable inhabitants, I added a clarification tag to the description of Matija Skurjeni as a naive painter since there are two meanings listed on the page it links to. Also, would it be fair to say that Josip is the most well-known resident? It would sound more exciting than just starting out with 'A known historical resident'. :-) Natural Cut (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I dare to say that Jelačić is the most publicized ban in the history of Croatia due to his involvement in the Illyrian Movement and the fact that almost every city in Croatia has a major street or a major square named after him (see e.g. Ban Jelačić Square). However, I'm not really in favor of keeping the term as it isn't very compliant with WP:PEACOCK. Admiral Norton (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you're right, although given his place in Croatian history I think it would be stating a historical fact rather than a peacock term. But better to be on the safe side. Natural Cut (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spokane, Washington

[edit]
This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know how to improve the article further.

Thanks, Anon134 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would start by suggesting the bullet-pointed lists be removed and made into prose. See WP:List for more. That's to start; I'll add more later. • Freechild'sup? 10:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, its done now. Thanks, Anon134 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This seems comprehensive, is well-illustrated, seems nearly adequately sourced, neutral, and stable. I have concerns about the prose in places, and that is what most of my suggestions for improvement address. I think you are getting close to FA with this, and I encourage you to keep plugging away. It is very good.

Lead

  • Rather than repeating Washington five times in the opening paragraph, I'd suggest changing two of the links by using pipes: Seattle and Spokane County. Ditto for Tacoma further down.

History

  • "a seasonal way of life that consisted of fishing, hunting, and gathering endeavors" - Tighten by deleting "endeavors"?

Spokane House

  • The Manual of Style (MoS) advises against repeating the words of the article title in the section heads. A possible solution here would be to use "Trading post" instead. Further down in the article, "Spokane metropolitan area" could become "Metropolitan area".
  • "further south in search of furs, primarily beaver fur" - Tighten by deleting "fur"?
  • "As the North West Company was absorbed into the Hudson's Bay Company in 1821, the operations at the Spokane House continued until 1825, when they shifted their operations to Fort Colville; afterward the company still remained active in the Spokane region." - Suggestions for tightening and simplifying: "When the Hudson's Bay Company absorbed the North West Company in 1821, operations at Spokane House shifted to Fort Colville. Afterward the company remained active near Spokane."

American settlement

  • "a small sawmill on a claim located near the south bank of the Spokane Falls" - Tighten by deleting "located"?
  • "James N. Glover and Jasper Matheney, two Oregonians passing through the region in 1873, recognized the value of the Spokane River and its falls, they realized the investment potential and bought the claims of 160 acres (0.65 km2) and the sawmill from Downing and Scranton for $2,000 each" - Tighten by deleting "two", and clarify by changing the period after "falls" to a terminal period and starting the next sentence with "They"?
  • "The location of the camp at the river junction was strategic, having the intended goal of protecting the construction of the Northern Pacific Railway, and to secure the location for U.S. settlement." - Suggestion: "The location was strategic, having the intended goals of protecting construction of the Northern Pacific Railway and securing a place for U.S. settlement."
  • "began shortly after 6:00 p.m." - Constructions like 6:00 p.m. should be glued together with a no-break space to prevent an awkward separation on line-break.
  • "but the flames jumped the spaces, opened, and soon created their own firestorm" - I'm not sure what "opened" means in this context.
  • "and the fire exhausted" - Would "extinguished" be better than "exhausted"?
  • "In the fires' aftermath, 32 blocks of Spokane's downtown were destroyed and one person was killed" - Suggestion: "The fire destroyed 32 blocks of Spokane's downtown and killed one person."
  • "Spokane became an important rail center because of its location between the Rocky Mountains and the Cascade Range and between mining and farming areas, making it a natural shipping center." - Tighten by eliminating duplication of "center" thus: "Spokane became an important shipping center because of its location between the Rocky Mountains and the Cascade Range and between mining and farming areas".
  • "After the arrival of the Northern Pacific, the Union Pacific, Great Northern, and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific railroads would reach Spokane and allow it to become one of the most important rail centers in the western United States, being the site of four transcontinental railroads." - Tighten perhaps like this: "After the arrival of the Northern Pacific, the Union Pacific, Great Northern, and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific railroads, Spokane became one of the most important rail centers in the western United States."

1974 World's Fair

  • "Upon close inspection, it can be seen where bricks were added on and where the roof used to be." - This sounds like personal research, a no-no. If you have a reliable source for the claim, you can rescue the sentence.
  • "The clock tower is one of the biggest in the Northwest, with each of its clock faces measuring 9 feet (2.7 m) across." - This needs a source.

Topography

  • "111-mile (179 km) tributary" - I added a hyphen to the conversion template by using the adj=on parameter, a handy critter.

Climate

  • "Spokane's climate is classified as being a continental or hemiboreal climate (Dsb)" - Tighten thus: "Spokane's climate is classified as continental or hemiboreal (Dsb)"?
  • "a cold, coastal type climate" - Tighten by deleting "type"?

Neighborhoods

  • "Spokane's neighborhoods are gaining attention for their perceived charm and character, as illustrated by the city being home to 18 recognized National Register Historical Districts, the most in any city in the state of Washington." - Peacock phrase. Suggestion: "Spokane is home to 18 recognized National Register Historical Districts, the most in any city in Washington."

Downtown renewal

  • "The proposed development will directly connect to downtown with bridges across the Spokane River and blends residential and retail space with plazas and walking trails." - "will blend" rather than "blends"?

Economy

  • "high mining operations" - Does "high" refer to elevation?
  • "reformed mining districts"- Reformed in what sense?
  • "A number of companies have located or relocated" - "A number of" is vague. Just begin with "Companies have located... "?
  • "Due in part because Spokane is the largest city" - Maybe "Partly because"?

Arts and theater

  • "home to a number of art galleries" - "home to art galleries"?

Events and activities

  • "home to a number of annual events" - "home to annual events"?
  • "but now the event averages more than 25,000 participants" - Since "now" is ambiguous and ever-changing, it's better to use something like "as of 2009"
  • "Other notable events in Spokane include Japan Week... " - This paragraph needs a source. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph as well as every unusual claim, statistic, direct quotation, or anything apt to be challenged.

Public transportation

  • Many of the older side streets in Spokane still have visible streetcar rails embedded in them to this day, as they were never removed." - Personal research?

Images"

  • The image licenses look OK to me except the one for Image:Spokanefallsm05.jpg, which appears to be a derivative work that does not identify the source. It won't survive scrutiny at FAC without source information that a fact-checker can use to verify the copyright tag.

I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. Finetooth (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, Finetooth. Anon134 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dtbohrer

  • "...since the Treaty of 1818 ended...", comma needed after "1818"
  • "The U.S. Pavilion and the clock tower are prominently featured in the park's logo.", Is it necessary to have this sentence? It would make more sense to be included in the park's article.
  • That nightime panorama of Spokane would probably look better if was placed in a {{Wide image}} template, similar to the other panorama directly above the "Sister cities" section.

You may wish to look other similar articles like Seattle or Vancouver that are Feautured to use as models. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 03:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, DB. Anon134 (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been reviewed by multiple editors and I have seen what needs to be done, so Im closing the peer review now. Thanks to all who participated! Anon134 (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atorvastatin

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want help on how can i improve this article more and more to get it to become a featured article

Please give me some advise

Thanks, Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Fvasconcellos
  • The first place you should go is the Manual of Style for Medicine-related articles: make sure the article complies with it (right now, it really doesn't, not at all :)
  • I see {{fact}} tags in the article—all such statements should be referenced or removed.
  • Long bulleted lists should be converted to prose.
  • There are many, many spelling and grammar mistakes in the article. A good copyedit is in order.
I'll try to review the article in depth if I can, but I'm really pressed for time at the moment. This should be enough to start on. Best wishes, and good luck! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of the above, this needs a lot of work - here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There are a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • The lead should not be more than 4 paragraphs per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Article needs more references, for example the whole Pharmacology section has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Physchim62

  • I can only echo the comments above about short paragraphs and lists.
  • For a widely read article, we need to be very careful about our use of jargon (Tmax, Cmax, AUC, etc). We have to use jargon, because that is what professionals will recognise, but we also have to explain it for the layperson. I think a little more glossing of the terms would be useful in a widely read article such as this one.
  • The article doesn't make it clear that much of the data relates to Lipitor, that is the calcium salt of atorvastatin rather than the molecule shown in the infobox. There's no point in having two separate articles, but this distinction must be made clear within the article we have. All of the pharmacokinetics would be different for the sodium salt, or for the free acid, for example!
  • It would be nice if we could find the original patent, or at least a patent with the synthetic procedure. I couldn't find it quickly, otherwise I would post the reference here (!), but it must be out there and publicly available.
  • Another nice point would be a greater comparison between atovastatin and other statins, either chemically, historically, pharmacologically or whatever. This is not a unique molecule, there should be soething to compare it to.

Physchim62 (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dallas Mavericks head coaches

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article cannot be able to attain FL status until it has 10 entries on the list. The article needs a peer review because of Featured topic criteria 3c.

Thanks, -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "The Mavericks play in"-->They play in
Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mavericks are owned by Mark Cuban, and Donnie Nelson is their general manager." Comma not needed.
It is needed, or else it will sound like this, "The Mavericks are owned by Mark Cuban and Donnie Nelson is their general manager." -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I am saying that it is alright for it to sound like that. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it is alright to put the comma there, right? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a stylistic thing, so I won't pursue. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who served two stints"-->who led the team for two separate terms
Leading the team is kind of off because it could also be the players, etc. I added the word "non-consecutive" instead. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Motta is also the franchise's all-time leader"
Motta was mentioned on the sentence before. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but just because he was mentioned doesn't mean you have to add "also" each time. "also" in this sense implies that "in addition to records previously mentioned", but in this case, records were not previously mentioned. "also" is one of those overused additive terms. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the regular-season (.735)" No hyphen.
But why for the rest? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are Compound modifiers, read WP:HYPHEN. Here, regular season is a noun and should not have a hyphen. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice if you could find a free image of an actual coach.
Oh really? I always try to find a free image of a coach of that team. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just saying... Dabomb87 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I found one! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure about the license of the Nelson image. It looks like an unfree image. What do you think, Dabomb87? I am not an expert on these image things.—Chris! ct 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it is not free, and is about to be speedy-deleted. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undid my edit. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oopsies! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks good now. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Collars Kingdom

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, mainly, I want to fix any problems it may have, as well as get a second opinion on prose and comprehensiveness. I also feel as though the lede needs some work, and that the release information may belong elsewhere in the article.

Thanks, WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Collectonian (talk · contribs)
  • Needs a media section which should contain the release information, and the volume list.
  • The character section seems unnecessary for a three volume series. I'd recommend just smerging it into the plot as it really isn't adding any new information; if kept, drop the bolding as its distracting and, I believe, against the general MoS.
  • The paragraph on the extras seems extraneous and unnecessary, its almost trivia; I'd drop all together. It isn't noted in other series articles nor volumes lists, in general.
  • Is that Geocities site really an official site for this series? That seems odd; the ann link should be put in the template.
  • Also, its missing some standard cats for a manga series

Other than that, the refs need a little clean up (some have some minor typos in the titles), and have a general copyedit done. I'd also see if you could find at least one more review of the series, as the bulk is all from Mania.com. Only two reviews is barely over the line of notability, so a third would be good. With that done, I'd say it be ready for a GA review, at the min. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created a media section, though I left out volume summaries. I'm not sure whether or not I should add them; the plot is on the page already, and the way the volumes are set up, each chapter has an entirely new conflict. I wouldn't want it to feel like there were too many "later"s and "soon after"s and so on.
  • I'll attempt to merge the character section, and depending on it's quality and what it looks like, I'll decide whether to keep it merged or keep it as-is. I did remove the bolding, however.
  • The "extras" bit in the production section has been removed.
  • The Geocities link is what is given in the third volume of the series; the author claims it is his site. However, that was in 2004 and the site says nothing about Free Collars Kingdom. Even the blog links to another author. I decided to remove it, anyway, as it wasn't clear who it belonged to and there wasn't anything about the series.
  • New cats were added.
  • I've cleaned up the refs and switched them around when necessary, so that a reference to the first volume comes before one to the third volume.
  • A copyedit tag has been added, and I've listed it on the "Article to Copyedit" section on the anime/manga cleanup task force page.
  • I'll look for more reviews, though I'm not sure how many more exist. I've added one from School Library Journal, but I'm unsure if it's reputable or not. It would seem so, though, as it is shown on Barnes and Noble's page for the series.
Thank you! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since its only 3 volumes, I agree it doesn't need individual volume summaries. I went through and did some fixes on the web references, the title should be the actual title (and added language where needed). And yep, SLJ is a reliable source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for improving the article! And it's nice to know the SLJ is a reliable source; I've been debating on whether or not to use it for several other articles. Is there anything else that should be improved/fixed? WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Xuân Lộc

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because. I am not sure what more I could do to really improve it. One problem I see right off is that it uses only one source for information on the battle of Xuan Loc. But there aren't a ton of websites that are RS that any wikipedian could verify with a click. There are books listed but how often does anyone check out what they actually say? There is the personal, and tragic sounding account of the photographer from whom, with permission, I found a very good Image [3] So other than "find more sources". What else could be done to improve this article. I did not write most of the text by the way. Just did a bit of editing and found pictures.

Thanks, Hfarmer (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • You identified the biggest problem yourself - the article needs more references from reliable sources. What makes a model airplane website a reliable source on the Vietnam War? Use the books. Cite them properly with {{cite book}}. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase with no spaces, so fix things like Xuân Lộc was a small town that occupied the key roads into the capital, Saigon. [1]
  • Article needs a copyedit - much of it seems to violate WP:NPOV, such as But for the men of the 18th Infantry Division and other units, inside a larger defeat they could find a personal victory, as they proved for the last time during this decade-long conflict that they could stand and fight.[1] Other places just need to be cleaned up, such as Following their victories in the Central Highlands at Battle of Ban Me Thuot and as part of the communist Ho Chi Minh Campaign. (this is a sentence fragment)
  • The photo is grainy from being blownup beyond its original size. It also does not identify who is pictured (which army were these soldiers in?) See WP:PCR
  • There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • The Prelude could be expanded.
  • The article seems contadictory in places - after the battle we are told The only thing [that] stood [in] on their way were small pockets of desperate ARVN defenders.[1] but we are also told of units withdrawing seemingly intact On April 20, all resistance were ended with the 1st ARVN Airborne Brigade withdrawing towards Ba Ria in Phuoc Tuy where it continued to fight.[1] Which is it?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The only thing I take issue with is the photo and ID'ing who's army the soldiers were in. I do beleive you can still make out the 18 on their shoulder patch. These were ARVN soldiers. The Communist soldiers uniforms were distinctively different. --Hfarmer (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you know that. The average reader does not. Please provide context for the reader in the caption "Soldiers of the 18th Division of the AVRN" or whatever. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch comment: One idea that leaps out at me: How was this battle covered in the contemporary media? I remember reading about the fall of South Vietnam as it happened, & the impression that I had was that there were no significant victories by the ARVN like this one. An account of the coverage (or lack thereof) would offer an interesting counterpoint -- & especially to emphasize the importance of a need for even a moral victory by the ARVN. (I know the NY Times has their newspaper morgue online; that would be a place to start.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Idea. I will look for news reports.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bovet Fleurier

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has received GA status and further improvement of the article is sought.

Thanks, Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article. I have a few suggestions for improvement that I hope will be helpful.

Section heads

  • The Manual of Style advises against repeating the words of the article title in the section heads or of using "the" as the first word of a section head. Thus, instead of "Fleurier, home of Bovet", plain "Fleurier" would be preferred, and "The founder" should just be "Founder". Further down in the "Watches" section, preferred heads would be "Legacy", "Chronographs," and "Restoration", and so on.

Currency format

  • The Manual of Style in the WP:$ section says, "Fully identify a currency on its first appearance (AU$52); subsequent occurrences are normally given without the country identification or currency article link (just $88), unless this would be unclear." I fixed the first two in the lead, but the "US" should be removed throughout except for that first instance.

Lead

  • "a Swiss brand of luxury watchmakers" - Shouldn't that be brand of luxury watches rather than watchmakers?
  • "The original Bovet watches are also famous for being among the first to emphasize the beauty of the movements with their skeletonized views and highly decorative movements." - To avoid repeating "movements", perhaps something like "The original Bovet watches are also famous for being among the first to use skeletonized views to emphasize the beauty of their decorative movements" would be better. I would also suggest linking "movement" to "Movement (clockwork)" here on the first use rather than much lower down in the article.
  • second hand - I removed the confusing hyphen, but I'd also suggest linking this phrase to "Clock face".
  • "Pascal Raffy is the current owner and president." - "Current" is usually tricky because ambiguous. Suggestion: "As of xxxx, Pascal Raffy was the owner and president" or "Pascal Raffy became owner and president in xxxx", where xxxx is a specific year.

Fleurier

  • "Watch making" begins the section, but "watchmaking" is used elsewhere. You should pick the one your dictionary says is correct and use it throughout.
  • "At the time the area was known for metal working" - What area? Probably Fleurier, but it would be good to say it here in the first sentence as well as in the head. Also, where is Fleurier in relation to the nearest big towns? How big is it?
  • "However, due to the practice of selling production on credit, which was then sold on international markets, and which resulted in the undercutting of prices, and because of the destabilization of the Napoleonic wars, watch making in Fleurier experienced a huge decrease." - Too complex and unclear. The phrase "production on credit" will not be something that most readers will instantly comprehend. Does this mean that the watches were sold on credit and then re-sold or that the debt was re-sold? Why did this undercut prices? I'd suggest trying to make this part of the sentence more clear and splitting off the Napoleonic wars to a sentence of its own.

Beyond China

  • "After Jacques Ullmann went out of business in 1932, the Bovet name was acquired by Albert and Jean Bovet, who were successful watch makers and registered several patents for chronographs, such as the mono rattrapante—a device that would pause the second hand for a reading while the mechanism continued to run." - Too complex. Suggestion: "After Jacques Ullmann went out of business in 1932, the Bovet name was acquired by Albert and Jean Bovet. They were successful watchmakers who had registered several patents for chronographs such as the mono rattrapante, a device that would pause the second hand for a reading while the mechanism continued to run. Be sure to italicize mono rattrapante since it is not an English word.

Modern company

  • such as those in the STT group" - It would be good to give the full name also, if there is one, aside from the abbreviation. Ditto for ETA later, which stands for "ETA SA Manufacture Horlogère Suisse".

Legacy

  • eBay - I'd probably link this.
    • The Manual of Style advises against image "sandwiches" such as the one in the "Watches" section. The solution here might be to move the smaller image down a bit so that text is no longer sandwiched between the two.

Chronographs

  • ebauches - Should be ébauches. You can copy-and-paste to capture non-English letters if no other method is handy. Since this word is not English, it should be in italics. You can add the italics around the link, like this: ébauches.

Restoration

  • "Bovet watches are also unique for the company's tradition of employing women artisans, which is rare for traditional watch making companies in Europe." - If a thing is unique, it is the only thing of its kind. Unique is different from rare.

I hope these few comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain ischemia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to be elevated to Good Article Status sometime soon and I'd like to know how to improve it so that it can make GA.

Thanks, Saunc2011 (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata

[edit]

Hi, I'm a first-timer here at peer review and thought I'd give it a whirl. The articles needs a good working-over. There's a major problem with lack of citations, and the language is inconsistent and simplistic at best. I don't think the article will have a chance at GA review if there isn't some discussion at the metabolic effects of cerebral ischemia, even if it is only at a basic level (for example, refer to the Raichle (1983) review article for more details). A picture somewhere in the article would be nice.

Best of luck with your class project. I hope my comments will help you bring this article up to GA-class. If you'd like, drop me a note after you've put some work into this and I'll have my wife give her medical opinion on the content. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • 2nd sentence of lead redundant (1st sentence already defines ischemia).
  • "Brain ischemia has also been connected to cerebral hypoxia and, if prolonged, to cerebral infarction. " The use of the word "also" implies that just prior to this sentence, some other example was given, but this is not the case here. The use of the phrase "been connected to" is ambiguous and the language should be tightened here, and throughout the rest of the hook.
  • No space required after punctuation and the citation number.
  • "There are two types of Brain ischemia, Focal Brain ischemia and Global Brain ischemia." First, I doubt any of these capitalizations are required (capitalization of brain ischemia is inconsistent throughout the article). Second, I would expect after a statement like this the next sentence would tell me what the difference is between these two types of ischemia. But alas, it goes on to say stuff about symptoms, and uses the word "issues" and "concern" repeatedly.
  • There are also many unwanted effects, for example, the loss of essential energy that is important for carrying on necessary activities in the body. Unclear. What is meant by "loss of essential energy?" "...carrying on necessary activities in the body." Aren't we talking about the brain?
  • wikilink sickle cell anemia, congenital heart defect

Background

[edit]
  • "Brain ischemia is a condition that commonly causes irreversible brain damage."Source? Also, this should not be the lead-off sentence. Tell me more about what the condition is first.
  • "An interruption of the blood flow to the brain results in the loss of consciousness after ten seconds." Source?
  • "Therefore, protecting the human brain from brain ischemia is very important." This seems so obvious I don't think it needs stating. The rest of this section needs work, it's too simplistic, and spoon-feeds the reader. (eg. The brain is one of the most important parts in the body. It tells every other part of the body how to function and what activities to perform. etc.)

Symptoms

[edit]

"The symptoms of brain ischemia go from one extreme to the other." The first sentence of this section should not jump into describing how extreme the symptoms are without first telling me what the symptoms are. For this reason the next 2-3 sentences are out of order.

  • "Arteries that branch from the Internal carotid artery may experience symptoms such as blindness in one eye," Reword, as it currently sounds like the artery is experiencing the symptoms. Also, don't capitalize internal. Ditto for the next sentence.

Effects

[edit]
  • "During brain ischemia, the brain cannot continue aerobic metabolism because of the loss of oxygen and substrate." I have no idea what is meant by substrate in the context.
  • " ATP(Adenosine TriPhosphate)" Needs a space after ATP, lose the capitals when spelling it out. Don't define ATP again in the next sentence.
  • "Adenosine Triphosphate(ATP) is the molecule that contains and stores the large amount of energy that the body needs to do almost everything it does." Spoon-feeding, poorly written.
  • "These developments may then lead to several consequences, such as calcium influx into the cytosol, release from synaptic vesicles losses then lead to several unwanted developments during brain ischemia. These developments are: A massive influx of calcium into the cytosol, A massive of glutamate from synaptic vesicles, Llipolysis, Ccalpain activation, and the Aarrest of protein synthesis."
  • "Some of the other pathological events that may result from brain ischemia are cardiorespiratory arrest, stroke, and severe head injury." Source?
  • "Other operative procedures that may occur are carotid endarterectomy, cardiopulmonary bypass, and induced hypotension." That may be performed

Types

[edit]
  • "There are two different types of brain ischemia. The two types are Focal Brain ischemia and Global Brain ischemia. The main difference in Focal and Global Brain ischemia is where they are located." Combine all of these single-idea sentences into to improve flow. Lose the caps.
  • "The first type is Focal Brain Ischemia." It doesn't have a numerical order, and there's no more info in this sentence that isn't conveyed by the subject header right above.
  • "Basically, Focal brain ischemia is ..."
  • "During Focal Brain ischemia, an area called the ischemia penumbra..." Wikilink? Definition? Diagram? Needs something like that.
  • "The second type is Global Brain Ischemia."
  • "The person is now in reperfusion. Reperfusion is the damage that is done to the tissue when blood supply returns after a period of ischemia." Rework the short first sentence into the second. More citations are needed in these parts.

Causes

[edit]
  • The whole section needs much better referencing, almost every sentence there could use a citation. Then, copyedit the paragraph, paying careful attention to trying to vary the monotonous sentence structure by combining sentences with the appropriate use of commas and semicolons. Divide the long paragraph into two or three shorter ones.

Che (film)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has gone into it and I would welcome any suggestions and/or contributions to help promote it to GA status.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comments from Natural Cut: I only got through the screenplay section, but I'd like to give you some feedback on that as I think it needs some work. Was the hiring and releasing of Terrence Malick before, during or after the holding of the rights to Jon Lee Anderson's book? I was going to move the part about the book to the beginning of the paragraph but wasn't sure where the two fit timeline-wise?

I checked and the part about the book belongs at the beginning of the paragraph so I moved it.--J.D. (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the paragraph about the documentary feels a little disjointed to me. There's a lead sentence about making a documentary out of the interviews, but the focus of the paragraph doesn't seem to be primarily on the documentary itself. Or were all of the things the paragraph integrated in the documentary? If so, it should be made clear in the first sentence that the documentary is about his experiences. Hope this initial bit helps. Natural Cut (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work so far. I moved that bit about the documentary to another place that was more appropriate. Thanks for spotting this.--J.D. (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry J.D. I completely forgot about your article. I had meant to give it a good read through and offer more suggestions. You can expect that to come in the next 24 hours or so. Natural Cut (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Whenever you can get to it. There is certainly no rush.--J.D. (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, today was my day off so I got to sink my teeth into it. I bolded the titles of the split films since it's one article now. In the second paragraph of the lead, I'd enumerate how many markets the roadshow edition went into and explain how/why it was released 'both as a single film and as two separate films'.

In the development section, the quote from Benicio is certainly useful to describe his opinion of Che but not appropriate where it is. It comes across as pushing a certain POV of who Che was. I similarly noticed on first glance that you open with one reviewer's opinion in the both the NYFF and general reviews sections; probably want to incorporate them into the text (particularly for the reviews).

Fixed. I removed the quotes and incorporated them into the text.--J.D. (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'top 10 lists' section should go entirely or at the least be incorporated elsewhere as a single sentence ('It was on several critics' top ten lists...'). On looking at the TOC for the article, 'reviews' feels like it need a more descriptive title in lieu of several sections describing critical reaction but I'm ambivalent about what to do.

I changed it from "Reviews" to "General reviews" until I can think of something better. I merged the "Top 10 lists" into the reviews section.--J.D. (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check Wikipedia policy on such heavy reliance on non-free images.

Yeah, I have a feeling that a lot of those will have to go at some point.--J.D. (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a reference from someone's personal site on blogspot.com, which I believe violates WP:SPS. Careful of this with all of your sources.

Back to the development section. The language of the first sentence under 'screenplay' really feels like the introductory sentence for the section since it describes how the project was conceived. I was going to move it myself but didn't want to mess up the chronology: They spent three years researching the film it says, and I was unclear on whether this overlapped with the two years where they held the rights to the book.

The financing section would flow better if it chronicled their efforts to procure funds rather than starting right off with saying it had no American support and Soderbergh's 'they'll be sorry' bit. The following sentence about interest drying up when it was decided to use Spanish needs to be completely redone to explain why the language decision was made and then explain how interest in the Anglophone world (or just the US, it doesn't say) dried up. I'll let you work it out.

I'm curious what people other than the director thought of having the films in such different formats, especially where he mentions Bruckheimer. If there's any information on what his financiers (or even critics later on) thought of this, it would be interesting to include.

Principal photography, paragraph 3: 'In keeping with the Marxist notion of advancement through two conflicting ideas or dialectics, the film is set up as a contrast' - I'd rephrase that so it says it's a tribute to the notion or however you want to put it. It can be read as saying they were trying to make a Marxist film, though I know what you mean by it.

Paragraph 6: I added a sentence about how the things discussed were intended to reflect Che's personality and beliefs. I was also going to mention that they tried to make the movie flow based on the information about improvising and using natural light but didn't want to violate WP:SYNTH if this wasn't the intent of the information. Also, if there was any specific reason for needing to shed 35 pounds (Che being ill etc.) you could mention that.

I merged the two films' synopses into a plot synopsis section and {{main}} templates. Didn't read them very carefully due to time constraints.

Under distribution, I did a little tidying up on the roadshow release but the article again doesn't state where/why it was released as one or two films when it was expanded.

Screenings in Argentina: Were the posters put up because the local officials embraced the film, or was it just a marketing move paid for by the distributor? I'm guessing it was the former from the way it reads, but further information on why it was done (as well as opposition, if any) would help.

I again would have liked to go into further detail in some areas but think I gave you enough to work with for now. You clearly care a lot about the subject. :-) Natural Cut (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Narco: You should decide if it's going to have one, two, or three articles per the merge tag. I'd say one unless there's significant information pertaining to each part that's separate from the other part. Narco (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out the Discussion page, there is a call for a merge and so far there appears to be a general consensus to basically delete the two separate articles for The Argentine and Guerrilla as they contain all the info that is already in the main Che article.--J.D. (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mainly wanted to save people like Natural potential aggravation in the event that there was a restructuring to accommodate information from those articles or relegate it into them. Narco (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated The Argentine & Guerrilla (film) for deletion, as they have been merged, and are no longer necessary. All of the relevant information from both has been incorporated.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Megadeth band members

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need help with grammar, as well as other suggestions.

Thanks, Cannibaloki 20:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huntthetroll

I made a few fixes to the lead:

  • Gar Samuelson was a jazz fusion drummer before he joined Megadeth—at least, that's what his Wiki bio says. Fusion (music) could refer to any one of over a dozen different genres, so calling him a "fusion drummer" is like calling him a "music drummer"—it provides no additional information.
  • Added a link to the Wiki page for Chris Poland's current band, Ohm.
  • Corrected a smattering of minor grammar and formatting errors: punctuation, sentence structure, capitalization, italics, etc.

Otherwise, the article looks really nice; it even has a timeline! Since it is a list, I'll evaluate it according to the featured list criteria:

  • Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
    • This shouldn't be a problem, because I fixed every grammar and style error in the lead that I could find, and the lead constitutes most of the actual text. Which brings me to...
  • Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list.
    • The lead certainly introduces the subject; in fact, it almost covers the subject. I honestly think that it is too long. It's also unclear on the criteria for inclusion.
  • Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries.
    • The list looks pretty comprehensive to me, but then again I'm not a hard-core Megadeth fan. I've never even heard of half these guys.
  • Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities.
    • Since much of the information is concentrated in the relatively dense lead, this list doesn't really need many ease-of-navigation edits. The headings are descriptive and necessary.
  • Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
    • This list could definitely use more citations and links than just Megadeth.com. That shoud be top priority.
  • Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text.
    • As I said before, the article looks good, and the timeline is a nice touch.
  • Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
    • Looks like there was a bit of an edit war between you and The Elfoid, who is currently on editor review. In light of that, I'm not sure if this list satisfies the stability criterion. I'll have to wait and see.
  • Strong points: Comprehensive. Nice timeline graphic.
  • Weak points: Sources (important). Grammar (fixed). Lead (too long).

This list is not ready for featured list review yet. It still needs some work. Huntthetroll (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Python (programming language)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article is of high quality and hope to see it progress to a Featured Article eventually. And since peer review is one of the steps on the way to a FA, I'm requesting it.

Thanks, Cybercobra (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by User:Fubar Obfusco:

This is an intentionally blunt review. I'm not discussing the many good things about this article, but rather focusing on areas for improvement. My apologies if it comes across as harsh.

The flow of the article seems unusual. The development process of the language, including such details as where the developers check the code in, is discussed before the language itself is introduced. I'd suggest moving the Development section later in the article, and remove unnecessary details such as the historical location of the CVS repository.

Done --Cybercobra (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some places, there are excessive footnotes for uncontroversial material. Nobody doubts that Python is used at YouTube or that the original BitTorrent client was written in Python -- so why do these claims need three citations apiece?

Fixed by other editor --Cybercobra (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, some less well-supported statements (see below) are sparsely cited and refer to advocacy material as sources.

There are a lot of statements of intent and goals: Python is intended to be flexible, easy to learn, easily extensible, simple, etc. It seems to me that someone somewhere has to have studied whether these are actually accomplished. Have there been any studies on (say) students learning Python, on whether it is actually easier to learn? It's nice to talk about design goals, but they're all over this article.

Some statements are made which sound like Python advocacy, and which are sourced to documents at python.org. Example:

Python requires less boilerplate than traditional statically-typed structured languages such as C or Pascal, and has a smaller number of syntactic exceptions and special cases than either of these.

... followed by a citation to the General Python FAQ section that encourages the use of Python in education. This comes across as more advocacy than encyclopedia. A comparison between Python and C or Pascal should be sourced to some actual data (like, say, the complexity of the parser? number of different kinds of statements?) about the languages.

It seems to me that discussion of the language's type system and object system could be more carefully separated from the list of built-in types. (And there's some interesting history to be discussed there, notably type/class unification and the whole old-style/new-style classes thing.)

Done, although I don't personally have enough time to write on old vs new style classes at the moment, so I added a notice template about it. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of types, there are a few places where "statically typed" is used to mean "explicitly typed" (i.e. C/Java-like), which is an error.

Done, and it's manifest typing for the record :-) --Cybercobra (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--FOo (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Wronkiew

I reviewed about a third of the article, and found a lot to comment on. First, I found no grammar or spelling errors in what I read. Also, I learned a few things about Python from reading it. You can make major improvements to the article in a number of areas. In general, it assumes that the reader is familiar with programming language theory. Only a very small number of readers who come across this article will have that level of CS education. Terms such as continuation, duck typing, and generator are used without any introduction or definition. The lead section is full of programming language jargon that few readers will understand. Part of the Good Article criteria is compliance with WP:JARGON.

The article could also use a cleanup with regard to NPOV. The sections that I read were unrelentingly positive about the language's features without discussing the tradeoffs and risks. Several sentences discuss the intent in designing the language. These sentences do not reference reliable sources, and do not name the person or group whose intent is described. This, and occasional references to van Rossum as a "benevolent dictator", gives the impression that the article was written by insiders, and suggests a conflict with the policies of neutrality and verifiability. Someone else also commented about this in the talk page archives. They posted a detailed list of problems, many of which have not been addressed.

Another area in need of improvement is readability. The Usage section is particularly difficult to read because so many of the sentences are disguised lists. If the contents of the lists are critical, it may be worthwhile to reformat them as such. You could alternately keep them in sentence form, but trim them down to a few interesting subjects, and explain them in more detail.

Done refactored into lists --Cybercobra (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another way you can improve readability is to go through the article and make sure that the subject of each sentence has already been introduced. One sentence that starts with an unfamiliar subject can be found at the beginning of the Development section: "A Python Enhancement Proposal (or PEP) is a...". Every reader who is not already familiar with the Python development process will be lost when they read this sentence, because they will have no idea what a PEP has to do with the development of Python. The section needs to start with something like "Python was developed...", and then go on to gently introduce the reader to such arcane subjects as PEPs and release candidates.

I would like to do a more thorough review, but I think the best way to improve the article as it is would be for you to first go through the Good Article criteria, and resolve any problems you find. After that is done, and the above issues are addressed, please let me know and I will be happy to do a second review. Wronkiew (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Internet Security

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I followed most of the instructions in the last peer review and wanted to see if this article qualified for GA status.

Thanks, TechOutsider (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC) TechOutsider[reply]

Comments by Mattisse (talk · contribs)
  • During the last peer review of this article, the following was suggested:
  • I suggest that the focus of the article should be changed so it would be useful to someone who has heard about viruses and other dangers of the Internet, wonders what it is all about, and wants to know how NIS fits into the picture. It should not be a product review; that's a job for the computer magazines, and Wikipedia cannot do product reviews because that would be WP:OR. Take a look at some of the Good Articles and Featured Articles in computing and see how that are pitched; for example Mozilla Firefox which is a much more comprehensive article but has a good organization and flow.
  • It would be useful to mention the other major players in this field, maybe with some comments about market share, or at least wikilinks to their articles if they have one. Since there are free products available, what is Symantec's secret to get people to pay for NIS?
  • I strongly support these suggestions. The article could benefit from being written for the general reader who is curious to learn more about internet security and specifically Norton's version. Perhaps some history of the various versions in a narrative style would help, describing why changes were made, or how the software evolved over time, such as the Mozilla Firefox article does. Place the Norton security system in context for the reader. You could have a table for the versions, but as the last peer reviewer said, this should not be a product review article.
  • There should be some mention of Norton's business position, and how it manages to sell a product when free alternatives are available.
  • Also, there should not be external links in the article going to Norton support or chat etc. in the body of the article as exists "Customer service". If you notice, the Mozilla Firefox article does not get into "Customer service" but sticks to describing the overall context of Mozilla Firefox, including in relation to other products. It does not list the many forums, product links etc. for Mozilla.
  • There is still unexplained jargon, such as "64-bit support", which may not mean much to the general reader without some context and/or linking. Also, this does not need its own header, in my opinion
  • In terms of the organization of the article, the TOC needs to be reduces to more global sections I don't think each element needs its own major heading, such as "Norton Toolbar", "Pop-up and Advertisement Blocking" and "Automatic Quarantine", etc. Likewise, I am not sure a separate section for each of the "Criticisms" is helpful and "Criticisms" should be combined with "Critical Reception". It disrupts the narrative flow to have so many sections with only a short prose section in each. Bullets and lists should be avoided and a narrative style used.
  • Maybe the "Macintosh Edition" could be put under 2009 version, as it seems limited to the 2009 release. That would reduce the number of separate sections.
  • The section "FBI Cooperation" seems out of place, as the heading appears in the middle of a description of the criticisms, and as a reader, it is hard to make sense of the TOC with such headings. Think about having a TOC that will make sense to the general reader.

Benjamin Morrell

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's time this old rogue saw the light of day. Observations keenly awaited on sources, images, prose, punctuation – anything that can add to and improve the article, a labour of love if ever there was one.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day!

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I like the Brain Age 2 article a lot. I've made one miner change. All I did was put a title called, "Minigames" above the minigame paragraph. BIONICLE233 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to receive feedback on this article because I am hoping to bring it to FAC one day. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not going to be able to do a full review tonight. Expect details comments tomorrow. I've played the original game, so I'm not a complete stranger. Trying to look at the Gameplay section with a blank mind (not focusing on prose):

  • "player is as responsiveness as that of an" Wrong word form. By responsiveness, is this referring to speed?
  • "In Daily Training, the player can perform the Brain Age Check to determine their updated brain age." So their Brain Age is already updated or is this what Daily Training does?
  • "which are shown to them in a graph."
  • "All of the minigames in Brain Age 2 are new since the original Brain Age." "since" not the right word here. Maybe "All of the minigames in Brain Age 2 are different from those of the original Brain Age."
  • Rock, Paper, Scissors – I think it should be hyphenated.
  • All in all, I think the section is pretty good. I suppose that describing all the minigames would be to much detail, while describing some would be giving undue weight to those games. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done. I spent a lot of time thinking about the word "responsiveness", but I can't think of anything better. It's not really speed, as some of the minigames test the player on other stuff, too. In the Daily Training mode, one of the available activities is Brain Age Check, which after performed, provides the player with their updated brain age. Technically, the player's brain age is always changing even without the game, as it's a part of their brain. The game just tells them the new level. Same as, say, your cholesterol level. The "Rock, Paper, Scissors" is the exact name from the game, so cannot be changed. I was also wondering about listing all the minigames the same way you were. Ultimately, I just decided to leave it as it helps expand Gameplay a bit more, and it's not all that long. Gary King (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Man, you should have told me you were working on this.
I'm not much for peer reviewing, but one thing - would it be possible to increase discussion of individual puzzles? I'm sure there's discussion on them, such as their scientific effectiveness or reception (for example, there's probably a review that mentions his or her thoughts on the Rock, Paper, Scissors, etc.). Also, do you plan to work on the first game? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Gary about this, and basically, it would be giving undue weight to explain every game in detail. Unless reviewers gave much more attention to one game, it doesn't make sense to explain/elaborate on a couple and not expand on the others. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had particular trouble with this article, as it's not as clear cut as others, such as first-person shooters. So, I essentially decided to boil the Gameplay section down to the general modes that the game offers, and I refer to all the games as "minigames" to best familiarize the reader with the format. I think the current format definitely gets the point across fairly well. Gary King (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps. Maybe we should mention the calculations puzzles in general though, since it's a strong element of both titles, as well as Virus Buster? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The calculations puzzles are already mentioned in the Gameplay section, just not in detail. I had removed Virus Buster before as I don't think it's a major part of the game, but okay, I re-added it. Gary King (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be added to reception? It's certainly a unique puzzle in the game, what with it being intended to be a game rather than a brain teaser, and it being based on another Nintendo game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it in Gameplay. Gary King (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still intend to leave comments, but don't expect anything until the weekend. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheadle Hulme

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get some feedback on how the article is coming along. I wish to push this article to Good article, and possibly featured following that. Any hints or tips would be very welcome.

Thanks, Majorly talk 04:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments.
    • The list of Notable people should be converted to prose before taking this article to GAN.
    • The prose needs attention in places, such as "The earliest evidence of civilisation to occupy the area is of the Romans ...". Doesn't really make sense.
    • "... developed from several hamlets which still retain their names in places today." I take this to mean that some hamlets have retained their names, but others haven't? Rather than some hamlets have retained their names, but only in places? I'm confused.
    • Images shouldn't be squeezed between left- and right-aligned images.
    • I think there may be too much detail in some places, for example the list of pubs and bus routes.
    • Shouldn't mix the {{cite}} and {{citation}} templates, as it causes inconsistent formatting. Some citations have ISO last accessed dates, others normal English style dates, some have "retrieved on", others have "Retrieved on".

--Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last point is a result of different people adding references. I'll make them all consistent. Majorly talk 17:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
    • There are problems with the prose throughout - let me spend an hour or so addressing these, I'll place a tag on the article for a bit. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Congratuations on your work, and please read this as criticism of the article (not you). I've gone through the article as far as the end of the Economy section. Have a look at the changes I've made and if you agree apply similar changes to the rest of the article.
      • I've placed several requests for further information - clarify tags. For instance, who confiscated John Paulet's estate, and why? Just writing that he was Catholic may not be enough.
      • There are quite a few paragraphs lacking citations.
      • "Following this, the estate was acquired by the Moseley family and became known as Cheadle Moseley." - this is information which is repeated in History, and also in Governance. Consider removing any repetition, and also moving "Until the 20th century" into Governance
      • "It was in Stockport poor law union" - when?
      • Geography - this needs expanding, what kind of geology does the area contain, etc.
      • Consider integrating the religious information in Demography, into the 'compared' table. An example may be found here
      • Consider moving the first paragraph of the Economy section into History
      • Consider moving any information about public services (fire station, police) to their own 'Public services' section.
      • The Transport section contains lots of information about streets, however this does not necessarily relate to transportation. Did Cheadle Hulme have any Turnpike Trusts in the area? Were there any stagecoaches, or Omnibuses? Electric Trams? Apologies if this sounds like a lot, but its what I like to read in Transport - others will probably disagree. What about environmental noise from the airport, or the smaller airfield at Woodford?
      • Education - did any local churches run Sunday Schools?
      • Notable people - lists tend to be frowned upon, change to prose.
      • Consider using this image rather than the current railway station image, which is (no offence) very poor.

Some of this may be overkill for GAC but believe me if you eventually want to go for FAC making these changes will make your life much easier.

This is really great, thanks. I'll see if I can fix these issues ASAP. Majorly talk 20:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusion damping

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I haven't worked on this article in a few months, so I've gotten a bit lost in developing it. I'd like eventually to get it to FA status. My main worries are explanatory power and completeness. What do you think?

Thanks -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Richard Nixon

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, after a recent expansion, I would like feedback on anything editors like, dislike, feel should be changed, etc. All comments about anything are welcome! Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bates method

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get it to WP:GA status (possibly FA but I doubt it would be a good candidate for that due to the subject.) It has been failed as GA a few times mainly because of tags at the top of the article, which are gone for now thanks to this discussion (which would be helpful to look at), but intermittent disputes persist.

Thanks, PSWG1920 (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of National Monuments of the United States

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Discussion was closed by {[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]] (the peer review requestor) on March 9. doncram (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully expanded this list to have nice descriptions of every monument, a reference for every monument, and a lead section. It, however, failed its FLC mainly due to lack of copyediting/proofreading. I would really appreciate a thorough review of this list, especially on the descriptions of the 100 monuments. I'd be happy to review your article in return. Thanks!! Reywas92Talk 16:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: In this particular case, it made more sense to make proofing changes directly rather than to write sentences about small things like lower-casing "national monument" in most cases. I revised the lead to make it a bit tighter and to substitute a few active-voice constructions for passive. I found the introductory paragraph to the first table a bit confusing and tried to clarify it. I got a bit cross-eyed by the end of the 100 monuments, so it would be a good idea to look at what I've done to make sure I didn't introduce a typo somewhere. I tried not to, but I don't always see them.

This is an impressive list, and I think it has few remaining problems related to the MoS. I didn't check the 100 image licenses, but the images look good. Best of luck with your next run at FLC.

If you find this review helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! One thing: Is it really necessary to have a non-breaking space for every single instance of a number? I take it that it's for when they must be together, like measurements. Reywas92Talk 01:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. WP:NBSP suggests using them "when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line... ". It then gives examples, which include constructions like 7 p.m, Boeing 747, £11 billion, 5° 24′ 21.12″ N, and the first two items in 7 World Trade Center, as well as things like 19 kilograms. Because I've seen the lack of non-breaking spaces become an issue at FAC, I have a tendency to overdo it just to be safe. Adding them is a bit of a nuisance, but it doesn't seem to cause harm. Finetooth (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram comments: I'll have more comments later, but to start let me just focus on the matter of how many National Monuments there are. The article's first sentence is "The United States has 100 protected areas known as national monuments." Having worked on many list-articles about U.S. national historic landmarks and other NRHPs, I know that it is a feasible and quite good contribution to make, to establish how many there are. For state-specific lists of national historic landmarks, there exists an official Department of the Interior document listing them all and providing a total count, which can be used as a source, although that often needs updating for various reasons. Do you have a source for your assertion there are 100? I would tend to believe you, that there are exactly 100 tabulated below. However, for it to be obvious that there are 100, for anyone to determine by inspection of your table that there are 100, the table would need to be numbered. Would it be possible to add a small number, perhaps in the lower left of your first column cells, in the main table? Also, when I look at the smaller table giving subtotals by agency, I can add the numbers along the diagonal in my head. They add up to 105. I wonder if the 100 figure is the current number, while some of the 105 are former National Monuments. I haven't reviewed the list-article to see how it treats former National Monuments. More later. doncram (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not number each one because that would imply that they actually are numbered, and it would be completely arbitrary (alpha, state or date?). Adding the numbers in the table does total 105, but you forgot to take into account that 5 are listed twice. Unfortunately I do not have a source saying that there are 100. This is because some are brand new (three in 2009), and because they are managed by multiple agencies that can't seem to get a unified list together. My best source would be this one, which has a complete listing of them, but it has one that is no longer a NM and is missing the four most recent; none actually give a number. This list does not have former monuments because it is long enough already and there are many former ones to keep track of, though the above link does document those as well. The article has a link to our incomplete list of them. Thanks for your initial review and I hope you can provide more! Reywas92Talk 01:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Crawford

[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the material certainly exists to bump it to GA class, assuming that my recent work on it is not already sufficient (I doubt that it is but then I'm hardly objective). This is a featured article in two other languages and there's no reason why it shouldn't be in English too (although while I'm willing to put in an assist to get it there I will not take the lead on an FAC for it). So, immediate goal, get it to GA. Secondary goal, lay the groundwork for FA. I realize it's a bit convoluted but if whoever reviews this would be willing to break down your review to GA-necessary and FA-necessary components that would be amazingly helpful.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Graham Colm Talk

This is a very well-written article and generally engaging. I see no problems with the prose but there are problems with the lack of citations. There are many statements throughout the article which are unsourced. I know this can be a drag, but a lot more work is needed on this. And, just how many of the pictures of Joan are really necessary? They are all over the place and are not that interesting because they are portraits and not of the characters she played. There is a little redundancy in places, ("to that name"), and some trivial linking such as God and last words. Single sentence paragraphs are not a problem in my book, but others might object. It would be for the best to try to join them up. I see Filmography is empty apart from a link to the main article. This is probably okay for GA but not for FA. Lastly, there are far too many external links.

I didn't find it at all convoluted. For GA it needs a few more references, but for FA a lot more. For FA it needs more criticism of her roles and her acting in general including préces of contemporary film reviews perhaps. GA shouldn't be difficult—the article is tantalisingly close and I hope my comments are helpful. I have seen many FACs that have been less prepared than this, but few of them succeeded without extensive work on the article during the candidature, and this is becoming increasingly unpopular with reviewers. So in a nutshell, more refs, less pictures, less links, damn close to GA, not yet FA, but a damn good read. Thanks and well done. Graham Colm Talk 17:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kumi Koda

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

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

I want to become a FAC article but I'm stuck. I do not know what to add or change. Please look at the article and tell me what you think should be added onto it. Thanks, (Moon) and (Sunrise) 17:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This reads well and seems comprehensive. The early biographical details seem thin, but if no more material is available, what you have may be fine. This is a nice job overall. I have a few comments or questions.

  • The lead photo is good, and the license looks fine to me. If you can add at least one more image, that would be good too.
    • I'll look for some.
  • The last paragraph of the lead is a one-sentence orphan, and it's vague. It also doesn't seem important enough to put in the lead. Perhaps better would be to summarize "Lyrics and composition".
    • Removed
  • I'm not sure what "Best: First Things was certified 2x million... " means in the "Growing popularity" section.
    • Removed
  • RIAJ should be spelled out on first use, thus: Recording Industry Association of Japan (RIAJ).
    • Done
  • "was certified million by the RIAJ" - Meaning?
    • That's to show the growth of her popularity.
  • "a public apology on Fuji TV.[61][59][62][63]" - When you have a string of ref numbers, it's good to arrange them in ascending order.
    • Put them in order.
  • "Koda's forty-third single, yet untitled," - "Yet" is ambiguous. Better would be "untitled as of xxxx" where xxxx is the date that the information was released.
    • Changed
  • In the "Footnotes", it says, "She sold ¥12,702,200,000 in profits." Would "made" be better than "sold"? In any case, the yen here and later in this note should also be given in dollar equivalents.
    • Done
  • I noticed about a dozen small errors, typos, or misspellings as I read, and I fixed them.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 02:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon I of France

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because myself along with several other editors would like to get this to FA. I would like suggestions regarding what we must do to get this to pass the review.

Thanks, Kieran4 (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Phil Hartman

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Will probably try an FAC in a few weeks, so trying to garner as much feedback as possible before —then. Thanks, Gran2 12:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr pda I've reviewed this as I would at FAC. I've also copyedited to fix a number of prose and other minor points (but feel free to change anything back if I've introduced errors).

Things which are fine:

  • All images have appropriate licences or fair-use rationales.
  • Image captions which are complete sentences end with periods.
  • Image placement complies with WP:ACCESS, subjects of images are looking into the page (though in a couple there are people looking in either direction). The Sinbad image could possbily be moved to the left to get the left–right alternation suggested by MOS:IMAGES (though not immediately under the heading of course)
  • Hartmann's wife is correctly referred to by her given name, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Family members with the same surname
  • Date formatting is consistent within article body, and citation section.
  • Article is well-cited, except for filmography section (see comment below)
  • Article seems comprehensive, though I don't know enough about Hartman to say if there is any significant information lacking.
  • References are correctly formatted (though see comment below about order of first name and surname).
  • I've corrected all dash usage (hyphens, ndashes and mdashes)

Things which might need to be changed

  • the network decided that variety shows were dead—sounds maybe a little too colloquial
  • He also appeared as kidnapper Randy in the third season finale of 3rd Rock from the Sun, a role written especially for him. He died before filming of the concluding episode could take place.—How many episodes was the third season finale? I would assume one. If so did he actually appear or not?
  • noted is slightly overused in introducing quotations.
  • Some people object to references which are not in numerical order (i.e. [7][4] instead of [4][7]). This occurs a number of times throughout the article. If there is not a particular reason for doing so (e.g. the second reference is only a backup), you may wish to consider reordering the references to be in numerical order.
  • Hartman appeared in a number of voice-over roles. These included appearances on ...—it sounds a bit odd to me to say he appeared in a voice-over role, as he did not literally appear.
  • For consistency the video games could possibly be put in a table as well.

Things which need attention

  • The Record (twice), The Times Union, Maxim (twice) currently point to disambiguation pages; they should be piped to the correct article.
  • The caption Hartman had his first starring in 1995's Houseguest, alongside Sinbad. is missing a word—had his first what?
  • The film, television, and video game subsections of filmography do not cite any sources. Is there a guideline which says you don't need to?
  • Current reference 21, 23, 38 (Commentary for Simpsons episodes)—why do you list the authors surname, first name, when for all the other references first name surname is used?
  • On meeting Clinton in 1993, Hartman remarked "I guess I owe you a few apologies,"[14] adding that he "sometimes [felt] a twinge of guilt about [his Clinton impression]."[13]—If the quotes both come from the same occasion (which is what adding implies), why don't you reference them both to the same source?
  • Hartman wrote a screenplay for a film entitled Mr. Fix-It in 1986,[11] and wrote the final draft in 1991.—the difference between/reasons for the 1986 and 1991 versions needs to be made more explicit. Why did he produce a final draft in 1991? Or was he working on it the whole time and only completed it in 1991?
  • The Gasping for Airtime reference (no. 15) needs a page number.
  • What makes http://www.filmreference.com/ a reliable source?

Hope you find these comments useful. If so you might like to try reviewing an article from the backlog list which is where I found yours. Good luck for the FAC. Dr pda (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I'll implement these soon enough. As for filmographies, I don't think there's a policy, but convention is that IMDb (and Variety, Yahoo) filmographies cover them, in the external links. Gran2 10:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 01:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rhyolite, Nevada

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to prepare it for FAC. It was promoted to GA on March 1, and I have since added a geology section. I'd welcome any advice on any aspect of the article. Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is very interesting and well done and seems close to ready for FAC to me. Here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • The second sentence stops me every time: The town began as one of several mining camps that sprang up when a prospecting discovery in the rhyolite that forms the hills led to a gold rush in 1904. I think it might work better if the gold rush part were moved earlier within the sentence, perhaps something like The town began as one of several mining camps that sprang up as part of a gold rush, sparked by a 1904 prospecting discovery in the rhyolite that forms the surrounding hills. (still not great, but you get the idea). It may need to be split into two sentences
    • Thank you. Yes. It was once a good sentence that I tinkered with until it became a bad sentence. I have re-cast it and the sentence after it to try to make this section more clear. Finetooth (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it help to add "which was" or "which is" here: Many settled in Rhyolite, [which was] in a sheltered desert basin near the Montgomery Shoshone Mine, the region's biggest producer.
  • Would it help to add "Mine" back in Industrialist Charles M. Schwab bought the Montgomery Shoshone in 1906 and invested heavily ... ? If you want to conserve the number of times the word "mine" appears in the lead, it could probably be removed in In 1908, investors in the Montgomery Shoshone Mine, concerned that the mine was overvalued...
  • This is very nitpicky, but could someone be confused as to what the BLM oversees in The Goldwell Open Air Museum lies just south of the ghost town, which is overseen by the Bureau of Land Management. (Museum or ghost town)
  • The Name section might be clearer if it was written so as to provide more context to the reader. For example: The town is named for "Rhyolite", an igneous rock composed of light-colored silicates that is usually buff to pink and occasionally light gray.[2] Rhyolite belongs to the same rock class, "felsic", as granite, but is much less common.[2] The Amargosa River's name comes from the Spanish word for "bitter", amargosa. The river flows through the desert, where it takes up large amounts of salts, which give it a bitter taste.[3]
  • Would it be OK to remove the first "Mountains" in To the west, roughly 5 miles (8.0 km) from Rhyolite, the Funeral Mountains and Grapevine Mountains of the Amargosa Range rise.. or does this make it clearer that they are separate?
  • There are several places where the same ref is used twice in a row in the same paragraph, but it is not a direct quote or extraordinary claim. In places like this it seems better to me to only use one ref. I struck one example above, another is Rhyolite is high enough in the hills to have relatively cool summers, and it has relatively mild winters.[16] However, it is far from sources of water.[16]
    • I ended up removing at least 20 citations that seemed redundant after you pointed this out. I don't know quite how it happened, but I seemed to have cited every imaginable thing. I hope I have not now gone too far in the other direction. Finetooth (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add the 1907 date to the photo caption The Montgomery Shoshone Mine near Rhyolite[, as seen in 1907,] had a large processing mill served by a railroad spur line.
  • Given the name section, is the anmed for part of this needed: Rhyolite, named for the deposits of the mineral rhyolite that contained much of the gold, became the largest of these settlements.[26]?
  • Be consistent about capitalization - is it Mine (elsewhere) or mine (here) It sprang up near the most promising discovery, the Montgomery Shoshone mine, which in February 1905 ...
  • Is the caboose pictured the one that served as a gas station? If so, should that be noted (in the caption perhaps)?
  • I know the price of gold varies, but would it be possible to give a value for the gold produced in Over its entire life, the mine processed about 2,800,000 short tons (2,540,000 t) of ore and produced about 690,000 ounces (19,600 kg) of gold.[54]?
    • Yes. Good suggestion. Gold was selling for about $300 an ounce in 1998, and I multiplied this times the number of ounces to get a figure of about $207 million. I added this to the end of the Barrick Bullfrog subsection. Finetooth (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I am not sure of this either, but should the Ghost town and Resumption of mining sections be subsections of the History section too (as Boom and Bust are)?

Hope this helps and let me know when this is at FAC. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review this and for your excellent suggestions. I will give each item further thought, make changes, and respond over the next couple of days. I will certainly let you know how it goes and when I nominate. Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That takes care of them all save the unanswered question about the caboose. If I can find an RS that identifies it as the gas station, I'll add that to the caption. Finetooth (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noël Coward

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's just passed a GA review and I'd like pointers on how to take it further - coverage, balance, tone, sins of commission and omission etc.

Thanks, Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to bring it to FA status eventually and I need some outside opinions on what to do to make it better.

Thanks, NancyHeise talk 16:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology/archive1.

Zanzibar Revolution

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for PR as I recently withdrew it from a shortlived FAC nomination after it was pointed out that it would be worthwhile listing it here first. In particular I am looking for improvements to the article prose and perhaps a review of the images (with an eye on fair use) in addition to any other areas where it is deficient. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've been having a lot of trouble accessing wikipedia pages today, so I've not finished the review yet - the rest will come tomorrow, hopefully. As I've worked through I have done some minor copyedits. Here's the review so far.

  • Lead
    • "...frustrated by the lack of representation in Parliament" - I think this should be "frustrated by under-representation" rather than lack
    • I think the revolution "began", rather than "occurred" early in the morning of 12 June
    • "...which led to a poor reception from the Western Powers". This is rather vague phrasing. I suggest: "...which caused consternation among the Western Powers"
    • "several plans were drawn up for military intervention..." By whom?
    • "Instead" is not appropriate here. "Meanwhile" would suit better.
    • "The event ended 200 years of Arab domination". You need to clarify which event, the revolution or the merger?
Many thanks for starting the review, I have made several changes to the lead section which should hopefully address the issues you have brought up, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origins
    • "Since 1911 at had been ruled as a constitutional monarchy under Sultan Jamshid bin Abdullah". This needs rephrasing - I don't think Jamshid bin Abdullah had been ruling for 53 years.
    • You say Zanzibar was "controlled" by the British government. Could you clarify somewhere what the formal relationship was with the British government before the revolution?
    • "fired" is not encyclopedic. Try "dismissed".
I think I have sorted out this section as well - Dumelow (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revolution: no particular comment at the moment
  • Aftermath
    • Opening sentence: "To temporarily govern post-revolution Zanzibar..." etc - this whole sentence sounds very awkward. I suggest a reorganisation: "The ASP and the Umma party established a Revolutionary Council to act as an interim government"
    • Fourth para first sentence, slight rearrangement: "However, Okello formed a paramilitary unit from his own supporters, known as the Freedom Military Force (FMF), which..." etc
    • Another awkward sentence: "The People's Liberation Army (PLA) was formed by the government in April..." etc. I thik this would be better as "In April the government formed the ... (PLA) and completed the disarmament of Okello's remaining troops".
    • "...had negotiated to enter into a union with..." is a bit wordy. "had negotiated a union with..." would do just as well.
Thanks, this part has now been sorted - Dumelow (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thast's as far as it goes for the moment. More tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

  • Foreign reaction
    • The American ambassador authorised an evacuation..." Clarify this is an evacuation of American nationals
    • "...due to the fact that" is wordy. Try "because"
    • The sentence beginning "There was evidence that Zanzibar was aligning itself..." etc needs rewording for clarity. I suggest: "The fact that the new Zanzibar government was the first from Africa to recognise the German Democratic Republic and North Korea was taken by the Western Powers as evidence that Zanzibar was aligning itself closely with the communist bloc."
    • "In Crosthwait's opinion this contributed..." Specify what contributed - I imagine it's the late recognition of Zanzibar by the West, but this must be clarified.
  • British military response
    • Second para, second line mentions "Tanzania". Wasn't it still Tanganyika at this point?
    • "the ASDP moderates" might be better phrased as "the more moderate ASP"
  • General point. I have done a fair bit of minor copyediting, mainly the insertion of necessary punctuation. This was a particularly weak point in the prose. It no doubt needs further attention as I haven't checked thoroughly.

I hope that you find this review useful. Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Orleans Hornets head coaches

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it currently does not have enough entries to to promoted to featured list material. This peer review is mandatory for this article because of featured topic criteria 3c.

Thanks, -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "The New Orleans Hornets are an American professional basketball team based in New Orleans, Louisiana. The Hornets play"-->The New Orleans Hornets are an American professional basketball team based in New Orleans, Louisiana. They play
  • "New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets (2005–2007)" The slash (/) should have spaces on either side because the separated items have internal spaces.
  • "The Hornets have never been in the NBA Finals since its inception." "been to" sounds better here.
  • "The team have played "-->The team has played
  • "Dave Cowens is the franchise's all-time leader for the highest winning percentage in the regular-season (.609)." Seems like this should go before the info about the playoffs.
  • "Though none of the Hornets coaches have been elected "-->Although no Hornets coache has been elected
  • File:ByronScottPanathinaikos1998.jpg—I highly doubt that the licensing is correct; the picture quality is too crisp and lack of metadata makes me suspicious. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done all. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looks good, just some minor points

  • Move Dave Cowens' image to the top
  • Ref 7: the file format is PDF, not pdf
  • It would be nice if you can create a stub for Gary Chouest. But this is not mandatory
Done all except for the last one. Too lazy, too busy, sorry. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Chris! ct 05:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mother 3

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is quite long and has many references, but I want to make sure that nothing is wrong with it, or whether it needs trimming.

Thanks, ZXCVBNM [TALK] 17:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mother 3/archive1.

Popstars The Rivals

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see what improvements could be made to promote this long-overdue article to good article standard. I would appreciate more help from other editors in improving the page. Some sections are incomplete because I need help finding sources etc.

Thanks, 03md (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)
  • Song titles should be in quote marks
  • Comma after "first series of Popstars"
  • There seems to be a random apostrophe after "Popstars: The Rivals Extra"
  • The use of "Popstars The Rivals" vs "Popstars: The Rivals" is inconsistent - pick one and stick to it throughout
  • No need for capital on "Presenters" in section heading
  • Why is "Big Brother" a red link? There is certainly an article on the UK version
  • No need for capital on "Company" in "Record Company executive"
  • Don't refer to judges by their first names alone, surnames is the encyclopedic way to do it
  • Some dates are in US format - as this is a UK subject the UK format should be used eg "5 August 2002" not "August 5, 2002"
  • ....and don't wikilink dates
  • Refs 1 and 2 within the "Auditions" section are not formatted or even enclosed within <ref> tags - also, they should come after punctuation marks, not before
  • "For the first few episodes" - not very precise
  • "the 6 remaining" => "the six remaining"
  • Kimberley Walsh's name is spelt wrong throughout
  • ....and what's with the asterisk after her age? It doesn't seem to be explained
  • Why is the original artist listed for some songs but not others?
    • I will add the artists that I can now, although some I am not sure about because of multiple songs with the same name.
  • Under "winners", almost all of the section about OTV is one huuuuuuuge sentence which needs to be broken up
  • "She was also chosen as the Great Britain's" - lose the word "the"

Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile (Mortal Kombat)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Need to be hammered with whatever fixes and so forth to improve this article so when I nominate for FA the prose will be up to snuff. So hit me with whatever qualms you have about the article to fix the prose, and I'll fix it as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time and patience, Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Serie A Young Footballer of the Year

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how to improve the list further. Thanks, NapHit (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: There isn't a lot of material here, but you should make the most of all relevant facts, and include them. For example:

  • In the lead you need to explain clearly what "Serie A" means, in terms of Italian Association Football. I belieive it is the Italian top flight, the equivalent of the British Premiership, but this needs to be made clear in your defining first sentences.
  • Also state in the lead when the award started. If you can find any information relevant to its prehistory, e.g. on whose initiative the award was introduced, whether there was a previous method of recognising young talent, etc. that would be good.
  • You should also give details of the procedure whereby the award is decided. Is it by votes? If so, what is the electorate? Are details available of voting figures so that we can see if any of the years were closely contested?
  • Were any of the awards considered controversial, causing adverse reactions in the sporting press?

There may not be information available on some of these points, but it's worth looking, in order to expand the article. One other point I noticed in the list itself: other footballer award lists give the playing position of the award winner, and I think yours should too.

That's really all I can say. I hope you find these points helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

Not much to say really beyond what Brianboulton has already picked up. One point, though - I realise the lead image is of the only multi-time winner, but it's really a terrible picture. Would it be worth putting a different picture there instead....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)
  • Might be better to use {{lang-it}} for formatting the Italian award name (and it's spelt wrong)
  • Perhaps explain what the Associazione Italiana Calciatori is rather than just translating the words

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Sudell

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After doing some work on William McGregor I decided to make use of momentum and sources and work on another article. Sudell was the first chairman of Preston North End, where he had such influence over affairs that it was akin to a dictatorship. He was an influential and outspoken figure in the early days of football, and was largely responsible for the introduction of professionalism. He later got sent to prison for fraud, and depending on which account you believe possibly shot himself while in disgraced exile.

I've now exhausted all my sources, and was thinking that GA could be a reasonable bet. So I'd like comments with that in mind, and for people to point out the flaws in my sometimes idiosyncratic prose :)

Thanks, Oldelpaso (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

Some excellent work there, OEP. Just a few minor points I picked up on

  • "and led Preston to become the leading team of the early professional era" - I'd say "and led to Preston becoming the leading team of the early professional era"
  • Do we know what sort of mill it was, and if so could we link it to something? I'm guessing a cotton mill based on its location, but I could be wrong.....
  • First sentence under "football career" has a lot of run-on clauses, could it be broken up at all?
  • Comma after rugby should be a full stop
  • Preston North End only seems to be linked in the lede, not in the body of the article
  • refs after "mid-twenties" are in the wrong numerical order
  • The bit about the club arranging jobs for Scottish ringers is unreferenced. I think I've got a book that makes mention of this, I will look tonight.
  • The FA needs to be linked somewhere in the article
  • ...and The Double too
  • "to propose the "The" - change first "the" to "that"
  • "Stoke's Harry Lockett" - wikilink Stoke (I presume it refers to the club, at that time known simply as Stoke, rather than the city
  • "a predecessor of the Territorial Army" - as an army regiment can't technically die, "predecessor" is wrong. I'd use "precursor" instead
  • refs after 9 May 1911 are the wrong way round
  • Finally, you state above that "he had such influence over affairs that it was akin to a dictatorship" yet this doesn't come across in the article, is there anything that could be added concerning this?

Other than these minor points, an excellent read on an important, albeit little-known, figure in early football. Nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a ref for the book which I know talks about Scottish players being given nominal jobs at t'mill, but I appear to have left the book itself in my son's room for some reason and if I go in now I'll wake him up! :-P Prod me if I haven't remembered to look up the precise page by the weekend :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Picky comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)
  • Infobox. Maybe just have year of death in infobox, as date appears to be disputed
Looks like someone put that in while it was on the main page for DYK, removed
  • Lead section. In opening sentence, should we specify association football first time of mentioning? and perhaps put F.C. after PNE
  • Don't need exact date he joined sports club
  • Do we really have to adopt the branding-led artificial capitalisation of "the", as in The Football Association and The Football League?
  • Football career section. What's a Preston Guild Mayor?
Ideally it'd be a link, but I don't have enough information to create an article. [4] says "to be chosen as Guild Mayor was the highest honour that Preston could bestow", but quite how to work that in I'm not sure.
  • Where does Preston Nelson sports club come from? ref#2 doesn't give that name
It was "League Football and the Men Who Made It", which I've put in the relevant place.
  • Keen to make use of tactics, Sudell was the first person to use a blackboard to dictate positions and tactics to his players. perhaps rephrase to avoid two much tactics
  • Same para, last sentence reads awkwardly, and is When Saturday Comes a reliable source?
    • Though it had fanzine origins in the 1980s, these days it probably has the highest quality of writing of any specialist football publication in the country, with a number of noted football authors among its contributors. I'd trust it far more than say FourFourTwo on historical matters. That piece was originally in the print edition as part of a regular feature which focuses on a different season each month.
  • ...McGregor was keen to interest them. Once involved, Sudell was keen for the embryonic League ... bit too keen, perhaps
  • Outside football section. I'm sure it can't have been just thanks to his numeracy he became manager of the mill.
  • Are all the exact dates of his various military promotions needed?
  • Last para, change some of the Sudells to he's, and some of the accounts to versions
  • References (some GA reviewers are dead keen on properly formatted citations :-) Names of newspapers are works not publishers.
  • Book titles should still be italicised each time they're mentioned.
  • Be consistent about page number format, you have both p dot space nn and pnn without dot or space, and refs#3 and 5 have pp where there's only one page cited.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Street newspaper

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hoping to take this to FAC at some point. Got a lot of help and suggestions from my GAN reviewer, and would appreciate another pair of eyes to go through it now as well.

Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is part one of a review which might extend over a few days. It's an interesting subject, one which should be better known and understood, and the article is a decent shot at making it so.

  • Article structure: It's odd to see the History section tucked at the end. I think it should be at the beginning, to provide the context for what follows.
  • GAN reviewer suggested putting the History section after the Description section to give it more context...my original reaction was also to say that that seemed weird. He convinced me at the time, but now that I think about it, if I expand the lead as you suggested below then I can probably get away with putting History back in the beginning. (It will make the reference numbers go crazy and I might have to move around some of the wikilinks, but that's not a huge deal.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have beefed up the lead, and then moved the History section back to the top.
  • Lead:
    • "networks of social benefits" - what does this phrase mean? Does it mean information about social security, or something more? Either way, it needs explaining
      • I think it has more to do with getting homeless people in touch with people who know about service providers, etc., and with each other. But it's kind of vague in my head, I think I'd like to go back to the library and check out the original wording in some of these books before I try to clarify it in the article, just so I don't botch anything. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bit of repetition, e.g. "marginalized individuals" appearing twice in close proximity, and some wordy phrasing, e.g. "generally seek to provide". I suggest you simplify the third sentence to: "Street papaers also aim to give these individuals employment opportunities, community networking, and a voice." I think the sentence should end here, and what follows your semicolon should be a new sentence.
    • However, I'm again a bit stumped, by the term "community networking" which needs further explanation.
    • United States and Western Europe don't need wikilinks.
    • Overall, the lead tells us what street newspapers are, and mentions a current "ongoing controversy", but it does not provide a complete overview of the article. It doesn't for example mention any of the history of the papers. Extending the lead to comply wth WP:LEAD will be essential if you have FA ambitions.
  • Description
    • Use of bullet-points for short lists is not generally approved by FACs. Personally I've nothing against your presenting this information in this way, but you might find that others see the matter differently.
    • Something wrong here: "While street many street..."
    • More wordiness: "many people who buy street newspapers do so not to gain information and access the content of the newspaper, but to support, and express solidarity with, the homeless vendor." Suggest "many people who buy street newspapers do so to support and express solidarity with the homeless vendor, rather than to read the paper".
    • What does "its" refer to in "its readership at the time..."
  • Operations and business
    • I'd delete "up front" from the first sentence. It serves no purpose.
    • Can you quantify, even approximately, what is meant by "a small fraction"? A quarter? A tenth? Less?
    • This section, and particularly the second paragraph, seems to be specific to the United States.It might be as well to spell this out, e.g. by saying: "In the United States, many papers receive aid..." etc
      • Actually, I think most of this stuff applies to all street newspapers, although the most information is available (in English, at least) for the US ones. Government/charity aid does seem to be slightly more common in the US, so I added "particularly in the United States" to that bit. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overuse of the term "street papers" (for example, "...new street papers.[13] Many street papers..."
    • Who are the "advocates"? Not lawyers, surely? Best avoid the term and use something like "supporters"
    • Also, avoid abbreviations like "that's". It has to be "that is".
    • Descriptions like "socially entrepreneurial" are a bit indigestible. Is there any simpler way to put it?
    • Re the Big Issue, which in (not "as of") 2001 "earned the equivalent of 20 million USD". We really need to know what this $US 20 million equivalent actually represented. The entire revenue of the Big Issue? The surplus, after production and operating costs? The amount that was distributed among street vendors? Can you clarify?
    • It should be "as few as", not "as little as".

That's all I can do for the moment, but I will come back to it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll see what I can do to address the points you've raised. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review continuing

  • Coverage (I have done some minor ce work in this section)
    • "a how-to and recipe section" - sounds like more than one section. Could "how-to" be clarified?
    • I suggest the semicolon after "recipe section" becomes a full stop and a new sentence starts with "Likewise..." A single sentence is too long and convoluted.
    • "proponents of street newspapers" - is "proponents" the right word in this context? It is the content of street newspapers that advocates for the poor and homeless, surely?
  • Social benefits: no special comment on this section
  • Challenges and criticisms: (minor copyedits in this section too)
    • "...papers face financial difficulties because of underfunding". Well yes, they would, but to leave the sentence here doesn't give much information. Can you expand?
    • "scammed" is possibly a bit slangy for an encyclopedia. "Swindled" or "cheated" might be preferable, though it's up to you.
      • "Swindled" and "cheated" didn't sound quite right to me, but I agree with your concern, so I changed it to "for fear that it was a scam" (which I think is the original wording I had back in the day anyway). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A whole sentence should not be in parentheses. This sentence begins "In response to these criticisms...". I'd leave out the parentheses and "to these criticisms, thus: "In response, organizations in Montreal...etc"
    • No apostrophe after "vendors"
    • What is the evidence that The Big Issue is widely read, as distinct from widely purchased and thrown away?
      • I can't access the site with that particular ref right now, but I'm pretty sure it specifically singled out TBI as being "widely read"; also, both that ref and the Heinz ref specifically refer to it as "the world's most widely read street newspaper" or something like that. I guess technically we can't assume that the people who are buying it are reading it, but given that it's sort of a tabloid/pop culture magazine and that it sells so much more than any other street newspaper, I imagine it's being read, not just bought for the heck of it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Other difficulties street newspapers face include high turnover due to "transient" or unreliable staff..." I'd reword this. The reference to "turnover" is confusing despite the link, and "transient" shouldn't be in quotes. Thus: Other difficulties street newspapers face include the high turnover of transient or unreliable staff..."
    • Can the last sentence be tightened up a bit? It's rather vague at present ("New York City, Cleveland and other locations...", "sometimes prevented..." etc. I suggest: "...; for example, in New York City, and also Cleveland, laws have prevented vendors from selling papers on public transit or other high-traffic areas, making it difficult for the papers to earn revenue."
  • Schism among street newspapers: I'm a bit uneasy with your choice of the word "schism" which has heavy religious connotations. I would give the section the simple title "Divisions"
    • Opening sentence too wordy. I suggest: " Among proponents and publishers of street newspapers there is disagreement over how street newspapers should be run and what their goals should be, reflecting a so-called "clash between two philosophies for advocating social change."
    • The quote at the end is really too short to be giveb blockquote format. I'd integrate it into the text.

I will come back and deal with the remainder later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review concluded

Since I looked yesterday, there have been major changes, including the sensible one of bringing the History section to the start of the article. The following are some comments on the History section. One general comment about the prose throughout the article - overuse of semicolons. The odd semicolon can enrich prose, but too many makes for irritating reading. Some of them, in this article, could easily be replaced by full stops.

  • Historical foundations
    • I would temper the opening sentence slightly, by saying that the modern street newspaper "is believed to have begun with the 1989..." etc. I would also drop the quotes around "modern street newspaper".
      • Would that be a bit weasely, though? I can see pros and cons with either wording...I guess I'll think about it a bit.
    • "at least", at this sentence's end, has no function and can be deleted.
    • You make it seem as though War Cry is no more, which is assuredly not the case!
    • What, actually, is a hobo? The term is distinctly American, and its meaning is unclear here in the UK. A possible link, or explanation, or alternative term, might be helpful.
  • Modern street newspapers
    • Why five separate citations for a commonplace fact?
      • I think I was just adding them incrementally, and wanted robust sourcing just in case someone tried to come up and say that X street paper was started before Street News. But you're right, I don't need that many footnotes; I've removed the first 3 and kept the last two, which are more RS (one from Ryerson Review of Journalism, one from the Encyclopedia of Homelessness). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...in the 1989 and the early 1990s"?
    • Fifth sentence ends "in the west". I think this is redundant, since you have made it clear earlier in the sentence that you are talking about the western world.
    • The form "...nations such as France..." etc is not good prose. You mean France, Russia and Germany, not nations like them. So I suggest you begin the sentence: "There are ne street newspapers in Canada, in France, Russsis, Germany and Sweden..." etc.
      • That's a good point. I still would like to group the European nations together, though, and separate from Canada, so I tried "There are now street newspapers in Canada; in European nations, including France, Russia,...". That meant creating another semicolon...but I'll try to clean those up after this. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two late consecutive sentences begin with "These organizations..." Try to vary.

I hope that you have found these comments helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one albums of 2008 (U.S.)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to check the comprehensiveness of the lead as well as the quality of the prose.

Regards, Efe (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Looks good to me except for prose issues in the lead. Images look fine. Image licenses look fine. Here are my suggestions:

Lead

  • Spell out extended play (EP) on first use?
  • "The data are compiled by Nielsen Soundscan based on each album's weekly physical and digital sales." - When it's easy to flip the order, using active voice is usually better than passive voice. Suggestion: Nielsen Soundscan compiles the data based on each album's weekly physical and digital sales."
  • "among the releases that have reached the peak the position in 2008" - Remove extra "the"?
  • "Country singer Taylor Swift's Fearless is the longest-running album among the releases that have reached the peak the position in 2008, with 11 non-consecutive weeks beginning with the issue dated November 29 and continuing into the 2009 chart year." - Suggestion: "Country singer Taylor Swift's Fearless, in the top spot for 11 non-consecutive weeks beginning with November 29 and continuing into the 2009 chart year, is the longest-running album among the releases reaching the peak position in 2008.
  • "include Jack Johnson fifth studio album" - Possessive: "Johnson's"?
  • "... Death Magnetic, each spent three straight weeks on the chart." - Full stop after Magnetic. Start next sentence with "Each".
  • 'The album also snagged... " - Slang. "Produced"? "Achieved"?
  • "a feat previously held in 2005" - "Accomplished" rather than "held"?
  • "had the most vinyl albums sold in 2008, accounting to 26,000 units" - Do you mean "amounting to"?
  • "Pop singer Mariah Carey earned her sixth" - "Recorded" rather than "earned"?
  • "third place for most number-one albums by a female act" - "Woman" rather than "female act"?

If you find these suggestions helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one albums of 2007 (U.S.)

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


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to check the quality of the prose.

Thanks, Efe (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Since I did the other, I thought I might as well do this one too.

Lead

  • Not every reader will understand EP unless it is also spelled out on first use.
  • "albums the reached peak" - Same problem as the other article.
  • "beginning December of this year" - "This year" is ambiguous.
  • "Its four-week run was consecutive, becoming the first Christmas album to have achieved the feat in the chart's 51-year history" - Since the run didn't become an album, this should be re-cast. How about "It became the first Christmas album in the chart's 51-year history to have a four-week run as number one."?
  • "Following Groban's appearance at" - "On" rather than "at"?
  • "Following Groban's appearance at The Oprah Winfrey Show, the album reached number-one in its seven weeks on the chart fueled by 405,000 units sales, becoming Groban's best sales week ever." - The chart wasn't fueled. Suggestion: "After Groban's appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show, the album reached number one during its seven weeks on the chart. Sales of 405,000 units led to Groban's best sales week ever and the album's rise on the chart."
  • "It is one of the albums with biggest first-week sales of 2007, accumulating 615,000 copies." - "Accumulating" doesn't seem like the right word. How about "Its sale of 615,000 copies in its first week made it one of the top albums in this category."?
  • "American singer Alicia Keys' As I Am also topped the chart for four weeks, although non-consecutive" - Perhaps "although they were non-consecutive"?
  • "Rapper Jay-Z scored his 10th number-one album, American Gangster, giving him the distinction of the second act, tying with Elvis Presley, for most number ones in the history of Billboard 200, only behind band The Beatles with 19." - Something's gone awry here. I'm not sure what "the second act" refers to. "Second place" perhaps? The last phrase seems to be missing a word as well. Suggestion: "Rapper Jay-Z produced his 10th number-one album, American Gangster. This put him in second place in this category, tied with Elvis Presley, who had the most number ones in the history of Billboard 200 except for the The Beatles, who had 19."

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Finetooth (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks for the review, Finetooth. --Efe (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one albums of 2006 (U.S.)

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


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to check the quality the prose if its up to the standards of FLCs.

Thanks, Efe (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is the third of three, all similar. I haven't noticed any problems with the charts, but I have a few suggestions about the prose again. You are right in thinking the prose is the weak link. If you can track down a friend who likes to copyedit, you might be able to focus on the charts while the friend polishes the lead sections. Just a thought.

Lead

  • "The album spent two non-consecutive weeks at the top spot of Billboard 200, the first TV soundtrack to achieve since the Miami Vice soundtrack in the 1980s." - Missing word?
  • "Unpredictable by Jamie Foxx and the compilation album Now 22 each spent at number for three weeks." - Something is missing here too, and what is a compilation album?
  • "topped the chart with the strength of 156,000 unit sales" - I think that should be "on the strength".
  • "giving him his first chart topper album in nearly 29 years of his career" - Change to "giving him the first chart-topper album of his 29-year career"?
  • "and the his best first-week sales since Billboard 200 incorporated data tracked" - Extra word. It's either "the" or "his".
  • "Band Red Hot Chili Peppers earned their first number-one album, Stadium Arcadium, for the first time in their 22-year career as well as crediting the band their best sales in a week." - Using "Band" as a modifier in this way is a bit awkward. I'm not sure "earned" is the right word or that "crediting" is the right word. How about "The Red Hot Chili Peppers band recorded its first number-one album, Stadium Arcadium, in its 22-year history. This led to the group's best sales in a single week."?
  • "Evanescence's The Open Door gave the band their first number-one album, and became the 700th number one in the history of Billboard 200." - "Which" instead of "and"? "Its" instead of "their"?
  • "Jay-Z earned his ninth number-one album, Kingdom Come, tying The Rolling Stone for the third act with most number ones in the United States." - How about "recorded" instead of "earned"? "Created" might be another good alternative. Also, I don't know what "third act" means.
  • "The compilation series Now That's What I Call Music! hit two number-one albums this year: series 22 and 23. The 23rd installment gave the series its 10th number one." - I don't know what a compilation series is or what it means for a series to "hit two number-one albums". A brief in-text explanation would help provide more context for the reader.

Images

  • The caption for the lead image mentions 2007. Should that be 2006?
  • Licenses look OK to me as do the photos themselves and the placement.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Best of luck with this article and the other two as well. Finetooth (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks Finetooth. --Efe (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Long Island

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to A-Class so any sugesstions regarding that would be appreciated.

Thanks, Kieran4 (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Doncram I have major comments to make, will not state all in this first pass. I am interested in the topic of the article, and found this version very interesting to read, all the way through.

  • I find it interesting that it can be asserted this was the largest battle in the war, which i did not know. Perhaps that point can be developed more later: while it makes sense to me that it was the largest up to its date, as both sides were getting geared up to fight, but why were there no comparable battles later? I suppose the answer has to do with attrition of Washington's army, with the failure of either side to concentrate forces, with the strategic decisions taken by British to divide their armies, to move some south, to divide and move others into a three pronged attack up New York State later, etc. You don't have to go into that too much in this article about this battle, but it is an interesting fact and some short summary of which its record size was not matched later would be a nice note, later in the article. If this was the largest, what was the second largest battle?
  • Maps: There is one historic map in the article, and it is helpful, but it is important for the understanding of the battle to see more. I believe the article would benefit greatly from creation of several maps showing positions of troops and directions of movements, on different days. Perhaps the historic map could be used as a base and annotated. I am aware of graphics created to illustrate U.S. Civil War battles more than i am aware of them in Revolutionary war battle articles, but you should be able to find some other wikipedia battle article examples and seek help from mapmakers.
  • Brooklyn Heights and other locations. The author is apparently unaware of the crucial fact that what is now known as Brooklyn Heights is not the area then known as Brooklyn Heights, which rather is a long ridge, I believe, that includes but is not limited to what is now known as Crown Heights and Prospect Heights. The current neighborhood of Brooklyn Heights is a misnamed, low-lying area along the shore, extending south from the base of the Brooklyn Bridge. See Brooklyn Heights Historic District; I think but am not 100% positive that PDF references within it show the exact boundaries of that district, which is pretty much what is understood to be Brooklyn Heights now. In Crown Heights, miles and miles away, the line of defense ran along Eastern Parkway, going east and slightly south from the location of the main Brooklyn public library at Eastern Parkway and Flatbush Avenue. I believe there is a plaque outside the library explaining and showing a map. However, it is probably not as simple as equating Brooklyn Heights with what is now known as Crown Heights. Currently, the article links to the current Brooklyn Heights neighborhood at least twice, I noticed. In some of the interesting narrative I believe it is possible that sometimes the shoreline Brooklyn Heights area might be meant. Fixing this will require good sources and perhaps local knowledge. I assume you are not local to the NYC area. I will separately ask one or two wikipedians who have taken a lot of NRHP historic sites pictures in Brooklyn if they have or could obtain a picture of that plaque outside the library, for your information if not for use in the article, and/or if they could comment here.
  • Importance and miraculousness of fog and the army's escape. The article does mention the fog that covered the evacuation of Washington's army, at first in the intro and then later, but it fails to describe the immense importance of that fog, the sheer miracle of it, which I have read in other accounts. I have the impression from elsewhere that there never was fog at that time or year and that area, except that one day. I have the impression that it was terribly foolhardy for Washington to have engaged in battle at all in Long Island, or to persist there, for his entire army there could easily have been cut off by the British ships and forced eventually to surrender. I have the impression that the evacuation was within range of British ships who would easily have destroyed the entire evacuating army. I have the impression that the evacuation was nerve-wracking. Other tellings of this may have perhaps been exagerated for effect, but they certainly made an effect upon me, and this version has none of that excitement. I believe that this is really important to capture better, though of course only to the extent verifiable in good sources.
  • I hope to come back and comment more later. Hope these comments help now for a good start. doncram (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note the article does have recognition of the battle happening at different areas in Brooklyn, for example this caption: "The Battle Pass area, also known as Flatbush Pass, in the area of modern-day Prospect Park and Green-Wood Cemetery. Etching, c.1792". Also, the link to one house on the battlefield is a house in the Park Slope neighborhood. As you may recognize, these areas are far from Brooklyn Heights. I think I'll stop now. Hope my comments helped. doncram (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Charles Edward:

Very interesting article, overall very good! There is still room for improvement. Here is a few ideas:

  • You say this was the largest battle of the war, I think you should probably qualify that. The largest in number of men present? Largest in number of casualties? Or by another denominator?
  • Overall I give the article a B+ on copy editing, but there are a few long sentences that could be broken up, and in places the grammar could use some improvement. I would recommend you get someone who is not familiar with the text already to give it a good copy edit. You will need A+ to pass a FAC.
  • You have one note in the article: "Figure indicates how many troops were on Long Island total. Only 3,000 troops were on the Guana Heights, where the British attacked." Notes like this are sometimes separated from the reference footnotes like in the article Napoleon. This may be worthwhile, especially if you intend to add anymore such notes.
  • I agree with the above comment about adding maps - that is definatly needed. And also, more emphasis should be given to the amazing luck/miracle/providence that they were able to avoid total annihilation of the American army. Many histories, especially the older ones, chalk that up to divine intervention.
  • Memorials may be a better term for the last section. Commemorations are typically events.

I hope these few thoughts help a bit! Charles Edward (Talk) 19:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reviews. I've been quite busy lately so I havent had the time to go through and make most of the changes yet but I do apprecite the reviews and will get around to it.-Kieran4 (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Magicpiano

  • This is something that Doncram touches on, but might deserve a section: an analysis of (especially Washington's) strategy and tactics. He made what I understand to be a military no-no -- dividing his forces before a numerically superior enemy. (Lee's idea of strategic retreat is covered -- did GW adopt that or a different strategy?)
  • What sort of intelligence did Howe have of American troop strength and deployment? and vice versa for GW?
  • In the conclusion, it says that Howe was inactive for two weeks. I doubt this. He may not have moved his forces notably, but he was probably not sitting on his hands. (That paragraph also has a runon sentence.)

Hope this help! Magic♪piano 09:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agrippina (opera)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The 250th anniversary of Handel's death is on the 14th of April, and it would be desireable if we could get something by Handel up to FA before then, so it can mainpage. A one-week peer review seems an important first step to preparing for this. Please offer any and all advice.

Thanks, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disturbed discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because additional comments before a FLC—mainly regarding grammar issues—are much apreciated.

Thanks, Cannibaloki 21:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments:

Lead

  • "The album reached in the top 30" - Delete "in"?
    • Removed.
  • "Since its release, The Sickness was certified quadruple platinum in the US " - It might be good to include a brief explanation for readers who don't know the jargon. Something like "Since its release, The Sickness was certified quadruple platinum, a measure of its high sales volume, in the US... ".
    • Reworded.
  • "RIANZ" - Spelling this one out, Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ), on first use would be good.
    • Added.
  • "The song also received a music video directed by the Brothers Strause, but due to the similarities it had with the September 11 attacks, it was pulled from most television stations." - "Received" doesn't seem quite right, and the sentence has other problems. Perhaps flipping the sentence to active voice would help. Something like this might work: "A music video directed by the Brothers Strause included the song, but because scenes in the video resembled footage of the September 11 attacks, most television stations refused to play it."
    • Reworded.
  • "documented on the live album of the same name" - I wouldn't advise linking "same name" to "Music as a Weapon II" in this way. This is known as an "Easter egg" link, one that surprises the reader, who has no idea why an explanation of same name would be needed.
    • Removed.
  • "and reached only to the #148 position" - Delete "to"?
    • Removed.
  • "in addition, also reached the top position of the Canadian and Australian charts." - Missing word? Maybe "... in addition, it also reached...".
    • Reworded.
  • "a feat that has only been accomplished by six other bands, including Van Halen, U2, Metallica, Dave Matthews Band, Staind and System of a Down." - Tighten to "a feat that has only been accomplished by Van Halen, U2, Metallica, Dave Matthews Band, Staind and System of a Down"?
    • Reworded.
  • One-sentence orphan paragraphs are generally frowned on. Perhaps the last paragraph could be expanded or, if not, merged with the one above it.
    • Merged.

Image

  • The image and its license look OK to me.
    • Okay.

If you find these brief comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful! Thank you very much. :) Cannibaloki 17:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Battlefront: Renegade Squadron

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.

I completely rewrote this entire article after a period of research and development. It has never looked like a true encyclopedia article, which I hope I have remedied. I have added several pictures, including an in-game screenshot. All images have fair use rationale and the appropriate license tags.

Please take a look at the article and let me know your opinion. I'm a new Wikipedian and this is my first major edit, so please be candid so I can develop good editing habits. I followed a rough template of video game featured articles to format the page, so it should read smoothly.

Thanks! Vantine84 (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain's comments
  • I think the fair use rationale for RenegadeBundle.jpg is pretty shaky, since the image is not the subject of critical commentary in the article. You do describe the packaging, but not much else is said about it. I recommend removing that image.
I agree; removed.
  • Citations are generally unneeded in the lead, unless it is something particularly controversial or likely to be challenged. The information should be repeated in the body of the article and cited there.
All lead citations removed and provided later in the text.
  • There is gaming jargon present in the lead (ex. "ad-hoc and infrastructure multiplayer modes"; "second analog nub") that will lose a general audience. Those terms need linking or context.
I reworded the lead - do you think those terms should be explained more fully in the article proper?
  • "Each side has a set number of reinforcement "tickets" at the beginning of the battle - any time a soldier dies" You'll need to use either an unspaced em dash (my preference) or a spaced en dash to indicate a break in text, and be consistent. Hyphens cannot be used in this fashion.
Fixed.
  • The entire first paragraph of the Gameplay section is unsourced... why?
I'll work on it.
  • The statement about the plot hole in the Plot section is considered original research without a citation, and therefore not allowed. If there is a source that commented on this, better to place the whole statement in the Reception section.
Gone.
  • Avoid immediate language like "Critical reception of the game was mixed, and it currently holds a score of 73% on media aggregator site Metacritic, which indicates "mixed or average reviews." Better to say, "As of ...., it holds a score of"
Reworded.
  • A big concern is your use of sources. Many of them don't appear to meet the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. We will need proof that they have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial process—this usually comes in the form of being cited as reliable by other gaming publications that are known to be reliable. I'd strongly suggest you do a library search of gaming publications to get some reviews sources to magazines and other more reliable sources. Some problem sites:
    • Wookieepedia - a wiki will never be reliable
    • Gamestyle - they are notable, but what makes them reliable?
    • Filefactory - can't find any info about their editorial process
I'll try to improve the citation quality. I'm still trying to get my head around it.
Thanks for taking the time to critique it! Let me know if you have any other suggestions. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 15:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Gameplay" feels a little long to me, especially compared to the rest of the article, which is short in comparison.
  • "Development" can probably be longer, especially for such a recent game. There's an interview that's available, for instance.
I agree on both counts.

Gary King (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 15:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibal Corpse

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for featured article status eventually, I've recently done a lot of work on it (especially regarding references), and I need feedback as to what else can be added to it in order to make it a better Wikipedia article. Here is a useful comparison of the article before I started editing and after I finished. Let me know what you think: areas for improvement, formatting problems, overlooked unsourced statements, etc.

Thanks, Huntthetroll (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've continued to edit the article, so I'll just provide a link to what the article looked like before I started editing: [5] Huntthetroll (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hornoir

Sorry, Huntthetroll, but you are not going to like me. In depth review follows.

  • Lead paragraphs:
  1. "American" should be "[[United States|American]]".
  2. "Although Cannibal Corpse has had virtually no radio or television exposure, a cult following began to build behind the group with albums such as 1991's Butchered at Birth and 1992's Tomb of the Mutilated." This sentence is unsourced and seems irrelevant. If you wish to use the beginning aspect to lead the following sentence, restructure to something more neutral sounding like "Despite minimal radio and television promotion, Cannibal Corpse…".
  3. "Cannibal Corpse reached over 1 million in record sales worldwide in 2003, including 558,929 in the United States, making it one of the top-selling death metal bands of all time." Since these figures are based on Nielsen SoundScan numbers, that should be mentioned ("According to Nielsen SoundScan,…"). The part regarding "top-selling death metal bands of all time" sounds slightly promotional and biased; maybe something like "Based on these figures, Cannibal Corpse was considered the top-selling death metal band as of 2003." Without up-to-date figures, you can't assume this trend continued and that this statement remains true.
  4. "The band's lyrics and album art, which draw heavily on horror fiction and horror films, are highly controversial. At different times, several countries have banned Cannibal Corpse from performing within their borders, or have banned the sale and display of uncensored Cannibal Corpse albums." I don't like the term "highly controversial" as a statement. Perhaps "considered controversial". The second sentence is needless long and could flow directly out of the previous sentence: "controversial, provoking bans on the sale of uncensored versions of their albums and on live performances by the band in several countries."
  • Biography section:
  1. "Within a year of that first gig, the band was signed to Metal Blade Records, apparently after the label had seen a videotape of a live show, and their full-length debut album, Eaten Back to Life, was released in August 1990." This is cluttered with some unnecessary words and information. Try something like: "Metal Blade Records signed the band, based on a videotape of a live performance, and released their full-length debut, Eaten Back to Life, in August 1990." My suggestion still seems awkward, but I can't think of better phrasing right now.
  2. "The band has had many line-up changes over the years." Remove this sentence as it is unnecessary. You detail the line-up changes immediately following it.
  3. Remove all the information regarding what band members went on to do after being dismissed. If I am interested, I will follow the wikilink for that band member. It also doesn't really have anything to do with Cannibal Corpse directly.
  4. "Writing for the next album began in November 2007, as presaged in an interview with bassist Alex Webster. Evisceration Plague, Cannibal Corpse's eleventh studio album was released February 3, 2009, to a highly positive response from fans. The band will tour in support of the album in the spring of 2009." This seems odd, since it is the only instance to detail something about the actual recording and not the band members. It is also needlessly long and contains some promotional sounding text; try: "The writing for the bands eleventh studio album, Evisceration Plague, began in November 2007 and it was released on February 3, 2009. A tour to support the album release is planned for the spring of 2009."
  5. Overall, this biography section needs more information that is vital to it. It feels padded out with information about the post-Cannibal Corpse careers of formal members.
  • Controversy section:
  1. Remove the "and publicity" from the section name, as there is only one instance mentioned and it could easily be added to the Biography section.
  • Controversy section, Australia subsection:
  1. This section is poorly structured and contains the same information repeatedly given. Try: "On October 23, 1996, the Australian Recording Industry Association and the Australian Music Retailers Association implemented the "labelling code of practice", which banned the sale of potentially offensive records within the country. As a result, it was illegal for Australian music retailers to sell any audio recording produced by Cannibal Corpse. This ban was lifted on April 1, 2006." I think all the pertinent information is there.
  • Controversy section, Germany subsection:
  1. "All Cannibal Corpse albums up to and including Tomb of the Mutilated were banned…" how about "The first three Cannibal Corpse albums were banned…" Or, even better, "Until June 2006, the first three Cannibal Corpse albums were banned…" which allows you to remove the fragmentary sentence "This prohibition was not lifted until June 2006."
  2. The quote is unnecessary and obviously biased. Paraphrase it to be unbiased. Not a good example, but something like: "According to Fisher, the ban was the result of a woman — whom he recalled as being a schoolteacher — complaining after she saw one of the band's shirts."
  • Controversy section, United States subsection:
  1. First sentence. He accused them. And? If nothing came of it, then state he "publicly denounced them" instead of "accused". Accused implies there will be a trial, hearings or the sort.
  2. Sentence two, remove "the band came under fire". Try: "A year later, a campaign by…" blah blah blah "…sought to have all major record labels cease-and-desist releasing albums by 20 bands the group considered offensive, including Cannibal Corpse." And, I'm assuming, a follow-up sentence about how the campaign failed.
  3. Move the Ace Venture sentences to within the Biography and remove the Jim Carrey likes death metal sentence — it doesn't matter if Jim Carrey likes death metal or not.
  • Responses to critcs section:
  1. Should be preceeded by a Critical reception section so that an unbiased amount of information regarding the negative criticism regarding the band is detailed.
  2. This entire section needs to be rewritten. It has biased wording, redundant information in the form of lengthy quotes, and extraneous information. I'd be more detailed, but — to be honest — I'm running out of steam here.
  • Musical style section:
  1. This section seems completely extraneous to me, but I don't mind it. It's not long, so it doesn't really bother me. Admittedly, with the title, I assumed it would detail more regarding the band's style in general rather than the chords they use.
  • Members and Discography sections:
  1. Both are simple lists that I have no problems with.
  • References section:
  1. #16 (the long note) seems unnecessary to the topic. #21 takes up quite a bit of space detailing the possibility that Jim Carrey likes death metal, which has very little (if anything) to do with the band.
  • External links section:
  1. This is my pet peeve: a link to a single interview. It shows preference towards that interview over all the others one can find. Personally, I don't think interview links belong here. If the interview is quoted or cited from, then it will appear in the References section where I feel it belongs.

Sorry for the long and detailed amount of information. You have a really strong beginning here, but I do feel it needs work. hornoir (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Nesbitt

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
James Nesbitt is an actor who frequently appears in films and TV series playing a character called "James Nesbitt". This article passed GAN last July. The reviewer said that the prose was the strongest part of the article but I'm wondering whether it's good enough for FA. I'm also wondering whether it's structured well enough. Thanks. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: As a first instalment, here are my comments on the first few sections. At the moment I am concentrating on prose, which I have to say is not yet at FA standard. I have made a few minor copyedits in the text.

  • Lead
    • You need to clarify that Colin Bateman is a writer
    • The parenthetical note is not grammatical, and in any event "latter" can't be used when the list has more than two items. I suggest you lose the parentheses and rephrase: "...Stephen Moffat's Jekyll, the last of which gained him a Golden Globe award nomination."
    • "Comedic roles are still offered him" - when is "still"? You then refer to a 2003 BBC series, which is hardly "still". I suggest you reword along the lines: "He has continued to accept offers of comedic roles, appearing with..." etc
  • Early life
    • Having given his full birth date in the lead, is it necessary to include "in 1985" in the section opening?
    • Suggest simplify to "attended his father's local primary school"
    • "...the audition for which his parents 'dragged' him to" is very clumsy prose. Prepositional endings should always be avoided. Try "...his parents having dragged him to the audition".
    • "He continued to appear in Christmas productions, and received his Equity card..." First, we have no prior information of his appearing in "Christmas productions", and haven't been told what they are. Secondly, the and combines unrelated clauses in a single sentence. I suggest you rephrase the first clause, then divide the sentence.
    • Despite enjoying..." would sound better as "Although he enjoyed..."
  • Early career
    • "His part was critically praised..." - his performance, rather than his part?
    • Which performance did the NYT find "jaunty and bemused"?
    • He is suddenly in America. When did he go there?
    • You need to say what "Central" is, rather than suddenly introduce this short form of the name.
    • He seems to be back in the UK. Again, some date informatio would help us follow this satge of his career.

Perhaps you would consider these points. I will be back with more later. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further points:-

  • Breakthrough: Last line - you should insert [Claudia] before "Harrison", so we know who's being talked about without having to use the link.
  • Post-Bloody Sunday
    • "The events of Bloody Sunday passd him by..." etc. Did he say this? It requires some verification
    • "Aside, the film and Nesbitt..." etc. "Aside" is not a word to use in isolation like this. The sense is "nevertheless", and I suggest you use this word instead.
    • Unnecessary quote marks around "household name" and "celebrity status"
    • Can you reword, to avoid "...ITV. ITV..."?
    • "The accent was discarded after a chat between Nesbitt and the director, and when Nesbitt tried it out on co-star Daniela Nardini." Discarded twice?
  • 2006-present
    • "...putting a distance between his previous work" doesn't make grammatical sense. "Distancing himself from his previous work" is the meaning required.
    • BBC One is normally written "BBC 1"
    • Try to avoid phrases that will rapidly become out of date, like "In 2009 he will appear..." Something like "His 2009 plans included..." will save you having to repeatedly revisit the article to update it.

I'll try and finish the review tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing off

  • In the "Other projects" section, "...three consecutive occasions between 2002 and 2005" - which three consecutive years?
  • Same section: "He will present the 2nd National Movie Awards in September 2008". That has to be past tense now, but his sort of thing illustrates one of the main problems in an article describing an on-going career.

I don't have any more points. The prose looks in reasonable shape. Some indication that you have seen this review would be nice. Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, of course I've seen the review! :) Thanks a lot for your hard work. I plan on combing through the page today and tomorrow to sort out your points and rewrite most of the article. I felt quite iffy about the quality of the article because I wrote it in two halves a couple of months apart, so it doesn't have any nice flow about it. Thanks again. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that this is taking so long -- I had hoped to have the rewrite done this week so that other reviewers could weigh-in during the PR. I do appreciate the time you've taken to do this review, and the altered article should be ready tomorrow. Bradley0110 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • A LARGE number of your web sources don't have last access dates. They need them.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 01:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Kings of Leon discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because User:Kiac thinks my edits are not appropriate. I think my edits are ok, but User:Kiac keep insisting they are all wrong. I want to listen to everybody's opinion before filing FLC.

Thanks, Langdon (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

  • Okay. Most of it looks all right so far, I just have a couple observations:
  • "achieved their greatest success to date"… remove "to date" as we generally avoid temporal terms like that.
  • I'll have to double check to verify that all of the countries listed have official singles/albums charts. Also, we should link to the name of the actual national chart (for instance, "CAN" should link to Canadian Hot 100).
  • Formats and catalog #'s need to be included for each album. These can usually be found at the bottom of their allmusic listings.
  • The EPs should just say "Released: (date)", not "Released on (date)".

I'l get back to you regarding the international charts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list is turning into a mess, there are IPs editing the charts incorrectly and people reverting their edits without having things updated. I went through and did it all properly, without the intention of having to edit-war to retain the article's quality. The 'argument' is this: Langdon removes everything, included dozens of references, and shys away from the 'accepted' styles in newly Featured Lists, just so the article is 6,000 bytes smaller, which is no justifiable reason. This is the 'other' version, which is properly referencing each chart, cert, etc. (AllMusic and Acharts are hardly as verifiable as a dozen separate references) All the style is taken from the multiple recent FLs i have overlooked - and what has been instructed to do in FLCs. There was also a different lead that was reverted about a month ago, i got sick of trying to explain things, so left it. So i guess the idea of this peer review, is to decide which is 'better'. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you want, Langdon and Kiac, is not a peer review but a third opinion. Or, at least, that's what your statement above seems to indicate. hornoir (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Futsal

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this could be a GA, but I wanted other opinions before I did this, so that I would know what to do to improve this article to reach that stage. If you find anything that can be improved mention it here.

Thanks, DeMoN2009 15:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Various comments:

  • At the moment, the article has lots about the rules, but less material about other aspects. The big brother of this article. association football, is a featured article and gives an example of a good balance between sections about rules, history, competitions etc.
  • The first paragraph of the History section is straight plagiarism of the reference cited.
  • The very first thing mentioned in the body of the article should be that futsal is a variant of football, as everything else follows from there
  • Why are there big black lines in the tables?
  • Actually, the tables probably shouldn't be there at all. A prose section like the "International competitions" section in association football would be better.
  • Practically none of the many external links ought to be there. The first one has a whiff of spam, and many of the others aren't in English or aren't particularly useful. Take a look at Wikipedia:External links for guidance and then take an axe to the section.
  • Nearly all the references are to the rules from the FIFA website. More diversity in sourcing would be beneficial.
  • What makes http://roonba.50webs.com/futsalrankingswor.htm a reliable source?
  • There is very little about the relative popularity / unpopularity of futsal. For instance, except in passing no mention is made that it is more popular in Latin countries than elsewhere, nor that it is hardly played at all in Northern Europe even though it is a football heartland. How many people play futsal? How many people watch it? What media coverage does it get? How does it differ from standard football?
  • Indoor soccer is not futsal. While the differences between futsal and other indoor variants might be discussed in a section somewhere, there is no reason to do so in the lead.
  • Boring MOS stuff: Number ranges should use endashes, not hyphens; conversions of units of measurement between metric and imperial should generally be provided, and units should be separated by a non-breaking space (WP:UNITS).

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have changed the history section, and will try and improve the article using the other suggestions. DeMoN2009 15:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durham University

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on the article over the past few days, mainly expanding small sections and adding references, and wish to gain some feedback on any areas that I may have missed out or that need changing, also if possible I'd like to see what is needed to make the article into a GA article.

Many Thanks, Allialliw (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments on a quick scan of article -

  • The sections on Governance & Alumni are unreferenced
  • The references need to be moved to follow punctuation as per the MOS - Punctuation and inline citations
  • There needs to be some layout changes e.g the table under "List of colleges" goes behind the images and the table under ranking causes a left right scroll as it is too wide so overlapping into the border.

Hope they help you. Keith D (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: You have interesting material here, broad in coverage, and the illustrations are generally good. However, the article is a long way from GA.

  • The lead of a Wikipedia article ideally is an abstract or summary of the main points of the entire article. The existing lead only mentions a fraction of the main ideas.
  • Many parts of the article are not sourced and should be. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every claim that is unusual or that is apt to be challenged.
  • Orphan paragraphs that consist of a single sentence are generally deprecated. Two solutions are possible. You can either expand the orphans or merge them with another paragraph.
  • The Manual of Style frowns on fancy quotes. Blockquotes are good for quotations of four lines or longer. The short quote in "Origins" should go back into the main text inside ordinary quotation marks.
  • Generally, straight prose is preferred to lists. The list in the "Durham City" section could easily be rendered as straight prose. The "Schools and faculties" section is another list. I'd be inclined to reduce this list to the first paragraph plus a sentence or two about anything that makes the Durham list different from the typical university list of departments and course offerings.
  • I'd suggest greatly shortening the "Alumni" section, which is another long list.
  • A lot of the citations are bot-generated and incomplete. The "cite" family of citation templates is recommended. I see that they have been used for many of the citations in the article, and they should be used for the rest. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, publication date, url, and access date, insofar as these are available.
  • Some of the citations are circular and puzzling. For example, in the "Sport" section, it appears that the name "Center of Cricketing Excellence" is an internal designation. The citation seems to show that the source says that the source is excellent. Well, yes, but when the university is promoting itself, it is not a reliable source. Please see WP:RS for more details. In the same sentence, "rowing" and "fencing" are sourced. But why?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Finetooth and Keith D for your feedback, I'll work on the issues raised over the next few weeks and have already started with a few minor changes such as moving some material to new pages and re-arranging paras etc. I've been trying to follow the Duke University article as a guide considering that it has been featured and many of the UK GA University articles don't seem that good. With the centre of excellence it's funded by the England and Wales Cricket Board and the same with fencing and rowing from their respective bodies, as they too are centre of excellence, so I shall get a citation and clear that up ASAP. Once again thanks for your feedback it is useful to know where the article needs to go. Allialliw (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Stewart (Canadian politician)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm mulling over whether it's worth taking to WP:FAC. It's less comprehensive than I'd like, especially in the area of federal politics, but I can't find much on that front. Accordingly, I'd appreciate any thoughts on this article's compliance with the featured article criteria, in particular the requirement for comprehensiveness. Also, let me assure all of you wonderful people who actually conduct peer reviews that I recently took on my first one, so I'm at least trying to prevent the backlog from getting any longer, even if I'm not doing anything to shorten it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement. I am not an expert on Canadian politics, so I am not a great judge of comprehensiveness. I will point out things that may be a problem if this goes to FAC.

  • Agree the lead image looks too grainy. Why not use the official protrait File:Charles Stewart.jpg? Then the infobox image could be used at its actual size elsewhere in the article.
  • While red links are not forbidden in FAC, I always think it looks better to get rid of them even if the article is just a stub. This is especially true of red links in the lead.
  • Sentence is too complex - split it? He served as Minister of Public Works and Minister of Municipal Affairs—the first person to hold the latter position in Alberta—in the government of Arthur Sifton; when Sifton left provincial politics in 1917 to join the federal cabinet, Stewart was named his replacement.
  • Perhaps this is Canadian English? I would add a few words / letters to ... by the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA), with which Stewart enjoyed good relation[s?]; even so, the UFA [was? became more?] politicized during Stewart's premiership and ran candidates in the 1921 election.
  • It took me a couple of readings to understand this He served in King's cabinet until 1930, when the King government was defeated; in 1935, so too was Stewart. The last phrase ("so too was Stewart") does not quite fit, as a government was defeated, not a person / candidate.
  • I am not familair with the use of "insurgent" in As additional details of the scandal emerged, however, Stewart himself became an insurgent.[3]
  • Perhaps make clearer that premier is a provincial position in Sifton, falling into the latter group, was chosen as Alberta's representative in that government, and resigned as [Alberta's] Premier in October 1917.[11] and His only serious rival for the position of [Alberta] premier was Charles Wilson Cross, ...
  • There's a start for you - seems very detailed to me, so some language rough spots seem like the main problem to resolve before FAC.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 02:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Friday the 13th (franchise)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get some feedback on the article BEFORE taking it to FAC. The article is a rather comprehensive look at the Friday the 13th franchise, from the films to the comics. I'm looking for feedback on tightening up the prose, pointing out any confusing sentences (this will most likely come from someone not familiar with the series already), as well as any other suggestions.

Thanks,  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 01:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the ALL CAPS issue.
As for the EL sources, it depends on the the source.
The HorrorDVD source (and I'll have to check that, because I clicked the link and got a generic page so the link may be dead), is used merely to provide a third-party source that describes the contents of the box set. I theoretically don't even need a source for that, because it's just as easy to read the back of the box set and see the same information. It's merely a courtesy source. It doesn't make any claims about the DVDs on a subjective level, just points out the special features and what it contains.
Slasherama is an interview source. They personally sat down with Harry Manfredini, which makes it a primary source, and is completely acceptable.
The-Numbers.com is the same thing as Box Office Mojo, they use the same industry insiders to report on film box office that BOM does, they're just an alternative source.
Actually, the more I look at them, it appears that they are all virtually "courtesy sources". I say that because none are used for professional opinion, or even to reveal some type of "insider" information (ala production information), but are used as just a courtesy for information that could otherwise be found at the source itself (e.g., the back of a DVD box, the inside of a book, etc.). For instance, the FABPress source is the website for the company that produced and distributed the book "Making Camp Blood", it's a link to their original press release that they sent out describing what the book contains. It's rather uncontroversial. I could just as easily say that the book itself is the source to prove that it contains interviews from the cast and crew of the films, but I figure a nice link to the original press release (housed on the website for the company that made the book) would be nicer to have for a quick reference. The UK source is just someone explaining what the game was about. There is no subjective opinion about the game included, just a description of the game's gameplay. The website is devoted to reviewing games, but my concern was just finding a place that describes what happens in the game, not what they thought about it because I'm not in the UK and don't have a good feel what what constitutes a "good source" in the gaming community or the UK community. Seemed unobjectionable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Brownlee sex scandal

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article just underwent an excellent GA review, and I'd like to take it to featured status. I don't think it's too far away, but in my experience my articles can always benefit from some more reviewers, if only to tell me that my sentences are too long and I use too many parentheticals. As well, I'm wondering if the article's current title is the best one; other possibilities include MacMillan v. Brownlee, replacing "sex" with seduction and/or replacing "scandal" with "affair" or something...you see where this is going. Anyway, all comments welcome. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a fascinating and well-written article. I think you are right in thinking that it's almost ready for FAC. I have just a few suggestions for further improvement, and they shouldn't be troublesome.

Title

  • Would MacMillan-Brownlee sex scandal be better, more neutral? Or Brownlee-MacMillan sex scandal?

Subheads

  • The Manual of Style advises against repeating the words of the title in the section heads and subheads. How about using "Genesis" for the first section head and "Her story" and "His story" for the next two?

Lead

  • "Brownlee was accused of seducing Vivian MacMillan, a secretary for his government and family friend... " - This is a bit ambiguous since she wasn't a secretary for a family friend. Suggestion: "Brownlee was accused of seducing Vivian MacMillan, a family friend and a secretary for the provincial attorney-general in Brownlee's government... "
  • "This award was affirmed the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council, at the time Canada's highest court of appeal." - Suggested slight change: "This award was affirmed the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council, Canada's highest court of appeal at the time".

Genesis of the scandal

  • "as the leader of the United Farmers of Alberta's parliamentary caucus" - It's a nitpick, but I think "as the leader of the parliamentary caucus of the United Farmers of Alberta" would avoid the double "s" and scan a little better.
  • "a number of successes, chief among them" - Suggestion: "success, including"
  • "Forces were advocating radical overhauls of the financial system, such as socialism and government ownership of the means of production (advocated by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and elements of the UFA's grassroots) and social credit (advocated in differing forms and with differing levels of enthusiasm by William Aberhart's new provincial movement, the Alberta Liberal Party, and many within the UFA)." - Parentheticals aren't always bad, but I think this would be more clear as follows: "Forces were advocating radical overhauls of the financial system. The Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and elements of the UFA's grassroots favored socialism and government ownership of the means of production, while William Aberhart's new provincial movement, the Alberta Liberal Party, and many within the UFA favored social credit, although in differing forms and with differing levels of enthusiasm."

Vivian MacMillan's story

  • "Immediately after her arrival in Edmonton, Brownlee had telephoned her—commenting that "a little birdie" had told him that she was in town—and invited her to his home to meet his family, and that she soon became a regular visitor there." - Although it's pretty clear from context that she is making this claim, it would probably be good to make this explicit. Suggestion: "Immediately after her arrival in Edmonton, she said, Brownlee had telephoned... " I know it would be awkward to insert "she said," "she claimed", "she alleged" into every sentence of her story, but a few more reminders that these are her claims rather than established fact wouldn't hurt.
  • "In October 1930, while Brownlee was driving her home after one such visit, she alleged that the premier took her hand..." - She didn't allege it in October 1930. Perhaps this would work: "She alleged that in October 1930, while... ".
  • "The next week on another ride home, a similar conversation ensued, this one culminating in Brownlee forcing a resisting MacMillan into the car's back seat where he partially penetrated her against her will." - I'd certainly add a "she said" reminder to this sentence.
  • "expressed concern after about becoming pregnant" - Delete "after"?
  • "MacMillan's story ran that during the summer of 1932 she experienced a nervous breakdown (for which Florence Brownlee paid the hospital bills), and that soon after she met and fell in love with Caldwell." - Suggestion: MacMillan said that during the summer of 1932 she experienced a nervous breakdown (for which Florence Brownlee paid the hospital bills) and that she met and fell in love with Caldwell soon after.

John Brownlee's story

  • He said that there had been no sexual activity between him and MacMillan—likening their relationship instead to that of an uncle and his favourite niece—and, to claims that he had arranged for MacMillan to move from Edmonton and arranged a position for her in the Attorney General's office, asserted "in the thirteen years I have been in public life I have never promised any person in this Province a position." - Too complex. I'd break this one up. A full stop after "favourite niece" would do it if the next sentence read: "To claims ... he asserted...".
  • "MLA " - Spell out and abbreviate on first use. Or did I miss the first one?

Trial

  • "Additional witnesses for the defence included Brownlee's personal secretary, Civil Service Commissioner Frederick Smailes (who, while he acknowledged knowing at the time of MacMillan's hiring that she was acquainted with Brownlee, denied involvement on Brownlee's part in the decision to hire her), and four legislature janitors (who denied ever seeing a young woman enter the premier's office in the evenings)" - Here's another sentence I'd consider simplifying by division.

Legacy

  • "Alvin Finkel has criticized Foster for being too friendly towards Brownlee, saying that he does not consider the scandal sufficiently... " - Should that be "did not consider"?

Images

  • These look fine to me and so do the licenses.

I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 02:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Origin (band)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for featured article status eventually, I've recently done a lot of work on it (especially regarding references), and I need feedback as to what else can be added to it in order to make it a better Wikipedia article. Here is a useful comparison of the article before I started editing and after I finished. But this wasn't just me; I had invaluable help and advice from Cannibaloki. Let us know what you think: areas for improvement, formatting problems, overlooked unsourced statements, etc.

Thanks, Huntthetroll (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added more information and citations: [6]. Huntthetroll (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update #2: I've continued to edit the article, so I'll just provide a link to what the article looked like before I started editing: [7] Huntthetroll (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is Myspace used as a source? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • To say that I "use MySpace as a source" is a bit disingenuous. I use the band's MySpace profile—to be more specific, the blog that they maintain on their profile page—as a source because, as far as I know, the band has no official, separate website. It appears that they once had such a website at www.origin-site.com (this site is mentioned in several of the other sources I use), but that domain is now just a generic compilation of links. Judging by the article's talk page, it has been that way for at least a year. Most, if not all, official announcements by the band in the last two and a half years can be traced to their MySpace. Therefore, I have concluded that this MySpace page is, by default, the band's official website (in fact, I state this in an explanatory footnote in the reference section, which you must have read if you looked at the sources). Let me add that I have not and will never use comments on their profile as sources. However, regarding noncontroversial statements by the band about their own activities, I consider this page to be one of the best sources available, given that Origin has received no mainstream attention and is little known outside death metal fan circles. Within that narrow universe, of course, they are pretty well known and respected. Huntthetroll (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you ever bring this article near FAC, be prepared to defend Myspace. Anyway, for this time, I will not protest. I am quite busy on- and off-Wiki tomorrow, but I will see what I can do WRT reviewing. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Greetings. Some sources are not reliable. Delete metalarchives.com, metalreview.com and globaldomination.se. Those are 100% useless. I didn't look at Longview Current and Archaic Magazine.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 08:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hornoir

  1. Try and find a free image of the band to use in the infobox.
  2. Wikilink all words that could/should be wikilinked; e.g. arpeggios.
  3. A lot of the phrasing doesn't seem to conform to WP:NEUTRAL; while the facts corroborate the statements, the manner in which they presented tends towards biased wording. E.g. "high-profile Death Across America 2000 Tour" could just as easily be "Death Across America 2000 Tour".
  4. You may wish to change the Beginnings subsection name to Formation for clarity.
  5. Last paragraph of Beginnings subsection, change "April 14th" to "April 14, 1999" and change "December 16th" to "December 16, 1999".
  6. Change the title of the Origin subsection to Eponymous debut or something similar, this will avoid confusion (given that it is the name of the band as well as a word indicating the details of formation).
  7. First sentence of the Informis Infinitas Inhumanitas subsection: "Soon after, Origin embarked on yet another tour, this time alongside Candiria, Cryptopsy and Poison the Well." Soon after what? I'm assuming the release of the album Origin, in which case it should read "Soon after the release of the eponymous debut, Origin toured alongside Candiria, Cryptopsy, and Poison the Well." I've removed the flavor text as it is not necessary.

The overall feel — to me — is that this article requires more information. At the moment, I'd place it between a Start- and C-Class article, though probably closer to C-Class in my mind. I know it is not easy to get lesser-known article topics up to higher ratings, but you certainly have a good start here. Best of luck. hornoir (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring this to FAC, making it my first film FA. In particular, I'd like to know if there is anything more that the article could use in terms of content and organization. I have just begun working on the article and am currently waking my way through the recent FAR that the article went through, here. I've also created a to do list that I am currently working through, so if a point is already on there, then there's no need to mention it again. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is my least favorite Star Wars movie, but it deserves a better article than this - thanks for working on it. I would look closely at the FAR for ideas and the other Star Wars film articles for ideas and examples to follow. While I looked at the FAR and to do list, I may duplicate some ideas in these suggestions for improvement.

  • Lead does not follow WP:LEAD both 1) in that it does not really summarize the rest of the article (My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but several sections are not mentioned in the lead at all) and 2) in that nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself (but the Harry Potter movie is only in the lead - the list of other films that outgrossed it is too specific a detail for the lead anyway).
  • Language needs some serious cleanup work. Two examples: In Plot In defiance of his orders to remain on Naboo, Anakin convinces Padmé to accompany him to Tatooine to save his mother in the process of disobeying Obi Wan's orders to remain on Naboo. could just be In defiance of Obi Wan's order to remain on Naboo, Anakin convinces Padmé to accompany him to Tatooine to save his mother. and in Cast Ahmed Best as Jar Jar Binks: Who was recently appointed Representative of Naboo by Senator Amidala. Capitalized who?? No mention that Jar Jar (ugh) is CGI so only Best's voice appears in the film?
  • The whole plot reads a little too fan boy-esque and could be much more NPOV / written from an out-of-universe perspective.
  • Several places need refs (in addition to the known problem of poor quality refs or not using critical scholarship). For example, just in the Cast section The end credits erroneously list Alan Ruscoe as playing Neimoidian senator Lott Dod. The character was actually another Neimodian, played by an uncredited David Healey and voiced by Christopher Truswell named Gilramos Libkath. needs a ref and we need to be told who reported these rumors in Before filming started, Catherine Zeta-Jones was rumored to have been cast as a Dark Jedi and Ralph Fiennes was reported to have been considered to play a young Grand Moff Tarkin. Or the Roger Ebert review also needs a ref.
  • Several places where context could be provided to the reader - in Writing, for example In 1999 and 2000, Lucas transformed his original treatment for Episode II into a screenplay. says nothing about the original treatment Lucas wrote. This sentence could also be easily combined with the next (on the co-writer)
  • Article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and a short section (Legacy) which could be combined with others, or perhaps expanded to improve flow. Legacy is an odd choice of name for the novelizations and comic book - would "In other media" be better? Were any video or computer games released that ttied in to the movie?
  • Poster and Yoda image seem fine as fair use, not sure how the use of File:Imperialmarch.jpg fits WP:NFCC in the current state of the article.

This needs a lot of work. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 02:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Toby Philpott

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to nominate it for FAC, so please feel free to be thorough!

Thanks, Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • One problem with the article, especially if you are thinking of FAC, is the amount of information sourced to interviews with Toby Philpott. Interviews are considered primary sources and therefore can be used to reference only very limited material, such as limited biographical information. They cannot source objective assessments of this artist's work, nor provide a critical assessment of his contributions, impact, or legacy. Please see Verifiability and Reliable sources for an explanation of primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Reliable secondary sources are necessary for most reference sourcing in an article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)
  • Subject is British so dates should be in UK format eg 14 February 1946 as opposed to February 14, 1946
  • In the second paragraph of "early life" you have three consecutive sentences which start "In the 1960s Philpott..."/"Philpott...."/"Philpott..." - vary the language a bit more
  • I don't believe a fairground "octopus ride" involves an actual octopus, so the link is misleading
  • In the second paragraph of "discovering the performing arts" you again have three consecutive sentences starting with "Philpott" - mix it up a bit more
  • "Traveling" => "travelling"
  • Don't think "Medieval festivals" needs a capital M
  • Quest for Fire should be in italics
  • "The The Dark Crystal" - stray "the"
  • "groundbreaking animatronics" - says who?
  • "former-post office" - no need for hyphen
  • "the puppet designs alone gave the creatures a great deal of characters" - I think "character" should be singular here
  • "wired up and raring to go." => full stop should be after the quotation marks, not before
  • "snarl Jabba's Mouth." - no need for capital on mouth. Also snarl is not a transitive verb, so the usage would need to be something like "make Jabba's mouth snarl"
  • "A monitor inside the puppet shows " => showed (past tense)
  • Ref 8 should go after comma
  • "other cast and crew members did know " => "did not know"
  • "funny as he appeared;" => semi-colon should be outside quotation marks
  • "alums" in photo caption is very slangy
  • "living atop of a mountain" - is this an American usage? It sounds very odd to me.....
  • "In November [2007," - stray bracket
  • "seemless" => seamless

Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 01:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Kripalu Center

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there is an issue surrounding content and the article need general attention.

Thanks, ThujaSol∆ 18:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments:

Infobox

  • I referred to Template:Infobox Venue to see a sample of how the infobox fields are to be filled. You might want to look at it too to see what to do with fields like "Opened", which I believe should be the date (1983?) the retreat opened in Stockbridge rather than the Pennsylvania date. Other fields that could be filled are "Owner", "Website", "Genre" (Hatha Yoga), and perhaps some of the others.

Citations

  • A good rule of thumb for sourcing is to include at least one citation for each paragraph and to source statistics, direct quotes, and any claim that is unusual or likely to be challenged. I see "citation needed" tags on two claims in the "History section" and two of the paragraphs in this section are unsourced as well.
  • Citations, where possible, should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date. The "cite" family of templates is especially handy for getting the complete information in the right order. You can find the templates at WP:CIT, and it's easy to copy and paste them into an article in edit mode, add a pair of ref tags, and fill in the empty fields. I did this with citation #2 as an example of how this works and what the results look like.
  • I'd avoid adding citations that don't directly support a claim. Citation #1 apparently sources the claim that the center is in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. The supporting document is an ad for Kripalu published by Kripalu, which may raise questions about why it is being cited. Frommer and the Boston Globe, outside sources, say the center is in Lenox. Why not use one of these as the source for the location and add an explanatory note about the difference? Is Stockbridge part of Lenox?

History

  • Wikilink "ashram", an unfamiliar term.
  • "Amrit Desai, aka 'beloved teacher,' " - "Beloved teacher" needs a source, and "aka" needs to be spelled out on first use, thus: "also known as (a.k.a.) "beloved teacher".
  • "Kripalu paid $2.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit" - This also needs a source.
  • "Kripalu's current chief executive, Patton Garrett Sarley (aka Dinabandhu), and his wife, Mary Sarley (aka Ila), now president... " - References to time are tricky. "Current" and "now" refer to no specific time and are ambiguous. It's better to say something like "As of X, Kripalu's chief executive, Patton Garret Sarley... " where X is a specific year. Also, it's not clear from this whether Mary Sarley is the president or whether "president" is modifying Patton Garret Sarley. Also, it might be better to say "Patton Garrett (Dinabandhu) Sarley" rather than using "a.k.a.", which has an unfortunate crime-novel flavor. Ditto for the other instances of "a.k.a."
  • Direct links to outside sources from within the text are frowned upon. The direct link to the Boston Globe should be changed to a standard in-line citation and should use this as the url rather than linking to the last page of the article.
  • "But Sarley returned to Kripalu in his current role in 2004." Suggestion: "Sarley returned to Kripalu as chief executive in 2004."
  • "By 2007, the Sarleys together were being paid $425,000 annually by Kripalu mainly in cash -- due to their management of the charitable organization." - I don't see the point of including their compensation or citing the IRS 990. If compensation were an issue or a source of controversy raised by reliable outside sources (not within Kripalu or Wikipedia) such as newspapers, that would be a different matter. Suggestion: Delete the sentence.
  • The final paragraph lacks a source.

Current programs

  • Each direct quotation needs a source.

Economics and tax status

  • "Kripalu Center for Yoga and Health is an accredited non-profit, tax exempt 501(c)(3) organization -- as such getting more than a third of its support from from membership fees and gross receipts related to "charitable functions." Its tax return Form 990 is therefore available in the public interest from the IRS. - This definition of a 501(c)(3) is problematic. Rather than trying to explain 501(c)(3) in the article, it might be better to just say: "Kripalu Center for Yoga and Health is an accredited non-profit, tax exempt 501(c)(3) organization". I'd suggest putting a link to the 990 in the "External links" section without comment and deleting the sentence that says, "Its tax return Form 990 is therefore available in the public interest from the IRS."
  • "direct public support" - Each of these phrases in quotation marks needs to be sourced immediately after the final quotation marks. As it is, it's not possible to tell who is saying "direct public support". It could be the IRS, or the Wikipedia editor, or Kripalu, or someone else. Ditto for "key employees", and the others.
  • "including the Sarley couple (see their compensation above), as well as Kripalu's chairman and legal counsel Richard Faulds (aka Shobhan)" - I would delete this as a violation of WP:NPOV.
  • "Kripalu compensation was highlighted in widely distributed media reports in the 1990s concerning Amrit Desai's estimated annual compensation of $350,000 to $450,000, when Kripalu residents serving as staff received weekly cash stipends of $70." - This may be true, but the two sources you've cited don't directly support the claim. Even if you can find and provide direct support for the claim, it is of questionable relevance since it is about Desai and events in 1990 and not about Kripalu in 2009.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2004 World Series

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I first found this article in this form, and just thought it was very poor. So I've been working on it on and off over the last few mounths to give it a total re-write, remove piontless large amount of piontless trivia and added in refs where needed. I think it's at least acceptable now. But I'm hopful that in this PR, I can continue to improve it, to get it to at least GA status.

Thanks, BUC (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review2004 World Series/archive1/.

Lesbian

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a broad concept: a noun, adjective, and social construct. I rewrote the article and posted it February 10, 2009, expanding it by 64K. Though I asked for input on and off wiki, I haven't really had much of a response. I think the article may be able to get to FA, but that is not my goal right now. I'm just looking for any kind of feedback on the writing, structure, and content of the article. I plan to add a section on literature over the next several days, as well as expanding the section on female homosexuality outside of the Western world. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been undergone a dramatic overhaul since March 18, 2008[8]. The previous unnotable individual character articles were merged into the list, by consensus, one by one, all of the sections have been completely rewritten, completely sourcing has been added throughout, the lead was redone, and creation/conception and reception info has been added. Excessive non-free images were removed and two carefully selected group images put in their place. The current list has been modeled after the current FL List of Naruto characters. Now, submitting this list for peer review to see what other fixes may be needed before nominating it for Featured List status?

Thanks, -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Besides a copy-edit for the whole article, the lead needs to summarize the reception/conception information, and there is still a ton of plot information in the character sections. Take the Mint Aizawa section:

At their first meeting, Mint lends Ichigo a handkerchief while making snide comments about Ichigo's circumstances, causing Ichigo to consider her a rude, sarcastic person. Later, Ichigo goes to Mint's home to see if she is one a Mew Mew. While there, a chimera anima takes over Mint's dog. During the subsequent battle, it is confirmed that Mint is a Mew Mew.

  • That entire section is unnecessary and can be cut without any loss of understanding of the character. Put it this way: unless the plot detail is completely necessary to provide context for explaining an aspect of the character, then it moves into excessive territory. Take a closer look at List of Naruto characters. The only real plot information is when it's necessary to provide context. Aside from this, you do drift into using some colloquial words, the most egregious of which is "crush", which could probably be replaced by something like "romantic interest". — sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay...guess I'll try again. *sigh* This is much harder than an episode/chapter list. As a side note, "crush" was left in because it was in the FL chapter list too. Can change though, if needed. Finding a CE...that's another whole issue :P Does the lead need less plot summary or is it fine other than needing a summary of conception/reception? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay...how is that for the plot stuff? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phagocyte

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like somebody to point out mistakes (everything from grammar to readability) in the article and gauge its progress.

Thanks, Eulemur2008 (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Symphony X

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for featured article status eventually, I've recently done a lot of work on it (especially regarding references), and I need feedback as to what else can be added to it in order to make it a better Wikipedia article. Here is a useful comparison of the article before I started editing and after I finished. But this wasn't just me; I had invaluable help and advice from FireCrystal. Let us know what you think: areas for improvement, formatting problems, overlooked unsourced statements, etc.

Thanks, Huntthetroll (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music2611 comments

Well, FA is a long way for this article, below are comments that, I hope, can improve it.

  • "The Divine Wings of Tragedy and Twilight in Olympus (1996−1998)", "V: The New Mythology Suite and The Odyssey (1999−2002)" and "Recording Studio : The Dungeon" are all completely unreferenced. These sentences need references.
  • A lot of sections feature single sentence paragraphs, they should be merged into a full paragraph, or expanded to a larger amount of sentences.
  • In the "V: The New Mythology Suite and The Odyssey (1999−2002)" section, "...the album features classics such as..." "classics"? what do you mean with those, are they Symphony X's songs, what do you mean?
  • The article says nothing about the critical reception of the band's music.
  • what makes "metal-observer.com", "alloutguitar.com", "PROG METAL BLOG", "progressiveworld.net", "metal-rules.com", "hardrockhideout.com", "getreadytorock.com" and "metalunderground.com" reliable sources?
  • Good luck with expanding this article, I hope my comments help.--Music26/11 11:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hornoir

  • I could be wrong, but I don't think you need the citations to confirm their musical genre(s). It just clutters up the infobox.
  • The infobox image is of rather poor quality; if no better free image exists, please crop this one to focus more on the band.
  • Read WP:LEAD as your lead requires work. Also observe WP:NEUTRAL, as most of the lead reads like a promotional piece.
    While I am not familiar with this band, I'd be more inclined towards a lead like:

    Symphony X is an American progressive metal band founded in New Jersey, in 1994. While the band has been through several personnel changes, founder and guitarist Michael Romeo and keyboardist Michael Pinnella have remained constants since the band's inception.

    While primary considered a progressive metal band, Symphony X has consistently incorporated elements from symphonic metal and traditional heavy metal into their songs. Many of their compositions utilize complex musical timings and non-standard meters. Though they never toured in support of their first four albums, Symphony X conducted their first world tour after the 1998 release of Twilight in Olympus.

    Symphony X have released seven studio albums, one live album, and a "best of" compilation. The band released their debut album Symphony X in 1994, but did not experience American commercial success until their 2007 release of Paradise Lost which debuted at number 123 on the Billboard 200.

  • Since the Dark Chapter was a demo only release, I'd rather see it detailed under a Formation subsection.
  • All the Biography subsections need clean-up work on the writing; there is a lot of extraneous information, redundant information, and some information that fails WP:NEUTRAL.
  • The Recording Studio: The Dungeon section really belongs within one or more of the Biography subsections.
  • While the term "Line-up" is fine for that section, I believe "Band members" is a more accepted section title.
  • Most important of all: add a "Musical style and influence" section. I'd like to walk away from reading this with a solid idea of what they sound like and why the are noteworthy.

Best of luck. Great start to this article. hornoir (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of California, San Diego

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because sibling article UC Riverside is already a Featured Article (in fact, it's today's featured article as of this writing) whereas UCSD isn't even a Good Article. Therefore I wish to solicit suggestions to improve it.

Thanks, Cybercobra (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dtbohrer

  • "research university" redirects to "univeristy" Done.--Tech30 (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "San Diego, California" redirects to "San Diego" Done.--Tech30 (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MacArthur Fellowship" redirects to "MacArthur Fellows Program"
  • "UC San Diego Medical Center" redirects to "University of California, San Diego Medical Center"
  • "Pell grants" redirects to "Pell Grant"
  • "UC Berkeley" redirects to "University of California, Berkeley"
  • "UCLA" redirects to "University of California, Los Angeles"
  • "Stanford" redirects "Stanford University"
  • "UC San Diego Tritons" redirects to "University of California, San Diego Tritons"


Shouldn't be too difficult to UC San Diego to GA. As you mentioned UC Riverside is an FA, making it a good model for improving UC San Diego. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 16:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbogast & Bastian

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been significantly expanded over the past week, and feedback/comments for improvement and development would be appreciated. I realize the history of the company is relatively sparse for the majority of the company's history - a limitation due in part to A&B having been a privately-held corporation, so most material available has to do with either the founding and early history in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, or the demise of the company in the 1980s. Anyhow, thanks in advance!

Thanks, Alphageekpa (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, well-organized, well-supported, and well-written. I have a few small suggestions for improvement.

Images

  • The two mug shots are good. I notice, however, that the license pages are tagged with "author needed" requests. I think you could fix this by adding a note in the "Author" space on the license page that either identifies the photographer or says "Photographer unknown; scanned from the source by User:alphageekpa on 8 March 2009" or words to that effect. You could then remove the "author needed" tag and the license would probably pass future scrutiny.

History

  • Although the article is well-sourced, the first paragraph lacks a source and should have one. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph as well as any direct quote, set of statistics, or unusual claim.
  • "using meat purchased ready-cured from other suppliers" - I wondered here if it might not be helpful to add a brief explanation of "ready-cured".
  • "by building a full-scale abbatoir" - Wikilink abbatoir?
  • "with $200,000 in capital, on June 19, 1902. The additional capital raised by the corporation was used to purchase more land and to build larger refrigeration facilities and a power plant. By 1905, Arbogast & Bastian's revenues exceeded $1 million dollars per year." - It might be worthwhile to also express these dollar amounts in 2009 dollars adjusted for inflation. A Wikipedia template can do the math automatically if the date and amount variables are entered correctly. You can find an inflation template at Template:Inflation. It takes a little fussing to set up and source, but its effects are pleasing. The last time I used it, I noticed that the source of the inflation data, the Fed Reserve branch in Minneapolis, had moved the url to here and had to adjust my reference note accordingly.
  • "processing 160 million pounds of meat a year" - Imperial measurements should also be expressed in metric equivalents. A handy template, {{convert}} will do the calculation and will use the proper spellings and the correction abbreviation for the secondary unit. With a number this big, you might prefer to enter the amounts manually as 160 million pounds (73 million kg) as opposed to having the template enter 160,000,000 pounds (73,000,000 kg).

If you find these suggestions helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alphageekpa reply: Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I agree with all your suggestions, and the recommended modifications to the article have been made. Alphageekpa (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comment: You are most welcome. I had one other thought. Another handy template, {{CURRENTISOYEAR}} can inserted in place of the phase "in present day terms" in "($4.96 million in present day terms, adjusted for inflation)") The template will insert the current year, 2009, and will automatically update when the calendar year changes. This solves the problem of vagueness inherent in "present day".

Oberon (moon)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been expanded significantly and needs a review by somebody not familiar with the text before I nominate it for featured article.

Thanks, Ruslik (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Current ref 11 is just a link title. Needs publisher and last access date. Also author and any other bibliographic information if known. Also, what makes this a relaible source?
Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 02:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Note the text says that the moon is dark and slightly red, and right near that paragraph there is the image of the moon predominantly light-blue. Try to add a note to the caption to clearly explain why in the picture is blue but it is not in reality. Also, I would merge the discovery with naming, and put all the short paragraphs in the name section in a single larger paragraph. Nergaal (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I merged two sections. The image is not true color; it was enhanced to emphasize surface features. Ruslik (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion

[edit]

Hi,

Stumbled across this, and made some notes, then had edit conflict with the above, so apols for any duplication,

"This article is about the Uranus moon" - this phrase grates; perhaps "This article is about a

moon of Uranus" ?

"is the outermost of the major moons of the planet Uranus. " - I don't like the phrasing

(repetition of "of the"), and I think it might be better to just link to Moon|Natural satellite here, or maybe just Natural satellite, and link to the list of moons of

Uranus elsewhere - simply because it's not at all obvious that the word 'moon' will link to a

list of moons of uranus, rather than an explanation of the term.

'character' wikilinking to oberon is also a bit counter-intuitive; probably unnecessary to link

it; there's the 'other uses' at the top, and the links to the play. The link to 'Shakespeare' is

also probably unnecessary - it's not really related to this topic, so I think the link to the

play itself is ample.

I think (note 5) is probably not needed in the leed; those details could go into the body, thus

getting rid of the footnote.

Canyons/grabens - add a wikilink

The image in the box, "Click image for description" - I don't like that caption; I can

understand it (with the details in the image), but I think a short (if poss) description would

be better.

"He would later report " maybe change to "He later reported" for more consistent tense (&

"would" to "were")

"However" avoid starting sentence with "however", if poss.

"Oberon was derived its name" bad grammar

"Oberon was initially..." - does this really need 3 refs?

A link to explain roman numerals might be useful, somewhere in that part.

Orbit - this para repeats 'Oberon' 5 times, "orbit" 6 times and "uranus" 3 times; try to reword.

Units in km - please give conversion to miles (throughout the article)

"synchronous satellite, tidally locked" - 2 x wikilinks please

"directly impinged upon" - unless this language is technically required, consider simplifying,

perhaps "affected"? equatorial - wikilink

hemisphere - wikilink

"Composition and internal structure" - maybe 'internal' is redundant?

"The latter can include" change to "The latter could include"? (Because it's speculation)

What does 'sputter' mean?

wikilink 'organic compounds'?

"opposition surge" - I don't understand what this is

If it's generally red, why is the pic blue?

"transect" - wikilink

"subnebula" - wikilink

temperature in K, please give in C as well

-I haven't checked links, or looked at the structure (compared to other similar articles etc),

Hope this helps, of course it's all my opinion and in no way am I saying all these things must be done,

--  Chzz  ►  20:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Ruslik (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed the majority of them. Ruslik (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This seems well done and each time I look at it it gets better (actively being improved). Here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly language and context nitpicks.

  • The article on Titania says it was discovered by Herschel on the same day as Oberon. I would say this, and not the vaguer "Oberon was discovered by William Herschel on January 11, 1787; the same year he discovered Uranus's largest moon, Titania.[1][9]"
  • For context I would say early on that Uranus has 27 moons, 5 of which are large, and give the names of those in order. Otherwise when sentences like this occur, it is not clear to someone not already familiar with the moons and their names what Ariel and Umbriel are in "... William Lassell,[15] who had discovered Ariel and Umbriel the year before.[16]"
  • The language could be tightened up / polished a bit, so for example the same sentence I partially quoted above is " It and the names of all four satellites of Uranus then known, were suggested by Herschel's son John in 1852 at the request of William Lassell,[15] who had discovered Ariel and Umbriel the year before.[16]" and could be just " The names of all four satellites of Uranus then known were suggested by Herschel's son John in 1852, at the request of William Lassell,[15] who had discovered the other two moons, Ariel and Umbriel, the year before.[16]" or something similar.
  • Or "Of the large moons of Uranus, Oberon is the furthest from its planet" could be soemthing like "Oberon is the furthest of the large moons from Uranus." - this sentence could perhaps be combined with the one following it too.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I first found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I think I fixed all problems you found. Ruslik (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everybody. The peer review is completed. Ruslik (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Kelly filmography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Gene Kelly is an important figure in film history and warrants a good filmography page. The layout for this article is simular to that of the Woody Allen filmography and the Spike Lee filmography. Any advise on how to improve this article would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems nicely done overall, although I am concerned about the reliability and use of references. Here are some suggestions for improvement. SInce I just reviewed the Gary Cooper filmography, some of the same comments apply here too.

  • As noted, my main concern is with refs. My understanding is that IMDb is not generally considered a reliable source (if this has changed, my apologies). My guess is that the Tony Thomas book Song and Dance Man: The Films of Gene Kelly would have all of the films in it.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V.
  • It is also not clear from the tables themselves what is the primary source for each. For example, what is the source of the short films table? I think it is fine to have one ref for a whole table.
  • The lead is generally well done, here are a few nitpicks.
    • I would change tense in He has been noted for his musical films that displayed his creative choreography which often fused tap and jazz.[1] to He was noted for his musical films ...
    • Also could clean up He has been voted on the American Film Institute’s millennium list as cinema's 15th most popular film actor while his 1952 film, Singin' in the Rain, has been voted as the most popular movie musical of all time.[3] to something like He was voted the 15th most popular film actor on the American Film Institute’s millennium list, while his 1952 film, Singin' in the Rain, was voted the most popular movie musical of all time.[3] - I would say who voted it the most popular movie musical too
  • Any reason why the tables aren't sortable? (ask if you do not know how to do this)
  • I once had a FL where it was requested that the tables be made the same width to look better - not sure if this would still be an issue

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours,Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum:

Thanks for the Peer review of the article Gene Kelly filmography, which I have updated with more information and corrections in the past few days. Regarding these changes:

  • The Intro: I have used your suggestions regarding how to improve the wording in the introductory section. I think that they were good suggestions and read better. Thanks.
  • The IMDb: I don't know who is saying that the IMDb is an unreliable source, but I strongly disagree with that opinion. I don't work for IMDb nor do I know anyone that does, so I think I can offer a thoroughly unbiased opinion of them. The people that contribute to the IMDb have taken on the gargantuan task of documenting every film made since cinema began (I think their earliest entry is from 1892). That means they're documenting hundreds of thousands of films and millions of people involved in the making of those films. Certainly there are going to be errors made here and there but, overall, I think the people at IMDb are doing an outstanding job. Wikipedia's entries on films and filmmakers almost always contain external links to corresponding articles within the IMDb. Therefore, claims made that the IMDb is unreliable seems (to me, at least) to be contradictory and rather hypocritical.
    • I know that an External link to IMDb is OK, but if an article comes to WP:FAC with IMDb as a reference for something other than very basic claims, it will not pass. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. I would give the External link to IMDb for Gene Kelly. Not sure the rest are reliable uses. If the data can be cited to the Thomas book (see below), I would use that instead. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tony Thomas Book: Song and Dance Man: The Films of Gene Kelly was originally published in 1974 by Citadel Press and chronicled all of Gene Kelly's feature film appearances up until that time. In 1991, Mr. Thomas did an update of the book per Citadel's request. It is this revision that I used as one of my sources. The book is, in my opinion, well-researched, well-written, and well illustrated and an excellent introduction to Gene Kelly's films. (Citadel is now defunct, Tony Thomas has since passed away, and the book is now out-of-print, but copies can still be found fairly easily.)
  • Refs: I have added specific references to the "notes" part of the features section as well as general references at the bottom of the page. I have also added a general reference to the shorts section. The internet references contain the URL, title, publisher and date accessed. What else is needed?
    • Refs 10 and 24 need date accessed. Cites to the Thomas book need to be consistent - since you give full info in the References section, I think it would be OK to give book refs like ref 11, but the three book refs are each done differently (one full with page, one full, no page, one just page). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Width of height of cells: These adjust themselves as you add in information. To make them all the same width isn't needed here and will not make the list look any better (except for the three "yes" sections, which I did make the same width).
    • OK, just pointing out this was a request made of me at FLC (set widths the same only, not height). Ruhrfisch ><>°°
  • Sortable: The sortable function doesn't work right when you have cells spanning more than one unit either by row or column. It is also not needed here, as the lists should be kept in a year-by-year chronological order.

I hope my changes improved the article and my comments here explain my actions properly. Jimknut (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better - I have one more suggestion, which you can ignoire if you want. Would it make sense to add some numbers to the lead? Something like He worked on X feature films: Y as an actor, Z as a choreographer, and W as a director. He also had a role in Q short films. Let me know when this is at FLC and I will support. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only have a couple of comments to make and I apologize beforehand if they seem rushed or abrupt (that's the way I think). It is entirely fine to link to the Academy Award Database for referencing for film awards, or any other official individual award webpages that might be pertinent. From my experience with featured article reviewers, they will object to the text sizing in the tables and I do agree with Ruhrfisch regarding the column sizing. There are just some issues they will always take exception with, and I think those are ones they will. I'm not as sure about the columns with the "Yes" templates, although I will note that quite a while ago, editors at WP:FILM who were discussing tables were quite opposed to the use of {{yes}} templates. That was partially based on the appearance of them, and also on questions regarding the appearance based on color-blindness of the reader. WP:ACTOR would endorse that view (speaking for WP:ACTOR). The awards from the Directors Guild are noted with acronyms, the FAR reviewers will want the name of the award spelled out and the link to individual awards (such as the Screen Actors awards, Golden Bear, ) should link to the appropriate individual award page on Wikipedia. Also, I'm not certain how FAR reviewers will view the source to IMDb or Turner Classic Movie Database. I'm thinking they will challenge them. That is also an observation based on experience. Hope this helps. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Indians

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to further improve the article.

Thanks, Dodgerblue777 (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most sports teams have separate articles for their history, so that the history section in the main article can be condensed. See Manchester United F.C. for a good example of how this is done. BUC (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would agree with the above. Given the 108 year history of the club, a separate History of the Cleveland Indians article would be a nice companion, allowing you to focus the most important parts of team history in the main article. Among the things I notice quickly, some of which is really minor stuff that FA reviewers might look at should you take the article that far:
  • Explain abbreviations the first time you use them. i.e., the first time you spell out National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, National League, Union Association, etc., add the abbreviations (N.A.), (N.L.) and (U.A.) in parentheses following that first mention.
  • In the lead, you state the Indians were founded in 1901, but actually in 1900 as a minor league team. It might help to reword that a bit to seem less confusing.
  • I see several run-on sentences and sentences that are disjointed via an overuse of commas. i.e.: "Mack, partly to thank Somers for his past financial support, agreed to trade Lajoie to the then-moribund Blues, who offered $25,000 salary over three years." Could be reworded along the lines of "Lajoie was traded to the Blues by Mack as a partial thank you to Somers for his previous financial support. Somers offered Lajoie a $25,000 salary over three years."
  • There are numerous stub paragraphs.
  • Some statements are confusing. i.e.: "By the end of the 1993 season, the team was in transition, leaving Cleveland Stadium and fielding a talented nucleus of young players. Many of those players came from the Indians' new AAA farm team, the Charlotte Knights, who won the International League title that year." There seems to be a false connection there, as the location of the minor league team is incidental to the Indians' development of prospects. I might reword that to something along the lines of "The team ended 1993 in transition, leaving Cleveland Stadium for Jacobs Field and fielding a talented nucleus of young players. Many of those players were members of the 1993 International League champion Charlotte Knights, Cleveland's AAA affiliate."
  • I don't see a huge need for five subsections for 2001-present. It leaves the article quite disjointed.
  • This would have to be a project wide decision, but at WP:HOCKEY, we list the last five seasons under Season-by-season results rather than leave an empty section with nothing but a see-also link.
  • If there are any photos of players available, it could serve as a good example image in the team uniforms section.
  • Celebrity fans strikes me as trivia. Is this necessary?
  • Can the nickname and logo controversy section be expanded?
  • Also something that would have to be discussed and standardized by the baseball project, we at the hockey project like to condense succession boxes and templates into a collapsed box to reduce clutter, leaving only the main team template outside. (see Calgary Flames#Further reading for an example).
Hope this helps, Resolute 19:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions (Usher album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to check the comprehensive of the article and the quality of the prose before it goes to FAC.

Regards, Efe (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 01:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for checking the sources. --Efe (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: The sources and material in the article seem mostly good, but the prose is nowhere near ready for FAC and WP:WIAFA its criterion 1 (professional prose). Here are some suggestions for improvement of the language.

  • Lead - Recording sessions for the album took place from 2003 to 2004 and featured production by Jermaine Dupri, Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, and Lil Jon. How about some thing like Recording sessions for the album took place in 2003 and 2004 and it was produced by Jermaine Dupri, Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, and Lil Jon.
  • Unclear sentence: The album's themes generated controversy about Usher's personal relationship; however, the album's primary producer Jermaine Dupri claimed the record reflects his personal story. I think I owuld be more specific, perhaps something like The album's themes of infidelity and relationships ending generated speculation about Usher's relationship with Rozonda "Chilli" Thomas; however, the album's primary producer Jermaine Dupri claimed the record reflects his personal story.?
  • Chilli should be referred to as Thomas (not Chilli) throughout the article per the MOS
  • add a word to and remove some from Confessions was an instant commercial success in the United States, selling 1.1 million copies in its debut [week], the most copies ever sold in a week by an R&B recording artist.
  • Perhaps change this and combine with the next sentence Although it received criticism for its lyrical quality, Confessions received generally positive reviews and earned Usher several awards. In 2005, the album won a Grammy Award for Best Contemporary R&B Album. to something like Although it was criticized for its lyrical quality, Confessions received generally positive reviews and earned Usher several awards, including the 2005 Grammy for Best Contemporary R&B Album.
  • I am not sure this is correct - The album has gone platinum and gold in over twenty other countries, and has sold nearly 20 million copies worldwide. I think it should be "platinum or gold", otherwise it seems to mean that the album has gone platinum after going gold in each of over 20 countries, when I think what is meant is that there are over 20 countries where the album's sales were either platimum or gold.
  • Conception is an odd section title when its second paragraph starts With forty recorded songs, Usher felt the album had already been completed.[3]
  • Much of the Composition section seems like it could be combined with this - perhaps Conception and composition?
  • The infobox lists 13 producers (I think), but there is very litle on the actual production and recording of the album. When did it start recording, where was it recorded, etc?
  • Musicians - why are they not listed in the personnel section?
  • Hopefully this makes it clear that this needs a major copyedit to clean things up before FAC, I'll stop here for now.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Indiana

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am requesting this peer review because I would like to know what other editors think this article needs to pass at FAC. It has been there twice before, and I have put alot of research into the article. I was hoping to get some feedback before I give it another shot.

Thanks, Charles Edward (Talk) 18:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This seems quite close to FA to me. I've identified some problems and made some suggestions below for improving the prose in specific places. Not all passive-voice sentences can or should be converted to active voice, but I think you could increase the zing of the prose by converting perhaps 20 sentences here and there throughout the article. I've identified a half-dozen or so. Here are my suggestions.

Lead

  • Passive voice. Example: "The Trans-Allegheny region was divided into several new territories by the United States government." Made active, it reads, "The United States government divided the Trans-Allegheny region into several new territories." Another easy one to switch would be "Indiana was inhabited by migratory tribes of Native Americans as early as 8000 BCE." This becomes "Migratory tribes of Native Americans inhabited Indiana as early as 8000 BCE".
  • "During the 1850s, the state's population grew to exceed one million, and the ambitious program of the state founders was realized as Indiana became the fourth-largest state in terms of population, as measured by the 1860 census." - Repetition of "state". Suggestion: replace "state founders" with "its founders".
  • "The state experienced industrial growth with the construction of Indianapolis Motor Speedway, the expansion of the auto industry in the state, substantial urban growth, and two major wars involving the United States, which further grew industry." - Sentences like this one could be tightened to say the same thing with fewer words. Suggestion: "Construction of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, expansion of the auto industry, urban development, and two wars contributed to the state's industrial growth."
  • The Manual of Style suggests avoiding repetition of the words of an article's title in the section heads. Instead of "Indiana Territory" perhaps "Organized territory" or "Incorporated territory" would solve the problem. Lower down, "Modern Indiana" might be re-cast as "After the war".

European contact

  • "The Iroquois gained the upper hand..." - Slang. Suggestion: "The Iroquois gained control... "

Colonial rule

United States

  • In July 1778, Clark and about 175 men... " - Here 175 is written as digits. In the earlier sections, the centuries were mostly expressed in digits, but other numerical terms were expressed as words. "One hundred years of French rule" in the lead is an example. Generally, digits are preferable for numbers bigger than nine, but exceptions exist. Also, you can consistently spell most of them out, if that is your preference. WP:MOSNUM reveals all.

"Indiana Territory

  • "The entire population of the northwest was under 5,000 Europeans." - Suggestion: "The population of the northwest included fewer than 5,000 Europeans."
  • "The Indiana Land Company, who... " - "which", not "who"
  • "Before that time, the legislature had been appointed by Governor Harrison." - Suggestion: "Before that, Governor Harrison appointed the legislature."

War of 1812

  • "Unhappy with their treatment since the peace of 1795, the native tribes formed a coalition against the Americans, led by the Shawnee Chief Tecumseh and his brother Tenskwatawa." - Move modifier up against modified, thus: "Unhappy with their treatment since the peace of 1795, the native tribes, led by the Shawnee Chief Tecumseh and his brother Tenskwatawa, formed a coalition against the Americans."

Statehood

  • "He further complicated matters by being a supporter of slavery... " - Tighten to "He further complicated matters by supporting slavery...".

"Founding"

  • "That same year Indiana statehood was approved by Congress." - Here's another sentence easily converted to active voice, thus: "That same year Congress approved Indiana statehood."
  • "In 1825, Corydon was finally replaced as the seat of government in favor of Indianapolis." - Another easy conversion: "In 1825, Indianapolis finally replaced Corydon as the seat of government."

Early development

  • "The National Road was connected to Indianapolis in 1829, connecting Indiana to the Eastern United States." - Recast to avoid repeating "connect".
  • "The canal system was soon made obsolete by railroads." - Another easy conversion to active voice: "Railroads soon made the canal system obsolete."
  • "The Panic of 1819 caused the state's only two banks to fold, hurting Indiana's credit halting the projects and hampered the start of any new projects until the 1830s, after the repair of the state's finances during the terms of William Hendricks and Noah Noble." - Tangled. Suggestion: "The Panic of 1819 caused the state's only two banks to fold. This hurt Indiana's credit, halted the projects, and hampered the start of any new projects until the 1830s, after the repair of the state's finances during the terms of William Hendricks and Noah Noble."

Higher education

  • ""general system of education, ascending in a regular gradation, from township schools to a state university, wherein tuition shall be gratis, and equally open to all". - Direct quotations need a citation immediately after the quote. In this case, the citation would come right after the terminal period.
  • "It took several years for the legislature to fulfill its promise, partly because of a debate regarding whether the Territory of Indiana's public university should be adopted as the State of Indiana's public university, or whether a new public university should be founded to replace the territorial university." - This seems unnecessarily convoluted. How about "It took several years for the legislature to fulfill its promise, partly because of a debate about whether a new public university should be founded to replace the territorial university"?

Civil War

  • "24,416 lost their lives in the conflict and over 50,000 more were wounded." - Re-cast to avoid starting a sentence with digits.

Morgan's Raid

  • "On the morning of July 9, 1863, Morgan attempted to cross the Ohio River into Indiana... " - It would be good to make explicit in this sentence that Morgan's force was Confederate. Something like "On the morning of July 9, 1863, Morgan attempted to cross the Ohio River into Indiana with his Confederate force of 2,400 cavalry" might do.

Post-Civil War era

  • "Post-war Indiana also saw several major criminal events." - This kind of "saw" construction, which occurs elsewhere in the article is problematic since years and other time periods can't see. It's better to re-cast. This one might become "Several major crimes occurred in post-war Indiana".
  • "She is believed to have killed more than twenty people, most of them men, between 1881 and her suspected murder in 1908." - Does this mean that she was murdered in 1908 or that her last murder occurred in 1908?

Modern Indiana

  • This section ends with several short paragraphs. I'd suggest combining the Dan Quayle paragraph with one of the others.

Another thought

  • I like infoboxes, and I think this article would look better if it had one. I searched for an example of another state history article with an infobox but didn't find one. Why not use the already-completed Indiana infobox in this article? Just a thought.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, it is appreciated! I have implemented your prose suggestions and am looking into an infobox. Charles Edward (Talk) 16:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oxford United F.C. players

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have just spent a few days working on the article in my sandbox and would like to know if there are any more changes i could make to the article before i take it to FLC. Any comments would be gratefully recieved.

Thanks, Eddie6705 (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just one question at this stage - what is the basis of selection? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Players who have made over 100 appearances for the club, or have made an international appearance while at the club. I will add a note in now. Eddie6705 (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)
  • First sentence has a lot of run-on clauses, could do with being broken up
    • Have tried to make it flow better.
  • Steve Basham seems a rather random choice for the main image, as his time at the club doesn't seem to have been especially remarkable. Are there no images available of any player who made a truly significant impact at OUFC?
    • Have replaced with a picture of Big Ron, although ideally i'd have liked one of Malcolm Shotton.
  • "This was the case until 1960" => "The club retained this name"
    • Changed
  • You have "the club was" and "the club were" in consecutive sentences - decide if the club is singular or plural then be consistent
    • Changed to was
  • "preceded" is spelt wrong
    • Corrected
  • "Ron's brother" => "his brother"
    • Changed
  • No need for comma after Graham Atkinson's name
    • Removed
  • "Irish" before John Aldridge's name should point to Republic of Ireland not just Ireland
    • Changed
  • ....and in the table too
    • Changed all Ireland players
  • "The list is comprised of" => "The list comprises"
    • Changed
  • Couldn't the two sentences detailed what competitions are included simpy be combined into one list?
    • I suppose it it would make better sense, changed.
  • Note K seems unnecesarily convoluted, especially since note C already stated that stats are taken from Howland (with no mention of specific page ranges) unless noted otherwise......
    • Removed note K
  • Is ultimatenzsoccer.com a reliable source? It looks like a fan page.....
    • It does state the sources it used for that page and i cant find another source anywhere that states his results (except rageonline but thats deamed reliable either).

Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)
  • At first mention, call it Oxford United F.C., rather than just Oxford United. And then drop the F.C. when you talk about the name change
    • Done
  • Do you think the lead section ought to be referenced at all? Presumably the player-related stuff is all referenced in the table, but it wouldn't do any harm to add a ref to the club's history page or whatever, to cover the first paragraph
    • Added two references.
  • The colour-coded cells need a symbol (asterisk or suchlike) as well as the colouring, for accessibility (the international caps ones do, anyway; could argue that the footnote labels appearing in the Records column count as an alternative to the colour)
    • Done, although i'd like your opinion on whether the '†' are needed for the records.
  • Only players who qualify for WP articles should be redlinked, generally this means those who played in the Football League. Some of your early players perhaps shouldn't be?
    • Agreed, except i'm not sure how to de-link them and still keep them sortable. Done
  • You say that stats are sourced to the Complete Record book except where stated, but the book only goes up to 1989, and there are several players (Judge, Saunders, Smart) after that date without an alternative source
    • Refs have been added
  • Ref#14 Martin Foyle points to the right place, but you've called it Bobby Ford (best check there aren't any more like that)
    • Fixed and checked
  • What are your sources for players being capped for their country while with the club? at least those after your book date
    • Added sources for the two players that required them.
  • Footnote A: now the article's called Association football positions, there's no real need to pipe it to Football positions
    • Changed
  • Footnote D: in the Oxford Mail cite-template, names of newspapers belong at the "work=" rather than the "publisher=" parameter
    • Changed
  • Footnote I: Might drop the Holds the club record for being and just say The first Oxford United player to play...
    • Changed
  • Footnote J: the Sky ref doesn't actually source Windass' fee as being a club record.
    • Changed ref
  • Ref#2 needs an endash not a hyphen in the page range
    • Changed
  • Do you know if Soccerbase includes minor comps such as the AngloItalian in Oxford's player totals? When I first did List of Birmingham City F.C. players, Birmingham player totals on Soccerbase didn't always include it, but they do now, so it's probably the case for Oxford's as well.
    • Soccerbase has included the AngloItalian for those players after 1989. I have checked the figures against those on supporter site Rage Online to check the 'other' apps. As far as i can tell they also include the Football League Trophy and Full Members Cup.

hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I have looked at the soccerbase comment and replied. I will look at the other points tomorrow and get back to you when i'm done. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've forgotten to save your changes, or something, cos it still looks the same to me... On the name-sorting, there's a parameter to {{sortname}} to suppress linking, which helpfully doesn't appear in the documentationdidn't appear in the documentation but does now and is mentioned at Template talk:Sort#No wikilinking in Sortname. If you add |nolink=1 it sorts properly but without creating a wikilink. On the colour-coding, I'd be happy without the dagger in the Records column, the footnote labels are an acceptable alternative, per WP:Colours#Using colours in articles. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Dunno wats happened there. I'll redo the changes now. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done (hopefully). Eddie6705 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalorean Catholics

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has recently achieved GA status. Sugestions to elevate this article to FA status will be appreciated.

Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mangalorean Catholics/archive3.

SR Leader Class

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as part of a drive to improve the article quality (use of English, etc.), and bring it to a standard where it may be submitted for FA review.

Thanks, Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are my thoughts. Seems quite well done and close to FA standards, but there are some places that need to be made clearer to a non-steam locomotive enthusiast, or could have some context provided to the reader. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • SR in the title should be explained, as well as SR/ BR at the head of the infobox. Perhaps The design was started in 1946 to replace the aging M7 class locomotives still in operation on the Southern Railway (SR). The development of the design continued after the nationalisation of the railways in 1948 under the auspices of British Railways (BR).
  • The caption in the infobox is a bit obscure - perhaps Locomotive 36001 at Oxted, photo taken by British Railways. Unless the photo taken by BR has to be given, why not say something like Locomotive 36001 on a test run at Oxted in November 1949?
  • Second paragraph of the lead has no links - I would link "aging M7 class" in the lead to LSWR M7 class, probably could link the nationalisation of rails, others
  • Second paragraph also uses "locomotive(s)" five times in three sentences (and "motive" once). Engine (as tank engine) is used once, could it or other synonyms be used a bit more?
  • Third paragraph should link thermic siphon, bogie and some other terms. This paragraph also seems to say the innovations were the reason the class was discontinued, then two sentences later that inidfferent reports on performance and cost concerns led to them being scrapped. Which is it (needs to be clearer - imagine all contributed to the project's demise)
  • "Leader" is in double quotes everywhere except the lead sentence and the second image caption - should be consistent. Also most quotes use double quotes " but 'Cycling Lion' and However, the results of the trials as reported to British Railways headquarters at Marylebone were 'conspicuous by the absence of praise' .. use single quotes '
  • Missing word? resulting in a Southern Railway design brief [which?] called for a high-powered locomotive requiring little maintenance.[2]
  • Verb seems odd for a proposed locomotive in The brief also stipulated that the locomotive could be used on both passenger and freight trains... perhaps something like The brief also stipulated that the locomotive would be able to be used on both passenger and freight trains ... is clearer?
  • Link 0-4-4-0 in Background and [0-6-0]] in Design details
  • Provide context to the reader - so after "double-ended running" perhaps add a phrase like "so the locomotive could operate equally well in either direction" I am not super happy with my phrase, but you get the idea?
  • Link SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes for "Bulleid Pacific" (I think) and tank engine in Design details.
  • Could there be a general diagram of the engine with the positions of the three cabs, boiler, bogies and perhaps other details shown? I would also move the second image up to this overall section as it seems much more useful here
  • Missing word? The valve gear used the unusual sleeve valve arrangement [and?] was tested on the ex-LB&SCR H1 class Hartland Point or perhaps "that was also tested on"?
  • Awkward sentence The decision to include oscillating gear that added a 25-degree axial movement to the sleeves to avoid seizure by allowing even lubrication of moving parts was also based upon motoring practice.[14] not sure how to fix it
  • Per the MOS I think imperial gallons should be spelled out in and 4000 imp. gal (18,160 litres) of water
  • Last three sentences in "Boiler, firebox and smokebox design" section need a ref
  • I don't understand this The cab at the smokebox end of the locomotive suffered a similar issue to the fireman's cab, in that it was prone to heat. This resulted in the locomotive being used in 'reverse', ie. tender-first, to circumvent this problem.[28] WHy would running it in reverse help / solve the problem?
  • In "Livery and numbering" why isn't the second section called "British Railways" (as the first is "Southern Railway")?
  • Sources and refs seem fine to me, although I am not a rail expert.

I enjoyed reading this - thanks and hope this review helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulleid Pacific comments: Most of these issues have been addressed, although someone may wish to check the article again. I intend to add a couple more ex-British Railways images of various aspects of the locomotive when I have the time. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 02:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Bulleid Pacific comments: Thank you. My next task is to get someone to have a second look at the prose, just to tie up any remaining issues missed by the last round of edits. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac Orthodox Church

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how all ways I can improve this article. What more details should I add. That is to make this article a FA quality article. Also an outside review of the total article.

Thanks, -- ܠܝܓܘ Liju ലിജു לג"ו (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I am genuinely interested in finding out about the history and workings of the Eastern churches, but at present, I'm afraid, this article looks unready, with a great deal of work necessary to bring it up to even C or B class.

  • The most important defect is the almost complete lack of in-line citations. Whole paragraphs, whole sections occur in which there are no citations at all. Please see WP:Citing sources#When to cite sources, and WP:Verifiability, to inform yourself more fully on this aspect of Wikipedia policy. As a rough guideline, every statement that might reasonably be challenged (and in an article related to religious belief, that's a high percentage of statements) needs to be cited to a reliable source.
  • The structure of the article is poor at the moment, with too many very short sections, badly organised. Some information, I believe, could be excluded or reduced to a couple of lines. For example if, as you say in the lead, the Syriac Orthodox Church arose from a schism following the Council of Chalcedon, this should surely be the starting point of its history. How much do we need the preceding detailed histories of previous Councils?
  • I found some of the writing incomprehensible. The "Primacy of St Peter" section is a notable example. Thtroughout the article the prose tends to stray from standard English, as in the short "Bible in Syriac Tradition" section where the use of definite and indefinite articles is irregular. I also found the following statement very confusing: "Holy Qurbono, i.e. Eucharist, is celebrated every Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Presently, Holy Eucharist is celebrated only on Sundays and special occasions." The second sentence seems to contradict the first (and you shouldn't use abbreviations like "i.e." in your text).
  • There are numerous breaches of Wikipedia style requirements, for example:
    • See WP:LEAD for information about the function of the lead section in a wikipedia article. It should provide a concise overview of the whole article, summarising all its main points.
    • You frequently use bolded characters for emphasis. Please see WP:BOLD for information about the proper use of bolded characters in articles.
    • The few references that you have are not formatted properly. WP:CITE#HOW will help you here. If you can't follow what to do from there, go to another article and see what the editors there did (that's how I taught myself to format citations a year or two back)

I am sorry to have to be rather negative about this, as clearly a lot of work has gone in to the gathering of the information. I hope that you can use these review points as a basis for resuming work on the article and bringing it up to standard. I would strongly advise that the first thing you do is to cite the article properly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz's comments
  • Things like "It played a prominent role in the first three Synods held at Nicea (325) , Constantinople (381), and Ephesus (431), shaping the formulation and early interpretation of Christian doctrines." may be considered WP:PEACOCK terms without references
  • Quotations like the one in "Council of Constantinople" need references
  • The list in "Worship" should be prefably written in prose
  • The template in "Monasteries" looks out of place. Mention the Monasteries in prose and move template to end of the article
  • File:Catholica Bava.jpg has no author info, permission tag, possible copyright violation --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
llywrch comments

First, this is a subject worth the effort to make into a FA. Doing that would help Wikipedia not only better cover areas where its coverage is weak, but also illumine the history of Christianity by better documenting one of its major branches.

That being said, I find the chief weakness in the article as it now stands is that it is clearly slanted to make the Syriac Church appear to be orthodox as opposed to, I infer, Roman Catholicism. Much of the article is wrapped up in the claim that because it traces its origins to the church at Antioch, it is a more original form of Christianity, to the point of ignoring much of its history after Chalcedon: after the mention of the exile of Patriarch Severus in 518, the article mentions only one event before the 20th century. Now I am no expert about the Syrian Church, but I do know that much happened to the Syrian Church after that point: how Jacob Baradaeus almost single-handedly restored much of the clerical & episcopal structure after Justinian's persecutions; how the Syrians struggled to keep their faith under Muslim rule; & how they interacted with contacts from Europe in the form of the Crusaders & later with Protestants eager to find alternatives to the traditions of Rome & Catholicism. And then there were numerous internal disputes over power & belief.

The problem with its origins I believe could be solved by simplifying the presentation of this argument. (Note: I am not saying it reflect the truth or not. I am just trying to recast it in NPOV terms.) Instead of writing, "Syriac Orthodox Church is one of the ancient churches of the world. According to the New Testament 'The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.'" I would state it this way, "The Syriac Orthodox Church traces its origins to the Christian community at Antioch, which is described in 'The Acts of the Apostles' as one of the earliest known communities outside of Palestine." Then, for example, try to structure the rest of its history around the theme of how the beliefs of the church have come down from this early community. (I believe this was one of the arguments its leaders used to reject the findings of Chalcedon.) Just remember that there is more to the history of the Syrian Church than the 5th, 6th, & 20th centuries -- & try to document that. -- llywrch (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WALL-E

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
WALL-E is an article I've been aiming FA for since I saw the movie and I've been sandboxing and struggling with it for some time but I recently finished off Themes, and I'm looking for further advice, like whether it needs a Cast section, any more suitable images, MOS or copyediting issues, etc etc.

Thanks, Alientraveller (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
What a wonderful article! I enjoyed this film, as well as the article. Well done. A few suggestions:
  • Intro - consider linking outer space and polluted
  • Perhaps I am just link-happy, but I would also link the following (other reviewers may feel differently): body language, Best Animated Film, Golden Globe Award
  • Plot - link consumerism, compactor, obese, Helly, Dolly (also italicize this, since it is a film title)
  • I would make sure Earth is capitalized each time, just for consistency; I found at least one instance in which it was not (first paragraph in plot)
  • Last paragraph of plot - I believe the quotation mark on "kiss" should be within the comma
  • Why is Axiom italicized in the Cast section, but not elsewhere? I'm not sure the italics are needed.
  • I went ahead and added a missing publisher name in one of the references. I think I spotted a few additional missing publishers/works, so you may want to double check the sources.

Great job, and best of luck with the FA process! -Another Believer (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Saw this movie tonight and loved it. I came to the Wikipedia article to look up a couple things when I got home and was delighted to see a PR had recently opened. I need to finish another PR (was interrupted mid-edit) but will definitely do Wall-E before the weekend's over! If you link to the 'good' version of the synopsis I can compare it with whatever's there when I get a chance to review this weekend, and work from there. Natural Cut (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 01:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Added missing publishers. Movies Online, ComingSoon.net, FirstShowing.net, /Film are all notable interviewers and are all listed on the Blog Roll if you scroll down http://moviesblog.mtv.com/ . I'm not familiar with AAC, but it is a transcripted conversation and its author is Ron Barbagallo, who manages various animation archives including Roy E. Disney, Warners and Hanna-Barbera. Alientraveller (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment Plot section looks to be a bit long. Can it be trimmed at all. BUC (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment

  • right now, the plot section is ~800words - you should cut it to <600
  • "covered Earth far in the future" - make far in the future specific
  • "changes the destiny of both his kind and humanity." - destiny -> direction

WhatisFeelings? (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to my article on Wall-E, (and I'm not sure why you Wikipedia types don't think to do this) -- you can email me directly through my web site to ask me any question you might have. There actually are instructions on my site regarding your use of my work -- and more than a little information outlining the articles. If you want to email me directly, it's ronbarba@aol.com. -- Ron Barbagallo

Randall Flagg

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like for it to become a featured article sometime in the future. Other editors and I have put a lot of work into it, and I would appreciate any further help into making it FA status as I believe it's come very close.

Thanks, CyberGhostface (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Review from BuddingJournalist (talk · contribs) Prose will need improvement before FA status can be achieved. Let's take a look at the lead:
    • "Flagg has appeared in various novels by King, sometimes as the main antagonist and others as in a brief cameo." Replace various with a specific number. Latter half of the sentence has parallelism issues; you can say, for example, "sometimes...other times" or "in some novels...in others". Remove "as" in "as in a brief cameo". This sentence is ungrammatical at the moment.
    • "He often goes under different names, most of which can be abbreviated by the initials R.F." "goes under" is rather colloquial. "can be abbreviated by" is an odd way of expressing this idea.
    • "an accomplished sorcerer and a devoted servant of the Outer Dark" Need a citation for this quotation.
    • "His goals typically center on spreading destruction and causing conflict, usually through bringing down civilizations." Seems like the ideas in this sentence are switched; I'm not familiar with the character, but wouldn't the destruction of civilization seem like the logical end goal, and "spreading destruction and causing conflict" be the means? Also, more word choice issues here. Try a noun ("the destruction of" or similar) rather than "bringing down". "causing conflict" is weak; I'd suggest sowing.
    • "who wreaked havoc after a plague decimated most of the population" Unclear. Did he cause the plague or was he a symptom of the plague?
    • " from reaching the Tower to claim it for himself" Not enough context to establish what this means for readers unfamiliar with the novels.
    • "The Dark Tower expanded upon Flagg's backstory and motivations, as well as connecting his previous appearances together." Parallelism
    • "Flagg has made appearances in a television miniseries adaptation of The Stand" Careful with the out-of-universe prose. This makes it seem like Flagg is an actor. Maybe "was featured"?
    • "as well as having key roles" more verb parallelism issues.
    • "image of a man in cowboy boots, denim jeans and jacket always walking the roads that "came out of nowhere" when he was still in college" Awkward and imprecise. Quotation needs a citation, but the quotation just leaves readers pondering its meaning.
    • I'd recommend a top-to-bottom copyedit based on what I've seen. Go through the entire article carefully, examining sentences thoroughly. BuddingJournalist 19:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Woman (TV series)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been fiddling with it on and off for the last year or so and would like some feedback on getting it to GA. Obviously the episode summaries need to be filled in but what else has to happen to get the article there?

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hornoir

  • For brevity, you could change "based on the DC Comics comic book character Wonder Woman" in the lead to "based on the titular DC comic book character". Hmm, on second thought maybe "titular" is the wrong word to use. (Who said there couldn't be humor in a peer review?)
  • I believe it is proper to refer to "ABC" as "the American Broadcasting Company (ABC)", at least initially.
  • "The success of the film led ABC to order first two more special episodes" is awkward. Consider revising to "The success of the film led ABC to order an additional two special episodes". This removes the word "first" from the sentence (the source of the awkwardness).
  • "The producers took the show to CBS, which did pick up the show as a regular series." Shouldn't this be "The producers offered the show to CBS, who optioned the show as a regular series."?
  • "Early attempts" section should be renamed to something like "Genesis of the series", since the primary focus of the article is the Lynda Carter series.
  • "Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman" section should be renamed to "Wonder Woman (1975-1979)" to conform with the format used in the "Early attempts" section.
  • Throughout I notice a distinct lack of citations; this needs to be corrected.
  • The episode lists are quite long. Consider creating a separate page for them (e.g. List of Wonder Woman episodes).
  • The "VHS releases" and "DVD releases" sections can be merged into a single section (e.g. VHS & DVD releases).
  • The "Merchandising" section needs expansion. While I don't have my copy handy, the Les Daniels book Wonder Woman: The Complete History displays quite a bit of merchandising (if memory serves). I know for sure there were several records released with the television show theme song on them and there certainly was a huge influx of WW merchandise in the late 70s, though I'm not certain this can be directly correlated to the TV show.

Hope this helps. Best of luck with the article. hornoir (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comments by Hornoir

While I still stand by my suggestions regarding the lead, based on seeing the alterations to the main body I have a few further suggestions:

  • Form a new "Plot synopsis" section made out of some of the information from "Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman" section; the remainder of the "Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman" sections information can be merged into "Early attempts" under the name "Genesis of the series".
  • With a "Plot synopsis" section, you will only need to list the list to the episodes page once at the top or bottom. Three links to the page is a tad excessive.
  • Also don't forget to add a link to the episodes page in the infobox (by adding "|list_episodes=List of Wonder Woman episodes").

hornoir (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is close to a FAC. What is it missing? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Federal Reserve districts

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I want to know how to improve this article

Thanks, Smallman12q (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: The article is so short that it's hard to know what comments might be helpful. Even so, here are a few suggestions.

  • I removed one of the two major cleanup tags since the article is now sourced.
  • The map looks good on first glance, but the caption might help clarify the image by briefly explaining that the black squares represent the district headquarters. Maybe something like "Federal Reserve Districts and their headquarter cities" would do it.
  • I see that you had trouble getting the citation #2 superscript to appear in the right place in the text. The trick here is to move the ref inside the final curly braces of the quote template. I went ahead and did that so you can look at the results in edit mode to see what I mean.
  • I'd be inclined to embed the long quote in the first paragraph inside ordinary quotation marks rather than setting it apart. Better yet would be better to paraphrase rather than quote so that the material could be sourced but not put in quotation marks. The language of the quote is so ordinary that it's odd to see it set off as something special.
  • Spelling out Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and the others in the bank list would make it instantly clear that the links are to banks rather than cities.

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have difficulty getting pictures because the Federal Reserve is quasi public which means its own pictures don't qualify for public domain.Smallman12q (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bummer. If that's the case, some of the reserve bank images posted to the Commons may not be licensed correctly. If you haven't tried it already, you might search some of the collections listed at WP:PDI. Finetooth (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of furry conventions

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This list has been previously nominated for FL, but failed. I am wondering how to make this list a FL.

Thanks, miranda 19:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • POV issue or concern (at least a WP:WEIGHT issue) - the article says only 15% of attendees are in costume, but 17 of 19 photos are of people in fur suits.
    • I agree, though it's understandable - convention photographs tend to be of the most colourful attendees, and uncostumed people often aren't all that keen about being photographed. I have several sets of photographs under CC-BY-SA that could be used, many of which are documentary in nature (I recommend MFF 2007 and later, as they're of a higher quality). GreenReaper (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of the above statistic, note 1 needs a ref (what makes this reliable) and I think Less than 15% of attendees wear a fursuit or other costume.[nb 1] needs to be reworded to indicate this is a statistic from two conventions
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article, but it is mostly about what happens at these conventions (there is already an article on Furry conventions. The lead should explain what is in the lists and summarize them - how many conventions are listed, how many former / discontinued cons are listed, where are these, how many attendees (range, average, etc) do they have?
  • I think each convention's description should explain when it started (several do not) and give some idea of the size / number attending
  • Language could use a copyedit to clean up the language but some places are unclear - one example, what does "Having rock influences" mean in: FA: United had 310 participants in 2007, its first year. Having rock influences, the convention raised $1,000 for the Lakota Wolf Reserve. In 2008, the convention sponsored the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for charity.[33][34] could be something like FA: United had 310 participants during the first year in 2007. It supports animal-related charities and raised $1,000 for the Lakota Wolf Reserve in 2007 and funds for the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 2008.[33][34]
  • Primary sources (con websites) are OK, but Wikifur (ref one) seems not to be a WP:RS - don't cite wikis.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Police Department

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to further refine and improve the article

Thanks, Dodgerblue777 (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I'd suggest tackling the structural problems first. Here are a few quick suggestions.

  • The ideal lead is a summary or abstract of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main ideas of each of the text sections. WP:LEAD has details. It will be easier to re-write the lead, though, after the structural problems are repaired.
  • The Manual of Style (MoS) encourages straight prose rather than lists. The lists in "Detective Bureau", "Structure of the Special Operations Bureau", "Rampart Scandal and Consent Decree", and others should be rendered as prose.
  • Embedded links to outside sources are deprecated. Instead, use in-line citations. The table in the "Structure" subsection consists entirely of embedded external links. An alternative would be to write a sentence about each of the 19 bureaus with an inline citation after each. Another possibility, probably better, would be to write a brief summary paragraph and to use one in-line citation that included links to the 19 supporting documents.
  • The existing article has far too many sections and subsections. Suggestion: Combine related groups of them, for example the Operations-South Bureau group, under one general heading, and render them as straight prose with normal paragraph breaks rather than subheads. Since paragraphs of only one or two sentences are deprecated, this would mean combining some of the resulting short paragraphs into somewhat larger paragraphs.
  • Text bolding is generally used only for the article title in the first sentence of the lead. It should not be used for "Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners" in the "Organization" section or award names in "Bravery" and "Ribbons" or for "Los Angeles riots of 1992", etc. or in the citations.
  • Except for the infobox, the image sizes should generally be set to "thumb" rather than a specific pixel width.
  • I doubt that a fair-use rationale for all three images in the infobox will survive scrutiny. I'd suggest using only the one that you think is most necessary for a reader's understanding of the topic.

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xgrid

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I am thinking about listing the article at FAC, but would like wider feedback first about the quality of the article, and constructive criticism on how it could be improved. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

2012 Doomsday Prediction

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review for feedback on how it reads and anything that may have been left out.

Thanks, Rosemary Regello (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I bring no special knowledge of the topic to this review, and I can't say whether it is complete or not or whether it does the subject justice. I found it interesting, and it reminded me of a white-bearded cartoon figure holding up a sign reading, "The End is Nigh". Eventually, he will be right, so the fear that "eventually" might mean next Wednesday never goes away. I wonder if biologists have anything to say about "end is nigh" behavior. Just a thought. Here are a few suggestions, mostly about form rather than content.

  • The images are good but in some ways problematic. Photo credits are not normally included in the captions. In most cases, images except the lead image should be set to "thumb" size without a forcing pixel size. Image:Orion-nebula.jpg has incomplete licensing information. It should include a direct link to the NASA source page, so that fact-checkers can check the source. Also, the image is tagged for lack of categories. Similar problems occur on the licensing page for Image:Long Valley Caldera.jpg. The source link for this one connects to the USGS article in Wikipedia rather than to the source document.
  • The lists in the lead, in the Prophecies section, and in the "Scientific forecasts" section should be turned into straight prose.
  • Bolding is normally used in the main text only for the title words of the opening sentence of the lead. The bolding in the "Scientific forecasts" section and in the notes should be rendered in plain letters rather than bold.
  • The citations should include the author, title, publisher, date of publication, and url and access date (for on-line sources). A convenient way to organize the notes is to use the "cite" family of templates at WP:CIT. You can copy-and-paste these into your article or sandbox and add specific data to the general form. A further explanation of citations can be found at WP:CITE.
  • I'd advise against repeatedly linking the same terms. In the lead, for example, Mesoamerican Long Count calendar is linked twice, and I see other examples throughout. I would also not include links in the "See also" section that are already linked in the main text.
  • A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph and every set of statistics, every unusual claim, and any claim that is likely to be challenged. The first paragraph of the "Precession-alignment theory" gives no source for some fairly complicated material, for example.
  • It would be helpful to include the locations of the Yellowstone caldera and the Long Valley caldera in the main text.
  • I may have missed it, but although the Fifth World and Fourth World of the Hopi are mentioned, what about the first, second, and third? It would be helpful to include a brief explanation.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions are good and I would implement them if the article hadn't been taken over by a few people who are using it to discredit the premise and discourage readers from even spending time on the page. Every time I try to correct the misinformation and sarcasm, one of them deletes my changes within hours, sometimes minutes. A request for protection was denied. Wikipedia apparently puts the feelings and sensitivities of propagandists ahead of actually conveying factual information, as if this were a message board. For that reason, it seems pointless to bother with the formatting and other editing particulars. The article itself is useless as a source of credible information. In fact, what's going on here sort of mirrors some of the prophecies I read, which is rather alarming...HRIN (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that difficulties have arisen. Sometimes when a dispute occurs, walking away from it for a while solves the problem. It might be that in a month or two, the other parties will have found new things to occupy them, and you can take up where you left off. The review will be here if you should ever want it, and the work you have already done is archived, not lost. Finetooth (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Home of Truth, Utah

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I can see it's still not comparable to the Good Articles, etc. that I've seen, but I'm not sure where to go from here. This is an obscure topic, and I seem to have exhausted the published sources, so I don't know what further development is feasible. What's missing from the article? Obviously it could use some photos, but I don't think I'll be getting down there soon. Are there any other sections it needs, or other subjects the existing ones should cover? How's the text? There are a couple of potentially controversial issues here; is the article both informative and neutral? What does it need? Thanks, Ntsimp (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only reference that I can find that is not used is "WHEN 'TRUTH' FOUND A HOME IN SOUTHEASTERN UTAH. Pierson, Lloyd M.; Canyon Legacy 1994 (21): 19-23." I don't know if this would present anything new as the author is the same as the The Canyon Country Zephyr already used in the article. Canyon Legacy appears to be the publication of this musuem. I don't have access to the article but you can try an email to the museum. --maclean 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll order that issue and see if it helps. Ntsimp (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: This is an interesting article that requires more work. Here are a few general points for you to consider. I will deal with individual prose points later.

  • Map: It would help if the map could also show the location of the nearest town to the colony
  • Images: I think it would be possible to justify a fair-use rationale for either or both the images shown here (Ogden) or here (Home of Truth buildings). See WP:NFURG. If this is unfamiliar ground let me know and I'll find someone who will help.
  • Marie Ogden: In view of her central role in the project you need to include much more information on Marie Ogden. It isn't enough to describe her as "a widow from New Jersey". The San Juan Record source has lots of personal information you can use to expand the Ogden section
  • Article structure: this looks odd, and some of the section headings are not appropriate. "Geography" has very little geography in it and should be renamed "Location". Section headings should not replicate the article title, so the "The Home of Truth" subsection should be changed to something like: "Utah colony". At present, nearly all the article is within a main section called "History". This is unnecessary. I suggest that a better structure for the whole article would be:
    • Lead
    • Location
    • Marie Ogden
    • Utah colony
      • Foundation (based on first two paras of present "The Home of Truth" subsection)
      • Colony life (based on last two paragraphs of "The Home of Truth" subsection)
      • Raising the dead (based on first para of "The Rebirth of a Soul" subsection)
      • Decline and closure (based on the second para of the "Rebirth" section
    • Aftermath
  • Numbers greater than 10, e.g. "twenty-two" in the lead, and "twenty-one" elsewhere, should be presented numerically: 22 and 21

Perhaps you would respond to these suggestions before I comment on the actual prose. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ideas. I agree and will get working on these. I don't know enough to do what you suggest with the map, but I think it's a good idea. I don't like fair use images, but I wouldn't object to someone adding them. I haven't been satisfied with the structure, but didn't know what to do; I like your plan. Thanks again, and I welcome anything else you have to say. Ntsimp (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Cash comments: Quite an interesting article, particularly from a historical perspective. I think it's getting to a reasonably complete state (as complete as an article on a ghost town is going to be). To improve the article, I think that some photos of the current site, or maybe even historical photos (if available), should be added. I also think that having a section on "Marie Ogden" seems a bit awkward -- I think it would be better to move that text into the 'Foundation' section under 'Utah Colony' instead, since she is the founder of the community. I'm not sure if a separate wikipedia article on Marie Ogden is necessary, or if enough information could be added about her, but the content of the section seems more appropriate for the main section. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. I've moved the Marie Ogden section to "Foundation", and renamed the "Utah colony" section "History", which I think better fits the standards for articles on communities. That takes the article structure somewhat closer to the one Brianboulton didn't like, but at least it's broken up with better subsections now. I'll keep working on this; thanks for the input. Ntsimp (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Junkers Ju 87

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently passed as GA and the reviewing editor suggested it was a stron article that might make FA status. I would like to know what (if anything) needs to be done to get it there.

Thanks, Dapi89 (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


MisterBee1966
  • Rudel as most highly decorated soldier of the German Wehrmacht. This needs a citation
  • sank the Soviet battleship Marat. This might draw some discussion. To some she was sunk, to others she was immobilized.
  • Kriegsmarine, you may want to add that this is the German Navy
  • The article is not consistent when using metric untis versus imperial units. While speed, distances and altitude are stated in metric as well as in imperial units, weight and volume is given in metric only.
  • Some auditors like to see us translate German ranks and state the equivalent US/British equivalent. This applies to may other German words used in this article too. I don't always know how to address this best.
  • It is Tempelhof not Templehof
  • 37 mm cannons: Already early in the war this weapon was considered inappropriate as an anti tank weapon for the infantry. You may want to elaborate a bit on why it was more suited as an airborne weapon three years later (use of newly developed Tungsten carbide ammunition as well as the fact that the slanted armor of the T-34 was useless in the typical approach of the Ju 87 from the rear; you know what I mean)

MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Note that this article is 12,000+ words. Suggest breaking it down into subarticles.
  • Current ref 58 is a bare url with no publisher or last access date. Needs to have a formatted link title and the publisher and the date it was last accessed. ALso, what makes this a reliable source?
  • Current ref 152 needs a publisher and last access date. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply

[edit]

Okay, thank you both. Most of the points raised so far should not be a problem. I really didn't want to split the article, as I think is okay as it is. I will correct the above, but I don't think I'll go for FA or AC yet. Dapi89 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Foy

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

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

I've just created this article after stumbling across the subject, googling it, and finding it worthy of a page. I think it's an interesting tale, but I'm concerned that, in gathering the facts, it might have become a bit bland. I think the 'storyline' should be stronger.

The reason that there's no conclusion is, as far as I can ascertain, no progress has been made since the 'landmark ruling' - but I'm checking into that.

I welcome any and all comments, and I hope some people will be kind enough to edit this and improve it. I think the subject matter could make a FA one day, and it's got to be a good thing to increase public awareness about these issues.

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

I agree that this is an important subject that could do with greater coverage. I have listed some points below which I think will improve the article.

  • The lead needs to be expanded into a summary of the whole article, rather than a simple introduction to the subject. Everything in the article needs to be briefly foreshadowed in the lead.
  • The "Life as a man" section begins "Lydia Annice Foy of Páirc Bhríde, Athy,Co Kildare is a retired" A retired what? (dentist, presumably)
  • It doesn't seem that, when the missing word is inserted, the rest of the sentence should start with an "and". New sentence suggested.
  • Clumsy wording: "birth was registered with the Register of Births and Deaths with the Christian name of Donal Mark." Suggest "The birth was officially registered with the Christian names Donal Mark."
  • "...who diagnosed of Gender Dysphoria." "of" is redundant here.
  • What is the purpose of <Sunday> in the text, towards the end of the Gender reassignment section?
  • "...nothing in the 1863 Act or in the regulations required sex be determined by biological criteria alone." "that" required before "sex"
  • "Foys former wife" – "Foy's former wife"
  • delete comma after "130 pages"
  • "They said the UK Government had discriminated based on Violation of Articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights" Poor phrasing. Perhaps "...the UK Government had violated Articles 8..." etc.
  • "Foys case" – "Foy's case". This error is repeated again, later.
  • You have "High Court" and "high court" in the same line. Perhaps, before this point, either by links or explanation, you could clarify the relationship between the "High Court" and the "Supreme Court"
  • "in a dilemma" rather than "with a dilemma"
  • Do not abbreviate months ("5 Jan")
  • There seems to be inconsistency in the way in which references are formatted. Dates of newspaper/journal articles are sometimes given, sometimes not. The sequences of title–date–periodical–access date are not uniform.
  • I appreciate the difficulty, but have you considered whether ther are any images relevant to the issue, f not the specific case, that could be used to illustrate the article?

I hope you find these points helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyathus

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm intending to nominate for FAC. This would be my first FAC nom, and I'm hoping someone with more experienced WikiEyes could have a look and see if there's any MOS violations or referencing problems. I'm pretty confident about the content, but will be happy to expand or clarify if it is deemed necessary. I'm also considering making a diagram for the life cycle section (picture=1000 words), but would first like an opinion if that section is comprehensible to the average reader.

Thanks, Sasata (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn

Yay, more fungi featured articles! Ok, here are some thoughts-

  • The lead is a little short- see Wikipedia:LEAD#Length. I'd personally go for another paragraph of the same size on top of the one you already have.
  • "Cyathus is distinguished from other bird's nest fungi genera Crucibulum by having a distinct three-layered wall, and from Nidula by the presence of a funiculus, a cord of hyphae attaching the peridiole to the endoperidium.[2]" One line paragraph- suggest expansion or merging.
  • "4–8 mm diameter × 7–18 mm tall." Not sure about the little symbol there- why not just say "by"? I'd change it myself, but I don't know hte MoS backwards, so I'm not sure.
  • "of 5–15 × 5–8 µm." Again, I don't love it, but I'm not sure what the guidelines are.
  • I caught that habit several months ago when someone else copyedited an article I wrote, and I've just assumed since then that it was proper technique. An actual search of the relevant section doesn't readily yield the answers, so I'll change to text. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "G.W. Martin in 1924,[11] and was later elaborated by Buller, who used Cyathus striatus as the model species to describe the phenomenon.[12] His major conclusions are summarized by Brodie:" Full names in prose?
  • "named cyathuscavins A, B and C," Named what? Link or explanation?
  • "do the polyketide compounds cyathusal A, B, and C." Again, perhaps a little technical?
  • "C. olla is being investigated for its ability to accelerate the decomposition of stubble left in the field, thereby reducing pathogen populations and accelerating nutrient cycling through mineralization of essential plant nutrients.[33][34]" Again, the paragraph is a little short.
  • No other uses? None of them edible at all? None medicinal? There's no discussion of edibility at all, which I would personally expect on a complete fungi article.
  • Another excellent point. I've added an edibility section under "Uses", but left out a separate section on medicinal uses, as this is touched upon in the bioactive compounds section. Essentially, some of these Cyathus compounds have physiological effects that might lead to them someday being developed into products with therapeutic potential, but I didn't want to overemphasize this by putting it in a separate section. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The genus Cyathus was first described by Haller in 1768, and was later subdivided into two infrageneric groups (i.e., grouping species below the rank of genus) by Tulasne―the "eucyathus" group, with the inner surface of the fruiting bodies folded into pleats (plications), and the "olla" group without plications.[35] Later (1906), Lloyd published a different concept of infrageneric grouping in Cyathus, describing five groups, two in the eucyathus group and five in the olla group.[36]" Again, full names in the prose (at the first mention, anyway) would be best, I think.
  • Just out of interest, do we have all known species listed there?
  • The Brodie text is cited with the "Smith, John Q." format, as opposed to the "Smith JQ" format favoured in most other cites.
  • Cite 13 is Smith, JQ.
  • More inconsistent cites- 30 and 31 lack "Salony"'s first initial, 5 has full names, 14 has small text (perhaps use a different sort of footnote, if not citing a source?). Rest look OK.

Nice work. I've watchlisted this page, so I may be back to offer more thoughts! J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a history section. Sasata (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a few more comments from the new additions-

  • "Greek word κύαθος," when single words are quoted, they should be in italics- this may be different as it is in Greek text, but I doubt it.
  • Normally, foreign words are italicized, but in this case the MOS says: "Text in non-Latin scripts (such as Greek or Cyrillic) should not be italicized at all—even where this is technically feasible; the difference of script suffices to distinguish it on the page." Sasata (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Schmitz," full name?
  • I've looked through various sources, but I can only find the first initial of his name. Am wondering if I should drop all first names in the article to make it consistent, or leave as is and hope it doesn't stick out too obviously? Sasata (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and highly regarded by subsequent researchers." And is or and was?
  • If it's going to FAC- "and Harold J. Brodie in 1975." Cite?
  • I added a bunch of cats, including all of the continent-location cats, due the species' worldwide distribution. I suppose I could have added all the country location cats too, but thought this was excessive. Sasata (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles A. Wickliffe

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
My goal is to get this article to good article status. (Please note, I am not shooting for featured article at this point.) For some reason, I don't feel that it is quite up to GA standards yet, but I can't put my finger on why. I'd like to get feedback on what needs to be improved to make this a GA, or if you think it is already there, please let me know that as well.

Thanks, Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 01:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: My impression is that this is almost GA. It's generally well-written, seems factually accurate and verifiable, is broad in coverage, neutral, and stable. I have some suggestions about images and their licenses, about sections where the prose seems a bit choppy, and about a few other quite minor prose issues.

Images

  • The lead image has a license problem. Please see WP:FURG for an explanation of this fairly complicated business. In addition to the non-free copyright tag and rationale, the license page needs a link to the image source, not just to the disconnected image. The idea is to provide the information that a fact-checker would need to verify the claims being made. It would also be helpful to broaden the description a bit to include the dates of Wickliffe's term as governor.
  • Sorry about that. I didn't check the image, so I didn't realize it was using the wrong tag. I found a source that says the image was created in 1908, which should put it in the public domain. I've updated the image page accordingly.
  • The licenses look OK on the other two, but the descriptions could be more complete. Suggestion: Imagine a reader who finds the image without having read the article, and briefly explain the image to that reader.
  • I've added some verbiage to the Wickland image, but I don't know much about the other one. Bedford, the image's creator, would have to add those details.
  • This is a nitpick, but the Wickland photo seems tilted to the left. It might not work, but I'd be tempted to rotate it a few degrees clockwise, re-crop, and see how it looks. This is possible in some photo manipulation programs like Photoshop (commercial) and Paint.NET (free and downloadable) but not others.
  • Again, I think Bedford would need to address this issue, especially considering my Photoshop skills are adequate at best.

Lead"

  • "Wickliffe received a strong education both in public school and through private tutors." - Tighten by deleting "both"?
  • Done.
  • "Following his term as governor, President Tyler appointed Wickliffe as Postmaster General." - To move modifier close to the noun modified, perhaps this would be better: "President Tyler appointed Wickliffe as Postmaster General after his term as governor."
  • Done.

Early life"

  • "His family immigrated to Kentucky" - "Emigrated"?
  • Done.

Later political career

  • It might be worthwhile to link "trestle".
  • Done.
  • In this section and in a few other places in the article, I found the writing a bit choppy. I think this could easily be fixed by adding a little variety to the sentence structure in the midst of the choppy places. Combining an occasional pair of similar short sentences and making a slightly longer compound sentence might do the trick. Example: "Wickliffe served as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention of 1864 in Chicago, casting his vote for George B. McClellan.[19] In the final years of his life, he became totally blind.[3] While visiting his daughter in Maryland, he fell gravely ill.[16] He died on October 31, 1869, near Ilchester, Maryland and was buried in Bardstown Cemetery in Bardstown.[6] During World War I, a U.S. naval ship was named in Wickliffe's honor." This might be adjusted as follows:

"Wickliffe served as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention of 1864 in Chicago, casting his vote for George B. McClellan.[19] In the final years of his life, he became totally blind.[3] While visiting his daughter in Maryland, he fell gravely ill[16] and, dying on October 31, 1869, near Ilchester, was buried in Bardstown Cemetery in Bardstown.[6] During World War I, a U.S. naval ship was named in Wickliffe's honor." Or something like that.

  • Corrected this example and a few others. Let me know if I made anything worse!

Links

  • This article has quite a high density of links in places. I'd suggest weeding out a few here and there. For example, I don't think you need to link "British" or "French" or "blind" in the lead.
  • I've taken out the examples above.

If you find this review to be helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; it has given me more confidence that the article can pass a GA review in the near future. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Utah Jazz head coaches

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it does not have enough entries to become an FLC. I need to peer review this article for Featured topic criteria 3c.

Thanks, -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Looks decent, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I think the tense works better as simple past: The Jazz have won two consecutive Western Conference championships in 1997 and 1998.[1]
You think or you know? I think the sentence with the word "have" sounds better in my opinion. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know I don't like your attitude. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think of it like that. I just want to know the answer if it is mandatory or not. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peer reviews are suggestions only, they are not "actionable" as FAC and FLC are. If you like it better the way it is, keep it that way. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last three sentences in the first paragraph all start with "The Jazz ..." - can't this be varied somehow?
Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add "As of 2009," to The Jazz is owned by the estate of the late Larry H. Miller, and Kevin O'Connor is their general manager.[3] - things change and a date should be given
Wouldn't that be the same thing as adding "currently". A user once told me that using "currently" is inappropriate. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two years from now you may be retired and no one may update this, and they may have a new coach. If it says "As of February 2009, ..." people reading know when this was true. If it says "Currently" they do not know this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the "Coaches" section, it says stats are as of (date). :D -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the six coaches have served a total of seven terms, should that be mentioned in There have been six head coaches for the Jazz franchise.
Could you give a more clearer reason? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, say something like There have been six head coaches for the Jazz franchise, who have served seven terms. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant a reason say we need to tell the reader how many terms were served. It sounds like you also have an "attitude"? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead says The franchise's first head coach was Scotty Robertson, who coached for fourteen games. but the table says he coached 15 (and lost 14). Plus number 10 and above are numbers per the MOS.
Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elgin Baylor served as head coach for one game, then came back for 220 more games - what happened? This sounds like a story that should be in the lead.
This is a list, not an article. If we include why all the head coaches left, then the prose would be way too long. It's also hard to find reliable sources that are from the 1970s. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have a coach who served one day, then was brought back for a couple of years. I am not saying you have to explain it all, just note it in the lead (which is a summary). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but no reference for the reason that. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would combine this sentence Sloan has been the head coach of the Jazz since 1988.[9] with this Jerry Sloan is the franchise's all-time leader for the most regular-season games coached ... for something like Jerry Sloan has been the head coach of the Jazz since 1988, and is the franchise's all-time leader for the most regular-season games coached ...
I usually like the last sentence to have something to do with the current coach. It is for consistency. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The move the Sloan stuff last (chronological order is easier to follow usually too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs explained better (in the NBA? ever?) Sloan is the first coach to have more than 1000 wins with a single team,[4]
Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needless repetition Layden is also the only coach to have a number retired by the Jazz, having the number 1 retired by the Jazz in 1988.[8] Perhaps Layden's number 1 was retired by the Jazz in 1988, the only coach so honored.[8]
He was a coach, and he didn't have a "number". That is why I phrased the sentence like that. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about Layden is the only coach to have a number retired by the Jazz; "1" in 1988.[8] then? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not. Used brackets insead. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am amazed there are no pictures of any of these coaches - have you tried Flickr?
I am not used to the photo area of Wikipedia. I hope you could help with me on that. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]
No thanks, I feel like retiring from helping you (and its not laziness). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To you're comment, I'm pretty busy (lazy) right now, and feel like semi-retiring, so no thanks. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no photos in any of the coach articles, I have not looked at Commons or Flickr. I will check for Sloan on Flickr as it tends to only have recent stuff. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no coach pictures found dearching under Utah and Jazz on Commons. There is File:Houston Rockets and Utah Jazz.jpg. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also no free Jerry Sloan images on Flickr. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) SRE, please stay courteous. Ruhrfisch is an excellent contributor and one of the best (certainly the most hard working) peer reviewers on Wiki. Snarky commentsare not helpful.

  • "The Jazz play"-->They play
  • "The team joined the NBA in 1974 as an expansion team called the New Orleans Jazz, until they relocated to Salt Lake City in 1979. " Comma not needed.
  • "who coached for fourteen games. "-->who coached for 14 games.
  • Is there a source available about Jerry Sloan being the coach with the longest tenure with the same team?
There already was one in the prose and table, but the sentence was added onto the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2 Western Conference championships (1997, 1998)" Link the years to the articles about the NBA playoffs for those years.
  • "Had the number 1 retired by the Jazz in 1988." No period. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done all. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madia Gond

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish that this article is selected as a featured article. Thanks, Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, and while it is clear a lot of work has gone into it, much more is needed before this is anywhere near ready for Featured Article status. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Please read the Featured article criteria carefully. A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow Azerbaijani people is a FA and may be a useful model.
  • Links to disambiguation (dab) pages should be avoided and links should only be made to pages that are accurate, but the very first sentence links their alternate names incorrectly to Madia (a flower) and Maria (a dab that has one link of many back here)
  • Some terms that should be linked or explained are not, such Naxal in The Madia Gonds are strongly affected by Naxal activities.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Watch POV language like astonishing in an astonishing 91.08 percent of Madia Gond families lived Below Poverty Line[7] or this Madia children are competing with students across the state and have proved that they are second to none.[10]
  • Ref 1 is the only one used for "Physical features, farming techniques, garments and ornaments" but it is about 100 years old - surely things have changed some since?
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I have done

[edit]
  • Azerbaijan: I will study.
  • Dab etc. links removed.
    • No, there are still several dabs left - see here
  • Naxal had an internal link further in the article, I have added it in the lead too.
  • The lead needs to be rewritten, I will do that.
  • POV language removed.
  • Reference 1, is a Government Gazette, first compiled in the early 20th century, rewritten in 1960 and uploaded contemporarily, and the article clearly mentions that what has been referred to is a historical description and may not be partially or entirely valid today.
  • URL that is a big job, will take time and I need help.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major copying - this must be paraphrased in your own words.Here are the first two sections of the Madia Gond Section from the 1909 Gazetteer onlione here:

The Madias inhabit the wilder tracts of what once were the zamindaris and in their unsophisticated state are a very attractive people. The villages are usually situated deep in the jungle near some wide shallow stream, which offers facilities for cultivation and the surrounding jungles supplement the fruits of their agricultural efforts.

Here are your first two sentences of the section. I bolded words that are taken unchanged from the orginal:

The Marias inhabit the wilder tracts, and are in their unsophisticated state a very attractive people. The villages are usually built deep in the jungle near some wide shallow stream, which offers facilities for the gata cultivation,[nb 1] and the surrounding jungles supplement the fruits of their agricultural efforts.

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see three references I have modified, do you think that they are incorrect, you have used a slightly different tag. Please check the ones I have changed.
    • If you go to WP:FAC (and this is still a long way away from being ready for that) then the references all have to be consistent. If you do it consistently, that is fine. I like {{cite web}} and cite book and cite journal and cite news because they make things consistent. It is your call. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed the POV examples you pointed at, I suppose there are others still there.
    • Part of what I see as POV language is some of the very old material you use almost verbatim - if you write that they are in their unsophisticated state are a very attractive people that will be seen as POV. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have quoted the Gazette under history of the Madias, that is how the Madia lived in the years gone, wonder what is wrong in using a old source for that, does it not add to the authenticity.
    • The problem is that it is written in present tense and not identified as being older (seems to me to be from 1909, you may be right that it is older). If you said that "According to the 1909 Gazeteer, the Madia Gond live in the jungles...." that is clear, but the way it is written now, it is unfortuantely not clear. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the dab finder. Makes life so simple.
  • I will have another go at the verbatim text you have marked and then get back to you.

Thanks for your help. As a reminder please check the reference style I have used.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is written that the Gazette is a reprint, it actually is another edition. That is why there is information about prohibition, which is a post 1947, law, which obviously cannot be there if it was just a reprint. This is the section I am refering to. Madia_Gond#Government.27s_liquor_policy Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think I should be prepared for the long haul. Please give me a few days. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that there are no deadlines - I will be glad to look at the article again. Just let me know. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loihi Seamount

[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed. Feedback came via the talkpage, instead. Now with a GA nom, so I'll close this one.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is part of a workgroup effort to improve articles related to the Volcanism in Hawaii (still a proposal). Loihi is currently B-Class, and nowhere near a GAC. I have opened a peer review to tackle the issues, and to in general raise it to GA quality. Reviews, please put down specific issues and I will tackle them; or be BOLD and do it yourself!

Thanks, ResMar 19:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem is obviously COPYVIO issues. Can you please point out specific trouble spots? ResMar 19:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do you think that the article covers the topic comepletely, enough for a GA.?
  • Initial comments (coming back later):
  • The article doesn't look terrible, though it could use some thorough copy editing and expansion.
I've hit about a dozen resources, do you really think so? What part needs expansion? ResMar
Truth to be told I've exausted myself expanding it. See this diff. It made DYK, of course.

ResMar 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done More and more put in. Now 24,576 bytes, up from 21,000. I've basically spent all the non-subscription refs I can find. ResMar 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, when using measurements you need to use the {{convert}} template. Ie. 30 miles
Except of the "Squared" mesurements (I Keep messing up there for some reason), that's all in order. ResMar
  • Images should not be directly under headers per MOS - you should check that out too.
Please clarify- do you mean that I should seperate the images from the headers with a few lines of text? ResMar
 Done Shifted all images into meatspace on right.

I'll be back with specific comments later! Ceranthor 22:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please! ResMar 22:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, can you use this table here to tell me what areas still need improvement: {{check mark}} checkY {{N}} Red XN.

Assess Criteria
1. well written
   (a) clear prose, correct spelling and grammar
   (b) complies with Manual of Style:
        lead
        layout
        jargon
        words to avoid
n/a
         fiction
        list incorporation
2. factually accurate and verifiable
   (a) references for all sources; dedicated attribution section according to guideline
   (b) in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotes, statistics, public opinion, challengeable statements
   (c) no original research
3. broad in coverage
   (a) addresses main aspects of topic
   (b) stays focused without unnecessary detail
4. neutral
5. stable (no edit wars)
6. images
   (a) tagged with copyright status, valid fair use rationale for non-free content
   (b) relevant to topic with suitable captions

Release the Stars

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to put the article through the Featured Articles process. Before doing so, I'd like feedback to improve the article--spelling, punctuation, grammar, content, context, etc. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks so much! Another Believer (Talk) 23:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 23:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I was under the impression ChartStats was reliable, as it is listed here as a recommended, reliable resource for obtaining UK chart positions. NewNowNext.com is simply the official blog for the TV channel, Logo--for this article, it is simply to cite the airing of a television program on the network, so hopefully that will be acceptable. Should either reference be questioned during the FA process, I am sure replacements can be found. As for the numerous references to rufuswainwright.com, most of them are used throughout the Tour section, as his site offers a list of past concert dates and news entries about various events and contests associated with the musician. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 05:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giants2008 - Though I'm not normally a music reviewer, I am an experienced FAC reviewer and can provide insights on the process. Here are my thoughts on the article:

  • The lead seems a shade short. Can the second paragraph be expanded to more than one sentence?
I added information about the awards he received for the album, since these were not mentioned previously.
  • According to the link-checker, reference 45 (from Billboard) is a dead link.
The Katie Hasty article? It is working fine for me...
  • This statement raises POV concerns: "For his "incredible take on what popular music means in today's world". Sounds like something that should be placed in the reception section, or attributed to the author at the very least.
Wainwright is the author. He said this of Tennant in an interview.
  • Release the Stars world tour: "and ending in NYC in mid-February 2008." Spell out New York City.
Done.
  • En dash for "November-December".
Done.
  • To avoid having a one-sentence paragraph, I recommend moving the third paragraph to the end of the first paragraph. It would be a natural fit there.
Done.
Done. Thanks so much for your time and assistance! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Balaclava

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently rewritten it. Comments and criticism welcome.

Thanks, Rebel Redcoat (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs
  • Starting from the very first sentence I'm afraid that this is going to be written without regard to someone who's not a MilHis buff. "The Battle of Balaclava, fought on 25 October 1854 during the Crimean War, was part of the Anglo-French-Turkish campaign to capture the port and fortress of Sevastopol, Russia's principal naval base on the Black Sea." If you've never heard of the Crimean War, then this sentence will lose you. Is everybody fighting against Russia? Are there more combatants than mentioned? I think starting off with a slow "The Battle of Balaclava was..." would be better.
  • Likewise—"earlier Allied victory" no clue who the allies are
  • In that vein, perhaps a "background" section, detailing the events of the war up to the battle in a quick and dirty form, would be useful.
  • There are many statements—particularly those at the trailing end of paragraphs—that are unsourced. Even if the source is in the next paragraph its best to cite it there as well.
  • There appear to be lots of double spaces between sections that should be removed.
  • On a cursory glance the images appear decent, but I'd like to see sources for photographer/artist life dates and more than just a raw link to images if they are online. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David. Your concerns regarding a non-MilHist buff's perspective are noted. I appreciate your comments and time. Sorry for the delay in responding. Thank you. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Rockets

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This went through GA, bt was passed without a review. I'm going to be taking this article to FAC soon, and any feedback on the article would be welcome. Particularly in the prose area, and also if there are any sections missing about the team that needed to be added.

Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should modeled after the only NBA team FA Toronto Raptors as close as possible. If possible, add sections about uniforms, fanbase, community service, broadcasters.—Chris! ct 03:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, personally I don't think that broadcasters are really relevant to the franchise (also, there are no references for them anyway). And I do think that their fanbase is mostly covered in "Home arenas" section. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 03:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also it lacks images—Chris! ct 03:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'm working on it. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 03:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. Same applies to magazines
  • Current ref 60 (Asin) is lacking a publisher
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

List of U.S. state mottos

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've added a reference and year to every motto, written a lead, and inserted images. I want to take the list to WP:FAC soon. I'd be happy to review your article in return.

Thanks, Reywas92Talk 20:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • The lead could used more references
    • I added one that is the same as a later one. the problem is that much of the lead is general and derives from the list, not sources that say that exactly.
  • "English and Latin are are used language for almost all mottos"
    • Done
  • "English and Latin are are used language for almost all mottos, which are used by 25 and 23 states and territories, respectively." --> "English and Latin are the most used languages for state mottos, used by 25 and 23 states and territories, respectively."
    • What do you mean by "25 and 23 states and territories"?
      • First is done. Is says respectively after it, so English is used 25 times and Latin 23 times. What would you suggest?
  • "To promote tourism, states also establish slogans, which are unofficial and change more often than state mottos." probably need a reference
    • That was actually there before I began working on this page. Although it's self-explanatory I doubt I could find a source that says the same thing, so I'll just remove it.
  • Use n/a for all empty cells in "Year and citation" column
    • That would imply there is none. Am Samoa is the only one without a year and that's because I can't find one. I'll see.
  • Add PDF to the format parameter for all PDF documents
    • Done, though there's already the PDF symbol next to the name
  • How is http://www.netstate.com/states/mottoes/hi_motto.htm a reliable source?
  • How is http://www.netstate.com/states/mottoes/ok_motto.htm a reliable source?
    • It cites its sources and seems very reliable to me. I'm only using it because I couldn't find anything on the state website.
      • Well, I would cite the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary instead since it is more reliable. Hawaii, Oklahoma
  • I also resized images for you. Feel free to adjust them, though, if you don't like it.

—Chris! ct 23:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used Netstate for a ref because it gave the year of adoption; the Merriam-Webster site doesn't give that. There is a ref for both to the states' pages with the translation. About the missing years: A year for Washington does not exist; it was never made official and is not on the seal. I changed the n/a to a dash like Guam. For American Samoa, there should be a year because it is on the seal, I'm just unable to find that. Reywas92Talk 00:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think American Samoa should have a dash also if there is no info about the year.—Chris! ct 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the year with reference. I would like to nominate this for FLC this week. Reywas92Talk 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mountainboarding

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have just completely re-written the article with some collaborators, and it's my first major edit of a Wikipedia article. I would like some feedback to make sure it meets quality standards etc.

Thanks, DLangrish (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Here are a few suggestions for improvement:

  • The article has far too many short sections. They should be combined into longer text sections with fewer abrupt breaks. For example, the five parts of the "History" section could easily be turned into a single section under the head, "History".
  • Lists should be turned into straight prose.
  • Direct links from the text to external sites are deprecated. Instead, use inline citations. For example, in the UK subsection, instead of linking directly to the NoSno site, add an inline citation at the end of the sentence.
  • Citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date if all of these are known. The "cite" family of templates is handy for doing citations. They live at WP:CIT. You can copy and paste the templates into an article or your sandbox and fill in the blanks.
  • Bold text is used only for the main topic text in the first line of the lead. Aside from the automated bolding for section heads, it should not appear at all in the article. The many bolded names in the lists in this article should all be changed to ordinary type.
  • Parts of the article lack sources. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for each paragraph, each statistic, each direct quote, and any unusual claims or claims that might be reasonably challenged.
  • Image licenses should include a description of the image subject and the location in which the image was created.
  • Wikilink slopestyle and boardercross in the lead?

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Cooper filmography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it gives a thorough analysis of Gary Cooper's cinematic credits. Cooper is generally regarded as a superstar of the "golden age" of movies so he is therefore a subject worthy of a featured list.

I would like to know what can be done to bring this up to featured list status. Should the introductory section be changed in any way? Is the article too cluttered with infomation? (i.e. directors, co-stars, etc.)

Please advise.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems nicely done overall, although I am concerned about the reliability and use of references. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • As noted, my main concern is with refs. My understanding is that IMDb is not generally considered a reliable source (if this has changed, my apologies). My guess is that the Dickens book The Films of Gary Cooper would have all of the films in it.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V. Is the Silent Era website a reliable source?
  • It is also not clear from the tables themselves what is the primary source for each. For example, what is the source of the TV appearances table? I think it is fine to have one ref for a whole table.
  • The lead is well done, would it be possible to list the total number of films by decade there or in brief intros to each section (sort of like is done for his extras)?
  • I once had a FL where it was requested that the tables be made the smae width to look better - not sure if this would still be an issue
  • I think the directors, co-stars, etc. info seems OK.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Winter Olympics medal table

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FLC soon. It's been a while since an Olympic medal table has been at FLC, and I want to ensure that it meets the ever-incresing FL standards. The article is based on 2008 Summer Olympics medal table, though I have changed a few things, most notably the introduction. Prose comments are usually what I need most, but all feedback is desired and appreciated.

Thanks, Giants2008 (17-14) 21:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added two sentences about it, located directly below the ties. I decided not to give it a separate section because it would have been so short. Thanks for looking at it. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Schwarzenegger

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to further improve the article

Thanks, Dodgerblue777 (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I would treat the failed GA reviews (especially the most recent one) as a very detailed peer review. Make sure all of the points raised in it have been addressed before resubmitting to GAN, perhaps even ask the GA reviewer to look at the article again once you think everything has been fixed.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself (TIME 100). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. DOes the lead really need 5 nicknames? Please see WP:LEAD
  • Since the lead can be four paragraphs, I would expand the first paragraph to more than one sentence and keep the general structure of the lead - one paragraph each on bodybuilding, movies, and politics. Perhaps one on business too.
  • Article uses {{cquote}} when it should use {{blockquote}} (as these are not pull quotes).
  • One sentence from personal life section to illustrate several problems: On Sundays, the family attends Mass at St. Monica's Catholic Church.[68] First off, I am not sure this is notable. Second, it fails to provide context to the reader - where is this church (the preceding paragraph lists several places the family has homes)? Third, it is a one sentence paragraph and as such should be combined with another paragraph (sometimes short paragraphs can be expanded, but not here). Fourth, I think if this is notable, I would combine it with another sentence, perhaps something like The Schwarzenegger family has lived in an 11,000-square-foot (1 022 m²) home in Brentwood since YEAR,[63][64] and attends Sunday Mass at St. Monica's Catholic Church there.[68] This avoids "currently" too.
  • Instead of the various "___ career" headers, why not "Bodybuilder", "Actor", "Politician"?
  • I would carefully read this and try to combine things better - there is a section on steroid use and his heart valve problems in bodybuilding and some of this is repeated in the personal life section on accidents and health issues. The GA review points out more examples of this.
  • Watch British English - he is an American citizen now so the article should use AE, not BE.
  • Watch needless repetition - just say all four children were born in LA, not repeat born in LA for each (one example)
  • Watch undue weight - there seems to be more material on Barbara Outland Baker that on his wife Maria Shriver - see WP:WEIGHT
  • If this is going to FAC, people may object to the length of many of the quotations (pick out the salient parts and just quote that for most of them)
  • I already noted this with the attending mass sentence, but some of the details seem to be of dubious notability. Is it really notable that he saved a man from drowning, or that his Hummer is being converted to hydrogen? The latter is a bit better because it is tied to his efforts to introduce hydrogen stations in California. Perhaps the trick is to tie the stories into the narrative better - as it is they sometimes read as trivia nuggets
  • There are many FA Biography articles on movie stars and politicisns and athletes that would be good models to use for ideas and examples to follow.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter (episode)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Cornucopia and I (and 97198) have worked on this article over the last few weeks, and it was just promoted to GA status. I think that it has a really good chance of becoming a FA, but it needs some more polishing before it is taken to FAC, and any comments on how to further approve this article would be great.

Thanks, --Music26/11 21:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Robert Rossen

[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's at or near Good Article status and would like another set of eyes on it before making the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: A short but succinct account - I don't see why it shouldn't get to GA if the following points are attended to. I have corrected one or two typos and commas.

  • Lead
    • "Rossen was twice nominated for an Academy Award for best director and once for best adapted screenplay and won the Golden Globe Award for Best Director for All the King's Men (1949)." Slight reword/repunctuation necessary, to avoid effect of two running "ands" in the sentence and also repetition: "for Best Director for All the King's Men"
    • Second para, first sentence: "again" is unnecessary
  • Early life and career
    • First paragraph: nine short/shortish sentences, seven of which begin with "Rossen..." Some variation essential - some sentences could begin "He...", others could be rephrased. Some sentences ought to be combined, to get a better flow.
    • "...and featuring Lana Turner" – "and" unnecessary, should be deleted
    • "...followed this up..." – "up" is unnecessary, should be deleted
  • Communism
    • "Rossen joined the American Communist Party in 1937. He left the party in 1947." This is a good example of the staccato style and repetitive prose that is hard to read. Why not "Rossen joined the American Communist Party in 1937 and left in 1947."?
    • "Rossen in 1948..." better as "In 1948, Rossen..."
    • ...Rossen took what came to be known as the "augmented Fifth" . This needs to be explained. Some - a few - non-Americans will know what "taking the Fifth" means. Practically none will know what an "augmented fifth" is.
  • Return to filmmaking
    • A link to pool, the game, is needed somewhere.

Hope the review helps. Brianboulton (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanol fuel in Brazil

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want some feedback before nominating the article as FAC, so I can improve it to make sure it meets all of the FA criteria, as this could be my first FAC experience.

Thanks, Mariordo (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • The following references are laking last access dates and/or publishers, which are the minimum required at FAC.
    • Current ref 36 (HOw to Beat..)
    • Current ref 56 (Brazil invests...)
    • Current ref 68 (It's not even got a link title... needs that too.) (and it deadlinks)
    • Current ref 69 (doesn't even have a link title..)
    • Current ref 71 (Inae Riveras..)
    • Current ref 81 (US Congres..)
  • Per WP:Footnotes#Style recommendations, we don't use op. cit. or similar abbreviations.
  • Done using Shortened footnotes, as in these cases is important to point to the specific page number.
  • Done!
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 22:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your review, I will work on these improvements as soon as possible.--Mariordo (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Netherland

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…substantial work has been done in the last months with improved text, format, references, links, and series template

Thanks, Djflem (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a most interesting and enjoyable article. It is broad and possibly comprehensive, neutral, stable, well-written, and well-illustrated. At least some of the references still have problems, as noted below, and I have a few other suggestions for improvement.

  • I believe those em dashes in the infobox should be en dashes.
  • A, an, and the are normally avoided as the first word of a section title unless it's a proper noun. Thus, "The North River and the Manhattans" should be shortened to "North River and the Manhattans". Ditto for all other section heads like this one.

Origins

  • (The narrows are named for Giovanni da Verrazzano who had sighted them in 1524.[2]) - Footnote number after end parentheses?
  • One-sentence and two-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon. Suggestion: merge the three short ones at the end into one bigger one.*"1613-1614" - En dash in date ranges rather than hyphen, per Manual of Style. Ditto elsewhere in the article.

Development

  • "were used by the New Netherland Company (a newly formed alliance of trading companies) to win their patent" - Should this be "its patent" rather than "their patent"?

Algonquians and the Iroquois

  • "It is likely the Hudson's peaceful contact with the local Mahicans" - Should that be "that Hudson's" rather than "the Hudson's"?

Early settlement

  • "Most of the settlers were not Dutch, but Walloons, Huguenots, or Africans (who were brought as slaves)." - Merge with the paragraph above?

Director-General of New Amsterdam

  • "During the period of his governorship that province experienced exponential growth." - Should it be "the province" rather than "that province"?

Fresh River and New England

  • "50 Dutch miles" - Not sure what this means. If Dutch miles differ from miles, an in-text explanation would help.

Legacy

  • "as well as by the character of those who immigrated to it" - Emigrated" rather than "immigrated"?

"Lore"

  • "The seven arrows in the lion's left claw in the Republic's coat of arms, representing the seven provinces, was a precedent for the thirteen arrows in the eagle's left claw in the Great Seal of the United States." - Merge with paragraph above?

"References"

  • Some of the citations are incomplete. All the on-line ones need access dates, for example. They should have publishers and publication dates too, if possible. You may be asked whether the dot-coms are reliable sources.

Images

  • Images generally should be set to "thumb" size rather than a forced pixel width except for the lead image in the infobox.
  • I think the image licenses are OK except that the source is not clearly identified for Image:Wpdms aq block 1614.jpg. It's probably a scan from a book, certainly in the public domain. It would be good to add bibliographic data about the source if you can track it down.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of above has been implemented. See below for reference check. Other question regarding footnote, miles, etc to be researchedDjflem (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar urticaria

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after its failed GA attempt, it has underwent many revisions and additional information has been added. However, this does not mean that it meets GA standards. Any criticisms that can be used to make this article better will be most appreciated. Thanks, NYYfan1 (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sasata

  • "The types of the disease are controversial; there is a type I-VI classification system and also a watered down type I-II system." This seems way out of place as the third sentence of the lead. The average reader has no background context for these differently numbered classification systems. Also, the phrase 'watered down' is colloquial and should be rephrased.
  • "The disease itself can be hard to classify because it is so similar to other dermatological disorders such as polymorphic light eruption or PUVA." According to the linked article, PUVA is a treatment for a skin condition, so I'm confused how S.U. could be mistaken for a treatment.
  • "Once recognized, treatment of the disease more commonly involves administration of antihistamines and desensitization treatments such as phototherapy."
  • "However, the disease that they contributed to is not a prevalent one." Unclear. Who is they? How do you contribute to a disease?
  • "The areas constantly subject to the sun's rays..." subject->subjected. Same fix for next sentence.
  • " The urticarial reaction will begin in the form of pruritus. It will then progress to erythema and edema in the exposed areas of the skin." Combine for better flow: " The urticarial reaction will begin in the form of pruritus, later progressing to erythema and edema in the exposed areas of the skin."
  • ..."away within several hours. [11]" Remove unnecessary space before citation number.
  • " These classifications are based upon what part of the electromagnetic spectrum causes the allergic reaction." -> " These classifications are based upon the wavelength of radiative energy that causes the allergic reaction."
  • use an endash for number ranges. Put a nonbreaking space after the wavelength and before nm (eg. 290–320 nm).
  • "Type II is induced by UVA radiation. The wavelength can range from 320-400nm." Again, combine for less choppy phrasing and better flow: "Type II is induced by UVA radiation, with wavelengths between 320–400 nm."
  • "Both type III and IV's wavelength can be from 400-500nm." So how are they different?
  • "Another way of classification has also been suggested. This form would only contain type I and II solar urticaria" -> "Another classification system distinguishes only between type I and II solar urticaria."
  • "A subgroup of solar urticaria, fixed solar urticaria, has also been identified." Should mention that its rare.
  • "It is a less intense form of the disease with wheals that occur in affect similar areas of the body." Need to say what wheals are.
  • "Solar urticaria can be primary and secondary, or introduced by..." -> "Solar urticaria can be caused by primary and secondary factors, or induced by..."
  • "...is "induced by UV or visible radiation."" Needs a citation for the quoted part.
  • Wikilink tar, pitch, and dye
  • "For those susceptible to visible light, white t-shirts may be a hinderance." The use of white t-shirts promote the occurrence of disease, not hinder it.
  • " In one particular patient, doctors found..." -> "In one case, "
  • "Another patient was being treated with the antibiotic tetracycline for a separate dermatological disorder and broke out in hives when exposed to the sun." changing the tense (and combining the following sentence): "Another patient treated with the antibiotic tetracycline for a separate dermatological disorder broke out in hives when exposed to the sun, the first case to implicate tetracycline as..." (and u"nlink one of the tetracylines)
  • "The photoallergen is believed to begin its configuration through the absorption of radiation by a chromophore." Underlined part unclear. Is the implication that absorption of a chromophore causes a structural transformation in the normally benign photoallergen that results in it becoming allergenic?
  • "However, another test known as a phototest is the most useful in identifying solar urticaria." Source?
  • "Finally, there are laboratory tests which generally involve procedures such as blood, urine, and fecal biochemical tests. In some situations, a skin biopsy may be performed." I'd like to know more about what the clinicians would be looking for to verify S.U. using these lab tests.
  • "Polymorphic light eruption (PMLE) is the easiest disease to mistake for solar urticaria because the locations of the lesions are similar." Source? Same comment for most of these statements in this section. I think these types of statements require citations after every sentence, rather than just blanket references for the entire section.

OK, must sleep now. I'll add more comments later. Sasata (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC) OK, continuing review:[reply]

  • "When this occurs, the permeability of vessels near the point where the histamine is being released is increased. This allows blood fluid to enter the vessels and cause inflammation." Combine and reword -> "When this occurs, the permeability of vessels near the area of histamine released is increased, allowing blood fluids to enter the vessels and cause inflammation."
  • "Antihistamines simply suppress the activity of the histamine."
  • "An H1 receptor known as terfenadine has been found to be the most potent antihistamine..." Terfenadine is not an H1 receptor, rather it is a drug that interacts with the H1 receptor. And that 1 should be subscripted (i.e. H1).
  • "Patients perscribed 240 millagrams per day..." prescribed, milligrams
  • "In fact, In clinical tests, patients were ..."
  • "Treatment for less potent forms of solar urticaria such as fixed solar urticaria can be treated with an antibiotic..." Replace treated with "effected" or something similar for less word repetition.
  • "Treatment for less potent forms of solar urticaria such as fixed solar urticaria can be treated with an antibiotic known as fexofenadine. Proper administration of the drug can prevent outbreaks in the future" -> "Treatment for less potent forms of solar urticaria such as fixed solar urticaria can be treated with the antibiotic fexofenadine, which may also be used prophylactically to prevent recurrence."
  • "Photochemotherapy, or PUVA, has the upper hand over phototherapy ..." -> "is considered superior to" And needs a citation.
  • "Also set aside for intense cases are immunosuppressive drugs such as prednisolone and ciclosporin which have been known to be prescribed." Poorly constructed sentence.
  • "... which is why they are reserved for the worst of cases." -> the most extreme cases.
  • "This technique is used to remove the blood plasma or fluid in the red blood cells and then return the cells to the body." Not an expert, but I doubt it removes the fluid from within the RBCs. Please verify and reword if necessary.
  • "... relief of the urticarial outbreaks for an extended period of time." How long?
  • "... induce urticaria by phototesting and using increasing amounts of differing wavelengths." -> "... induce urticaria by phototesting with increasing amounts of radiation of varying wavelengths."
  • " Finally, in 1942, Rajika became the ..." Take out the initial word "finally", because it implies that is where the history stops, which is obviously not the case.
  • In the epidemiology section the stats (4% and 5.3%) must have a citation at the end of that sentence.

Those are my thoughts about the article. I hope these suggestions help this article get to GA class. Good luck! Sasata (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Head Fred

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The entire article has been rebuilt from the ground up. I'd appreciate any comments on it. Thanks! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

[edit]

Looking pretty good so far actually. I will post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fred learns that Mr. Rossini had been reported missing by Jeanne, who hired Fred to find him. - this reads a little confusing as it isn't clear who hired Fred from the way the sentence is structured.
Reworded.
  • Making an article for Massive Black Studios would be a good idea. Turning redlinks blue if you can is aesthetically prudent.
I'm not opposed to it, and I feel that the company is notable enough to warrant its own article. I may get around to it eventually, but hopefully some ambitious good Samaritan stumbles across it.
  • was set in stone.. --> maybe just "non-negotiable" maybe the first is a bit casual, but if you feel strongly about it then keep it. Not a big deal really.
Reworded, hopefully less casual now.
  • The development team didn't have any tangible ideas.. - not sure I like tangible here as the adjective doesn't add anything. Maybe a better word is "preconceptions" or something similar (?)
Reworded.
  • The original script had only one instance of the "f-word," but after several sessions with McGinley resulted in a great deal of more colorful ad-libs that the design team liked, the script was tweaked to allow McGinley and other actors to curse more. - this sentence was a little hard to follow, you may want to break it up a bit.
I broke it up into two sentences and reworded it; hopefully it's clearer now.
  • At E3 2007, D3Publisher was able to again show Dead Head Fred because of its delay - unable?
Games at E3 are generally only shown before release, therefore a delayed game can potentially be shown more than once.

Overall looks good, if I were you I would run it through WP:GAN which it should pass fairly readily and isn't too far off FAC really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I'll nominate it for GA today. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 14:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Valenzuela City

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think there are some instances that we need to review or add to this history.

Thanks, I heart CE! (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I'm glad to see someone adding material about the Philippines to the encyclopedia. I have just a few suggestions for improvement.

  • I did a bit of light copyediting of the lead and the first section. However, it would be good to have a skilled copyeditor go over the rest of the material as well. I see many small mistakes.
  • Dates are no longer linked in Wikipedia. I was going to run a script to delink them, but I did not know whether you wanted them to be in d-m-y format, as they are in the "References and further reading" section, or in m-d-y format, as they are in the main text. You can unlink them one-by-one and arrange them in the format you think best.
  • Instead of a "References and further reading" section, you might want to put the linked items in that list into an "External links" section. The links in "External links" don't need to display access dates; only the in-line citations need those. I would suggest re-naming the "References and further reading" section "Further reading", which at this point would then just contain the one book if you move the other items to "External links".
  • Many of the paragraphs here are unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for each paragraph, each unusual claim, each set of statistics, and each direct quote.
  • I'm sorry I don't have any content to add to the article, but peer review is not really intended for that.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comment: WP:CITY has a lot of helpful advice about creating articles about cities and towns, and it has links to city articles that have reached good or featured status. These are often good models to imitate. Just the general idea of adding something about climate, transportation, geography, schools, and so on, can be helpful. Finetooth (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarome Iginla

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article on the Calgary Flames' captain is already a GA, and is on my list of articles to aim for FA status. As always, I am looking for feedback on prose quality, and also on whether the use of hockey terms is understandable to a non fan, as I would not be able to adequately judge that. Thanks! Resolute 17:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes www.hockeydraftcentral.com a relaible source (Note I got a malware warning when I tried to access it... so I didn't click throuhg, thanks.)
  • I've never had a problem with the site before in terms of malware (I get it too right now in Firefox), so I suspect it was a bad ad host that might have flagged the site. I've seen a couple other websites get hit the same way. As far as reliability goes, I'm not sure it is, though it is used simply to point out that an argument exists regarding Graham being the first black captain. I'll be looking for a better source before FAC.
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • It shall be corrected.
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (TSN?)
  • lol, I'm starting to get hit with that a lot. Corrected.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 22:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This was a nice smooth read. I don't think it'll have much trouble at FAC. I had to look hard to compile this short list of suggestions to go with Ealdgyth's few above:

Images

  • All look fine. The one under "Captaincy" should be moved down a paragraph or so to keep it from bumping against a second-level head. The licenses look fine.
  • I always forget that part of the MOS. fixed.

NHL career

  • "His 35 goals was still enough to lead the Flames for the fourth time in five seasons." - "Were" rather than "was"?
    fixed

Captaincy

  • "though former Blackhawks captain Dirk Graham is also claimed to hold that honour" - Suggestion: "though former Blackhawks captain Dirk Graham is also said to hold that honour".
  • Good call, changed.
  • "said former captain Craig Conroy of his decision to relinquish the "C" to Iginla" - For the non-hockey fans, it might be helpful to explain what the "C" is. Maybe "... to relinquish the 'C' (captaincy) to Iginla" would do.
  • I was guilty of using a bit of slang there. Changed it to "...relinquish the captaincy"
  • "six player representatives with a mandate of coming up with recommendations" - "Preparing" or "devising" or "making" rather than "coming up with"?
  • Eeee, that was awful English on my part. Fixed.
  • "his $7-million per season wage considered to be less than he would have received had he tested free agency" - Missing word? "Was considered"? Also, wiklink free agency?

If these comments prove helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That it where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some excellent suggestions, thank you! I will look to act on many of these ideas, and certainly will try to help another editor out in another Pr. Appreciate the feedback. Resolute 00:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments A few quick things:
  • In reference to him losing out to Theodore for the Hart, it couldn't hurt to include the point margin. If I remember right, he only lost by like 1 or 2 votes, the closest it had ever been. That would definetly be notable enough to include.
  • The image with him winning the Molson Cup should probably state that in the caption. At first glance I thought it was the Art Ross, not that it really matters, but a more explanitory caption should be added. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point on the Hart controversy... especially since the difference was the result of a Montreal writer deliberately leaving Iginla off his ballot. I'll have to go digging through the archives on that one. And, caption changed. Thanks! Resolute 14:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got a book that mentions the Hart controversy. I've got more written on the Iginla talk page. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ulysses S. Grant

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for review because I'm interested in getting this article past B-status, and a set of fresh eyes would aid me and other contributors on the Ulysses S. Grant article right now. Regards, Jd027talk 01:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article has a large bibliography, but only 30 in-line citations in a total of c.7,000 words. There are two major banners requesting further citations to sources. Until this is tackled the article is not ready for peer review – see Peer Review mainpage: Articles must be free of major cleanup banners. Suggest you withdraw, tackle the problem, then resubmit. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thank you for the suggestion. Jd027 (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I was going to make a few comments, so here they are, hopefully not too late - some suggestions for improvement on some fairly obvious things that stood out on a quick read through.

  • The lead should not be more than 4 paragraphs (currently 5) see WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • Try to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and short sections as they impede the narrative flow of the article. For example the section "Early life and family" is only three sentences and could probably be combined with the Education part of the next section.
  • Per WP:HEAD do not repeat article titles or headers in subheaders, so Education and the Mexican-American War should not have a subsection titled "Mexican-American War" As noted above, I thnk the early and Education could be combined and then Mexican American War could be its own section.
  • I agree refs are the biggest problem here. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Make sure refs are to reliable sources - what makes adherents.com reliable?
  • Avoid lists and trivia - the In memoriam section needs to be trimmed and rewritten as text.
  • Two horseback statues look very similar and I would only keep on of the two photos

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.

Apothecaries' system

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just assessed it as A-class for WP:MEASURE and I would like feedback as to whether the article fits the normal A-class requirements of completeness and style. I think it does, obviously, but I would like some more eyes on the article to make sure.

Thanks, Physchim62 (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review notified at the following WikiProjects:Physics; Chemistry; Pharmacology; History of science; Medicine; Science. Physchim62 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Cite formatting remark: The article has several doubled edition abbreviations in "Notes and references" due to minor misuse of the cite book template. The template automatically adds a .ed to the end of the text placed in the edition field. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I have fixed this and a few similar problems now. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hornoir I won't even pretend to understand this article, but…

  • In the lead, the sentence…
    "In this exact form the system was in use in the United Kingdom, and also in its former colonies well into the 20th century."
    …is confusing. If I understand it properly, the following would be a more direct manner to express the information:
    "This exact form of the system was in use in the United Kingdom, and its former colonies, well into the 20th Century."
  • The end of "For a long time, medical recipes were written in Latin, often using special symbols to denote weights and measures, or even substances." is awkward. Perhaps: "often using unique symbols to denote weights, measures, or substances."
  • "The use of different measure and weight systems for different purposes…" to "The use of different measure and weight systems for various purposes…"

Sadly, this is as far as I can get. This article is far too densely written for the common reader, I'm afraid. Which, to me, is a problem with it. While I am typically not a fan of saying this, I believe it need to be "dumbed down" a bit. hornoir (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I changed the sentences you mentioned, with some modifications (the system was abolished in the UK before the 20th century, and it seems better to drop the substances red herring altogether).
If you have specific suggestions for "dumbing down" I would be interested to hear them. Here is what I had in mind when writing the article in its present form: I expect that most readers will come from the background of the English systems, since only these survived long enough so that some people can still remember using them. I hope that most of these readers will be happy just with the table in the lede and the sections on apothecaries' measure and medical recipes. If these sections are also too densely written, then I agree there is something wrong with the article. The rest of the article basically says that internationally the situation was immensely complicated, and gives the historical development. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by llywrch

Well, I didn't find this article hard to follow. Maybe that's just because I tend to read arid & densely-written books, but there are many articles on mathematical & philosophical topics which cause my eyes to glaze over within the first or second paragraph, so maybe there's another reason Hornoir couldn't get into it. (And no, this is not meant to disparage Hornoir's intelligence or attention level.)

Another reason I liked this was that this article linked to a number of articles I never suspected existed. For example, Schola Medica Salernitana, which while still needing work is a fascinating topic.

One problem I noticed is that articles are linked to many times here. Although links in different sections can be defended -- & are often reasons to ignore the rule -- the ones that most bothered me were multiple times in the same section, often closer than a couple of paragraphs apart.

Another problem is that otherwise fascinating map showing the variations in the weight of an apothecaries' ounce. For one thing, it would make the illustration more useful if the values were tied to a city or country by name. Another (& perhaps more fixable) is that although the explanation for the map states that there were three different methods, which could be located in different parts of Europe, for determining the value of an apothecaries' ounce, I didn't easily find a section in the article that explained what these methods were. I think in one section two of them are mentioned -- the German & the French -- but what of the Southern Italian?

Good luck with the article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Necrid

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.

Needing a peer review of Necrid to do a final sweep and make sure all the kinks are hammered out of the article at this point before I approach FA again. The sources are exhausted, the work's done, the images get better captions, so all that's left is to bug hunt. Thank you for your time and patience, Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Levi's comments[reply]
Prose/Tone/Style

Lead
  • "Despite Necrid having spoken lines in the game, no voice actor has been attributed to the character." - Later on in the article, it says that Necrid speaks only gibberish. Should the gibberish be referred to as "lines"?
Design
  • "Necrid only speaks gibberish, and the vocal samples in his profile are named after emotions, such as "Determination" and "Indignation". He is the only speaking character in Soulcalibur II whose voice remains constant regardless of the game's language setting." - Possible tone consideration—the sentence may be better served by "Necrid's speech is unintelligible..." with "unintelligible" having a wikilink to gibberish.
In video games
  • "A nod, however, is made in Soulcalibur IV to the dialogue between Necrid and Talim, reused in reverse order in Talim's initial Story mode battle." - Another tone consideration. "Nod" could be replaced with "reference". Also, Soulcalibur IV should probably be wikilinked, along with other video games mentioned in the article.
Gameplay
  • "Using a fighting style Yotoriyama described as "horrific splendor", Necrid fights using a transforming energy called Maleficus, a physical manifestation of the same energy contained within Soul Edge, controlled through the jewel on his chest." - Kind of a run-on, consider splitting it up halfway through.
  • "Necrid can utilize other forms of energy as weapons, such as ignis fatuus, æther, and chaos, with varying effects and attributes." - Lots of inlines in rapid succession; could they go at the end of the sentence?
  • Should "In game" be hyphenated?
  • Do those move names need to be italicized?
Promotion and merchandising
  • "Drawn by Greg Capullo, it featured a comic book rendition of Necrid fighting Spawn in one of the game's arenas" - Needs a period.
  • "Sweepstakes" kind of sticks out, could it be "contest" instead?
Critical reception
  • "...but added that despite Necrid's appearance the character was decent to play as." - Sentence ends in a preposition.
  • Are the wikilinks inside the quotes necessary? The pantheon link, for example, leads to an article about groups of gods, and the Soulcalibur characters in general don't appear to be gods.
  • "GMR described him as an example of 'Bad American Comic Book Design.'" - Is this the exact quote, with all of the capitalizations? It's a magazine reference so I couldn't check.
  • "However other reviewers instead gave the character positive reception, praising both its gameplay and design." - Necrid is referred to as "him" elsewhere in the article, not "it".
  • "Despite their negative reception, IGN listed Necrid as one of the top eight characters contributed to the games by designers outside of Namco's Team Calibur, placing 8th in the list." - Redundant, might sound better as "Despite their negative remarks, IGN listed Necrid as 8th on their list of the top ten characters contributed to Soul Calibur games by designers outside of the design team."
Took care of all of the above, though the first is an odd one...technically they are lines, just...well, gibberish? As for fighting moves in italics, I don't think there's an exact MoS for it to be honest, just makes it easier to isolate in the text?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the gibberish. As for the move names, I think quotation marks would be better, but that's just me.

Sources

  • Is #7 a magazine, or a website? If a magazine, it should have a page number; if a website, should have a URL. Same for #27.
Page numbers in some cases aren't possible, especially when the information is taken from periodical databases such as MyWire.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the Design section looks like original research, especially with the game references.
I'll add an artbook reference alongside the game reference just to be safe.
  • Is "Insert Credit" reliable?
Insert Credit's founder has credentials listed at Gamasutra, and Tim Rodgers has been vouched for by games journalist Chris Kohler.

Otherwise, prose and sources look good. Good job! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I responded to everything above, hope it's adequate enough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Burnell

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to take it to FAC and would appreciate any help on missing context or copyediting that it can have.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I think I would like to take this article to FAC. Please evaluate the prose of the article. In particular, I would like help reducing the length of the plot summary. Awadewit (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Montreal

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have just finished revising, trimming, and adding sources to the article. I have taken the suggestions of the previous peer review and attempted to resolve them. I am not entirely sure where to go from here in order to bring this article to the next level (either FA or GA). The part I'm most unsure of is the lead, I'm wondering if it should be expanded.

Thank you, your input is much appreciated, MTLskyline (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Howe

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…Colleen Howe sadly passed away recently and the article will probably be viewed quite a lot by the WWW, and it should be ship shape - as one of Wikipedia's finer works.

Thanks, SriMesh | talk 02:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JiggleJog: Okay. Here goes: the first two sentences are baffling.

  • At first, you identify Gordie as "Gordie Howe" but then you call Collen Howe's sons "her sons". Then in the second sentence you decide to call Gordie "her husband".....
  • I know what you are trying to do here. But it is silly, and just causes a reader to say, "Ouch. Whaaaaat?"
  • The autogenerated review says that your lead should be longer. Well, who really cares whether or not a lead fits into a formula (which has been specified by Wikipedia) as the rule when that rule is a stupid rule. If one has a short article, there is no need for a 350 word summary. However...a good lead should be interesting enough to hook your reader into wanting to read on. In your case, your lead ends abruptly with a parenthetical thought, one which really says more about who says what about the Gretzky Award then it does about Mrs. Howe. I think you need to reorganize the close of the Lead so that your reader is excited, not bewildered.
  • By the time, I got to the following statement I gave up: "She was instrumental in the construction of the Gordie Howe Hockeyland arena, Michigan as well as Michigan's first indoor ice hockey rink." I gave up for two reason. First of all, the sentence makes no sense; and secondly, I had been copyediting as I had gone along and the copyediting had become so frequent that I had lost all concentration by the close of that sentence. What in the devil is meant by Hockeyland arena, Michigan?
  • You need to copyedit much much more.
  • If it is the first indoor rink in Michigan, the reader is left to believe the Detroit Red Wings played their games outdoors until the construction of the Joe Louis Arena. Of course the Detroit Olympia was an indoor rink prior to Hockeyland Arena.
  • Also, the pull quote style is no longer acceptable (i.e. according to Wikipedia current standards) on "fine featured Wikipedia articles" so I suggest that you merely work your quotes into the text. Unless there is a real reason for blocking a quote (e.g. 4-5 lines or more), it should be treated as little more than what it is: a quote.
  • I will continue copyediting tomorrow when my sanity returns. I did however get a chuckle out of this: "...will probably be viewed quite a lot by the WWW, and it should be ship shape - as one of Wikipedia's finer works." Thanks for the lift; it made my day. *smile* JiggleJog (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Ask, Don't Tell (Roseanne)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's close to if not at GA status and would like it reviewed with an eye to a GA listing.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hornoir

  1. Change the infobox image description from "Sharon plants a kiss on Roseanne." to something more professional sounding. Try: "Sharon (Mariel Hemingway) kisses a surprised Roseanne Conner (Roseanne Barr)."
  2. Your lead needs tightening. The same information could be divulged as:
    "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the 18th episode in the sixth season of the American situation comedy series Roseanne, premiered on ABC on March 1, 1994. The episode was written by James Berg and Stan Zimmerman, and directed by Philip Charles MacKenzie. It portrays the titular character's visit to a gay bar."
  3. Avoid biased or ambiguous words like "enormous" (first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead).
  4. The second sentence of the lead derails from the subject and goes into general lesbian-kiss episode information which has no bearing on this article.
  5. The plot section needs expansion, it is far too uninformative.
  6. Split up the Reception and controversy section into Production, Broadcast, and Reception sections. These section will require some information that does not simply concern the kiss. Also, roughly half the information currently in this section has no bearing on this episode; it concerns other shows that have had homosexual aspects and has no real reason for being presented herein.

Overall, too much time is spent detailing the controversial kiss as opposed to informing the reader about the episode. While I concur that the kiss is an important aspect to detail, it should not the focal point of the article (which should be the episode itself). hornoir (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Yobmod

  • I don't think the notes & references system is needed. " of the refs are only used once, and the other only twice. Simply listing the whole ref after the citation is more compact and efficient.
  • Somewhat agree with above comments that the controversy seems large in proportion to the rest. Contorvery may eb the reason it is notable, but once notability is established, complete coverage is iseal. However, the only things i can think to write about are production, and broadcasting (some is already there, is there enough to expand this to a section?: about who showed it or didn't show it, timeslots, repeats, any cuts made for earlier repeats? eg. Rosanne was shown in evenings and afternoon in the UK, no idea if the content differed though etc). Maybe a small increase in the plot - what was going on in the episode overall, and with the pother characters in the familly? YobMod 13:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorian mission

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It's passed GA, and I'd like to make sure that it's understandable to the non-historian as well as no outstanding prose glitches before heading off to FAC.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of districts of Kerala

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this list has a potential to be a featured list. Please put your comments or suggestions 1)to improve this list, 2) to indicate what it is lacking.

Thanks, -- Tinu Cherian - 09:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GDibyendu
  • Some clarity may be needed on formation of Kerala, whether the full Travancore-Cochin state became part of Kerala and same thing for the erstwhile Malabar district also.
  • Was there any change in the shapes of its districts since the state of Kerala was formed?
  • As far as I know there is no 'Division' in Kerala, though many other states have it. But, is there a ref for it? Most probably it is not there because in British times, there were none: Malabar was a whole district and Travancore and Cochin were princely states.
  • How are North, Central and South Kerala regions different? Geographically or otherwise. If some such differences are noted, it could be better.
  • Map-colors as suggested in WP:India Cartography department page should be used.
  • Are the terms Taluk and subdivision used in same sense? Noticed 'Subdivision Police': or is it defined for Police organization only?
  • How are the 21 revenue divisions defined?
  • Kerala High Court probably has jurisdiction over Lakshadweep also (not sure whether it should be mentioned)
  • Some highlights on high literacy or 'Kerala Model' may be good to add.--GDibyendu (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this -- Tinu Cherian - 06:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Hina

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article is more or less complete. It is well referenced with reliable sources, although the article still needs a copyedit. I am unsure if the Anime difference section is currently suitable, so haven't yet tagged the for a copyedit. However, I believe that only minor cleanup will be needed, rather then any major grammatical rewrites. The aim is for the article to be submitted as a Good Article Nominee in the near future, depending on any issues raised. However, if you have any suggestions that will be of use for a potential Featured Article attempt at a later date, I am happy to try and accomodate them

Thanks, Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NocturneNoir (talk · contribs)
Just some quick comments about your references.

  • Ref 19 should be retyped out.
Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 22, 23, and 23 have no publisher, retrieved date, etc. info.
I Will look into replacing these as I have concerns over the use of the sites in question. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had to settle for Amazon as I couldn't find any reliable sources elsewhere. Also removed a claim supported by a unreliable reference. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 32, 33, 38, 42, 48, 82 have messed up titles because you used ]. Change those to parentheses.
Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I missed refs 49, 81. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 01:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did remove two uses before listing, I obviously didn't look hard enough. I'll take a look at finding alternate sourcing Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link Amazon.com some times, but not others. (Refs 62, 63, 71, 72)
Unfortunately some things aren't listed at the sites I've used for other references (such as the Kodanclub ones). I saw a FLC where the reviewer said that Amazon should be a last resort if the information isn't available elsewhere. In this case, things that were found off Amazon were used before using Amazon. I'll look into finding other reliable listings Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood me. If you are going to wikilink for some Amazon references, you need to wikilink for all of them.

ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 01:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that makes sense. I was very tired at the time :P DoneDandy Sephy (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 64 should have 07 instead of 7.
Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a comment after the Light novels subheading to "change english references to tokyopop's own site". Can you do this?
Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 20:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

There are multiple references to both "Love Hina Mugendai" and "ラブひな∞" (refs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 16); either use one or the other, considering the ISBN is the same for all of these. This also applies to "Love Hina 0"/"ラブひな0" (refs 13, 15, 61, 62, 63).
If you do use the Japanese script for these refs, put them in {{noitalic}}, as Japanese script should never be italicized. Also, add {{noitalic}} to ref 53 (or give the English equivalent).
Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Include the ISBN for refs 13, 15, and 61; fix the ISBN for ref 63. I assume the ISBN given for ref 62 is the correct one.
Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change "TokyoPop" to "Tokyopop" in refs 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14 to match the use of "Tokyopop" in the lead and in ref 2. Add Tokyopop as the publisher for ref 9.
Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting away from references... under Love Hina#Anime, "cd" should be capitalized; "Love Hina Xmas Eve ~Silent Night~" and "Love Hina Spring Special ~I Wish Your Dream~" should be unitalicized, and the tildes replaced with a colon before the subtitle ("Title: Subtitle"); there is a stray apostophe before "Love Hina Again" and an instance that should be italicized instead of in double-quotes; decapitalize "Opening"; change the title emphasis for "Kirai Takaramono" and "Be for me, be for you" from italics to double-quotes, and title-case the latter.
DoneDandy Sephy (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Love Hina Final Selection" should be italicized and not in double-quotes.
Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the last paragraph of Love Hina#Anime, "films comics" and "anime" should not be capitalized.
Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section heading Love Hina#Video Games needs to be sentence-cased to "Video games".
Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under aforementioned heading, all the game titles should be italicized instead of in double-quotes. There is also a stray right-bracket in "Love Hina: Totsuzen no Engeji Happening".
Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under Love Hina#Soundtracks, "Image songs" and "Maxi singles" should be decapped; the listed singles in the first paragraph should be in double-quotes, not italics; in the second paragraph, "Love Hina" and the soundtrack names should be italicized and not in double-quotes; the two vocal collections in the third paragraph should be italicized; the title "ラブひな OKAZAKI COLLECTION" should be replaced with a properly-cased English equivalent; "Love Live Hina" should be in double-quotes and not italics.
Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph of Love Hina#Reception, "Anime Product of the Year" should not be italicized.
Done Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—tan³ tx 03:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Just to say that I've been busy with other things, so haven't resolved the ANN encyclopedia refs yet (I have some ideas though). Has anyone got any content issues rather then copyedit related ones? Is the article ready for a GA nomination once the ANN refs are changed? I want to look at adding an image or two for the production section and possibly something else. Aside from that there are no major content updates planned. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newlands College

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been recently refurbished. The new article reflects the school much better with its emblem, the Houses, and some encyclopedic detail. Hopefully it is to everybody's liking. And hopefully the article may be reassessed.

Thanks, Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 08:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: It's nice to see this article, and I encourage you to expand it. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The ideal lead should be a summary of the rest of the article. The existing lead should be expanded to include at least a mention of each of the sections such as "Houses", "Arts", and "Sport".
 Done Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each paragraph and every unusual claim, set of statistics, or direct quote needs a citation. Some of the paragraphs in the existing article mention no source.

Lead

  • "Mr. Grant Jones. The current deputy principals are Ms. Deb Mills, Mr. David Pegram, and Mr. John Murdoch." - Wikipedia does not use the titles "Mr." or "Ms." Instead, simply write "Grant Jones", "Deb Mills" (although perhaps this should be Deborah or Debra) on first reference and then just the last name on second and subsequent references.
 Done Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whilst the latter is on leave" - "While" is preferred to "whilst"
 Done Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School Executive Council

  • Unless the "School Executive Council" is its formal name, it should be "school executive council" in the main text and "School executive council" in the section head.
 Done Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Newlands College has a school executive with several roles that comprise of students." - Suggestion: "Newlands College has a school executive with several roles for students."
 Done Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "form class" - Many readers around the world will not know what "form class" means. A brief explanation would help.
 Done Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arts

  • The Manual of Style, found at WP:MOS, recommends slightly longer paragraphs than the ones in this section. Generally, one-sentence paragraphs should either be expanded or merged with other paragraphs.

Citations

  • The citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, insofar at this is possible. I added the author's name and the access date (using today's date after actually checking the link and looking at the article) to Reference #1 so you could use it as an example.

Images

  • I have two thoughts. One is that when I click on the source links for the two images, I'm sent to the official school web site but not to the specific page that shows how the images are licensed by the copyright owner, most probably the school. Since the site itself is marked with a copyright notice, I suspect that the images are under private copyright and can't legitimately be tagged with a Creative Commons license. This might be a blessing in disguise because it might be fun to try to capture better photos with a digital camera, upload them to the Wikipedia Commons, and tag them with a Creative Commons license that would be legitimate. If you do that, they should be .jpg files, not .png files. The .jpg files are better for photos.
  • I fiddled around with the layout a bit. It's generally best to set the image size to "thumb" rather than forcing a numerical pixel width.The images should be positioned so that they do not overlap the section breaks. This gets easier to do as an article gets longer. I had to add an additional "upright" parameter to the second image to make it fit. This is only necessary in the case of vertical images that seem too big even set at "thumb".

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Good luck with expanding the article. Finetooth (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Very useful indeed! And thanks for contributing to the article's structure too! Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quedagh Merchant

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need WikiPedians who know more about this topic than I do, assist me in getting this eventually promoted to GA status.

Thanks, Neonblak talk - 03:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Kidd's story is interesting, and this could become an illuminating article. The main problem, though, is that it relies almost entirely on one source, the book by Zacks. This means that it isn't broad in coverage and has no chance at GA without additional information. To be considered for GA eventually, it would also need to be illustrated. I have a couple of suggestions about how you might proceed.

  • Although you can't use Wikipedia as a reliable source, you can use it as a research aid. The Wikipedia article on William Kidd includes a bibliography. The Zack book is listed, but so are many others. Suggestion: Obtain from the library or elsewhere as many of the books in the William Kidd bibliography as you can. Each of them is likely to have a bibliography with the titles of other books and articles about Kidd. Find and read as many of these as you can. Based on this research, re-write the article with less emphasis on the small details of the Quedagh voyage, such as the names of most of the ports of call on the journey to New York, and more emphasis on details about Kidd, his other voyages, the people he worked for, his imprisonment and death, and the controversy about whether he was a pirate or not.
  • Image suggestion: The William Kidd article has images that you might be able to use to illustrate this article.

I hope these couple of suggestions prove helpful. I would think the reading of the Kidd books itself would be fascinating, and you never know what you might find. Finetooth (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Bakshi

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed six FA nominations in spite of overwhelming support and only minimal changes required.

Thanks, Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Carcharoth

[edit]

A few brief comments (will take a closer look later):

Will add more as I read the article and copyedit it. Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has its own article (which is tagged in that section), and Bakshi's major films are mentioned within the article already, so a summary is a bit redundant at that point in the article. MSJapan (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, maybe not. I'd personally look at how other "film director" articles handle this issue. It currently looks a bit silly as a section with a main article link and nothing else. I'd put it as a "see also" or remove altogether (it is linked from the template, isn't it?). Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Additional review found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ralph Bakshi. Carcharoth (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay. I've found time to look in more detail at the section dealing with the Lord of the Rings film that Bakshi did, and one thought I had was that something of the later comments made by Bakshi about other films (he did some interviews around the time of the Jackson films) could maybe be incorporated somehow? That might help balance things out a bit and give some insight into Bakshi's views over time. Not much else to add, as the article looks pretty good. My advice would be to go through all the reviews and make a detailed summary of the objections and either work out a way to address the objections, or explain clearly why you think the objections are not valid. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anime

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a core topic of WikiProject Anime and manga and it has been over two years since its last nomination for a Good Article. Would like to know what issues the article still has, what the article lacks, and how it can be improved so that it can obtain Featured Article status.

Featured articles

Thanks, Farix (Talk) 19:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From someone that did not has English a native language and doesn't live in an English speaking country.

  • Chara design section: Indeed, through Ribbon no Kishi, Tezuka set a stylistic template that later shōjo artists tended to follow.
    Not sourced, indeed and tended fell like loose screws, and by shōjo artists does it refers to manga artists or anime artists ? Blow this sentence if it cant be clarified and sourced.
  • Distribution section: Need some update to take account of the legal streaming and Download To Own (DoT) service. Most notably the Crunchyroll deals with Gonzo, TV Tokyo, Viz Media, etc... ANN doing anime streaming too. Funimation (DoT) service on itune.

That all from a first succinct reading. --KrebMarkt 20:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well those neutrality and expert tags seem like the first things to fix..... Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be my slowness, but I was confused by the statement: Anime has become commercially profitable in western countries as early commercially successful western adaptations of anime, such as Astro Boy, have revealed. Maybe it can be slightly changed to Anime has become commercially profitable in western countries, as revealed by early commercially successful western adaptations of anime, such as Astro Boy. Or is that a bit clumsy? That's the only problem I've spotted so far. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 21:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no copyeditor, but the second 'commercially' just seems redundant. Although the entire sentence just seems completely wrong. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. Another rewrite: Anime has become commercially profitable in western countries, as seen in the success of early western adaptations of anime like Astro Boy. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 21:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, although searching the reference used to back up the original text doesn't reveal a direct link between the two. Was Astro Boy a key product? Highly likely. Was it commercially successfull? This needs proving. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The available literature on anime needs to be re-surveyed, all references need to be checked for their reliability, and all the references from books need page numbers. The summary style of History of anime and the relevant section in this article need to be checked. It's difficult to be sure that the coverage is broad enough when you're dealing with a topic that by its nature is very broad. --Malkinann (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the expert tag is still requesting anymore even after reading the talk page...Just better selection of images?じんない 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 21:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That is a tiny lead. Needs to be expanded to cover the scope of the article and I can't shake the feeling that this isn't close to comprehensive. This article really would benefit from an expert with an exhaustive store of literature on anime. Also, the "art example" images need to go. Although they're only in two images, they combine for sixteen pieces of fair use images, which is way, way too much for any article. Pick one, maybe two tops as your art choice and go with it. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treveri

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like input, criticism, and additions from other editors. I did a fair bit of work on the article about a year ago, and there have been few changes of substance since then. If there are any editors who can make use of German-language sources, I'm sure it would be highly useful. (After peer review, I intend to expand the French article using this article as a starting-point.)

Thanks, Q·L·1968 ☿ 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello! There should only be footnoted references, i.e. all those {p. 2) citations that precede the footnotes should be incorporated into the footnotes. We should not use both parenthetical citations and footnotes. Also, when we get down to the Treveri#Language_and_ethnicity section, a couple of claims are uncited. I tried some Google Books searches for those claims and while I may not be using the best search strings (I tried such combinations as "German Treveri third or second century BCE", but have not had much luck. If you have a source for these, it would be immensely helpful here. Anyway, I hope these suggestion helps. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, nice illustrations for the most part. I agree with the above comments on mixing reference styles, which is a non-non. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. The current one sentence lead needs to be expanded to 2 or 3 paragraphs. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Make sure to provide context for the reader - as one example, the lead does not give a time scale and the first indication we get is the mention of Caesar in etymology.
  • The map of tribes in Gaul is pretty hard to read - could the caption describe about there the Treveri were? Perhaps something like "Map of Roman Gaul showing tribes; the Treveri lived in the northeast corner of Celtica, near the territories of Belgica and Germania"
  • There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve the flow of the article in most cases.
  • Article needs more references, for example "After the Roman conquest, Latin was used extensively by the Treveri for public and official purposes." or the {{fact}} tags. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Isn't the Latin name for Trier (Augusta Treverorum) and the current French name (Trèves) derived from the name Treveri? Should this be in the Etymology?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 German Grand Prix

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it checked by other users - the aim of this is to get it to at least Good Article status for Apterygial's My Insane Idea project. I would like to be notified of any problems you can notice, and whether it is good enough to be nominated as a Good/Featured Article.

You're welcome to make the edits yourself - its not "my" page, or anything like that. If you don't want to edit, that's fine too! I'm happy to do it for you.

Thanks, Darth Newdar (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 German Grand Prix/archive1.

1998 North Indian Ocean cyclone season

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback on this article which I've expanded from stub to GA. I've looked all over and have found no further information on any of the storms. Comments on the prose and layout of the article are greatly appreciated. Thanks, Cyclonebiskit 16:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is generally cleanly-written and informative, well-sourced and well-illustrated, stable, and neutral. I have a few small prose and style concerns and a couple of concerns about image licenses.

"Dates"

  • Since the article is India-centric, shouldn't the dates be expressed in d-m-y format?

Lead

  • "There are two main seas in the North Indian Ocean - the Arabian Sea to the west of the Indian subcontinent." - Something seems to be missing from this sentence. The Bay of Bengal?
  • "On average, 4 to 6 storms form in the North Indian Ocean every season." - Numbers smaller than 10 are generally written as words. Exceptions include sentences like the next one: "With 11 depressions and eight tropical cyclones... ". Here the MoS advises consistency rather than one number as digits and one number as a word.
  • "4.9 m (16 ft) storm surge" - WP:MOSNUM says to spell out the main units and abbreviate the secondary units.
  • "Rs. 120 billion ($3 billion USD)" - I believe it should be Rs.120 billion (US$3 billion)

Season summary

  • "The storm reached its peak intensity with winds of 120 km/h (75 mph) before weakened due to strong wind shear." - "weakening" rather than "weakened"?

Tropical Cyclone 02A

  • "the JTWC issued their first advisory" - A center is an 'it" rather than a "they". Ditto in the other places this construction occurs.

Tropical Cyclone 03A

  • "$25,000 (USD)" - The U.S. dollar amounts throughout should be expressed in the format US$ per WP:MOSNUM#Formatting; thus here it would be US$25,000.

Deep depression"

  • Since this identical section head is used twice in the article, I'd suggest "First deep depression" here and "Second deep depression" later.
  • "The last advisory was issued the next day while over open waters." - The advisory wasn't over open waters. How about "while the storm was over open waters"?

Depression"

  • "with winds peaking at 45 km/h (30 mph) before making landfall" - How about "before the storm made landfall"?

Images

  • Nicely illustrated. The license for the lead image is incomplete because it lacks a rationale for the source map. It's pretty clearly a NASA base map, so the license should be easy to fix. The locked source map image:02A 1998.jpg is a problem too. How can fact-checkers verify the source if their entry is blocked? I'd recommend double-checking the other image licenses too to make sure that the source links actually go to the sources.

If you find this review helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! It was very helpful :) Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should not be simultaneously listed at WP:FAC and WP:PR; as there are numerous dash and hyphen issues in this article, I suggest withdrawing from FAC and continuing with Peer review to prepare the article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive just been having a scroll on the WMO website and found this [[9]] which clearly states that Very Severe Cyclonic Storm and Super Cyclonic Storm were used in 1998. so basically Cyclonebiskit you need to add in the IMD intensites using the IMD Report of 2009 which has the final figures for 1998 in itJason Rees (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Turkish Grand Prix

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was listed as a stub article when I took up the challenge and I would like to know what I should be aiming at and what I should be tryng to get it at the moment. Any comments are welcome. There are no pictures for this race.

Thanks, Chubbennaitor 15:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 Turkish Grand Prix/archive1.

Wilfrid

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to take it to FAC and would appreciate comments on comprehensiveness, the ability of non-medievalists to understand it, and prose. All other comments are of course welcome!

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 18:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. I think it looks pretty good overall, so these are fairly minor issues.

  • The lead image is nice, but I am guessing you will have trouble with it at FAC. The source should link to the page that contains it here. That website gives no indication the image is over 100 years old and says "NOTE: Pictures in York Cathedral not to be reproduced without permission of the Dean and Chapter of York". If you can get permission, there is also a stained glass image of Wilfrid on the same page.
Whacked it and replaced with a panorama of Whitby. Wilfrid's just a bother on images. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The labels on File:Northumbrian bishoprics and monasteries, 680s.svg are so small I have trouble reading them even when I click on the image for the full view - they are impossible in the article (at least on my monitor). Even making the caption clearer (York is the southernmost red star and Ripon the yellow star closest too it) would help.
Replaced with a different map. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:British seventh century kingdoms.gif is also difficult to read in the article and is set at 150 pixels wide, when the MOS says it should just be set to thumb. Maps can actually be set wider for legibility.
Made it bigger. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilfrid the diocesan violates WP:HEAD, could it be just "Diocesan"?
It's now diocesan affairs. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article needs to do a better job providing context - most casual readers will not know that there were multiple kingdoms then, in what is now England. So I think it would help to add a brief paragraph on the kingdoms and the situation at the time. I would also perhaps add "Kingdom of" before the first use of a place name, or King before names - as one example, I thought Oswald of Northumbria was a clergyman until I clicked on the link.
took care of the first part, check out the new first section (I swear, this article just grows and grows...) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three sections of "Other aspects" seem as if they would read better elsewhere - either put into the proper chronology or perhaps split between chronology and then discussed in the Legacy section
  • I know you usually get someone to copyedit, but this prose needs to be tightened up. A few examples just from the lead:
    • After the appointment of Theodore of Tarsus as Archbishop of Canterbury in 668, Theodore resolved the situation in Northumbria by deposing Ceadda, and returning Wilfrid to the Northumbrian see. could just be Theodore of Tarsus, who was appotinted Archbishop of Canterbury in 668, resolved the situation in Northumbria by deposing Ceadda and returning Wilfrid to the Northumbrian see.
    • Or does the fourth paragraph of the lead really both Historians then and now have been divided over Wilfrid. AND Modern historians have differed widely on their interpretations of his life...

There's a start for you, sorry to take so long. Hope this helps. I think the major concerns are the images, a few places where some context is needed, and polishing the language. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch! Unfortunately, I lost my main copyeditor when Malleus left. I'm still looking for a replacement... (grins). I should get to these in the next few days. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know Malleus had retired - so sorry to hear that. Hope the highly addictive nature of the place draws him back in eventually. Let me know on my talk page if you want a second look, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian handball

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to expose the article to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors. The page is being repeatedly being reverted to a previous unreferenced version, and so I ask all reviewers to review this version only. Thanks a bunch, Hpfan9374 (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is a very short article, and frankly I am not sure it meets the notability criteria. I will not WP:PROD it, but would not be surprised if someone does.

  • I looked at most of the refs and they are mostly very sketchy - just a mention or two of the word "handball" - this needs much better refs. The Diabetes ref seems most detailed, but still does not give the detail present in the "Description of the rules" section.
Yes, many of the references simply state handball as an example of a schoolyard craze, a ball game or a banned game.
  • Many of the refs that are used do not seem to be reliable sources - what makes Excitement Machine magazine a RS?
Excitement Machine is not a reliable source, I have removed all reference to it, as per your request.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower. Why not get a camera and get a picture or two of someone playing this?
Thanks for information about image formatting within articles, I'll keep that in mind in future. I have removed the image, as it was irrelevant and was not properly sourced. I will get a camera and get a picture or two of someone playing Australian handball, when it is convenient for me.
  • Article contradicts itself - first is the "Description of the rules" section (which could just be "Rules"), then the section opens with The game has no governing and no definite set of rules.[2] This is incomplete / ungrammatical - governing what? body? This is then followed by the rules.
I understand your concern, I have removed the entire section, I might try rewriting it at a later date, but only if I can find some reliable sources.
  • Is the title correct - the refs almost all just call it "handball"? The website "Varieties of Australian Handball" is an East Timor based domain - why is it reliable?
The title is correct as per discussion on the talk page, through a move request, as well as an article for deletion review. The website "Varieties of Australian Handball" is not a reliable source and thus I have removed all reference to it, as per your request.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reviewing this small article, Ruhrfisch. I greatly appreciate it and will definitely consider reviewing an article, most probably a discography list or two, in a couple of weeks time over Easter. Thanks again! Alex Douglas (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Bucer

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this to FAC. I have tried cut down my wordiness, but help from others on the prose would be appreciated.

Thanks, RelHistBuff (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • "Nothing is known about Bucer’s mother..." to "...he was able to read and speak Latin fluently" is not covered by the third citation. I was about to insert a citation, but was unsure whether you wanted to do that or just change the page numbers for the third citation.
I changed the citation at the end of the paragraph. In one draft, the pages got attached to the first citation, but it is now rearranged. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nothing is known about Bucer’s mother except that her name was Eva." Well, not exactly true. :) We do know her death date and speculation about her occupation.
Greschat says she was a mid-wife by tradition, but then he argues against this speculation. She died before 1538 but this is only known because Bucer's father remarried that year. Even her name is qualified as "supposedly". I looked up two other sources (Eells and Selderhuis) and they do not even give her name. So I changed this to say that almost nothing is known and cited it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After a year of being a novice, he was consecrated as an acolyte..." Might want to do a check over the article to make sure that religious terms are linked (I assume novice has a special meaning here?).
Added a few wikilinks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and generally well done article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There are several places in the article where more context for the reader could be provided. For example, there are no dates / years in the lead after his birth and death dates
I noted a couple of years in the lead and I thought about adding more. But most of the context is provided by his activities (Tetrapolitan Confession, Wittenberg Concord, Augsburg Interim) and adding more years here and there seemed somewhat gratuitous. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or in the Death and legacy section it should mention (repeat) that he was in Cambridge when he died - I had to click on the link for the church where was initially buried to make sure.
Added in lead and final section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice images, but per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
Corrected the image without the thumb parameter (it wasn't my image, someone else put it in). --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also per the MOS text should not be sandwiched between images, but this is done with the portraits of Luther and Zwingli. I think this might be a good place to use {{double image}} for those two portraits.
I used a derivative picture of the two together. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Language is generally good, but the article needs a copyedit to polish the prose. For example in the lead he/his/him is overused - Bucer's name does not appear in the lat paragraph there.
  • Or this sentence He took Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's invitation to come to England as Bucer had corresponded with several notable Englishmen and he believed that the Reformation had advanced quite successfully in that country. would perhaps flow more smoothly as He took Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's invitation to come to England as Bucer, who had corresponded with several notable Englishmen, believed that the Reformation had advanced quite successfully in that country.
Split into two clauses. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or this one - text is singular, but them is plural: On 3 June, the synod convened at the Church of the Penitent Magdalens, debated Bucer’s text, and accepted them [it] in full.[31]
Fixed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to keep captions concise, could The steeple of the Church of the Penitent Magdalens seen behind timber-framed houses that were already standing when Bucer officiated in Strasbourg. be something like The Church of the Penitent Magdalens' steeple behind timber-framed houses, all standing when Bucer was in Strasbourg.
This was the image inserted by someone else. It isn't the greatest picture because only the steeple is seen, but I left it there because there wasn't a better option. I fixed the caption. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a definition there and I was assuming that it will get expanded and eventually there will be a back link to another disambiguation page.
  • I have always seen the plural spelled "colloquies" not "colloquys"
Corrected. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the comments. I know the prose is still a problem; I am working on it even now so that it is as decent as possible before I ask someone for a copy-edit. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) Drop me a note on my talk page to remind me to do a full PR here, would you? Otherwise I'll likely forget. 13:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Cham Albanians

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is good enough, full-referenced and totally NPOV, and I want to see if there is any problems left in it, in order to nominate it for a GA status.

Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Cplakidas

[edit]

In terms of content a rather good and well-researched article on a controversial topic. Some parts needed extensive copyediting and typo corrections, but I've done it myself where I saw the need. There are however some unclear areas and various minor quibbles:

  • "Chams live mainly in Albania, Greece, the USA and Turkey.[2] Their original homeland is the Chameria region of Epirus, divided between Greece and Albania. Cham communities in Albania, USA and Turkey were created after their expulsion from Greece.[2]" This is both a bit redundant and unclear, as their origin has been stated above, while nothing about their expulsion has been mentioned yet. You could simply reduce it to state: "Cham communities now mostly exist in Albania, the United States and Turkey, as a result of their expulsion from their homeland in Greece after World War II." or variants thereof.
  • "Chameria is the name applied by the Albanians to the region inhabited by the Chams", Perhaps "historically inhabited" might be more accurate, since most no longer live there.
  • On the medieval history section. The cited date for their appearance in the region is the 12th century, but the header says "c. 1080". Either change the header or source it. Also, could the date be made more specific, e.g. "late 12th century" or even more precise? And it would be nice to know in which contemporary document they are actually mentioned. Also, there is claim of "a number of uprisings", already from the 12th century. Where and when did these happen? Until 1358, there is no mention of any uprisings, nor under Ottoman rule.
  • I have some problem with labelling the Russian Party as "conservative". Given the nature of Greek politics at the time, this is a misleading term, and many of its leading members actually stood for progressive ideas - the right to a constitution, first and foremost.
  • I made some edits on Osman Taka, since the section was a bit convoluted. I hope I've got the meaning right.
  • I notice you persistently use "Cham Albanians" throughout the article. "Chams" would suffice, IMO. Their Albanian ethnicity is pretty much made clear without needing to remind the reader at every instance. It does come off as a tad obsessive.
  • In the population exchange section, there is a "Under the Greek recommendation". To whom was this recommendation made? What was its context? Also "only 1,700 were exempted under this promise" is a bit unclear. What exactly do you mean in this sentence? What promise? And just below you state that "it is estimated that 5,000 Chams had been forced to leave". Doesn't this contradict that "their number is unknown"?
  • the "change of the Greek government" that foiled the enforcement of the 1930 and 1931 laws. Is this the fall of the Venizelos government in 1932? If so, perhaps it's best to mention it (or whichever government is meant).
  • "something which was seen as a provocation". You obviously mean the Chams here, but its best to add it. Also, who were the RSC and the CAFC? Acronyms ought to be either links or explained.

This covers it up to the end of the History section. I'll check on the remainder tomorrow. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 18:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Michael X

[edit]
  • Is this A-class or B-class in the first place? I think we should think for getting it in those classes before planning GA, which is far far away.This article has a lot of issues like:
  • Article ownership by Balkanian's word who cherry picks his sources and decides what should or should not be included and what is or is not RS.
  • Albanian and pro-Albanian POV. This article is almost entirely based on the (proven) pro-Albanian author Miranda Vickers, who is then mostly based on Albanian propagandists like Pollo and Puto, forums, "Cham" sites, etc.
  • Anachronism. "They have played an important role in the wars of independence of both Albania and Greece and have influenced the cultures of the two countries, by popular dances, songs and folk traditions that originate from Chams." "Cham" (20th century term) is used here to describe peoples of the 18th and early 19th centuries (mostly the Souliotes).
  • Strong POV statements like "the Christian minority, which remained in Greece, has suffered from public suppression of their Albanian heritage and language." that are still based on pro-Albanian authors whose statements have not been NPOV-ed to be used here. Remember that all authors write with their own POV, and it is our business to NPOV them.
  • Lots of spelling mistakes
  • Almost no inline citations for such a controversial article with strong POV statements like "Ali Pasha was under attacks from Ottoman Army, he created an alliance with Souliotes, under Markos Botsaris, mostly because of their common ethnicity."

That's what I can see so far. But I'll be expanding this soon.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Foliot

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to take this article to FAC and would appreciate help on prose and how understandable it is for a non-historian.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pakistan International Airlines

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it has gone through major changes and should be reviewd so that it can further prompted for a FA.

Thanks, User:Yousaf465 (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GrahamColm (talk · contribs):

This is an interesting article but a lot more work is needed before FAC can be seriously considered. The big problem is the lack of citations. One would expect to see over 100 reliable sources cited for an article of this length. For example, every "fact" listed in Marketing and sponsorship and Achievements and recognition should provided a source. The Lead section is too short and does not adequately summarise the rest of the article. About four short paragraphs are needed here. The article is very wordy and should be checked for redundancy. Is every single word necessary? This sort of very close attention to detail is needed to meet Criterion 1. for featured articles. I see there is a link to a Main Article that does not exist, (ie. a red link) this should be corrected or deleted. I can see that a lot of very hard work, time and enthusiasm has gone into this, but I recommend that an editor, new to the article, is asked to copy-edit it. I am sorry if this sounds negative, but these points would be quickly raised at a FAC nomination as grounds for opposing promotion. Graham Colm Talk 09:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton: Numerous problems, some of which may be touched on in Graham's summary above.

  • Lack of citations: The article is woefully under-referenced. There are several citation tags in place, many more could be added.
  • Most of the references are improperly formatted. Minimally, formats require title, publisher, url and access date. Author and date should be given where possible. See WP:Cite web for guidance; you don't have to use the templates themselves, but follow the instructions as to minimum information.
  • Lists: there are seven lists in the text, and that's way too many. Some, for example "Incidents and accidents", should be converted to prose. Others, like "Codeshares", would be better as appendices at the end of the text. Although some lists, especially those involving numeric information, are inevitable and useful, bullet-point lists of fctoids should in general be avoided.
  • Some sections seem underdeveloped. Graham has pointed out the "Retired" section, which consists solely of a redlink to a main article. The Destinations section is a short list of services starting in 2009. These snippets do not require sections.
  • There are MOS violations, for example use of boldface in the text for emphasis, an image placed under a level-3 section heading, and text squeezed between images
  • There are jargon terms, for example "wet lease" and "dry lease". These need proper explanation.
  • There is POV language, for example: "The Balochistan tail is a striking and colourful reflection of robust activity..." This sounds very much like a verbatim quote from somewhere. Unless you use quote marks and specify sources, you will be accused of plagiarism.
  • I concur with Graham's view that a thorough copyedit is needed, but I believe this should be done after the more basic tasks of increasing citations and restructuring. It is unrealistic to expect that all these things can be done quickly, but there is no reason why, in time, this should not be developed as a quality article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Schiavo case

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this GA article for peer review because it might finally be on the road to FA. It has been renamed away from being a biography and towards a legal/ethical case. While that emphasis is much less dramatic than the political conflicts that swirled around this case, a approach that views the article as primarily a legal/historical case has helped the article to settle down.

Thanks, --Lagelspeil (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Natural Cut: I didn't set out to rewrite your introduction but ended up making rather significant changes that I wanted to check with you on, because sometimes every word has been painstakingly assembled through consensus-building efforts on talk pages. (I didn't feel like reading the 44(!) archive pages.) I'll base my edits to the rest of the article on your response.

One comment I do want to make is that a free image relating to the media frenzy would be useful. Natural Cut (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I would suggest that you be bold. For too long, this case languished as a political battleground for obvious reasons. Now that the emphasis is legal/ethical, it has found focus and, I expect, easier and faster consensus. If what you mean by media frenzy image is this familiar one, then please note that User:Zscout360 deleted it as not free.--Lagelspeil (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll go through it with a fine-toothed comb in that case. I had intended to do so today but have been busier than expected. Expect to see something here tomorrow. :-) Natural Cut (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Done.--Lagelspeil (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U2 3D

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have created this article from scratch and been working on it for almost two years and feel as if it is finally complete. I have finished off the to-do list on the talk page and formatted the article countless times to make it among the best articles on Wikipedia, hoping to get it to FA-status soon. Before nominating it for FA-status, I'd like some feedback from the rest of the community on how I can improve the article at this point.

Thanks, –Dream out loud (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 23:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Norton Internet Security

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I want to see how far this article progressed. Note to the peer reviewer ... Refresh the page often; I will be continuing to touch up the page. When reading the last two peer reviews and the GA nomination, I found the reviewer was referencing to an earlier version of the article superseded by several edits. Another note: I used a forum as the source for the latest version information. I inquired at WP:RSN and users agreed it was OK; the poster was an expert; he was the forum administrator, and was a Symantec employee.

Thanks, a ton TechOutsider (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC) TechOutsider[reply]

Edit: One more thing, I want this article to be at least GA class, later I will pursuit FAC. TechOutsider (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

Comments from Ched

[edit]

First I think you've done wonders with it, but now to the critical aspects of the article.

  1. The picture in the lead is way to big (I may resize here shortly). The "thumb" does not affect the actual size of the graphic, so users can still click on it and see the full size version.
  2. I think the lead should get to the point of content sooner: ex: (NIS is a suite of tools that contain an Anti-virus program, an e-mail filter, a firewall, and a phishing protection programs.) Then you can go on to the removal, subscription, box copy stuff.
  3. referencing is very good... perhaps just a bit too much in some places. If one WP:RS reference sufficiently supports an uncontentious claim, 2 and 3 aren't needed really.

I'll look at it in a little more detail in a bit, but those are the basics I see at the moment. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 23:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RSN posting
Ok, I'm going to rearrange the lead; so the features come first, then market share. TechOutsider (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]
Ched, I see you corrected all the issues brought up by the automated review. Thanks! TechOutsider (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]
NP .. anyway, finally getting back to this - sorry it took so long. I see you did indeed edit the lead. I probably would have put the sentence about what programs come with the package first - but honestly, I think that is just a matter of taste, rather than one being right and one being wrong - so I didn't edit. On to the other things I might change:
  • In the first sentence of the "Windows edition" section: In August of 1990 Symantec acquired Peter Norton Computing from Peter Norton.[5] Norton and his company developed various utilities, or applications for DOS. I'm pretty sure they also had windows apps, so you may want to change to ... or applications for DOS and early versions of Windows.
  • I added some wiki-links to clarify some of the technical terms, and tightened up some of the prose a little.
  • I see you have some items cited with 2 and 3 references; probably you could remove a couple of those - but I'd wait until the article is actually in review before I did that. It's real easy and quick to just remove a ref, a little more tedious to go put it back in.
  • Personally I might switch the reference columns to 2-column rather than 3 for readability - but again, probably more a personal choice than a right or wrong thing.

All in all I think you've done a fantastic job here TO, I remember what the article looked like before you started working on it - and all I can say is WOW! .. great job. What you may want to do, is drop a note on the editor's talk page who did the last GA review, and ask him if he's willing to take a look at it again before you actually submit it to GAR. He may have a suggestion or two that could help. Well, again - good work, and that's about all I see at the moment. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 08:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your supporting words. TechOutsider (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

Interestingly, according to Peter Norton Computing, they developed NAV for Mac...TechOutsider (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

Just out of curiosity I looked around - yep, you're right. The first version of Norton Utilities for Windows came out in 1995 (with the release of Win95), and by then Peter has already sold to Symantec. I'd have to dig out my old box (if I even still have it), but I think the Norton name was still more prominent (probably for marketing reasons) in display. I also see that Norton Utilities is planning a revival of sorts. If you go from NIS to working on Norton Utilities, there's a good (and recent) article here — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 17:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Baltimore Branch Office

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to know how to further improve this article.

Thanks, Smallman12q (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This article has potential. The NRHP infobox is good, and the main sections provide a skeletal framework. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The ideal lead provides a summary or abstract of the whole article in such a way that the reader can simply read the lead to grasp the main points. The existing lead is really a set of introductory paragraphs rather than a summary of the article. It should be re-written to include at least a mention of the building and employment sections of the main text, and it should not include material that is undeveloped in the main text sections. I would suggest moving a lot of the material in the lead into a new section called "Purpose" or "Operations" or "Function" or something of the sort that would explain the purpose(s) of the bank and how it carries it (them) out.
  • I'd suggest moving the "News" section to the bottom rather than putting it at the top on grounds that it is of temporary interest and can be expected to disappear from the article as time goes by. It would be good to expand it a bit to include what effect, if any, the change will have on the people who use the bank. If the change is controversial, it would be good to briefly describe the controversy. The last sentence of the "News" section addresses the reader directly, which is a Manual of Style no-no. You can solve the problem by turning the sentence into a footnote inside "ref" tags. It might say, " documents the change."
  • Normally, the infobox goes in the upper right. I'd suggest moving the NRHP box to the upper right-hand corner.
  • The title needs a comma, thus: "Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Baltimore Branch Office". In fact, I'd suggest imitating the NRHP title and dropping the word "Office" as well as adding the comma.
  • If you can obtain a hi-resolution image of the bank building, you can add it to the infobox. The current image is too low-res for this.
  • "It support Check 21 operations, supply coin and currency to financial institutions and work to maintain stability in the financial sector throughout the fifth district and also work with local elected officials and non-profit organizations to support fair housing initiatives throughout the Fifth District." - One of the problems with copy-and-paste from a source is that it leads to strange constructions like this one. Aside from the bureaucratic language, "it" needs singular verbs, "supports" and "supplies" and "works". "Check 21" needs to be explained because most readers will have no idea what it means. "Fair housing initiatives" is another term that needs explaining.
  • "What is the meaning of "the code E5"? What are the codes for?
  • How many people work at the bank? The interns start at $18.98 an hour, but what about the other workers?
  • It's not a good idea to link common words like "government", "paid", "employees", and "expenses" since most readers already know what they mean. You don't want to distract them with unnecessary links.
  • In the Notes section, titles should be rendered in what's called "title case" rather than all caps. Thus note 17 would be "GW Finance Professor... " rather than "GW FINANCE PROFESSOR... ". Ditto for the notes with "FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM" rather than "Federal Reserve System"

I could say more, but perhaps this is enough to get you started. After you revise, it would be a good idea to ask another editor to look over the results and do a bit of copyediting. I hope my brief comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll do what I can.Smallman12q (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/March_2009&oldid=704355960"