Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/July 2008

< Wikipedia:Peer review

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

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

O.K., so as a Christian I'm against the subject of this film, but I'm bringing this to attention because of its 112K page size and 170 refs (as of typing).

This will look good as an FA when it arrives on DVD; for now, our focus is to simplfy it down to a manageable ±55K.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for clarification. The peer review request is made by a user who, as far as I can see, has played no part in the editing. I am confused by the wording of the request: "...so as a Christian I'm against the subject of this film", and I don't understand the sentence: "This will look good as an FA when it arrives on DVD; for now, our focus is to simplfy it down to a manageable ±55K". Who is the "our" in "our focus"? My review is aimed at effecting general improvements to the article, rather than assisting a particular agenda. Before I offer my comments, would Sigrandson care to amplify on whose behalf he/she is acting? Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Ruhrfisch comment: Thanks to Brianboulton for agreeing to review this. I had read most of it before I saw this notice. The main problems I see with the article are structure and level of detail. This is an article about a controversial film. It should be structured similarly to other film articles. I note Triumph of the Will is about a 1930s controverial documentary film and a FA (although an older FA with fewer references than would be required today), and would be a useful model.

This article does not follow the recommended structure of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films: When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. I note Sicko is a recent controversial documentary film, which although only B class, follows this much more logical and useful structure.

Finally, I think a brief plot summary and cast list would summarize much of the information precisely, then the various controversies could be addressed. As it is there is a real mish-mash with a bit of plot, film criticism, the rebuttals, the counter-arguments to the rebuttals, and then some more plot and it starts all over. I imagine streamlining the structure would avoid much of the repetition and pare it down some. I also think some of the details are unnecessary and repetitive - how many examples are needed for some of these points? Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS My understanding of Slgrandson's comment was that the film is coming out on DVD (delayed with the lawsuit) and the hope was to get this to FA as a resource when it is widely available on DVD.

Brianboulton comments: I thank Ruhrfisch for that clarification, though it still seems strange that the article's editors are uninvolved in the peer review request. However, mine not to reason why, I suppose.

  • Structure: I echo the gist of what Ruhrfisch has said. The structure needs to reflect that this is an article about a film, rather than generally about the intelligent design controversy. I have to say that I found the article absorbing—it is very well written—but I did lose my way somewhat. Many editors have worked on this article, and that might explain the looseness of structure. With 7500+ words of "readable text", and probably another 1500 in the boxed quotes, there is much scope for slimming down the content, and I hope that this can be done without affecting the generally high quality of the prose.
  • Neutrality: This is a problem. Although some attempt has been made to present a balanced view, the impression I had after reading through was of a fairly strong POV against the film and the viewpoint it espouses. This feeling emanates from the very first line, where the film is described as "controversial", rather than as a film which has caused controversy. Statements (uncited) such as "The film refers to evolution as 'Darwinism', a term which has long been abandoned by most biologists as modern theory does not rely on Darwin's ideas alone" indicate an editorial voice, and there are many similar "statement" sentences, most of them admittedly cited. I think it essential, if the article is to be presented to FAC, that it comes across in a more objective manner.
  • Multiple citations: There are many instances of single statements being cited to several sources. I don't think that this is generally necessary; mostly, a single reliable source should be sufficient. Sometimes two may be justified, but strings of reference numbers seriously interfere with the readability of the text. Also, there are more than 20 citations in the lead, to statements which are generally covered in the main text, where they are cited again.
  • Citation formats: Some of the web citations are incorectly formatted.
  • MOS: I fixed a number of date links and other minor matters. I think there are more. Not sure about dashes and nbsps - I think a wiki style expert should give the amended article a careful scrutiny.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeita Grotto

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 expanded it from just a stub, i need expert opinion and already requested reviewing from the caves wikiproject (no reply yet) , i need some help in determining if the tone and the style is acceptable for a wp article, some suggestions about additional paragraphs, and just really need someone to point out where i went wrong

Thanks, Eli+ 04:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting cave that I'm sure I would like to visit, and you've done a good deal of work to get the article started. However, I see several problems that need attention. Here are my thoughts and suggestions:

  • The Geology section has been copied almost word for word from the cited source, the paper by Nawwar and Nader. One of Wikipedia's guidelines is: "Avoid including entire texts of treaties, press releases, speeches or lengthy quotations..." See WP:NPS. It's OK to cite this apparently excellent source, but you need to internalize what it means and re-write the geology section in your own words, using wikilinks or brief explanations to help the general reader. To do this, you should find as many reliable scientific papers as you can about this cave and some general material about caves, cave formation, limestone, and karst. This is a much much harder thing than copying what the two scientists say, but for the article to be considered acceptable, that is how it has to be done.
  • A serious factual error appears in the History section above the Geology section. The article claims that the cave is about 9 kilometres (5.6 mi) deep and cites the tourism bureau. The deepest cave in the world is not nearly that deep; something like 6,000 feet (1,800 m) is the record. The tourist bureau is correctly cited, but its number for the depth is wrong. Nawwar and Nader say the cave is about 9 kilometres long. When citing sources, it's good to evaluate them and to compare what they are claiming with what other sources are claiming. Generally, blogs and tourist bureaus are weak sources, and scientific papers are strong sources.
  • The number of entrances given in the infobox looks very strange to me. What people usually mean by "cave entrance" is a way big enough for a person to get into and out of the cave. Most caves that I know of have one entrance, although some have a dozen or so. But I've never seen a number like 270,000. Perhaps that was the number of paid admissions in 2000. This number should be carefully checked and sourced and explained if necessary.
  • The lead needs to be more complete to adequately summarize the main text. See WP:LEAD for ideas.
  • If possible, web citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date. Sometimes not all of this information can be found, but it would be easy to improve on some of the citations in this article. For example, citation 14 could include the title, the name of the publisher, Jochen Duckeck, and the date of publication (his last update to this page).
  • Quantities expressed in metric units should also be expressed in imperial units according to Manual of Style (MoS) conventions. I like using the {{convert}} template for this because it's versatile and "knows" the correct MoS spellings, abbreviations, and other details. Thus, with the template and quantities added, "a compound of caves in Lebanon located 20km north of Beirut" would appear as: "a compound of caves in Lebanon located 20 kilometres (12 mi) north of Beirut".
  • In addition to the metric-imperial conversions, I see quite a few Manual of Style problems that could be fixed by a good copyeditor. You might enlist the help of someone at the League of Copyeditors. See WP:LoCE.

I encourage you to do more research and to continue working on this article. If you find this review helpful, please consider helping other authors by reviewing their work, especially articles that appear in the backlog list. Finetooth (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aar bridges in Berne

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This could become a featured list in time, I think, but advice about how best to organise the ancillary content (lead text, ferries...), about the standard of writing and about general MOS compliance would be most welcome.  Sandstein  17:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Doncram Beautiful pictures, nice list. Quick comments:

  • The main table does not show sources within it. "You state at bottom: The data in this list are taken from Furrer, p. 154–164, unless otherwise noted." I would prefer to see a footnote attached to the top of each column in the table that gives source for information in the column (which apparently would be Furrer for each one, which is fine, it could be repeated invocations of the same footnote for each one). Although I believe your catch-all reference is accurate for the current version of the article, I think it is more helpful in wikipedia articles that may be added to by others later, for each chunk of an article to be explicitly sourced. This is akin to recent wikipedia preference for in-line citations for text.
  • The title of the last column should be something more descriptive than "Order". Every column in a sortable list provides an ordering. My first thought was that it is inaccurate, because it would seem to suggest that this is statement of the current order, a numbering of the current rows of the table, but then it starts with number 6. So my reaction was something like "But this is not the order!" or "This table is out of order!". Perhaps "Sequence downstream"? "Downstream order"? "River elevation order"? "Elevation order"?
  • Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I removed "order" from the table and added "sequence downstream" to the foot note. This keeps the cell narrower. -- User:Docu

List of stations and halts on the Talyllyn Railway

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 try and get it to FL status. All comments welcome!

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I remember peer reviewing the article about the Railway when this was still part of the article. I think it is fairly close to FLC, but here are some suggestions to improve it further:

  • The lead is nice - I note the last two sentences are fairly short and could perhaps be combined to flow better.
  • I would be consistent on the use of decimals in measured units - for example the lead says the railway is 7¼ miles (11.8 km) long from Twyn to Nant Gewrnol, but the list gives decimals for both miles and kilometres, and to two decimal places. It says the line is 7.35 miles, 28 chains, (11.83 km) long. I would prefer that all measured units be given in decimals and to the same number of decinal places (so the lead would say the line is 7.35 miles (11.83 km) long). I also note that 7.35 miles is 0.1 miles (528 feet) longer that seven and a quarter miles, so the fraction is less accurate. Even seven and a third miles would be off by 0.02 miles, or over 100 feet.
  • While we're at it, I do not understand the use of chains as a unit of length. This needs to be explained in a note or in the lead and also wikilinked.
  • The elevations above sea level use ½ feet - I would use 0.5 feet.
  • The rest of the table is great - nice pictures, concise descriptions, consistently formatted.
  • The references are the biggest obstacle to FL
  • Ref 1 is an internet ref but does not include publisher, date accessed, date if known, etc. {{cite web}} may be useful here.
  • Book refs need more books in the Bibliography - no idea what the books by Potter, Mitchell and Eyres, Rolt, Thomas are, as they are missing from the Bib.

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 ><>°° 01:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second look (I still do not understand the use of chains here)

  • I noted the distance in the FAC for Talyllyn Railway and 7.25 miles is the correct length.
  • I also note the missing book refs seem to be in the Talyllyn Railway article.

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the issues with the references and will address the other points later today or tomorrow............ ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FLC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. (Bear in mind that FAC and FLC might have differing requirements about where to put citations, but the reliability of sourcing should stay the same between the two processes.) Sourcing looks pretty 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.) 23:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Fullmetal Alchemist

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because we would like to see where it stands and what additional work may be needed before doing a GAN or FAC.

Thanks, -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC) (and User:Tintor2)[reply]

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

Hunter Mariners

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is near GA status, but may require some imprtovements or suggestions beforehand

Thanks,  The Windler talk  02:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Fascinating article, but I agree it needs work before it can be GA. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas on style, refs, structure, etc. There are a lot of sport artilces that are FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Sport_and_recreation that could be models
  • Provide context for the reader, for example the article needs to make clearer in the lead that this was an Australian team. See WP:PCR
  • The lead should be a summary of the whole article - I think the lead should make it clear why they folded after one season. See WP:LEAD
  • Or in the lead too: The club was formed in mid 1995 before being disbanded in late 1997. could perhaps read The club was formed in mid 1995, played its first and only season in 1997, and was disbanded late in that year.
  • Article needs a good copyedit, I read for comprehension, but noted an "it's" where "its" is meant, for one example. Or this The New South Wales Rugby League competition (NSWRL) had been formed in 1908 and there was a Newcastle based club in the first two seasons, but left to form their own Newcastle Rugby League. the last phrase needs a subject (but it left to form...) and "their" is plural, but the sentence is talking about one (singular) team.
  • Avoid contractions - "did not", not "didn't"
  • Avoid overlinking, for example Newcastle Knights is linked twice in the second paragraph of the lead. See WP:OVERLINK
  • This does not make sense to me: The Mariners lost their first three games of the premiership season, their first a narrow loss on their home ground. However, after the first loss at home, the Mariners were able to win seven consecutive matches... The first sentence says they lost their first three games, including their first game at home. Then the second seems to say they won seven games after this first loss at home. Did they lose two after this or win seven?
  • References are generally good, but the tables (lists) need refs to show where their data is from.
  • World Club Challenge table - why are there four blank cells? Ditto for State and Nation in the players table. I would also link NSW to provide context.
  • Team honours is not about honours at all - should be renamed as a section
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 03:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, I decide against peer reviewing other articles because my knowledge of what a better article is, and my English skills arne't top notch. Thankyou again.  The Windler talk  06:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther King, Jr.

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 has potential to become a Good Article or even a Featured Article. It's a very important article and I'm sure that it gets a lot of traffic. I noticed it needed work so I cut out a little bit fo irrelevant information, reworded a bunch of plagiarism, formatted the references that were there, and added 146 more references. I'm not an expert in the subject matter, though, so I'm hoping to get feedback on whether it should be trimmed (it's currently 108 kilobytes), if all of the external links, etc., are necessary, if it complies to the Manual of Style, and all of that fun stuff. Any copyediting that people could do would also be very helpful. Thanks in advance for any suggestions (or, even better, help fixing whatever problems come up), GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikki
I saw your message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state). Before I read through the article and offer some more specific suggestions, I agree with you that the external links should be cut down. WP:EL says that external links should be kept to a minimum. To cut them down, I'd remove any that are already listed as a citation, any that don't work, anything requiring registration, anything that isn't in English, and probably the videos/sounds. Also, anything that could be listed elsewhere should be removed. For example, the link on the plagiarism should be an external link at Martin Luther King, Jr. authorship issues, not here. I'll be back with other suggestions later. Nikki311 00:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more:

  • Quite a few of the paragraphs begin with "In (date)" or "On (date)". Some of these need to be reworded.
  • Speaking of dates, some of the month/day dates (ex March 7) are wikilinked and some aren't. It needs to be consistent.
  • Could the "Books by or about Martin Luther King, Jr." be in a "Further reading" section instead?
  • I think the "Wife and children" section can be deleted. They are mentioned elsewhere in the article.
  • I think the lead should be longer. WP:LEAD recommends four paragraphs for an article this large, and I think there is quite a bit of the article that needs to be summarized in the lead (that isn't currently).

That's it for now. More later. Nikki311 01:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moni3

  • GCF, you must know what a whopping task you have undertaken. I don't envy you, though the end result will be immensely fulfilling. You may actually end up living in a cave dressed in burlap before that happens, though. I want you to know that I will assist you in this article in every stage. I wrote most of Birmingham campaign and brought it to FA as my second one. However, you have to be better than impeccable with sources. You have to know every facet of this man's life from almost every legitimate source written about him. I see you have David Garrow's FBI book, but I have to suggest you read his biography on King. It won a Pulitzer Prize - that has to be included in your sources. I would also suggest you read Diane McWhorter's chronicle of 1963 in Birmingham called Carry Me Home. It's very readable and quite informative on King's inner workings during the hinge of his career. Find me on my talk page. I will help with copy editing, advice, suggestions, etc. Let me know what I can do. --Moni3 (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from GRBerry

  • To my eyes, the article severely underplays his religious beliefs and being a minister. The lead says "King was a Baptist minister, one of the few leadership roles available to black men at the time." The life section says that his advanced degrees were religious. If there is anything else in the article that discusses him as a religious leader, I'm not finding it. I am aware that this aspect of his life is often neglected in the popular accounts of his life and work, but it is more important than that and deserves mention. GRBerry 13:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Damon

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 what needs to be done, so the article can become an FA.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

edit

Good choice to get to FA :) I'll drop some notes. Sorry if I sound a bit abrupt at times - it looks promising. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Growing steadily in popularity from the 1997 film, he has since matched up with A-list actors in mainstream films, and today is rated among the top actors in Hollywood. - this sentence is a bit vague, what are you getting at with the first link to 1997 - do you mean all films he made that year or...? Also, 'matched up with', do you mean..what, starred on eaqual billing with?
  • 2nd para of lead is a wee bit listy, maybe reclassify films by saying 'the adventure films' or the comedies' or by years or whatever. have a play with it.


  • but kept leaving classes to pursue acting projects - ditto. Not sure what works best here. Maybe 'but chose to defer classes to pursue acting projects' (?)
  • Damon and Ben Affleck developed a thriller about a young math genius, which they pitched around Hollywood. Receiving advice from writer/director/actor Rob Reiner, screenwriter William Goldman, and their friend writer/director Kevin Smith,[10] the two changed the script around to focus on a young math genius trying to make his way in the world. - sounds odd as it says they changed it around but the beginning and end bits don't reflect any change. Should maybe elaborate a little here


  • Second half of Breakthrough section is listy, this could and should be elaborated wuite a bit. I am sure there are interviews where Damon discusses his roles in some depth.
  • The Philanthropy could probably have the same input. bit listy as is

The article is only 34kb, so plenty of room to grow. Not too bad as is, but be wary of bits which sound a bit colloquial. I am not a Damon expert so cannot comment too muich more on comprehenisveness. I will think more upon it. Good luck. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of the Rockies

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 a good article (by common talking, not yet necessarily by GA standards. I have improved it, and want to improve it further. I'd appreciate general help since WP:MUSEUMS is still small and we don't yet necessarily have the ability to review these. Thanks, TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by bibliomaniac15: I think it's a pretty good article, but it could use more beefing up.

  • Why is the TOC all the way at the top?
  • I think more should be said about the history of the museum itself. The article is not very detailed on this.
  • In the Tinsley House section: "Children try on clothes and play with toys typical of time time and the house includes a functioning outhouse, water pump and kitchen where food typical of the time is sometimes prepared." Repeated use of the word "time" and odd juxtaposition. Separate the Children part and the house including a functional outhouse into two sentences.
  • You first mention Jack Horner in the first paragraph of Paleontology, but he is only called "curator Horner," with no links or explanation. Move the wikilink up to his first mention and describe who he is.
  • Paleontology section: "Apart from housing one of the largest collection of dinosaur fossils in the world and the largest in the United States, as well as the world's largest Tyrannosaurus skull narrowly beating out that of Chicago's Field Museum, the museum's Siebel Dinosaur Complex, designed by curator and paleontologist Jack Horner is home to one of the first identified female dinosaurs, an ovulating T. rex." I think that there are too many sidenotes in this one sentence, and it's cutting into the flow. Break it down.

That's what I've found so far, but I may reread it to catch what I haven't found. bibliomaniac15 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, biblio. It's late here so just a quick comment re: the TOC. I didn't know where else to put it. When I didn't assign it somewhere, it looked odd with the wide infobox. What do you suggest? I'll work on your other suggestions in the morning. Thanks so much for the feedback. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few changes to the article, including a reduction of redundant wikilinks. It is not necessary to wikilink every noun, and you certainly want to avoid wikilinking the same word twice in the same paragraph. I also advise against wikilinking United States altogether: none one reading Wikipedia is unaware of what that is. There were some other Manual of Style issues: scientific names of organisms such as Triceratops and Tyrannosaurus appear in italics. If you can, I recommend downloading Firefox: it has a built-in spell check when you edit a Wikipedia page. Avoid abbreviations: "and" instead of "&", "twelve" instead of "12", etc. Avoid wikilinking dates, and link to an article page instead of a redirect (Dinosaur instead of dinosaurs). Overall, a good read. Like Bibliomaniac, I'd like to read more. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travellingcari Further Comments

edit

Biblio, I think I cleaned up the paleontology section as well as Tinsley -- the redundant "time" was a case of fingers and brain not in sync. I agree about needing more on the history, I need to did further into Google News archives to see what appeared when it opened. A lot of the current discussion just has the same paragraph that the museum's own page does. I also want to find more about other parts of the museum. There are some articles that say Tinsley House is the reason to go but if that's true, it's certainly under-represented in the news. A search picks up the museum in almost any dinosaur article that mentions Horner and his connection to the museum. I'd also like to find more re: the planetarium and the culture of the rockies, if possible.

Firsfron, thanks so much for the MOS and general clean-up. This is my first real foray into scientific subjects so I'm not too familiar with the MOS related to what needs italics. I do have Firefox but I think the spell checker might need to be turned on. I will check when I'm back on that computer. Could also be a version issue, I've frequently commented that Wikipedia needs a spell checker and that will help solve the issue. I'll be mindful of articles v. re-directs.

TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 13:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The spell checker on Firefox underlines a word in red when it thinks the word is misspelled. It's not always correct (because it doesn't know a lot of words), but it's quite useful for catching common spelling errors. Best of luck with the article, Firsfron of Ronchester 18:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

edit

OK, prose looks good at first glance. Some ideas:


  • WHo is Caroline McGill? A couple of adjectives or epithets may help. Nothing fancy. Local businessperson/first lady/ etc. Was it a posthumous bequest?
  • Could expand the paleontology section - e.g. the last sentence is tantalising and probably not worthy of an article itself, so expanding it here would be appropriate. Also, where did montana specimens end up early on before the museum established itself as a paleontology centre.

Seinfeld (season 1)

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 try and promote it to featured article/list status and I also am not sure which parts need to be improved. I had nominated it for Featured List but some disagreed and said it should have been listed for Featured Article Candidate or at GA instead, so I would like to know where should I nominate this article at Featured List of Featured Article. I also am not sure which parts need to be improved. I would appreciate comments on what areas are lacking in comprehensibility, completeness, sourcing or any other area with an eye towards the FA criteria.

Thanks, Gman124 talk 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Generally well done article, with some more work needed to improve it to FA or FL. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • I would ask at Talk FLC and post a notice at talk FAC for comments at FLC and ask when an article is a list (for FL) and when it is an article (for FA). Complicating things here is the fact that while this is a short embedded list (only 5 episodes), the rest of the seasons will be much more list-y (as more episodes were made).
  • A model article is useful for ideas on structure, style, format, etc. Smallville (season 1) is an FA and The Simpsons (season 1) is an FL. There are other TV season FLs too.
  • In either case, the article needs a copyedit - for example Seinfeld later went on to become one of the most successful sitcoms, with a poll by TV Guide in 2002, named Seinfeld as the greatest American television program of all time.[6] could be something like Seinfeld later went on to become one of the most successful sitcoms; a 2002 TV Guide poll named Seinfeld the greatest American television program of all time.[6]
  • The picture of the DVD says "Seasons 1 & 2" but the article just says "Season 1 & 2".
  • Both model articles I mentioned list the episodes first, then other information. This article looks more like Smallville in terms of Production - does WikiProject Television have a season article guidleline to folow?
  • Since this is about the pilot and first four regular episodes, I would expect the Casting section to have more information about why the actors were chosen.
  • References look good, but is there anything more from third-party independent sources (much of it is from the show or its producers). Are there no books on Seinfeld?
  • In Production, I think it would be useful to give a brief description of each of the characters (and not just their names). Jerry Seinfeld as himself, OK, but he is still a fictional version of himself. Perhaps "Jerry Seinfeld as a fictional version of himself, a stand up comedian," George is Jerry's friend who still lives with his parents, Kramer is the wacky neiighbor, Elaine is Jerry's friend and ex-girlfirend.
  • With all fiction be sure to write from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U
  • In "The Robbery", Kramer makes his first sliding entrance ... I would link the episode title and move this someplace besides Production - what does this have to do with Production? Perhaps it would fit better with the waitress being dropped, the father's name and actor change, etc.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 21:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'd like to advance this article to GA and eventually FA. I would appreciate notes on how to expand each of the sections on the article and also where to trim unnecessary information. Thanks, The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This article seems to have all the information needed, but needs some clean up and copyedits to get to FA. I think it is fairly close to GA, although some work is also needed there. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • It is always a good idea to have a model article or two to look at for ideas. There are many album FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music
  • Try to avoid needless repetition, especially in the lead. There has to be some way to avoid saying Jam and Lewis produced in two consective sentences in the first paragraph of the lead, and three times in the lead overall.
  • Really unclear sentence: Departing from themes of independence present in Jackson's 1986 breakthrough album Control, Rhythm Nation 1814 is a concept album based on social injustice; as a recurring theme, romance also present in the album's content. Is social injustice the recurring theme or romance?
  • Since the infobox lists eight singles, I think the lead should be clarified, perhaps Its seven [commercial?] singles, ...
  • Is "6x platinum" the official term? It seems more like it should be "six-fold platinum"?
  • This sentence seems to contradict itself: Originally, executives at A&M wanted Jackson to expand on the ideas presented on Control, but she was not willing to compromise her artistic integrity and substituted their concept for her own.[3] I think if it said something like ... integrity, and substituted her concept for theirs.[3] that would be clearer.
  • I would split Background into two paragraphs, probably start second paragraph at the name
  • Production section needs a reference for the last two sentences - any reason given why she dedicated the album to her mother?
  • In Music "Black Cat" departed from Jackson typical musical style, being the sole rock production of the album. needs a ref and as a one sentence paragraph should be combined with another paragraph or expanded.
  • Are reviews described in present tense or past? It seems like it should be past tense to me, but this may be an album article convention I do not know.
  • Refs 16, 17, and 18 are all the same (could be combined) and do not give specifics on the facts they back up (6x platinum status, for example). Need better ref(s) for GA and especially FA
  • A companion video compilation was also issued on both VHS and Laserdisc. On April 24, 2007, iTunes added all of Jackson's A&M-era albums to their music library. needs a ref or two
  • American singer and album, so avoid British spellings such as In 1989, while the album was being finalised, Jackson ...
  • The whole Videography section has ZERO refs
  • Legacy section is short - could it be combined with Critical reception? I think the quote needs to be attributed (say who said it) per WP:MOS#Quotes
  • Watch out for peacock language - like "superstardom" - it is usually best to attribute POV terms like this (According to X...) Try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK
  • Refs that have more than one author should list the author names the same way - I think ref 33 for example should be Vincent, Rickey; Clinton, George (1996). Funk: the music, the people, and the rhythm of the one. Macmillan, 284. ISBN 0312134991. (both last name, first name)
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 04:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fethullah Gülen

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: recently Fethullah Gulen is listed as the top thinker in an online poll by the Foreign Policy magazine. he has quite many supporters at the community and leadership levels all around the world, as well as some radical secularist and radical religious groups that hate him. i am trying to contribute this article for some time along with a long list of contributers. from time to time, some user are just step in, and without doing much for the article, and without any contribution they just label the article NPOV. it give an impression to the readers about the whole article; that the article is not in good condition. in reality, it is maybe not good for just one person. labeling an article NPOV with many contributors without locating and specifying the problem even when it is asked, does not seem to be fair. please see the last talk by user tickle in the discussion page for a recent example of it. there are some other such attempts on the page as well. now, before taking this issue to conflict resolution, i would like to get some useful comments about the article from experienced editors. would you please have some time to review the article and let me know if there is a problem anywhere (language, NPOV, etc), if so locate the problem, and provide your suggestion to fix it, or help me in rewording the text for a better article. thanks in advance... Thanks, Philscirel (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look and it looks atrocious... it's too early for serious peer-review. Start with basic copy-editing. --Adoniscik(t, c) 23:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am archiving this per Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy since PR requests are not supposed to have one major cleanup banner and this has several. Once it has been cleaned up please feel free to resubmit it to Peer Review. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of 100 intellectuals chosen for an online poll, Fethullah Gulen did get the most votes. Steven Colbert got more, but he was not on the list. http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/9097. So it does not mean quite what it sounds like, but it does shows that Gulen has many enthusiastic supporters. Nothing wrong with that.

Ed Stelmach

edit
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have no experience with the FA process, and this is one of the first articles I've written for which enough sourcing exists to get it to FA. I'm wondering, basically, how close the article is currently to being FAC-worthy, and what still needs to happen for it to get there. Of course, comments on other elements of the article are very much welcome. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2008 (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 following web references are lacking publishers
      • Current ref 5 (Stalmach's legistlature biography)
      • Current ref 7 (Bill Status Report 23th...)
      • Current ref 9 (Minister making a U-turn on flawed...) also lacking last access date. Also it seems to require registration with a library?
      • Current ref 12 (Albertans Turf Five in Race...)
    • I'm not familiar with http://www.albertasource.ca/aoe/ui/index.aspx? Is this considered 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.) 14:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Article looks good overall, well referenced, decent images. Be careful to avoid jargon - MLA is wikilinked after his name in the lead sentence and included in a header but is never spelled out / explained - see WP:JARGON I also note that Legislative Assembly of Alberta is way overlinked in the article, 5 times plus the infobox and at least one ref
  • Per WP:MOS#Images Images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over, and faces should look into the page (so Image:Ed Stelmach luncheon.jpg should be left justified).
  • Third paragraph of lead is too short and begins awkwardly (Despite this...) similar sentences have been criticized of late at FAC. Get a copyedit from WP:PRV or asking an editor listed at WP:LOCE
  • Many of the subsections in Premier are only one paragraph long and should be combined with others or perhaps expanded, if possible.

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 ><>°° 21:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Oxford United F.C. seasons

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It is my aim to get this article to Featured List standard, and I would like some constructive comments about the content of the page and the amount of referencing on it. Anything about columns I should add to or remove from the table, or how I could expand the Lead section would be much appreciated.


Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious need to me is an expanded lead section. Fortunately, there are a ton of team season FL's that can give you ideas. Including those for football, baseball and hockey.
Second, you will require specific citations. Aston Villa F.C. seasons uses inline citations in the table headers for each column, though in the past, I've added lines at the end of the article in a general references section that says something like this:
etc. Basically, so long as there is a specific citation for the season-by-season results, playoff/cup results, leading scorers and attendance, imo. And, of course, specific citations, preferably inline, for claims made in the lead section. A relevant image would be ideal, if available, though not necessary, imo. Good luck! Resolute 01:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mattythewhite (talk · contribs)

edit

Many of my suggestions are in relation to what has been done previously on seasons lists which have been successful at WP:FLC.

  • "...from 1921..." - doesn't this mean 1931?
  • Lead will definetely needs a good expansion.
  • An image should be found for inclusion.
  • A footnote could be used to say when the League Cup was founded.
    • Done
  • A footnote could also be used to say what competitions are included for the goals scored by the top scorers.
  • Wikilinks for the divisions in the list itself aren't really needed as they're in the key.
    • Done
  • When the team participated in a new league or if it was renamed, it could be bolded.
    • Done
  • When something was won or when they were champions of a league, it could also be bolded.
    • Done
  • Articles need creating for redlinked top scorers.
  • When the record for most goals in a season was set or equalled, the scorer and their number of goals could be bolded.
  • I'd not sure on highlighting the move to the Kassam Stadium in blue - maybe a footnote could be use to say this?

Should be able to have a crack at WP:FLC. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2008 (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.) 22:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ian Johnson (cricketer)

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 keen to see it improve to Featured Article standard. The article is part of the Invincibles featured topic drive. In particular, suggestions to improve the prose are sought. Thanks, Mattinbgn\talk 03:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the past tense of lead - "led", or is it different in different parts of the world ? Tintin 06:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, just my poor spelling. From Lead (disambiguation): "Note: the past tense of the verb to lead, that is, led, is frequently misspelled as lead. This is due to confusion with the correct spelling of the past tense of to read, which is indeed read and rhymes with 'bed'". I have fixed all occurances. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

edit

Some ideas:

  • Is there a WPMOS point about sub-texting the CBE? If so thats fine, I just haven't heard of it myself.
  • if bowling average is linked in the lead, the double mention of the word "wicket" could possibly be avoided as it makes the sentence slightly blocky.
  • "the Victorian team" is that the correct usage? Sounds like you are talking about Queen Victorias reign.
  • Should OBE not be linked in the lead?
  • That "references for cricinfo or wisden" thing, haven't seen that before. Is that common practice for cricket articles now? I wonder if there is a more stylish way to do it, maybe with a template or something.
  • I pinched it from the Bradman article. It is less obtrusive that attaching (registration required) after every Cricinfo reference. A template may be a good idea but I think it would need to be relatively understated. -- 11:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All in all, I have to say I don't have too much to talk about, it's a very good article. Good work. SGGH speak! 09:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)
  • Are you awarded an MBE, or made an MBE?
  • "Johnson attended Wesley College and while still a schoolboy he was included in the South Melbourne First XI, aged 16." I think a couple more commas are need in here, maybe after "College", "and", and "schoolboy", or perhaps just after "schoolboy".
  • "In the only Test match, played at the Basin Reserve in Wellington, Johnson scored 7 not out but he was not needed to bowl as New Zealand collapsed for a combined 96 runs in their two innings. In the first Test between the two nations, Australia won by an innings and 103 runs." Was this the first ever test between Aus and NZ? If so, I think that needs to be clarified and probably mentioned earlier - perhaps "In the only and first ever Test ..."
  • "earning himself a pair". Can you earn yourself a pair? You possibly can, but it doesn't quite sound right.
  • "Australia won the series four Tests to nil." How about simply, "Australia won the series 4–0."? Similarly "two-nil" above could be 2–0. Another later on in "Decline in form". Another in "Ashes defeat". In fact there's a few.
  • Did his sons Bill and Bob play any level of cricket?
  • A few MOS points
    • Check for nbsp's. I've added a few when I've seen them missing.
    • Is it correct format to say 4/58, for 4 for 58?
    • There's quite a lot of single digit figures. It might be correct use of the MOS, but I think it looks a bit ugly.
    • I agree wholeheartedly. At FAC sometimes they allow me to keep some as words, other times they insist on the change to numbers. I will take a look and see which instances are worth defending using words for. Mattinbgn\talk 02:21, 26 June 2008 (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.) 14:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to virus

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 am a virologist and I am trying to write a general introduction to viruses for lay readers. I am not overly concerned about comprehensiveness because this is covered in the main article. Thanks, GrahamColmTalk 12:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From SandyGeorgia
  • Left-aligned images under headings, see WP:MOS#Images
  • In "Life-cycle", there is a list of bolded items that have inconsistent punctuation (Penetration: the others don't have a colon).
  • Some stubby sections: "Coevolution theory" has only two sentences. Can it be merged or expanded?
  • I am not a fan of 400px images like in "Protein synthesis"; others are :-) I prefer to see 300 max.
  • Text squeeze in "Antiviral drugs", see WP:MOS#Images.
  • See also includes terms that are already linked in the article, like Virus (see WP:GTL).
  • Ask User:Brighterorange to run his dash-fixing script (page number ranges in citations should use endashes
  • Citation style isn't consistent. Some use cite journal, while others were done manually and don't use the same punctuation, italics, etc., and some are missing PMIDs.
  • Linking:
    • DNA is linked at least three times in the lead, RNA at least twice, bacteria twice; review all linking.
  • Prose:
    • repetitive wording ... that reproduces inside the cell of another organism. It reproduces by ... of itself. To reproduce ...
    • something wrong here: To reproduce, a virus uses the cell's protein, DNA and RNA building-blocks and this usually kills the infected cell.
    • this is awkward, better word than small?, better connection of clauses? Viruses are small and it would take 30,000 to 750,000 of them, side by side, to cover one centimetre.
    • The "and" here isn't working, and if this is an intro article, it should be very accessible, and ... well ... I'm already lost here :-) Viruses consists of three parts: the genetic material, a nucleic acid that contains all the information necessary for the production of progeny viruses, a protein coat that protects this genetic material, and some viruses have an envelope of fat. If it's three parts, I want to see three components in the sentence, so don't know why the "and some viruses" gets stuck on there, which makes four. And, if it's an intro article, progeny needs to be simplified and explained here, at this level, rather than linked.
    • Same thing happens in the next sentence: if it's an intro article, it needs to be *very* accessible (as in 12-yos): Capsid shapes vary from simple helical and icosahedral (polyhedral or near-spherical) forms, to more complex structures. Do 12-yos know what icosahedral and helical mean?
    • Keep the order of terms (plant animal bacteria) the same so as not to confuse reader: ... either animal, plant or bacterial types. Plant, animal and bacterial ...
    • Bad news (I'm dumber than the average bear :-) Since this is an Intro article, it needs to be very very digestible to someone who knows nothing about biology. This doesn't tell me what an organelle is, so I have to click on it. What are these important functions? If viruses don't have organelles, what is the "those" they must use "within a cell to reproduce"? They rob it from the host cell ? I'm just not getting it on an intro level :-)
      • Within cells are structures called organelles; these have one or more important functions and along with cell enzymes, they are needed for metabolism and life. Viruses do not have organelles and must use those within a cell to reproduce. Outside a host cell, viruses are completely inactive (dormant) and are neither alive nor dead. It is controversial whether viruses are actually living organisms. Some people consider them non-living since they do not meet all the criteria needed to be defined as a life form. However, viruses have genes and they evolve.
    • Whoa. First time I hit the word genome, it's not linked, and if I'm 12 years old, I don't know what to do with words like genome: Viruses with larger genomes, such as poxviruses ...

I stopped there for now. Work on these issues and making it more accessible, and I'll keep reading later? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thriller (album)

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, since it failer FA yet again. This will be its 4th peer review. I'm really lost as to what is actually wrong with the article now so I really need all the feedback you can offer. After this review closes I think we'll be ready to take it to FA - but I said that last time. Im really open to all suggestions as I'm a little out of ideas. Apparently there is a concern that there aren't enough reviews from when it was first released. We currently have 4 reviews from 1982-1983 and 3 reviews made in the 21st century. Old reviews are really hard to come by specially in magazines; which are dominated by white rock.

  • Please read the peer review directions more carefully. Articles that have had an unsuccessful FAC have to wait two weeks (14 days) before they are submitted to Peer Review. The thought is that the FAC should have many comments for improvement and these should all be thoroughly addressed BEFORE submitting to peer review. Since the FAC is a very detailed review, it is a waste of scarce PR resources to peer review this in its curent state. Sorry, APR t 02:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24: The Game

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Already a GA. I'm hopful we can give this the final push towards FA status. Buc (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, Buc (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a fair chunk of the work to get this article to GA, so I'm happy to lend a hand getting it up to FA standard. Gazimoff WriteRead 21:02, 17 June 2008 (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.
    • Wouldn't it make more sense to source the BAFTA awards to the BAFTA awards site instead of IMDb?
    • What makes http://www.soundtrack.net/ a reliable source?
    • the WP:MOS frowns on titles of links being in all capitals.
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.) 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Giggy comments
  • I do love my three paragraph leads.... :-) - check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20080409 perhaps.
  • "The use of actor voices and likenesses was one of the few well received elements of the game" - can you be more specific? Who does the image resemble? Etc. etc.
  • It feels a bit unbalanced with a lot more plot/gameplay than development/reception.
  • "With the exception of the interrogation minigame, they are all computer puzzles." - what does "they" refer to? What are you talking about here?
  • "One of the interrogation mini games in progress, showing a suspect being broken" - again, the more said about the image, the more you can rationalise its educational fair use.
  • What Ealdgyth said about the BAFTAs. IMDB should be avoided if possible.
  • I hope these comments help. 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). Cheers, giggy (:O) 10:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Long (American football)

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 one person whom beleives that this article doesn't need any improvement. I would like to hear what others think about this article and how it can be improved upon. --Pinkkeith (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is unfair to say I don't want "any" improvements. I just didn't want large sections deleted. In the end, that's what has occured anyway, so it seems my opinion counts for nothing.72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement.
  • If your aiming for a GA, the lead needs to be expanded to meet WP:LEAD.
  • Add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
  • There are a couple of "dead link" tags for non-existing external links. Provide alternate references.
  • Both the 2005 and 2006 sections need to be expanded and referenced.
  • That's all for now. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 16:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of Milk's Favorite Cookie's comments. Here are some further suggestions for improvement (read it last night):

  • Nothing should be just in the lead - so his father being Howie Long should also be in the body of the article.
  • What is his mother's name?
  • I would move the "Personal" section on his brothers into the "Early life" section. I would also name his other brother.
  • Some of the sentences are so poorly written that it is almost impossible to tell what is meant. Two examples:
    • As a senior in 2003 he was in on 91 tackles, 23 tackles for a loss, and 15 sacks helping his team to an undefeated record and the state championship. Do the 23 tackles for a loss count as part of the 91 tackles?
    • The selection made him just the second son of a Hall of Famer, after Kellen Winslow II, to be drafted in the first round, the fifth such player ever drafted, and one of two such players drafted in 2008 (the other being Matthew Slater).[14] I have no idea what the fifth such player ever drafted means here - the fifth son of a Hall of Famer perhaps? Also two such players - what kind?
  • 2005 and 2006 have zero refs. Any reason the college carrer couldn't be one section 2004 - 2006 and then a second section on his senior year?
  • Very listy stuff in "Pre-2008 NFL Draft" section - put it into prose and provide context for the reader. Are these numbers better than average or worse? What is "Campus pro day" (at least there is a link for "NFL combine")? See WP:PCR
  • Avoid one or two sentence paragraphs and sections. Expand or combine.
  • All internet refs need title, URL, publisher, date accessed (and author, date, etc. if known)

Article needs a lot of work to get to GA. By the way PR is not for dispute resolution either. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:25, 19 June 2008 (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 because I am hoping to take it to a good article nomination. Lots of Indians folks have reviewed and I think its time for an outside perspective.


Thanks, Montco (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

That's a start for you. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the easy stuff. I need to spend some time looks for refs. But I appreciate your input. Montco (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Broncos seasons

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hopful I can get this to FL status at some piont.


Thanks, Buc (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:MOS.
  • Put (NFL) after National Football League.
  • Remove full stop in caption - it's a sentence fragment so it doesn't need a full stop per WP:MOS.
  • Four paras in lead is too much for such a short article - see WP:LEAD.
  • Explain what AFC is before you use it.
  • Link Super Bowl.
  • Explain what a "losing season" is.
  • "...and were AFC West champions twice and AFC champions once." and.. and... reads clumsily.
  • "two years in a row" prefer "for two consecutive years"
  • "have also experienced one notable periods of decline" ?!
  • "when they never made the playoffs " just "did not make the playoffs" is better.
  • "They also had their two worst seasons " ..." They also experienced their..." would be better.
  • "But they never made the playoffs prior to the AFL-NFL merger in 1970." don't start a sentence with "But..." and avoid this "never made..." stuff.
  • Explicit references required for the "Coach of the Year" etc awards.
  • Explain the significance of "The Drive" and "The Fumble" for non-experts.
  • "sportsecyclopedia.com. " or "Sports Encyclopedia"? Same site is given different parameters.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dol Guldur

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

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

I feel the article is shaping up, I've constantly edited this article to reach the standards of the Wikiproject and the I believe the headings should stay where they are as per "location" section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards.

Things of concern:

  • I need someone to consider if this article meets criteria of not being in-universe
  • I need advice to contact a user who can copy edit this. I don't know if there is a project on that.
  • The article is looking good I need someone to give me advice generally.
  • All in all I need advice on how I can improve it as a whole.

Thanks, LOTRrules (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Nice article although I think that it needs some work to get to GA and more work to reach FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. I reviewed Saruman recently and thought it did a great job on keeping an out of universe perspective and think it might be useful to help with that aspect of this article. I also note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth#Featured_articles lists several FA and GA articles that may be useful models.
  • I think this needs work to be consistently written from an out of universe perspective. If you have not already read WP:IN-U, please do so. I think more references to Tolkien would help (there are already refs to the novels) and perhaps some changes in structure would help too. I also note that the article on Saruman starts with Concept and creation, which emphasizes how Tolkien came to create the character. Looking at the lead (more on that later) the last two sentences give no indication this is a fictional place.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - please see WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - for example Politics or Adaptations do not appear in the lead. The lead should also be expanded to 2 to 3 paragraphs for the length of the article.
  • Typically the lead does not need refs since it is a summary of the article, which should be cited. Direct quotes and extraordinary claims should still be cited even in the lead.
  • Provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR For example, not all readers will know what Sindarin is, so instead ojust linking it, say something like in Tolkien's fictional Elf language Sindarin ...
  • Etymology does a good job being out of universe, while Geography is written almost entirely from an in universe perspective.
  • Article needs more references, for example the first paragraph of Geography has no refs or the first two paragraphs in Culture are also without cites. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Refs are not complete - for example internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. See Ref 22 which is a bare link, or ref 28 is for an album and should indicate that. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • Some of the refs are not properly done or do not seem to meet WP:RS. Ref 2 See detailed map is not sufficient - since the map is Tolkien's own, the ref should cite that. Or what makes http://www.tuckborough.net/fortress.html a reliable source?
  • There is a lot of scholarship and even popular books on Tolkien and his works and these should be cited for a third party perspective.
  • Languages section - per WP:Summary style there should be a summary of the article referenced here. I must admit I don't see how this ties in to Dol Guldur - how does this differ from te Etymology section?
  • Adaptations - surely Dol Guldur is portrayed in some way in one of the animated films? Or is it at least mentioned in the recent LOTR films? How about the Borthers Hildbrandt calendars or even a ref to artwork in the infobox?
  • Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - expand them or combine with others. As is, they break up the flow of the article.
  • Agree this needs a copyedit - ask a volunteer at WP:PRV or leave a message on the talk page of one of the users lsted at WP:LOCE
  • I think what is there is generally good, just needs some polish, perhaps some restructuring.

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 ><>°° 03:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information you provided. Structure is said to have been laid out that way, that's why it's there on the standards page, however to get it to GA or FA I agree that some sections are irrelevent, some need polish and some need work. LOTRrules (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A late comment, but one that applies to all fiction-related subjects: is it possible to discuss the author's (Tolkien in this case) relationship with his creation? An example of what I am trying to indicate here is nicely illustrated with Tom Bombadill, whose creation was inspired by a Dutch doll owned by Tolkien's children, & whose nature Tolkien admitted that he left unexplained because he felt some parts of a literary work ought to be mysterious -- even to its own creator. In the case of Dol Guldur, an example could be whether Tolkien originally created it to be the Necromancer's/Sauron's base of operations, but grew dissatisfied with it as his vision developed & in the end replaced it with Barad Dur. Obviously, the information may not be available in a usable form -- but I would hope a FA would cover this matter if it is.-- llywrch (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed Feminism for peer review in order to gauge how readable, clear and well written it is for readers not already knowledgeable in the subject. It would be good to see how close to (or far away from) featured status or good article status the page is in other people's eyes. Suggestions on readability, size, scope and general featured article criteria are very much welcome. Thanks in advance--Cailil talk 18:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cailil, I will provide as detailed a peer review I can for this topic. I skimmed it very quickly, and with some small changes it seems it may be in the final stages before GA and then FA. I'm in the middle of a very long and detailed peer review myself, so take into account this process may take a while due to the length and comprehensiveness of your topic. That's not a bad thing. So give me a couple days to make some initial comments. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Moni3 - I'll look forward to reading your suggestions--Cailil talk 18:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final FRCA

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 references have been added and it has been edited to match the Primary FRCA sections which I have also edited.

Thanks, Olimorgan (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: A fairly short article - peer review is usually for more developed work, but here are some suggestions for improvement. SInce this is very similar to Primary FRCA I am recylcing much of that peer review (still applies here too):

  • A model article is often useful for ideas on structure, style, refs, etc. ACT (examination) and SAT are both exam articles that are B class and may offer some ideas.
  • 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, for example Higher Specialist Training.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, so include something for the sections on Form of the Examination, Marking Scheme, Syllabus, and Fellowship. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The lead sentence should probably be something like The Final Examination of the Diploma of Fellowship of the Royal College of Anaesthetists (commonly known as the Final FRCA) is ...[1]
  • Any chance for an image of any sort?
  • Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections as they break up the flow of the article.
  • Avoid bullet lists - convert to prose.
  • Any reason why this article could not be combined (merged) with Primary FRCA? Perhaps as "FRCA Examinations" with redirects from this and Primary FRCA?
  • Or why not make this part of the Royal College of Anaesthetists page?
  • What makes this topic notable - see WP:NN? Where are the independent third-party sources on 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
  • Much of the article reads like a how to, not an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOT
  • Article could use a copy edit to clean up / polish prose.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 20:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leptictidium

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 an FA in Catalan wikipedia and has attained GA status in the Spanish wikipedia. I think its content is good enough for FA here as well, and possibly only needs tweaks in language or style issues. Only one thing is non-negotiable; I am not going to change the text from British English to American English.

If possible, I'd also like to keep the lead as it is (since I believe leads should be just an introduction, not a fully-fledged overview), but I can adjust that to the WP:LEAD standards if necessary.

Thanks for your time and attention, Leptictidium (mt) 23:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lions (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 because I believe it's dang close to meeting the featured article criteria but want the opinion of someone not involved in writing it.


Thanks, Zeagler (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

indopug
  • I'll look at the rest later but what makes crowesbase.com a reliable sources? Looks like a fansite to me.
  • Both those videos need to go per WP:NFCC #8. An image of them playing at Letterman is not a significant addition to prose in any way. The music video is more suited for the song's article (where you would discuss the music videos, not here)
  • Why are there two refs after Audly Freed's name in the Personnel section? The section is self referential to the CD itself so you don't need a reference normally. indopug (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was speculation that his actual contribution to the album was nothing more than "watched from the sidelines", so I found references where his contributions are discussed. —Zeagler (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giggy
  • In the pro reviews part of the infobox, if you don't have a URL, just put some publication details there instead (ie. no need for refs).
    • Can you point me towards some articles where this is done so I can see the formatting?
  • The music sample needs a better description (one that actually says something about what it contains) and would look better on the right.
    • Done.
  • An FAC could have concerns over the use of fair use imagery (like, do you need both of those images.... do they add anything?).
    • Will beef up the fair use rationales.
  • And with having more than 1 audio sample, same again...
  • The 1 star NME review isn't mentioned anywhere in the prose. Why not?
    • In general the reception could be longer.
      • The NME review isn't mentioned because I recently found a number of reviews (thanks in part to the Internet Archive) and added them to the infobox at the expense of reviews that only had references. I'll incorporate them into the critical reception section. —Zeagler (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

giggy (:O) 04:32, 15 June 2008 (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.) 00:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Marysville, Washington

edit

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

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 would be a good GA nominee after some improvements. I would like to know what kinds of improvements are needed to make this a GA.

Thanks! — ComputerGuy890100Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 00:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement to potential GA level:

  • A model article is always useful for ideas on structure, refs, style, etc. Seattle, Washington is a FA and Hillsboro, Oregon is a GA that may be useful as models.
  • 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. Example the "Strawberry City".
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, so the lead needs to be expanded to perhaps three paragraphs. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Biggest problem as I see it with this article right now is a lack of references. For example the whole first history section has zero refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • Avoid external links right in the article (like Summer Jubilee). Add these as a reference instead.
  • Next biggest problem is comprehensiveness - for example, look at History, did nothing happen from 1891 to 2008?
  • The 2008 makeover section reads like a brochure and has way too much detail. This is worth a sentence or two, not its own section. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM
  • Avoid short paragraphs (one or sentences) and short sections, as they break up the flow of the article. Combine these with others or expand them.
  • Article has all sorts of typos and odd formatting and needs a copyedit for prose. The senior centre served formerly as a city hall, police station, jail, fire station, and library before becoming a senior center in 1997.
  • Try to avoid needless repetition - senior center is repeted three times in two sentences.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.
  • Watch out for peacock language like "utopian" - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK

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 ><>°° 20:31, 18 June 2008 (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.

Polar 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 it's my first Wikipedia Article.

Thanks, Joey (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ilse@
  • The first sentence with the subject definition could be improved: written in singular ("A polar city is...") and shorter, see for more info Wikipedia:Manual of Style#First sentences.
  • I like the image, but I would like to see a caption explaining better what is shown, see for more info Wikipedia:Captions.
  • The purpose of using an infobox instead of a simple image is unclear to me.
  • If there are more futurists ("some futurists") that published about the concept of the polar city, they could be mentioned, and their concepts could be compared.
  • The facts mentioned in the last paragraph ("After reading ... somewhere issue.") do not seem encyclopedic to me. I believe the non-encyclopedic content should be removed.
  • There are some more words in the article that could be wikilinked, see for more info Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links.
  • The article could be categorized, see for more info Wikipedia:Categorization.
  • The references could be formatted, see for some useful templates Wikipedia:Citation templates.

Success with the article! – Ilse@ 09:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political Appointments 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 created the article, and am so far its only contributor. A third party's objective appraisal would be of great benefit.


Thanks, Ohconfucius (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: At this stage I'm not going to give a line-by-line critique, but will draw your attention to a few basic things you need to do to this article.

Title: The article is apparently about a political appointments system in Hong Kong, not political appointment systems generally. The title needs to reflect this, and should be changed to Political Appointments System in Hong Kong – or something similar.

Explanations: The lead section needs to contain both a precise summary of exactly what this new appointments system entails, such as can be understood by someone who is unfamiliar with the Hong Kong government structure. At present the opening of the article is very confused. For example, between which two layers of the existing bureaucracy are the two new layers being inserted? Why is "political appointees" in quotes? Why are the new appointments deemed "non-civil service"? These are just some of the areas in the article where lack of clarity prevents understanding.

Prose: The overall standard of the prose is by no means bad, but needs some attention. Among the poorly-constructed sentences are the first in the article and, later on, "The government maintained that there was no legal or constitutional barrier to have foreign nationality". Also, casual expressions like "kicking off" need to be avoided in an encyclopedia article.

Hong Kong Dollars: The number of people who know the value of the Hong Kong $ is likely to be limited. You need to give an equivalence of value, say to the UD$, much earlier in the article than you do.

Name-forms: Some of the Romanised name formats are odd, e.g. "Dr Poon Kit, Kitty", and "Yau Shing-mu". The former includes a title, the latter is not a westernised format.

Manual of Style issues: You need to consult WP:MOS for information about date formatting and linking, also about showing small numbers in words, not numerals, and other requirements, e.g. non-break spaces, non-capitalisation of public appointment titles, etc.

In-text citations to web sources: these need to be properly formatted in accordance with the {{cite web}} template.

I hope these suggestions will help you towards improving your article.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupine (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 because I've substantially re-written it over the last few weeks and I'm aiming to nominate it for GA status.


Thanks, JD554 (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy comments
  • This isn't far off GA standards.
  • The audio sample captions need more detail, to show how they're being used educationally (and it needs to relate to the text).
    • Fixed
  • Some of the reviews in the reception section aren't in the infobox... be consistent.
    • Fixed
  • First sentence of article should mention genre.
    • Fixed
  • "it became the band's highest charting release when it reached number two on the UK Albums Chart despite initially receiving poor reviews." - probably put a comma before 'despite"
    • Fixed
  • "Following a difficult period writing Porcupine, it was recorded at Trident Studios in London, Rockfield Studios in South Wales and Amazon Studios in Liverpool." - I think it'd read better if you removed a bit... "following a difficult writing period, Porcupine was recorded..."?
    • Fixed
  • I hope these comments help. 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). Cheers, giggy (:O) 03:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primate

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's had quite a bit of improvement over the past month and will be pushed towards FAC. From an outsiders point of view what does this article need to get it to that goal?

Thanks, Jack (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2008 (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 4 is just a title and publication date. Needs journal title, author, etc.
    • Current ref 6 is lacking publisher and last access date
    • Would be nice to have ISBN numbers for the books
    • Current ref 11 is lacking a journal title.
    • Current ref 12, is that an article from a collected work? Or a book? Needs page numbers and publisher at the very least.
    • Current ref 36 is just a title link. Needs publisher and last access date at the very least
    • Current ref 37 needs last access date
    • Current ref 40 is just a title link. Needs publisher and last access date at the very least
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.) 14:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Think I've sorted all of that out now. Jack (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article that is generally well done, but still has a ways to go to get through FAC in my opinion. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  1. A model article is useful - I note there are a bunch of potential model FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Biology_and_medicine
  2. 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 I do not see anything on hybrids or legal status (to name a few). Please see WP:LEAD
  3. Biggest problem I see for this going to FAC is lack of references. There are whole sections and paragraphs and even a direct quote or two without refs. This would be the kiss of death at FAC. A few examples - the last two sentences in Skull and brain, the whole sections Hands and feet and Limbs and vertebral column and Locomotion, anything that seems to refer to specific data like There is some evidence from the fossil record that suggests that there was convergent evolution of dimorphism, and some extinct hominids probably exceeded dimorphism of any living primate. needs a ref, as do direct quotes like despite Aristotle's observation that "only the human animal laughs".
  4. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  5. Current ref 2 is a note on etymology and needs to give a source
  6. Current ref 15 is broken (red Cite error)
  7. Some refs give the full journal title (Constable, J. L. et al (2001). "Noninvasive paternity assignment in Gombe chimpanzees". Molecular Ecology 10 (5): 1279-1300.), others give abbreviated journal titles with periods (Surridge, A. K., and D. Osorio (2003). "Evolution and selection of trichromatic vision in primates". Trends in Ecol. and Evol. 18: 198–205.), and others give abbreviated journal titles with no periods ( Kay, R. F. (1975). "The functional adaptations of primate molar teeth". Am J Phys Anthropol. 43 (2): 195–215.). These should be consistent for all refs.
  8. Similarly, why do some mentions of primates give just the English name and others give that and the Latin genus and species after? Consistency
  9. It is hard to avoid in an article like this, but wherever possible, explain or avoid jargon, see WP:PCR and WP:JARGON
  10. Per [WP:MOS#Images]] use thumb to allow reader prefernces for image size to take over (tamarin photo for one example)
  11. Captions should explain better than "Three primate species" - which three?
  12. Avoid needless repetition.

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 ><>°° 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 have been covered. Will try to sort out references next. Jack (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.S. Lazio

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 improve it.

Thanks, Andrea 93 (msg) 08:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • The lead could be bulked up a bit - an article of this length could easily withstand a lead of twice the size, keep it to three or four paragraphs but make the paras larger.
I'm sorry, but I have not understand this point... --Andrea 93 (msg) 16:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEAD suggests "Current Squad" should be "Current squad".
Done --Andrea 93 (msg) 16:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose needs work - lots of single (or few) sentence paragraphs - merge them to improve the way it looks and reads. Check out other football featured articles for good examples.
Probably I'm not the ideal person to do this work. --Andrea 93 (msg) 16:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to use US English (e.g. organize instead of organise) when probably British English would make more sense (but that's not critical).
I'm sorry, but I have not understand also this point... --Andrea 93 (msg) 16:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More references are essential. I took Ipswich Town F.C. to FA and had a lot less to talk about than there would be for Lazio, but I still had around 100 citations.
I'm working on... --Andrea 93 (msg) 07:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Season delimiters should be en-dash instead of hyphen (e.g. 1900–01 instead of 1900-01).
Done --Andrea 93 (msg) 07:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations should be placed per WP:CITE, i.e. in general immediately after punctation if possible.
Done --Andrea 93 (msg) 06:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "May 16th, 1902" - see WP:DATE for correct formatting.
Done --Andrea 93 (msg) 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Goran Pandev, one of the most important Lazio players today." - firstly it's a sentence fragment so remove the full stop. Secondly, who says he's one of the "most important" players? POV.
Done --Andrea 93 (msg) 21:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the players in the notable players list notable? POV.
Done --Andrea 93 (msg) 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 8 and 9 appear identical so use ref name.
Done --Andrea 93 (msg) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start for you. I would urge you to look at WP:FOOTBALL's list of feature club articles for suggestions on how to take this further. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I will give my best. --Andrea 93 (msg) 21:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan Tamil people

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 featured article status. I am looking for help with prose, style and simplification. Thanks, Taprobanus (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

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…

A current GA, recently had a failed FA candidacy that failed and was awarded A-class by WikiProject Video Games. I would like to know what is needed to reach Featured status.

Thanks, igordebraga ≠ 18:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it basically failed due to 1a (prose) concerns, which I can't help that much with; I suggest contacting some editors with copyediting prowess and promising them eternal rewards for helping whip the prose into shape. Besides that, though...
    • Development - sometimes reads like a history timeline, sometimes doesn't. Perhaps you want to reorganize the block of text?
    • Images - the two left-aligned images just look... bad. One way to put it to the right is to compress the release dates, as seen in Riven, or cutting down on extraneous details in the infobox (like the series portion, it's mentioned right up top in the lead.) Some actual movement could also help. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did my best and managed to do the second (if the TOC was really large, would be easier). igordebraga ≠ 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Article is good, and like i said, its definitely A class.. The only few things that bother me are:
  • On many occasions, the article states HOW to do a certain thing in terms of what buttons on the controller to press, which, in my opinion doesn't belong into a Wikipedia article, i.e. you can just remove it.. (As with the other 3-D Zelda games, a "lock-on" mechanism allows Link to stay aimed on an enemy while strafing around them. This technique, circle strafing, is triggered with the Z button for the Wii and the L button for the GameCube.) You could include that it's called circle strafing in the previous sentence and remove the one about what buttons to press ;)
  • I'm not a Zelda fan, and even though i know who Link is, i wouldn't take fo granted that everyone does.. The first time "Link" (The story focuses on Link, who tries to....) Link could be anything to those who dont know about the Zelda universe.. it could be a robot, an evil guy, you get the point, maybe add one sentence explaining that he's the hero etc..

Apart from that, It's all good imo.. then again, i phail at spotting prose errors.. leave that to the copyeditors :P

Hope this helps a bit! //Yzmo talk 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sentence The GameCube versions have two major control scheme differences, free camera control using the C-Stick, and being able to equip only two items because the Z button is used to call Midna if the player is in need of help. Should be removed or changed so that it tells from what the GC version is different and so that it doesnt specify any specific keys..

Maybe change it to "There are minor control scheme differences between the Wii and the GC version or something. Yzmo talk 22:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No more replies? igordebraga ≠ 17:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) We resolved all the sourcing issues at the last FAC, so assuming you haven't added any new non-RS things, everything should be good from that angle. 17:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy comments
  • You should wlink Nintendo the 1st (not 2nd) time you mention it.
  • "It is the series 20th year anniversary" - relevant to the 1st paragraph of the lead how?
  • "but was changed as development progressed" - that's obvious... say exactly when/why.
  • "It takes place many year" - change "it" to "the game"
  • "on the GameCube as of 31 March 2007.[8] and" - new sentence? Reword

That's from the lead. giggy (:O) 03:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a random section;
  • "the player will be given the option of using the Wii's unique controller;[29] and it was not suspected that two versions of the game would be released - just use its name (Wii remote), and change "and it was" to "thus, it was" (or something like that)
  • "Reggie Fils-Aime denied these claims, stating that, across the board, GameCube games played on the Wii would not be compatible with the Wii's controller" - comma overload.
  • "Time also reported this soon after." - remove the also
  • Magazines/newspapers in refs need italics (say this after seeing Time there).
Generally not bad! —Giggy 08:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha169 A tad bit late...or actually, really late, but... *Current Cite 3 needs publisher

    • Fixed.
  • Current Cite 14 requires a check on the publisher's reliability
  • Current Cite 65... Just look at the homepage, need I say anything more? Need check on publisher's reliability
      • Could you name the publishers? Your "ref 3" was mine "ref 10", maybe there is a conflict.
        • I should have done that before. But I can't anymore. The conflict is the addition of new refs between then and now, causing the existing refs to be pushed down, hence the "current cite". Um. Just search the region and find ones lacking publishers/accessdates. Those two are required, everything else can be added if information is there. I've stricken all of them because a quick scan reveals that all publishers and accessdates are there. Keep an eye out, though, for new refs.--haha169 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Gameplay section may need better organization, for it describes in-game functions, jump to WindWaker engine/graphics, displays a paragraph about motion-sensor, and suddenly talks about Artificial Intelligence. I'm not sure how, but it needs better organization.
    • Removed the paragraph on graphics, doesn't fit much. The rest, don't know.
    • Try in-game functions, followed by the Wii's motion-sensor capabilities. Artificial Intelligence is orphaned, and needs a ref for sentence 1. --haha169 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Reference Box should have least one review that's not in the 90% range (or 89%) per WP:NPOV. But that's not a really big problem right now, since I'm aware that most reviews from credible sources are great.
  • "Review websites such as IGN, EGM, 1UP.com, Game Informer, CVG, GamesRadar, PALGN and Gaming Nexus have hailed it as the greatest Zelda game ever made.[9][10][11][12][13][58][59][60]" ... Gaming Nexus? PALGN? Games Radar? Include only the biggest reviewers, and remove some of those cites. The sentence needs to be re-written because you don't say "Review sites like IGN said... unless its a direct reviewer quote. Instead, fix it likewise: "It is largely considered to be the greatest Zelda game ever created, [cite] because (compare w/ OoT)[cite]"
  • Oh, I just came up with a new one! The box-art should have a fair-use rationale template to make it look better and more professional. It might save time during your future FAC, because they most certainly will ask for one. But this is optional. --haha169 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, great article. My greatest problem is with the Reception section, where problems aren't everywhere, either. Just fix the references, establish verifiability, and maintain NPOV. I couldn't find lots of errors, so that's a good thing! --haha169 (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tulunids

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 promote it to GA class. Given the lack of historical material on the dynasty, I think the current amount of information is OK for GA status (but not for FA status). I also want users to comment on the article's neutrality, verifiability, reliability of sources, and comprehensiveness. Revealing the article's grammatical and stylistic errors is also something I want.


Thanks, Bless sins (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: I have made a fair number of minor changes to the text, mainly to improve grammar, remove repetitions, etc. This does not amount to a full copyedit, however. The article is generally well-written, but would benefit further from the scrutiny of a competent copyeditor.

The article is, overall, neutral in tone, although a few subjective terms such as "marvellous" should be cited or replaced. It is also reasonably comprehensive. The referencing may be a problem in that almost all citations are either to an on-line Britannica article or to the Encyclopedia of Islam. These are presumably reliable sources, but since you have not indicated page numbers or article details for the Encyclopedia of Islam references, it would be difficult for someone to attempt verification. A wider range of sources would have been preferable.

Some specific points from the text:

  • Lead:It is important to the reader's understanding of this article that "Abbasids" be briefly explained. The term is linked, but on central matters like this, your article should be autonomous. I suggest: "…internal conflict among the Abbasids, the ruling caliphate of the Arab empire, meant that control…" etc
  • Historic context
    • Section heading should be "Historical context", not "historic". However, I suggest that this short preliminary paragraph would be better as the first subsection of the main "History" section, and titled "Background"
    • "Regionalism" and "regional" in close proximity in the text, reads awkwardly. Suggest change the second to "provincial".
    • "Iraq"? I thought that this was the modern, not the ancient name for the region?
    • The redlink is very untidy as you have it. Can the name format be simplified?
    • It's not clear why the "developments" you describe enabled Ahmad Ibn Tulun to expand his authority. I would suggest: "As a result of this instability, Ahmad Ibn Tulun was able to establish and expand his authority".
  • Ahmad Ibn Tulun
    • The year form 254/868 must be explained, in the text or by a footnote
    • "Ahmad Ibn Tulun maintained his power". Does this mean he defeated the Abbasid armies?
    • English Wikipedia readers will have problems with forms such as Ḵh̲umāramayh, which you have now introduced into the article and occur in profusion later, with no explanation. I personally think that it would be better to stick to the standard English alphabet, as at the start of the article, unless you have a particular reason for this change.
    • Ten-year reign? 868-884 indicates longer. Also, describing it as "successful" is opinion unless cited.
    • Palestine and Syria were occupied – by Ibn Tulun, presumably. You should state so.
  • Khumarawayh: Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Wāsiṭī is another awkward name format.
  • Culture
    • Word missing: "Khumarawayh's [reign] exceeded his father['s] in spending"
    • "marvellous" is opinion, unless cited to a source
    • Some indication of the worth of "400,000 and one million dinars" would be useful. The link on dinar to the modern currency is not particularly helpful.
    • Ottoman should be linked
  • Military
    • Usage of "blacks" to describe people is definitely unacceptable. Suggest end sentence at "Sudanese".
    • Military engagements should be summarised by text, not by bullet points
  • Economy: "propitious" levels? A very odd choice of word.
  • Financial autonomy
    • First sentence is unnecessary.
    • Last sentence: there should be a better way, in an encyclopedia article, of referring to doubts about the 300,000 dinars.
  • Tulunid administration
    • "pitiless" needs a citation
    • phrases like "which in Egypt is a sine qua non" may not be understood by the general reader. Also, political stability is surely an essential condition anywhere, not just in Egypt?
  • Large expenditures: "..on the eve of the young Tulunid’s rise" would be better phrased "…at the time of his succession".

I hope that these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI'm somewhat puzzled by your statement that there is a "lack of historical data" on this period. While the 9th & 10th centuries in Egypt are not as well documented as 20th century Egypt might be, & that the average public library might be lacking in books on this period, translations of primary sources (chronologies, histories, biographies) & scholarly works do exist. You may also need to think about looking at histories of neighboring countries or events either just before or after this period for possible sources. Looking through the bibliographies of some of the related books in my personal library, Vasilev's Byzantium and the Arabs looks as if it might have useful. Other possible sources would be the works of Eutychius of Alexandria (mentioned by Steven Runciman) and History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria. A Wikipedian who may have some useful suggestions about reliable works for this period is Adam Bishop -- llywrch (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu keyboard

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is at the right stage for peer review to further develop into a featured content. Thanks, IslesCapeTalk 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

edit

Right. In order:

  • Lead image is very low resolution - it claims to be 3000px wide, however, at full resolution is extremely blocky. JPEG quality was clearly set too low. Also, it needs to be bigger in the article - the article is about the Urdu keyboard, but the picture is far too small to be able to make out any letter. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Urdu is a versatile language with the potential to expand and grow to fulfil the needs of modern communications technologies." - Odd phrasing, almost sounds like advertising. I'd suggest instead talking about the facts that make this true.
  • As I read it, the Urdu keyboard no longer supports Sindhi or Pushto? Do they have their own keyboard now?
  • It needs images of each stage of the evolution.
  • It's rather short; that may be an issue at WP:FAC, unless more content can be found. It could probably at least make GA, though, with some revision.

Good luck! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2008 (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 7 is just a plain url. Needs to be formatted to give a title in the link as well as other bibliographical information, with publisher and last access date being the very minimum.
    • I note some sections are unreferenced, that will probably be a concern 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.) 00:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Review by User:Quadell

edit
  • This article needs at least one photograph. It should really have layout images or photos of several different layouts. As mentioned above, the current image should be redone, probably as an svg.
  • The history and evolution is covered in depth, but non-history information is light. For instance, how many people use Urdu keyboards? How common are Urdu keyboards (compared to Roman-character keyboards) among native Urdu speakers? How popular is the "standard" 4th-gen keyboard compared to older models? What are the challenges to creating one (number of characters, right-to-left script, etc.)
  • Did you make up the 1st gen / 2nd gen / 3rd gen / 4th gen division? Or is that from a source? The nomenclature should be explicitly sourced, or else removed.
  • It's rather disorganized. The "lead" paragraph should summarize what's in the article, but it gives its own information in this article. The first paragraph under "evolution" isn't mostly about the keyboard's evolution. I would organize it something like this:
    1. lead
    2. history
    3. popularity
    4. hardware and software
  • Good luck! – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washburn High School

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 of all the work I've done to it and I'd like to see what others thought of the article and what can be improved. I know the history section needs updating and I will be doing that shortly, but until then, please comment on the article as a whole or any piece you'd like.

Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ~ Eóin (talk)
I really like how this article has progressed. I hope you are planning to make this a Good article. I've found it's helpful to look at Category:GA-Class school articles for some examples of other articles. Here are some comments:

  • The lead section could use expanding to at least two paragraphs. Look at Wikipedia:Lead section for advice.
  • Be careful when you discuss graduation rates as they can vary wildly depending on how they are calculated. This from the MNDOE show that Washburn's rate can vary from 89.9 to 49.6. So when comparisons are made make sure the same calculation is used.

*Is the newspaper's name the The Ghrist or the The Grist?

*Categories like "High schools in Minnesota" or "High schools in the United States" don't need to be included because "High schools in Minneapolis" is a sub-cat of them. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines #3 for the guideline.

* Does the tunnel run under the stadium?

  • Try to avoid one sentence sections like "Bilingual support". Try merging them to other parts of the article.
  • The "Fresh Start" section is very good but I don't feel like I know why Washburn was selected. Was it an enforced No Child Left Behind measure or a proactive approach?
  • As you noted the History section could use some work.
  • The referencing is great, keep it up.
  • I've got free access to the archives of the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press. If you ever want an article just tell me and I can email it to you. I've relied on the old stories heavily for articles like Minneapolis North and Arlington Senior High School.

That's it for now. You've done a fantastic job so far, I hope you keep working on it. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a stab at the history section, it could use some tinkering and extra work. I noticed Washburn has a good number of state championships [1]. Most schools articles list them. There are a couple of ways to do it. For example: separated into sports like Roswell High School, in a large table like Bloomington Kennedy , or just listed like Minneapolis North. ~ Eóin (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbed

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 improve this article to the featured article level. I would be very glad to become feedback


Thanks, Vb (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2008 (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. 21:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have reviewed with FAC in mind as your future objective.

  • The lead does not conform with WP:LEAD in that it is a short introduction, rather than a "concise overview" of the whole article.
  • Structure. The overall structure is too loose. The idea of structuring the article around the four main albums doesn’t really work. Within these album subsections, general information about the band is also given, seemingly at random. Sometimes the information is at an unnecessary level of detail, for example the paragraph dealing with Disturbed pack 01 – all that stuff about prices and points and free downloads etc. That is ephemeral information, for a weekly magazine; the encyclopedia article has to be written to last. A similar criticism relates to: "It has been recently announced…" This won't make much sense in the future, nor will writing about events of July and August 2008 in the future tense.
  • Non-encyclopedic language: Although, overall, the prose is clear enough, there are many instances of informal or non-encyclopedic language. A certain degree of formality in expression is required, as against what might be acceptable in a magazine article. Some examples (not an exhaustive list):-
    • "demos" for demonstration discs (or tapes)
    • "Not long after", without a time reference
    • "still is used a great deal to this day" – imprecise, what is “this day?”
    • referring to a band member in the text as "Fuzz", his nickname
    • "skip the tour"
    • "wasn't" - OK within quote, but not in body of text – should be "was not" (first line of Indestructible section)
  • Images – only one used.
  • Referencing: see Ealdgyth comments above.

There is no reason why this article should not, in time, join the dozens of other band articles on the FA list, but my feeling is that it is still at a relatively early stage of development. I think that the present Start rating is about right. I suggest study of recent band FAs, to get an idea of what a featured article entails, then much work before a return to the review process.

I hope that this is of some help. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Should Coco

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It is my aim to get this article to Good Article standard, and I would like some constructive comments about the content of the page and the amount of referencing on it and how I could expand the Lead section would be much appreciated.


Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to tell you that the sound samples should be reduced in length. The consensus from WP:Music Samples states that the samples should be a maximum of 30 seconds and no more than 10% of the length of the original recording. Regarding the lead, try to summarise or state the most important fact from each of the sections (but this is only a suggestion). The lead should form a short summary of the article. I would suggest the lead should perhaps be two paragraphs, doubling its current size. Maybe this second section could give a short comment on musical style/major influences for the album, reference to critics' response and mention of the Mercury Prize Award. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of Sillyfolkboy's comments above. Here are a few more suggestions for improvement:

  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, agree it should be at least two paragraphs. Please see WP:LEAD
  • A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. There are many FAs on albums at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music that may be useful as models
  • Refer to the members of the band by their last names, not their first (encyclopedic tone) Gaz, Danny, and Mick had been playing gigs around Oxford when they were spotted by producer Sam Williams, who said he wanted to work with them.
  • Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. The whole genre was seen as the voice of youth, but Supergrass dealt with the subject most elaborately, being still in their teens themselves when the album was made. The most well-known song from the album, "Alright", is still played regularly in Britain and Ireland, and held up as an example of teenage rebellion in music. Though it is one of their most popular songs Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK
  • Some places need refs - one example All of these elements were then put together by Nick Bax of The Designers Republic to create the finished sleeve. 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 all of the sources used meet WP:RS - what makes http://www.beale.plus.com/Ishudko/ a RS?
  • Avoid one or two sentence paragraphs as they break up the flow of the article. Expand or combine them.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last of the Summer Wine

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've improved it as much as I know how and want opinions on how to improve the article to get it up to FA status.

Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Driveby note: Just in case you get no major replies here, I'll read over the article again when AnnaFrance has finished her copyedit pass. Making FA-quality prose suggestions is kind of hard to do in a peer review, and it's often easier to just do the copyedits yourself (myself) for the late finetunings. It will just take longer as I am not always in the mood to copyedit or may be busy otherwise. – sgeureka t•c 17:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is an excellent encyclopedia article – very informative and comprehensive, sufficiently detached from its subject to feel authoritative. There are some prose weaknesses which I will point up, although it seems that a copyedit is taking place concurrent with this review, so some of these problems might be resolved in that process.

  • In the lead, for consistency "twenty-five" should be numeric
  • Also in lead, there is an awkward repetition of "numerous" in the third paragraph
  • In the History and development section, the BBC's hatred of the title, and the cast's worries about it, do not seem to be directly cited
  • In the Filming section the statement "The amount of location work increased as the cast began to age…" seems a non sequitur. In fact, the entire sentence is a bit puzzling.
  • Why is Michael Bates described as the "veteran" comedy actor? He was about 50 at the time, same as Sallis and years younger than Owen.
  • The sub-heading "Plot" isn’t really appropriate to describe a multi-series comedy show. It’s the general setting of the series that is being described here. I can't off-hand come up with a word or phrase that could replace "Plot", but I’m sure one exists.
  • In the short preamble to the "Episodes" section there is a sentence: "Each series of episodes has between six and twelve episodes", which is clumsy. In fact, the word "episod" occurs five times in this short preamble.
  • Repetition is even more evident in the Specials section, where the word special or specials occurs eleven times. The section also contains the awkward sentence: "Specials may constitute the only new episodes in the years without an order for a new series, which often happened…" etc etc. This point could be stated more briefly and more clearly.
  • In the Documentaries section you use the term "special" again.
  • In the Reception section you need to say 18.6 per cent, not just 18.6.
  • I’m confused by the conflicting messages in the second para of this section, which appears to say that on the one hand the Radio Times readers hate the show and the BBC want to cancel it, on the other hand it's wildly popular with the viewers. Perhaps these separate points need presenting in a different way.

I believe that, subject to copyediting and fine tuning, the article will be a worthy FA candidate, and I look forward to seeing it there. Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AnnaFrance comments Thanks Brianboulton! Some great catches there. I believe I've taken care of the copyedit points you've mentioned, including the incredibly repetitive repetitions. --AnnaFrance (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MacSweeper

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 improve the article - at the moment it's the top result for the virus on Google. Any ideas would be most welcome!!

Thanks, Remstar (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that some work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • 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 - for example the date of discovery by F-Secure is in the lead only
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - for example, Clones are not in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Is it "MacSweeper" or "MacSweeper"? It is italicized in the lead, but nowhere else in the article
  • Image should be at top right per WP:LEAD
  • Is it malware or a virus? Or both?
  • Per WP:HEAD, headers should not repeat the name of the article, so "Problems caused by MacSweeper" could just be "Problems caused" or perhaps "Operation"
  • Article needs more references, for example first paragraph of Clones section is uncited, as is the Removal section. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation with no space, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • 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
  • Article needs a copyedit - prose is unclear in some places - What does this really mean MacSweeper could be downloaded through KiVVi software's (the company that makes the "rogue") website, as a drive-by download, or silently downloaded with another application. Is the "rogue" just the malware?
  • Avoid jargon - spell out graphical user interface (not just GUI) - see WP:JARGON
  • Why do we need the whole typo riddled message from the company in the "MacSweeper Responds" section?
  • This reads like Original Research and is very POV without a ref. The lack of detail on MacSweeper's website, however and exaggerated reports suggest that there are bad business practices at KiVVi Software. See WP:NOR and WP:NPOV
  • In "See also" (not "See Also") I did not think red links were allowed.
  • Semi automated peer review linked above has some good points, some of which are repeated here I now see.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 04:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priory of Sion

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
There has been tremendous popular interest in the Priory of Sion due to the international success of the best-selling book The Da Vinci Code and the film made from it. Therefore, I've listed this good article for peer review as a way of preparing it to be a featured article candidate. This article was recently copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. Thanks, Loremaster (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spriggina

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Expanded as part of WP:CEX – ideas for further improvement requested. Target is to reach A/GA status. Smith609 Talk 12:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Nice article, here are some suggestions for getting it to GA:

  • A model article is useful for ideas on style, structure, etc. I note that Ediacara biota is a FA and may be useful as a model.
  • The lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD, to at least two paragraphs or perhaps three. 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, so more of Morphology could be in the lead.
  • I would give both English and metric units, for cm for example – {{convert}} may be useful
  • The article has many one or two sentence paragraphs, which should be combined with others, or expanded if possible. As is they break up they flow of the article.
  • Provide context for the reader – for example, where are these fossils found? Australia?
  • A few places need refs, such as Spriggina possessed a tough, though uncalcified, body, evident from the fossils' preservation: always as a mould in the lower surface of the fossiliferous bed. or the fact that it is named for Reg Sprigg. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase – so remove the space in bears some similarity to the living polychaete worm Tomopteris, [7] but its lack of chaetae ...
  • It seems like there are several places that could be expanded – more details on why it was thought to be a worm, or explain in more detail what Spriggina ovata and Spriggia wadea are?
  • Refs need some work – all caps for author in 1 and 12 look odd – copy and paste perhaps?
  • No first name for authors of refs 2 and 8? No author at all for Ref 3 or ref 5 (broken template there)?
  • Ref 9 is just a link – 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
  • Please use my examples as just that – these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments. I've made a start on them and will continue as time permits! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean

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 attempting to satisfy WP:WIAFA before putting it in an official FA nomination. I have not worked this extensively on any other project, so I am unsure how accurate my assessment of this article is. Besides my inexperience, a fresh set of eyes is always helpful. Right off the bat I have two concerns. Firstly, is the lead too long? Secondly, are the tables/images appropriate? The "Most intense hurricanes" template (near the bottom) probably breaks out of its section on some resolutions.


Thanks, Plasticup T/C 19:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • My review is not terribly useful, since the biggest problem with the Met. history articles is accessibility (meaning I understand it, but laymen may not).
    • By mid-morning a banding eye had formed, and by the next morning a full eye. This is a problematic statement, as it reads awkwardly, but could also be seen as confusing. What is the difference between a banding eye and a full eye?
  • Watch for consistency in paragraph length. Keeping them in similar size makes reading easier, and not to mention it also looks better. For example, the second paragraph of the first section is just two lines, but the Peak intensity and landfall section is just one paragraph.
  • The alignment of images and tables is a bit awkward, IMO
  • I feel the title for the section "Peak intensity and landfall" is still inappropriate. The previous section is called Caribbean Sea, so logically any material in "Peak intensity and landfall" could fall there. Yet, there is logic in having a separate section. Another issue is that it merely says "landfall", though the hurricane made more than one landfall.
  • More later. Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the "Caribbean Sea" section with the "first landfall" section. I would have liked to keep them separate, but this lets the article flow much better. The one-paragraph section was not working. I have also removed another image and moved the table around. Hopefully the images/tables will no longer break sections on any resolution. The only point you raised which I have not tried to address is the problem of "jargon". I am not sure how I want to deal with that just yet...

Thanks for all the advice. Plasticup T/C 22:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Norwegian monarchs

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 stuck and don't know how to improve this list. Any input is appreciated.

Thanks, Crzycheetah 02:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments:

  • The lead needs a copy edit. I do not understand this sentence, for example: The Norwegian territories were not organized until around 860 and were ruled by jarls. Did the jarls rule before 860 or after? The article on Norwegian jarls only really mentions them in connection with kings, but the king presumably ruled then, right?
  • To improve flow, short sentences could be combined with others or expanded, for example: Harald Fairhair organized all of the territories and created the Norwegian Kingdom [in 860?], and later founded the Fairhair dynasty.[1]
  • These could also be combined: In 1814, Norway became an independent state and maintained its independence for several months. At the end of the year, Norway was forced into the union with Sweden.[3]
  • Tense seems odd in Since 1905 Norway is a constitutional monarchy and is ruled by the House of Glücksburg.[2] How about Since 1905, Norway has been a constitutional monarchy ruled by the House of Glücksburg.[2]
  • Last paragraph of the lead has no refs but needs them for FLC
  • Instead of the odd symbols, why not D for Union with Denmark, S for Union with Sweden, DS for Union with Denmark and Sweden, etc. That would be clearer to most readers than @ or #
  • I would put a footnote or two for the general refs in the table headers
  • I would put the notes like Eirik Bloodaxe was the co-monarch with his father Harald Fairhair from 930–933 into the table itself (perhaps just as Co-monarch with his father Harald Fairhair from 930–933), but leave refs as footnotes
  • I would breifly explain the Interregnum in the lead
  • I would put an explanatory sentence or two before the list in Succession to the Norwegian Throne
  • Be consistent in image captions - I would link the King's name and have both their life dates and reign dates, so Oscar II (1829–1907), reigned 1872–1905
  • Why not give month and day for the 1814 to 1872 kings?
  • Notes also need a copyedit, so Guttorm Sigurdsson was four years old at the time he was coronated as the King of Norway. The earl Haakon the Crazy was appointed to rule the nation could be something like Guttorm Sigurdsson was four years old at his coronation; Earl Haakon the Crazy was appointed regent.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 04:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oxford United F.C. players

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It is my aim to get this article to Featured List standard, and I would like some constructive comments about the content of the page and the amount of referencing on it. Anything about columns I should add to or remove from the table, or how I could expand the Lead section would be much appreciated.


Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mattythewhite (talk · contribs)

edit

Many of my comments are based on what has been done on existing list of players WP:FLs.

  • Lead needs expanding.
  • Maybe "List of players" could be renamed "Notable players".
  • I would include the whole position of a player in the "Position" column, rather than use a key.
  • Can the "Name" column needs be resized? It's pretty big.
    • Done
  • I would mention the club record of a club record holder in a footnote in a "Notes" column.
    • Done
  • What does "Players who have achieved notability through a major contribution to the club" mean? Seems very subjective.
  • Maybe the internationally capped players could be shown through the "Nationality" column being highlighted.
    • Done
  • A column under the name of "Captaincy" could be added to the main table, which would allow the "Club captains" table to be merged into the main table.

Another thing - list like these have become disputed for the cut-off point of 100 appearances, like at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. players/archive1. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)

edit
  • I've checked all the links to each player article, including redlinks. I can't guarantee I've caught all the linking errors, but the following jumped out at me as being wrong: In the main section - Mark Jones, Tony Jones, Dave Roberts, Jim Smith, Andy Thomas, Alan Willey. In the club captain section - Dave Roberts, Martin Thomas. Hopefully it will be obvious in each case why the link is wrong but if not give me a shout. --Jameboy (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

edit
  • Your basic problem with this list is going to be sourcing. If you're including appearances in all competitions, as appears to be the case, although it doesn't say so anywhere, where is the information coming from once your book runs out? Rage Online won't be accepted as a reliable source at FLC, as was proved with List of Oxford United F.C. managers. If it was me, I'd stick to domestic league appearances, Southern League, Football League, whatever it was, and then source from book till 1989, then Neil Brown's site for the rest of the Football League period, and Soccerbase thereafter.
  • Matty mentioned the Arsenal debate above. As I understood the discussions, there shouldn't be a problem with a 100-game cutoff, but a problem might arise with any extras (record holders, international players, captains) added apparently subjectively. But that's only the way I read it; don't think anyone's submitted a football player list since mine in January, and even then I had to write a footnote justifying each player with <100 apps! Though in light of the Arsenal debate, the Gillingham list has been converted to a complete list of Gillingham players in the Football League.
  • Spend a bit of time creating articles for those notable players in the list who haven't got them, where notable is defined by WP:ATHLETE, which says having played in a fully-pro league (either for Oxford or for another club). The new FL criteria allow for "a minimal proportion of red links". Any players in your list who don't pass WP:ATHLETE, presumably some of the pre-Football League ones won't, should appear in ordinary black print, not redlinked.
  • For the lead, don't start with "This is a list of...", and don't mention the word "notable"; standards have changed. Talk about what Headington Utd was, what time period you cover (and why), mention records held by players. I'd say have a look at the more recently promoted such lists, but there's only been one this year and that was under the old system. Try and make it interesting. Also, the For a list of all... bit should appear as hatnotes above the lead, as per here. Move Mr Basham's picture up into the lead.
  • Colour coding in the key. Per WP:COLOR, anything colour-coded should also have another way of distinguishing it, such as italics/bolding, asterisk/dagger/caret markings, or footnote labels, so that people who can't for whatever reason use the colour-coding can still access the information.
  • Playing positions. If it was me, I'd put the position in the table rather than an abbreviation, it's easier for the reader. Make sure the positions link to the right things, for instance there are articles for wing half and inside forward. Only the first word of each position should be capitalised. Presumably your book will tell you what position the early players occupied?
  • Career dates. What do they mean, start/end of Oxford contract, first/last first-team appearance, ...?
  • Referencing. The more the better. The basic theory goes, the reader shouldn't have to guess where information comes from. For example, those players with international appearances while at the club, notes about record transfers, etc, should be cited.

hope some of this helps. Maybe think about some of the above and put it up for another review when/if you think it's getting close to FL quality. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mali

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want this article to be peer reviewed, because I want to see if the article follows the MOS/prose guidelines for FA. Any help/critique is appreciative. Thanks. miranda 21:18, 21 June 2008 (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.
  Not done The person who is a medical student who went to the region for a goodwill trip. The account is published by a university. Probably other sources relating to this, but when searching I can't find. miranda 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done miranda 00:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need last access dates on the website references.
  Done miranda 06:21, 24 June 2008 (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.) 23:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Sillyfolkboy (talk · contribs)

  • Just a little comparison with Chad - time zone/info in the infobox?
- did the time zone. miranda 23:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Economy section should summarise the main Economy of Mali article as best it can.
problem with that is the Economy of Mali is unreferenced. I did the best I could do with the overview. miranda 23:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Economy - "cotton and Côte d’Ivoire crises" elaboration or a decent wikilink is needed to say exactly what these crises are. 20:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from llywrch (talk · contribs) Some ideas off the top of my head. FWIW, Chad is currently a FA -- you may want to study that article for ideas.

  • The second paragraph needs a lot of help. as you may have noticed, I changed "stretch straightly into the center" to "reach deep into the middle", but this description still needs a lot of wordsmithing.
  • The "Economics of Mali" does not mention that it is one of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries as defined by the IMF. Is the government of Mali working with the IMF to qualify for this program?
  • This section also mentions that it privatized a railroad. Which one is this? 21:03, Monday 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Prehistoric medicine

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like a peer review of this article to find out exactly what needs to be improved upon, and where this topic can go in the future (FA?). Comments and suggestions on improvements of all kinds are welcome, and very helpful.

MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Quadell

edit
  • Neat topic! There's lots of interesting information here, and it's well organized. Good lead, effective pictures, solid reference format.
  • I made a lot of minor tweaks throughout. What's listed below I didn't know how to fix, or didn't feel like fixing. :-)
  • Sometimes references are within punctuation[1], and sometimes outside.[2] They should be outside commas and periods, so that needs to be cleaned up.
  • Under "Beliefs and ideas of disease", the first paragraph: don't use a slash (or capital) for "skull/head Trepaning". Reword and clean up. Other places have slashes and improper capitalization of disease names, and those should be fixed as well.
  • Under "Beliefs and ideas of disease", the second paragraph is convoluted, and also opinion unsupported by the ref. The ref says "Rational treatment was used only on obvious injuries, otherwise spiritual treatment was carried out...", but the article speculates further. I'd shorten that paragraph to bare facts, and combine it with the prev. paragraph. That's not the only part where the text seems to overreach, but I've corrected other examples.
  • Under "Disease and mortality" (which I changed from "Diseases/causes of death"), there is no ref for the statements about osteoarthritis and infant mortality.
  • I removed other parts of that section that read like promotion for a specific diet, and were not related to prehistoric medicine.
  • Many parts say "would have" instead of "did". This isn't a hypothetical past, so the standard past tense is best. I've change this in several places, but I may have missed some.
  • I'll do more later. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<references>

Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Thanks for all comments, DrKiernan (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Generally quite well done article, assume this will be going to GAN (already seems to be GA level) or FAC soon. Here are my comments, mostly nit picks:

  • Lead should be three paragraphs per WP:LEAD. Perhaps the second paragraph could be split, with the new third paragraph starting at Albert Victor's intellect, sexuality, and sanity have been the subject of much speculation. Given the amount of text devoted to it, I would make explicit mention of the Cleveland Street Scandal in the Lead. The many Titles, styles, honours and arms might also merit a mention of some sort - see WP:WEIGHT
  • "a couple of" seems fairly folksy, perhaps just "two", i.e. After a couple of [two] unsuccessful courtships, ...
  • This seems awkward Mary married instead his younger brother, George, who became King George V in 1910. how about just Mary later married his younger brother, George, who became King George V in 1910.?
  • Second paragraph of Early life needs a reference, as perhaps does the last sentence of the first paragraph. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • References to his godparents are inconsistent, some are name and title, others are title only. I think it would read better it were name and title, so for one example ... his great aunt (by marriage) Alexandrine of Baden, the Duchess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, ... Not sure if "of Baden" is needed there.
  • Perhaps give his age when his brother was born to emphasize their closeness, perhaps something like When Albert Victor was not quite 17 months old, his brother, Prince George of Wales, was born on June 3, 1865.
  • Could these sentences be combined to something like Though he learned to speak Danish, progress in other languages and subjects was slow,[4] and Albert Victor never excelled intellectually.?
  • Second paragraph in Education section is very long - perhaps split it at The brothers were parted in 1883;...
  • Would it help to spell out what exactly is meant by Of his private life, a childhood friend of Albert Victor later recalled: "his brother officers had said that they would like to make a man of the world of him. Into that world he refused to be initiated."[23] (that they wanted him to have sex with a woman (presumably a prostitute) but he refused)
  • Would it make more logical sense / improve the narrative flow to move the sentence Under police interrogation, the rentboys and pimps revealed the names of their clients but Albert Victor was not among them.[25] after the sentence Letters exchanged between the Treasury Solicitor, Sir Augustus Stephenson, and his assistant, The Hon. Hamilton Cuffe, make coded reference to Newton's threats to implicate Albert Victor.[27]? This would put all of the rumors and Newton's possible role in them together, then follow it up with the lack of testimony by the rentboys (I would link this) and pimps.
  • I think it never hurts to explicitly deny false accusations - so could there be some statement like While this statement was untrue regarding Albert Victor, Arthur Newton, Somerset's solicitor, was convicted of obstruction of justice ...
  • Would it make sense to add something like and less than six weeks before his wedding date to the sentence He developed pneumonia and died at Sandringham House in Norfolk on January 14, 1892, less than a week after his 28th birthday. I also note that it was only about six weeks after his engagement - they moved fast in those days!
  • I would identify J K Stephens as his former tutor - probably OK to link his name again. I searched for his name in the article to figure out who he was and why his death seems linked to AV's.
  • In the Legacy section I think it would help to give years for some of the statements to put them into context. So for example The exact nature of his "dissipations" is not clear, but in 1994 Theo Aronson favoured the theory on "admittedly circumstantial" evidence that the "unspecified 'dissipations' were predominantly homosexual".[29] or later Albert Victor's reputation became so bad that Philip Magnus called his death a "merciful act of providence" in 1964, supporting the theory ... This is already done nicely in Allegations that Prince Albert Victor may have committed, or been responsible for, the Jack the Ripper murders were first made in print in 1962.[86]
  • While the note (Keeping in mind that fast travel between cities was impossible in 1888.) is OK, would it be better to cite the travel time by train between London and Balmoral in 1888 (assuming that is available)? I imagine it took many, many hours.
  • In the "Popular culture" section, many of these references have to be put into context better. See WP:PCR. I assume that all of the examples in the first paragraph portray him as somehow responsible for or involved in the Jack the Ripper murders, but the article does not make this clear enough (at least for me on a first read). Perhaps The Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories surrounding Prince Albert Victor have led to his portrayal in fiction as somehow responsible for or involved in the murders. I would also make it clearer that all of these except the graphic novel are films (or seem to be).
  • For the novels, I would just give the author, title and year, then give the full publication information in footnotes - i.e. do not include the publisher in the main text for Victor I: King and Joker (1976) and Skeleton-in-Waiting (1989).

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 ><>°° 20:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your great comments and for putting in so much effort! DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Rams

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to see what others think of this article. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Just some basic points about what need be done to improve the article.

  • A section about the stadium and owner
  • More refs
  • History section needs espanding
  • Lose the gallery in the Logo and uniforms section.

What's your target for this article? GA status? Because it's still a long way off. Buc (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Buc's comments, here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • 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. The Cleveland Rams players and NFL considers it a second franchise seems to only be in the lead.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - for example, Players of note and Coaches of note do not see to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • There seems to be too much empahsis in the lead on compared to the amount of text in the article itself, specifically on the Cleveland Rams. See WP:WEIGHT
  • Per WP:CITE the article needs many more references, for example first paragraph in History in Cleveland Rams (1936-1945) or the first, third and fourth paragraphs in Los Angeles Rams (1946-1994), or the first and second paragraphs in St. Louis Rams (1995-present), or the whole Logos and Uniforms or Hall of Famers sections.
  • 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
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Baseball League

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 think I will take this article under my wing and try to get it to GA. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I will be working on adding refs and wikifying it.

Thanks,  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I apologize my review has taken so long - I had some internet access issues. I thought this was an interesting article on a league I never heard of before. While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is always useful for ideas - I note that Kinston Indians is a Good Article and may be useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc.
  • 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 lead should be at least 2 paragraphs and could be 3 I think. Please see WP:LEAD
  • It is always helpful to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. I think it would help to start with the history from the "Baseball in Israel" section and then go to the history of the League itself (from the first three paragraphs of the "Management" section perhaps.
  • Also provide context about details, for example in August 19 in Petach Tikva, Ron Blomberg’s Bet Shemesh Blue Sox shut out Art Shamsky’s Modi’in Miracle 3–0 in the IBL’s inaugural championship game. who are Ron Blomberg and Art Shamsky? The managers I assume? Then say so.
  • Per WP:CITE the article needs more references, for example none of the eight players who moved to the US major leagues is cited.
  • Do not have external links in the article - convert these to incline refs like the others. For example Leon Feingold of the Netanya Tigers was named Player Of The Year in a league-wide vote of the players.[14][2] where 14 is an inline cite, and 2 is just an external link.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Refs that are there need more info in many cases. 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
  • Miscellaneous section reads like a trivia section and needs to be removed - the information is interesting and should be incorporated into the article as regular text.
  • Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they break up the flow of the article - expand them or combine them with others
  • Article needs a copyedit
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 04:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Forrest (footballer)

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 other editors to review the article to see if it can be rated higher than "start class".


Thanks, Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)
  • "easy victories" may be true but it's POV without any reference.
    •   Done Scores added
  • "Ironically, Scotland faced Wales in their last match in the 1884 British Home Championship on the day of the cup final and were forced to field a reserve eleven." I don't think this is relevant to Jimmy Forrest.
    •   Done Moved to footnote as interesting "aside"
  • "excellent pass" as easy victories, it's POV without a reference.
    •   Done Reference added
  • "brace" I know what it means, but it needs explaining, linking (note the previous page for brace has been deleted) or re-wording.
  • "England were disappointing". POV / needs reference.
    •   Done Reference added
  • "Queen's Park were hoping to gain revenge for their defeat" I think this is a gimme, and doesn't really add anything.
    •   Done Re-worded
  • I think some of the capitals need changing, e.g. Fifth Round, the Cup, the Cup Final.
    •   Done I've removed most of the offending capitals - if I've missed any, let me know.
  • "exciting encounter with Accrington." It probably was but needs reference.
    •   Done Re-worded and reference added
  • Page ranges for the references need endashes.
    •   Done Done
  • Online references need accessdates.
    •   Done Done
  • It needs a few more references generally.
    •   Done I've added some extra references e.g. relating to the foundation of the Football League. I'll give it a rest for now, and come back in a few days with a fresh look.

Think that's all for now, but it's a good start. Peanut4 (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics, and do not paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number-one albums of 1993 (U.S. Top Latin Albums)

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 this list to be accurate and I want to do the rest of the Billboard Top Latin Albums lists (1994 to date) according to Wikipedia rules so they can be included on the Featured Lists recap.

Thanks, Jaespinoza.

Ruhrfisch comments: While a lot of work has gone into this, I think it has several issues that need to be resolved / fixed as the first of a series of articles. I have some ideas / suggestions for improvement before moving on to other Number-one albums lists. Please note that I do not write music articles, so if I suggest something different from a Music guideline, please just ignore it:

  • Could the title be different? I note that Country music hits are listed under Number-one country hits of 2006 (USA), so could the title of this article be something like Number-one Latin albums of 1993 (USA)? Articles are supposed to have a title that is what people would type looking for it - I think this makes more sense as a title.
  • A model article is always useful - the only similar FL I could find was List of Christmas number one singles (UK) which may be useful as a model.
  • I like that this is an actual table (with lines). For future years, where there is some variety presumably, would it make sense to have the table be sortable? I can give examples of this if needed.
  • Do not have bare links in the article (www.billboard.com) - instead I would link Billboard (magazine) and have a reference.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author and date if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • For example,
  • Provide context for the reader, for example, the Billboard Top Latin Albums article says the chart began on July 10, 1993, so that is why there is no data before then. The list should make this clear. See WP:PCR
  • My problem with this list is that it could be replaced by one sentence like "Gloria Estefan's Mi Tierra was the number one album on this chart from its inception on July 10, 2003 to the end of the year, for a total of 25 weeks." Could this be part of the 2004 chart (one sentence on the 2003 chart like the above) with a redirect from this article?
  • I doubt a list of 25 identical entries (except the date) would make it through FLC and become FL.

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 ><>°° 01:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second look by Ruhrfsich:

  • The name has been changed to Number-one latin albums of 1993 (U.S.) - should the word "Latin" be capitalized in the new title?
  • I think the Billborad logo is not allowed here, under the WP:Fair use guidelines
  • The article needs a copyedit to clean up the lead a bit - see WP:PRV or WP:LOCE for copyediting help
  • Refs look better

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Joyce

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am requesting a peer review for this biographical article, which has been worked up from scratch. It deals with a somewhat controversial and unusual Antarctic explorer, a sort of Harry McNish (FA) figure, competent in his way, but often at odds with authority. Unlike the strong, silent heroes of Antarctic lore, Joyce was a tremendous boaster, who aggrandized his exploits and promoted himself as a hero. Yet he was undoubtedly a man to be trusted in the field, and brave, too—he received the Albert Medal for Lifesaving. I'd appreciate some general feedback, and any suggestions for improvement. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I apologize I have been so slow in reviewing this - it is very good and while I have some suggestions they are nit picks.

  • A bit awkward From a humble seafaring background he began his naval career as a boy seaman in 1891, and ten years later joined Captain Scott's Discovery Expedition, 1901–04, as an Able Seaman. perhaps this would be better He came from a humble seafaring background, began his naval career as a boy seaman in 1891, and ten years later joined Captain Scott's Discovery Expedition, 1901–04, as an Able Seaman.
    • I agree that your suggested rewording is better
  • Perhaps briefly identify Huntford in Roland Huntford sums him up as a "strange mixture of fraud, flamboyance and ability"[7]
    • Done: "Polar chronicler..." (I don't want to call him an historian, because his objectivity in certain matters has been questioned. He is reckoned a good source on matters unconnected with Captain Scott).
  • Also a bit awkward He was born at Bognor, England in, it is thought, 1875, but the exact date is not known.[8] Perhaps just It is thought that he was born in 1875 at Bognor, England, but the exact date is not known.[8]
    • Agreed and changed
  • I generally think the same ref for two or more consecutive sentences can just be one ref at the end (as long as nothing is too controversial or a quote), see ...he received a vocational education that would fit him for a lower-deck career in the Royal Navy.[11] Leaving the school in 1891, he joined the navy, aged fifteen, as a boy seaman, progressing during the next ten years to Ordinary Seaman and then Able Seaman.[11] Why not just the second note 11?
    • Agreed and done
  • There are also some places where the footnote is in the middle of a sentence, not at the end of a phrase or after punctuation, as is more the custom, such as and in another version[37] Joyce was dropped when Mawson reduced his expedition from three shore parties to two.
    • Done in this case - on the lookout for others
  • Any idea how much money was involved in this To join the expedition, Joyce bought his release from the Navy ... would it help to include it if known?
    • Money details aren't in the main sources. I don't think this information is essential to the article, but it would be interesting to know, so I'll keep looking.
  • First mention of Great Ice Barrier does not identify it as the Ross Ice Shelf - the second mention does this nicely
    • Shifted explanation to first mention
  • Would it be worth using Image:Mackintosh and Spencer-Smith.jpg in this article in The Depot-laying journey section - assume Joyce is either pictured or took the picture
    • This image is actually a drawing done after the event. I've put it in, but I am conscious of the need to avoid crowding the text, so it's pretty small.
  • I think it might help to briefly expain why fresh meat cures scurvy and what snow blindness is
    • I've linked snow blindness - and also frostbite. As to the fresh meat thing, this is covered by a slight textual change, and by an explanatory footnote (so as not to interrupt the main text).

Hope this helps, and let me know when this is at FAC as I will support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these useful comments and suggestions, which I have generally adopted. I was a little uncertain about this article's FA-worthiness, but as the Harry McNish precedent shows, minor polar figures can become FAs. If you think it is a suitable candidate, I'll certainly nominate it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems well beyond GA and I think it is FA. You might want to ask someone else to be sure, but I think it is FA worthy. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments:

This is a delightful and easy read about an interesting character. I changed a few bits of punctuation as I read, but I didn't see anything big to grumble about. Here is a very short list of suggestions for improvement.

  • I think this complex sentence in the Nimrod section might work better if re-cast or broken into two sentences: "In the ensuing months, he made further support journeys, increasing the depots to ensure the southern party's eventual safe return, including a cache of luxury foods taken to Minna Bluff, which earned Wild's spontaneous praise."
  • This one in the Imperial Trans-Antarctic section may also be a bit too complex: "However, the party, rather hurriedly assembled, was inexperienced for this work, with only Joyce and Mackintosh having previous Antarctic knowledge, Mackintosh's being slight."
    • I've rearranged the prose for both of these unwieldy sentences.
  • I think the "W" in Richard W Richards should probably have a period after it even though the main article about him does not use one. This appears in the "Rescue" section.
    • He's become Dick Richards, withthe aid of a pipe
  • You might consider breaking the long single paragraph in "Post-expedition career" into two paragraphs to ease the reading a bit.
    • Done
  • On my computer monitor, the ISBNs in the "Sources" section are being split by line-break ("carriage return" in oldspeak). To prevent this, I'd suggest using hyphens as in 0-7869-1850-8.
    • Done
  • In "Early years", the caption refers to "Naval Orphans" but the main text says "Navy Orphans". One or the other might be the official name but probably not both.
    • corrected (Navy Orphans)

I hope these suggestions are helpful, and I agree that the article is FA-worthy. Finetooth (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Brouthers

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 eventually get this article upgraded to GA status.

Thanks, Neonblak (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a player I never heard of. While it seems to have much of the basic information present, it needs a lot of work to get to GA. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is often useful as a source of ideas on structure, style, refs, etc. I note that there are many baseball FAs at Category:FA-Class Baseball articles, most of which are about players and so should be decent models.
  • 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 - I did not check all of the claims.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the teams he played for are sections, but not in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  1.   Done*Article really needs a copyedit for grammar and just ot make sense. Some examples follow (not an exhaustive list):
  2.   Done**Lead says One of only three Major Leaguers to ammass 100 career home runs in the 19th century, along with Harry Stovey and Roger Connor. this is a fragment (where's the verb?). It also seems to be contradicted by this from the article body He is tied with Mike Tiernan for fourth among 19th century home run hitters with 106 home runs, and is behind Connor's 138, Sam Thompson's 127, and Stovey's 122.[24]
  3.   Done**I think numbers ten and under are generally spelled out, so He led the league in batting average 5 [five] times, which is a 19th century record, and his career .342 batting average ranks 9th [ninth] all-time. See WP:MOS#Numbers
  4.   Done**The lead never says he left the sport, so his return in the lead When he made his return apearance in 1904, it gave him the distinction of having played Major League baseball in four different decades. is a bit of a surprise.
  5.   Done**Grammar in He was also [an?] active player's union member, that [who?] was elected vice president of the Brotherhood of Professional Base Ball Players.
  6.   Done**First sentence in Early career is a run-on and should be split into two
  7.   Done**Troy section never names the team he played for in Troy (infobox does but the article should too)
  8.   Done**Buffalo section also does not fully name the team (although they are named in the Troy section) and should give an idea early on of how long he played there, perhaps start with something like He was signed by the Buffalo Bisons in 1881 and played for them until 1885. This gave him his first chance to be an everyday player, with the team he had done well against the previous year in Troy. In 1881, his first season, he batted .319, ...
  9.   Done**If it was a record, why did the finish in second place? The team finished with a [team?] record of 87 wins and 36 losses, but finished second to the Chicago White Stockings by only 2.5 games.[11] Provide context for the reader, see WP:PCR
  10.   Done**I believe taht the word meant is "intact", not "in tact" in In 1887, with the team 1886 team in tact,[12] the Wolverines finished in first place, ...
  11.   Done*I would give the date in the caption of the tobacco card for context
  12.   Done*Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK Example immortalized in He is also immortalized in a statue in Veteran's Park in this small town.[28]
  13.   Done*Refs need to be consistent in information provided - why not use James first name as the author, for example. See {{cite book}}.
  • Make sure sources are reliable, what makes hickoksports.com. or tripod.com or geocities.com reliable? See WP:RS
  1.   Done*Provide metric as well as English units, most of the world uses metric. For example he was 6'2" and weighed 207 lbs, which was large for 19th century standards.[2]. {{convert}} may help here.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 17:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this article, looks like I have a good amount of work to do to get this up to GA level, I will get to work on this soon. Your's, and any others, is highly useful, thanks again.Neonblak (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luton

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 quite a lot of work has gone into it recently, but now would like some help/feedback on the next steps.

Thanks, GazMan7 (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry this got missed on the backlog list - it is an interesting article. I will assume the next step is going for GA. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is often very useful for ideas on structure, topics, refs, etc. There are many city FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places including Bath, Somerset, which may be a useful model.
  • 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 History, Demographics and some other sections seem to be missing from the lead, which should be three to four paragraphs for this size article. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs more references, for example just in "Early History", these statements need references: The most prominent Neolithic structure is Waulud's Bank - a henge dating from around 3000 BC. From the Neolithic onwards, the area seems to have been fairly thickly populated, but without any single large settlement. and Agriculture dominated the local economy at that time, and the town's population was around 700-800. and and the site is now home to a Matalan store. During the Middle Ages Luton is recorded as being home to six watermills. Mill Street, in the town centre, takes its name from one of them. and the last three paragraphs all have zero refs.
  • Some whole sections (Media references and Areas and suburbs for example) have zero refs.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The last three paragraphs in "Early History" are all just one or two sentences and could be combined or perhaps expanded. This is true throughout the article - many short paragraphs break the flow while reading.
  • There is about a 500 year gap in the town history from its founding to 1121. There is then a 200 or so year gap after the great fire. Can these gaps be filled in?
  • Several sections in the article are very short and could be combined, for example is there any reason why 17th and 18th centuries couldn't be one section? Or could the two parks be combined in a section just called Parks or perhaps Wardown and Stockwood Parks?
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • Some refs seem not to meet the criteria for reliable sources, what makes http://www.localhistories.org/luton.html (current ref 7) a WP:RS?
  • Much of the article, especially towards the end, is quite list-y and should be rewritten as prose where possible.
  • In Areas and suburbs, several of the places in the lists are not on the map.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, image widths should just be set as thumb to allow reader preferences to take over.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 18:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Museum of Curiosity

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 try and promote this article to FA status. I believe it to be high quality and the article is already of GA status. One problem I have is that I have extra information that could be used in the article, but the only sources come from those considered unreliable such as web forums (despite the fact the people on it are those working on the show) and an article I created for another website, which would probably not be counted as reliable. However, I have put this article in the external links section.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a show I have never heard. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas - I note there is one FA on a radio series: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) which may be useful.
  • 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 - for example the Episodes are not mentioned in the lead at all. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs more references, for example the last two sentences of each paragraph of Format are uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The lead makes it sound as if the critical reception was mostly negative, but the examples cited are mostly positive.
  • Are there any plans for a second series / more episodes?
  • How can a TV show be a "researcher" in The show[']s researchers are James Harkin, Xander Cansell and QI.[3]??
  • Are ratings available - how popular was it with audiences?
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 05:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

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 really improved this article since it last failed FA. Its so much better now, I just need help spotting any obvious mistakes. Cheers


Thanks, — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wackymacs (talk · contribs)

edit

I'm concerned about this article. The prose, layout and amount of information look great—and indeed, a lot of effort has obviously been put into this article. But then I checked out the references. Allmusic.com is used too often. For example, the biography here seems to be unreliable, as it does not cite its own sources. Why have you not used some of the available books to cite the biographical information? I also think this is a poor source. There are others, but they should be obvious. It's also sad to see the omission of a photo of young Michael - can you add one? At the moment, I feel that you're relying on online sources rather than books, when it should be the other way around, especially for an article on such an important and influential individual. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are right about Allmusic, I have used it too often although it is generally considered a reliable source. Luckily I discovered how to use google books about two weeks ago and have found several that provide free previews. I could definitely replace some of the Allmusic sources with these online books. Good books about Michael Jackson are very hard to come by, 90% of them set an agenda either for or against the guy. I can look into a picture of Jackson as a youngest but I cant promise anything with wikipedias absurd policies regarding pictures. Not even the Jackson 5 article has a free image of them. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 18:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Andrewlp1991 (talk · contribs)

edit

(permalink for version I'm reviewing)

  • To address the concern of the user "Wackymacs" I've removed the suspicious SundayTimes.lk source, for which I question its reliability.
  • For some consecutive paragraphs, I notice that they use the same beginning word. For example: tracing back to the 3rd paragraph in the "Early Life/Jackson 5" section to 2nd paragraph in "Jacksons/Off the Wall" section: All those four paragraphs begin with the word "The".
    • DONE
  • The "1987-90" sections and beyond (I'm too lazy to type all properties) read a lot like a timeline as they use "In year, this happened...on this date, this happened" structure a lot.
  • Also the article doesn't mention if Jackson was ever religious in his life if ever.

--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Night Out

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 up to FA status. It is currently a good article, what should I do to give a realistic chance at being featured?

Thanks, Mr.crabby (Talk) 13:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Boon Chay

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 disagree with the notion that the personality covered in this biography stub plays a major role in the Singapore food industry, much less so with the notion that there could be a "Fishball Tycoon" in Singapore. If anything, the stub seems to be a self-aggrandizing, shameless self-promotion that has no place in Wikipedia. Furthermore, the stub has been categorized under "Singapore Cuisine," making it the only non-food related stub in that category.

Thanks, Lftwgr (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is not for this purpose. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis (50 Cent 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 because it will show what needs to be done for the article to be a featured article.

Thanks, Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I removed the semi-automated peer review as it: 1) does not follow directions above; 2) takes too much space for PR; 3) breaks semi transclusion, so no one else can see the review request. Feel free to strike the review in WP:PRA/JN08. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article, while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas to follow. There are many FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music, a lot of which are on albums.
  • 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 - Kingdom Come is only in the lead.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Lyrics are not in the lead as one example. Please see WP:LEAD
  • There are a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined or perhaps expanded.
  • Article needs a copyedit, one example - these sentences could be combined to something like 50 Cent stated that the album was inspired by his life before his commercial debut, Get Rich or Die Tryin'. He also stated[, and] that he chose the album's title because he was known as "Curtis" before he became famous.[8]
  • Article needs more references, for example all of the lyrics quoted seem to be uncited. The first lyrics quote also seems very long for fair use. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The images were copyvio and so could not be on Commons (I noted them as copyvio there). I do think that the Rolling Stone cover could be used here under Fair Use (on Wikipedia). Not sure if the others could be used here or not.
  • Many albums have a brief sound clip or two to illustrate the music styles etc. See some of the model FA articles.
  • Quoting the entire Track listing seems too detailed
  • Refs look OK, please make sure all sources meet WP:RS
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 02:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of West Virginia state parks

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 is complete and ready for peer review. Can you suggest improvements?


Thanks, WVhybrid (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

India House

edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I wish to have this article peer review for language, spelling, NPOV, structure and scope and improve this, as far a possible, to FA status since I wish to nominate it once review is done.

Thanks, rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Devnagari script India House should have a choti ee matra not the badi eee. KnowledgeHegemony' Part2 10:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now removed.KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 08:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a breif flutter through and noted a few problems which could be adressed; there are very few sources cited in the introduction to the article, I've selected some of the most prominent; the article needs some more images, in order to break up the voume of text and provide some information; the sources you cite do not provide specific evidence, which they should, especially considering they are web links. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the citation issue, I have put down vonPochammer as a reference, but what he actually says is that the house became a "point of support" The problem is I synthesised that from both what is widely known, as well as some of the other info (see eg, indoctrination of previously non-activist Indian students in the Impact section) through the article. I dont know if this is acceptable. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the referencing issue, I have to point out most (except one if I am correct) of the references I have given are books, not websites as you say. However, if you see or feel that the evidence does not support what has been written, I will reword or find a better reference. Please let me know. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 00:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem I have with the references is that they are not specific; a person looking to further their knowledge in this subject, and seeking out the books you mention, would have to search through the entire book to find the cited bits of information. Put the comment from which you have based the information in ' marks after the reference. If you unsure what I mean look at the references of my own article Prehistoric medicine. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what you are saying. But I think the references from Popplewell, Hopkirk and Owen (but mainly Popplewell) do talk about in some detail about the organisation, but most writers focus on the impact and the future impact. I wished to avoid any traces of original research, but I am sure most of the references I have given will satisfy a brief over view, what I have done is piece together the scattered facts. I dont know if this helps. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but should "the house" be referred to as "the House"? KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also added further reading. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood donation

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 recently went through a GA review. The primary reviewer for GA had some concerns about the depth and clarity of the article.

I'm trying to determine what level of detail is appropriate for the topic. Blood donation practices are relatively inconsistent even among developed countries, though the underlying principles are similar. A lot of the process is different for the developing world, though there have been some strides made in bringing their practices up to speed with those of wealthier countries.

The other point of concern I have is regarding accessibility. I breathe the industry, technical, and medical lingo without realizing that it's jargon, and this is a medical topic that people with no medical background interact with on a regular basis and the "average reader" probably won't have one either.

Any input is appreciated. I think I've hammered out anything that still needs citing and other technical problems, mostly looking at the language and the scope. Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doxorubicin

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been at GA for about a year now, and was selected by Portal:Medicine as one of the best articles related to Medicine on wikipedia. I'd like to know what other editors think of the article pertaining to the Featured Article criteria, and what we would need to do to get it to FA. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Degnan

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This biography is certainly a work in progress. I wrote the original biography, and there have been some concerns expressed about its neutrality. Mainly I've been trying to balance between some IPs inserting extreme views from both sides, and I've recently been joined by another editor who is here watch over this article and has made a committment to learning the ropes of WP after a few initial snafus. We have been going back and forth on a subpage of the talk page on a few key points. The other editor believes less is more, and clearly would like to focus on certain points. I have attempted to balance this, but would like to make sure that it has not gone too far. The civil discussion has led to a suggestion that we solicit a peer review. Thanks. MrPrada (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

June Anderson

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 eventually have this article listed as a good article. Comments related towards getting this article to that place would be appriciated.

Thanks, Nrswanson (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The following, in my view, are the main issues:-

  • Lack of images: I know the problem with living artistes, but other opera singer articles have found a way round – for example, see Kathleen Battle, Jose Carreras, Placido Domingo. A fair use rationale could be tried on one of the June Anderson portraits on Google Images, or do what the Domingo articles editors apparently did, and get permission from the image’s owner. What I would recommend, first off, is contact User:Elcobbola, who has great expertise in the use of images. I nearly always seek his advice, and always accept it.
  • Lead: The lead needs to be rewritten and extended to form a concise overview of the entire article, as required by WP:Lead. At the moment, it's a bit of a motley collection of facts, in no particular order (e.g. why mention the 2008 award before the 2007 award?)
  • Article structure: The article isn't really structured at present, being a sequence of main sections undifferentiated in levels. My suggestion as to a possibly better structure is:-
    • 1. Early life: this section should include most of what is at present in the "Education and vocal training" section, but considerably expanded to include information essential in a biographical article such as parents’ names, details of any siblings, date of entry to Yale, date of graduation, and dates of study with Leonard.
    • 2. Opera debut: The reader will want to know how she moved from being a near penniless, unsuccessful auditioner to being the Queen of the Night at the NYCO. How did she land the part? There is an interesting story to be told, and it should be told here. The rest of this section can cover her years at NYCO as she gradually established herself.
    • 3. Operatic Career: We need to get some sense of the progress of her career during the last 30 years, and we don’t really get this from content which, at present, rather over-concentrates on listing roles performed and venues. For example, it would be interesting to know why she moved into the bel canto roles in the early 1980s? Who, or what, were the greatest influences on her career, that led her to make the decisions that she did? These are issues worthy of discussion. I am not sure, either, that subdividing her career into decade sections (1980s, 1990s, 2000s) is the best idea - it's a bit flat and formulaic. Would it be possible to divide the Operatic career section perhaps along lines such as:-
      • 3.1 Bel canto roles
      • 3.2 Broadening the repertoire
      • 3.3 Later career
      • 3.4 Future plans (I’m sure that better headings than these rough suggestions could be developed, with a bit of thought)
    • 4. Private life. Did she marry? If so, who to? Did she have children (how many?) – these are details essential to any biog. article. A short section, probably at the end since she is still living, should provide this information
    • 5. Notable recordings formats: A standard, regular format for should be used for each entry. At present, years are sometimes bracketed, sometimes not; LONDON (the record label) is sometimes capitalized, sometimes not; "conducted by" is sometimes shortened to "cond." Etc., etc. As a result, the section looks untidy; it would look much better for being regular. I also wonder quite so many examples are necessary.
  • Referencing: the article is unevenly cited, with sometimes lengthy passages without citations. I noticed this particularly between refs [14] and [15], and between [20] and [21]. I also noticed that the formats of the references are almost all incorrect. On-line sources (the majority) should be in {{cite web}} format. Book references must be to pages or short page ranges, not to whole books, with the title, author, publisher, year of publication, location of publication, and ISBN number all given. For magazine or newspaper articles the article name, author and exact date of issue must be given. See Wikipedia:citing sources for further guidance.
  • WP:MOS violations. I haven’t done a full check, but dates are generally unlinked; small ordinals like 5th should be written as fifth; there should be no spaces before references ([11] is one I saw). You don’t seem to have employed non-breaking spaces.
  • Prose: I haven’t done a detailed prose check. On my read-through it seemed OK.

To summarise, a fair amount of work, in my view, is needed before the article looks ready for GAN or FAC, but it’s a decent start. I hope this helps.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Bulgarian Army

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 the article to be checked for structural and grammatical mistakes. I would also like to know whether it can be promoted as GA or FA and if not, what is missing.

Thanks, Gligan (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this article, which is quite interesting, has some ways to go to reach GA status, let alone FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Warfare and some of these may be useful models
  • The article's lead needs to be a summary of the whole article - see WP:LEAD
  • The article needs a good copyedit - for example, The Medieval Bulgarian Army was the primary military body of the First and the Second Bulgarian Empire. There are two empires so it should be "the First and the Second Bulgarian Empires."
  • Also, should "Medieval" be capitalized here? Is that the normal usage? As the first word in the article title is automatically capitalized, but is it an adjective (so just "medieval") or part of the accepted proper name (if so, capitalized)?
  • Lead should probably be three paragraphs per WP:LEAD - My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • Biggest problem right now with the article getting to GA is references. Article needs more references, for example the first paragrpahs of the sections Hitory, Krum's Dynasty, Asen Dynasty, and Tactics all have no refs.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. Ref 16 is just a title and link now, for example.
  • Sources also have to clearly identify what is in Bulgarian or other non-English languages - the example cited above is actually apparently in Bulgarian (I don't read that) and the title is "Битката при р. Ахелой (20. VIII. 917)"
  • Other sources are also quite confused - if a Bibliography is given, then list all of the books there, including for example "Andreev, J. The Bulgarian Khans and Tsars (Balgarskite hanove i tsare, Българските ханове и царе), Veliko Tarnovo, 1996, ISBN 954-427-216-X", then Ref 2 would just be "Andreev, p. 111". See Joseph Priestley House for an example of this style
  • Images are great, but should be set to thumb width per WP:MOS#Images to allow reader preferences to take over.
  • The blue quoatation marks on quotes set apart make them look like pull quotes, but they are not - see WP:MOS#Quote
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 19:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan State University Group

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 polish it up for possible Featured Article status.

Thanks, Kevin Forsyth (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salyut 6

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 hoping to go over each of the Salyut station pages in a similar manner to this one, and I'd like to see the general opinion on what I've done here before I move on. I'd also like the page to be given importance and quality ratings, if possible.

Thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Couple of problems. Firstly, the date formats and dialects vary through the article. The most common dialect appears to be British English, so that should become the standard (programme not program, -ise not -ize, etc). I don't really like short dates in prose text, so I would suggest using only long date formats in the prose. The short dates look pretty good in tables, though, so I would suggest converting all tables to the ISO short date format. The other problem is to do with units. As it is a scientific article, metric units should be the primary units, however this article seems to use imperial units as the primary units. This needs to be reversed. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, one other thing, most of the times are in UTC, but the "docking operations" section uses MST. This is confusing, and should be brought into line with the rest of the article. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Generally looks good. Here are a few suggestions based on my read through:

  • Units should give both metric and English I think. {{convert}} does this nicely.
  • Refs come after punctuation so fix Salyut 6, launched on a Proton 8K82K rocket on September 29, 1977[2], marked the switch from engineering development stations to routine operations, uniting the best elements from all of the stations launched so far. and "the best elements of all ... so far" seems a bit POV and should at least have a reference or perhaps be the quote.
  • Avoid or explain jargon, so spell out EVA in Salyut 6 was also equipped with an inward-opening EVA hatch ...
  • I do not understand this phrase - typo? two scientific airlocks for equipment of [or?] rubbish ejection
  • Some paragraphs need refs - first and third of "Support craft" section for example.
  • The whole article is based on just two sources in terms of inline refs, one of which is used just once? This would be a problem for GA (and a huge problem for FA).
  • What are the three NASA internet links in the References section there for? They look useful - cite them in the article and format them properly. {{cite web}} is useful.
  • I do not assess articles that are in WikiProject(s) I am not a member of - I would ask on the WikiProject talk page(s) for an assessment. If I had to guess I would say B class.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK - I've reworded the phrase and moved the reference you pointed out in point two, replaced 'EVA' with 'spacewalk', corrected the scientific airlock description, and shifted one of the references. I'll get started on on putting in the Imperial conversions and then spend some time referencing. Getting better? (Thanks, by the way. :-D) Colds7ream (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few more thoughts. It looks better overall,
  • I would be OK with "Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) or spacewalk".
  • A model article is useful for ideas to follow - Apollo 8 is an FA and may be a model.
  • Two paragraphs in last section still need refs.
  • Article still seems overly dependent on one source.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X Club

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was expanded as part of an assignment given by teaching assistant Ragesoss (talk · contribs) in the "History of Modern Science in Society" class at Yale University in the fall semester of 2006. I was quite intrigued by the subject, so I planned to bring the article up to Featured Article status. I've made some edits in the past few months and I think that it can be ready for an FAC in the near future. Since I don't have any experience writing or working on science articles (although, I do have experience with history-related articles), I was wondering if some editors, whether they be members of a science WikiProject is no matter to me, would kindly review this article. Thanks, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dwight Schrute

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 to FA, but need to make it perfect first.

Thanks, RedThunder 21:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into this article, it needs some more work to get up to FA standards. A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. I note that Palpatine, Troy McClure and Jabba the Hutt are all FAs about fictional characters. There may be more good model FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media
  • The lead needs to 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 (such as his World Anime Expo T-shirt). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the Bobblehead Doll is not mentioned in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Article needs a few more references, for example Dwight craves authority over others and relishes any minor task that Michael or anyone else gives him. Though Dwight acts like a know-it-all, he is actually quite gullible and naïve. For this reason, he is easily tricked and tormented by his desk-mate and fellow salesman Jim Halpert. Dwight speaks in a halting, dramatic manner, even in casual conversations. is uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Biggest problem I see is that the article is mostly presented from an in universe perspective and needs to be presented from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U. Look at the model articles and see how they deal with the character - how do the creators of the show talk about Schrute? What has the critical reception been to him as a character? Besides the VP joke, what other popular culture references are there to him? See WP:WEIGHT Similarly the sources are nearly all from the Office - article needs more independent third-party sources.

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 ><>°° 02:07, 9 July 2008 (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.) 11:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Operation Brevity

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 am unsure weather or not the article will stand up the scrutiny of a FA review.

The article has just been passed its A-Class review, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Brevity, however grammar was brought up as one of the issues which may temporally delay the article from being upgraded to FA.

I have gone through the article having a mess around sorting out mistakes I have spotted however it would be great if another pair of eyes or two could scan the article and sort out any remaining grammatical screw ups.

Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • I've had a, quick and brief, look through the article and fixed some grammatical errors that immediately sprung up at me, but I think I noticed a further few lurking there. Overall it's a very good article, and there are relatively few errors for the information displayed. I have also changed a few of the title headings; 'Plans' didn't seem very specific to anything and 'German reactions' should personally have been more representative of the Axis forces, and not just those of the Germans.

If you'd like me to have a detailed look through I might be persuaded to! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2008 (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.) 14:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


Guys, just like to thank you for your comments. Sorry for the late reply but i havent really been around for the last few weeks. Cheers for the help.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem of Apollonius

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 it to be ready for FAC. It covers an old but important problem in geometry, first solved by Apollonius of Perga and a test-bed for many mathematical methods, particularly in 19th century with the resurgence of geometry. I've been working on it for roughly five months, and others have contributed significantly as well. Several daughter articles have been expanded, numerous figures and tables have been created, and the article has been referenced thoroughly.

I would especially appreciate any advice or insight on the accessibility of the article, and how to make it more suitable for FAC.

Thank you for your help in improving the article, Willow (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Forksville Covered Bridge

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've asked for a peer review because I believe this article on a covered bridge that is on the National Register of Historic Places is nearly ready for FAC. Thanks to Dincher and Juliancolton for some very helpful comments. It is based on the model of Cogan House Covered Bridge, which is an FA. The article includes almost every bit of information I can find on the bridge itself, and any comments from fresh sets of eyes would be useful and appreciated. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Right now I am checking the links. Little Loyalsock Creek is a redirect to Loyalsock Creek. I recommend making a stub for the Little one but knowing you it'll be at least a GA before Labor Day =). Dincher (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Load bearing is a redirect to structural engineering. Don't know if this is important or not, but I don't really like redirects. Can live with or without it. Dincher (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the links check out as okay. There are some repeated wikilinks. Other editors don't link too many of these but I think they are fine. Dincher (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read the text and didn't find any problems. It was a very interesting read. Dincher (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for checking these. If something is linked in the lead, I am OK with repeating the link later in the article. I will work on the duplicate links and a new Little Loyalsock article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, me too, I have no problem with duplicate links. Dincher (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2008 (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.
    • Hee! I see you're using our compromise on the Svirsky site. Cool!.
    • Are you going to do ALL the covered bridges in the US or just PA?
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.) 14:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments:

The delightful cousins have come and gone, and I'm back at work. This is an excellent article about an interesting bridge. I made a small number of proofreading changes, most involving no-break codes and commas, as I went. Here are a few other things that you might consider.

  • The capitalization of species often raises questions, and I've flip-flopped a couple of times on what exactly is correct. The MoS says "Official common names of birds are normally capitalized." It also says, "Common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in lower case—for example, oak or lion," and it lists exceptions for things like Roosevelt elk, in which the "R" is big and the "e" is small. I've come around to using upper-case on the common bird names like "Hairy Woodpecker" and lower-case on things like "western redcedar" that are not birds. I believe this to be correct but retain a smidgen of doubt, hence the long-winded explanation here. In the Forksville Bridge article, you use "Eastern Hemlock", which I think should be "eastern hemlock" even though the linked article's title is "Eastern Hemlock".
    • I generally capitalize all species and leave others uncapitalized, so "Eastern Hemlock" but just "hemlock", per User:Ben MacDui's suggestion. This is what the last two FA Pennsylvania state park articles do, but since the MOS says otherwise, it is changed. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see USD$ before dollar amounts two times in the "Recreation and use" section. I don't think you have to use USD$ in a U.S.-centric article. It might be useful on the first instance to avoid confusion with other currencies like the Australian, but I wouldn't use it more than once per article.
  • The link-checker returns a 301 warning for the History of Sullivan County (rootsweb) link, saying it has "moved permanently" and "changes domain". Nonetheless, this link seems to work fine when clicked in the article. I'm not sure if anything can or should be done to the link.
  • This sentence stopped me each time through: "According to Zacher, the first Burr arch truss covered bridges were also built in the state." Maybe the problem is too many modifiers all strung out. How about something like "According to Zacher, the first covered bridges of the Burr arch truss type were also built in the state"? Or "According to Zacher, the first covered bridges of the Burr arch truss design were also built in the state."
    • Thanks - the sentence was originally "Some of the first Burr arch truss covered bridges were also built in the state." The problem is that Zacher writes the first Burr arch covered bridges were built in Pennsylvania, but the Theodore Burr Society website (not cited) says Burr built his first bridge in New York state (although it does not say if it was a Burr arch type bridge). I changed it to your second example. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'd just split this long sentence into two sentences: "The restoration was supervised by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), which owns and maintains the bridge, and involved minor work on the 'steel floor beams and stringers', which had been added years before." The second sentence would be "The repair involved minor work on the..." or something like that.
  • This sentence stopped me: "An entirely new wooden deck was installed, with wheel guards to channel all traffic to the center and separate pedestrian walkways on the sides." I think the problem is that pedestrian use is a kind of "traffic". Maybe something like this would be better: "The contractor installed an entirely new wooden deck including wheel guards to channel auto traffic to the center and to protect pedestrian walkways on either side."
      • Now I see. I might make one other minor suggestion here, and that would be to use "to protect" or "to shield" instead of "separate" because "separate" could be misunderstood as an adjective rather than a verb. Finetooth (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly "wheel guards" could be linked or briefly explained. I understand the basic words, but I don't know what a wheel guard looks like or what one might be made of or exactly how it's attached or how many might be needed for a bridge like this.
    • See above - there is no link for wheel guards, so I linked curb. This photo shows one of the wheel guards - essentially a beam bolted to the bridge deck, with the vehicle roadway on one side and the pedestrian walkway on the other, thanks. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd replace "in an operation" with something else in the sentence: "In 2006 the bridge was painted red in an operation that took about three weeks." Maybe "During three weeks in 2006, the bridge was painted red."
  • The concept of "bridge sufficiency rating" is clear in a general way, but it might be good to include a more exact explanation of what it means or how it is calculated, particularly since you cite the precise figure of 17.4 percent. Such a low rating might indicate a dangerous bridge, but the bridge remains in heavy use. Does the FHA give high ratings to any covered bridges, or do they all get similar low ratings? Does the FHA rating lead to a mandate, or can the state ignore it? I don't know how difficult it might be to answer these questions or whether the answers go too far into murky legal language to be useful. Nevertheless, the 17.4 percent made me ask.
    • I found this link that expalins it in general terms, but I am not sure how the exact figure for this bridge was arrived at. I also note this August 2, 2007 MSNBC article says 42.9% of Pennsylvania's 22,291 bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. I am not sure how much of this should be in the article - perhaps in a note? I think part of the reason for the low rating is that they rate all bridges on the same scale, and a 158 year old wooden bridge just does not compare well to a modern steel bridge. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful in making an excellent article even better. Finetooth (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are very helpful - thanks very much! The peer review bots are down so I am having to do a lot of maintenance by hand and will respond to these in the next day or two. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I believe all of the issues raised here have now been addressed. I will take this to FAC in the next 24 hours or so Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mozart's operas

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. It is a List, which has been prepared as a concise summary of Mozart's operas, providing an at-a-glance overview of the whole series of works. It has multiple links to enable detailed further investigation, and a brief, referenced text to give some general backgound information about the operas. Comments are requested on the format and overall quality of the list, on the use of footnotes, and on any other relevant aspect. Suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MeegsC

If you'd like further comments, please ask here! MeegsC | Talk 08:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments. Anything more you have to add would be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few more questions/comments:
  • Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's operas comprise 22 musical dramas in a variety of genres. Dramas? Some of the linked articles call their subjects comedies...
Surely the word drama is used here in the sense of a story enacted on a stage (irrespective of whether it is happy or tragic, serious or humorous). It's a standard usage. --Kleinzach 09:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I accept that. On a separate note, I think that opening sentence is a bit stilted. "...operas comprise 22 musical dramas... " How about Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed 22 operas in a variety of genres.
  • They range from the small-scale, derivative works of his juvenile years ... Juvenile years sounds odd to the ear. Is youth appropriate? (I realize that, as a child prodigy, he may well have reached maturity while still in his youth.)
Other words would be equally OK. But "juvenilia" is the accepted word for artistes' early work, so my choice seems appropriate.Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say the same thing, but on reflection 'juvenile years' is different from 'juvenilia' or 'juvenile works'. --Kleinzach 14:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's save a word and say "youth". Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...have never been out of the repetory. Whose repertory? I'm assuming the world's, but you might want to be more precise here.
Agreed. We could be more precise . . . "the repertory of the world's opera houses."? --Kleinzach 09:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A significant feature of Mozart's later work are... Verb needs to be in agreement, which will probably mean a rewording of this sentence...
I have reworded the start of this para, to give it a better justification for being here. There is a view that it should not be included in a list article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph, you directly quote several writers without attributing them in the text (though you've cited each one thoroughly). I like how you've done the third paragraph, where you indicate who said the quoted things. Can you do that here too, or put things into your own words so you're not using so many direct quotes? Not a deal-breaker, more a bit of a pet peeve. : )

MeegsC | Talk 09:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the last point, I've introduced Cairns and Kenyon into the paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Awadewit

What an important list! Thanks for putting this together! Here are my suggestions for improvement:

  • I'm wondering if the paragraph on female characters is necessary in the lead. Since this is a list article, only the briefest overview is required. (This is not the article on Mozart's operas, after all.) That paragraph suggests much more detail than the article goes into.
    • I wanted to illustrate a consistency in the operas, a unifying theme or factor relevant to the whole body of work, and I thought that Mozart's development of his female characters was the best - and the best-referenced - example of this. I will invite comment from other editors interested in the list. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first time a scholar or critic is named, he or she needs to be identified as a musicologist or something. Give the reader a reason to trust the person's opinion.
  • I'm curious why the seven-year old portrait was chosen - why not an older Mozart? Mozart wrote the bulk of his operas when he was older, did he not?
    • Yes, you're right, the portrait is inappropriate. I've changed it for the familiar della Croce detail
  • Shouldn't the titles of the operas be italicized in the list?
    • Yes, they should be, and now are.
  • It seems strange to write "3 soprano, 2 tenor" rather than "3 sopranos, 2 tenors" - is this typical opera lingo?
    • It's not opera lingo, but these descriptions refer to voice types, not to people, i.e. are being used in the adjectival rather than the noun sense (3 soprano voices, 2 tenor voices, etc.)
  • It would be good if the "Sources" were in a standard reference style, such as MLA, APA, or Chicago. I see the above reviewer recommended templates. I dislike the templates, too, but citing sources in a standard style is helpful to readers. WP:Citing sources has links at the bottom of the page to pages on these standard styles, if you don't want to use the templates.
    • I've used the same Sources format here that I have used in numerous featured articles, and which is widely used elsewhere in Wikipedia. In my view, this is a "standard" style provided it is used with complete consistency; I'm not sure why this form is less helpful to readers than others, but I'm prepared to be told. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia should not invent its own style. I do research nearly every day. It is confusing to come to a reference list and see things arranged in a foreign manner. I saw the punctuation in your list and went "what?" (by the way, the punctuation is not even consistent in the list itself). It also gives the impression that Wikipedia does not know what it is doing when it comes to references. Part of helping Wikipedia gain legitimacy is showing the outside world that we understand how referencing works. Awadewit (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I note what you say, and I respect this viewpoint. However, I do research, too. I see many scholarly bibliographies, outside Wikipedia, formatted in the manner I have used. I am looking at one right now. I am also looking at the bibliography in Neal Zaslaw's book, which is laid out in a non-standard fashion but doesn't cause me confusion. Honestly, I don't think it's a problem, but I will give the matter further thought. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there two "Further reading" sources? Considering all that has been written on Mozart's operas, this tiny selection seems rather arbitrary. I would delete this section and only list the sources you have used or create a real bibliography, listing all of the major works on Mozart's operas.
    • I agree that the list is too short. While it would be impractical to list all the major works, a decent listing of half a dozen is certainly possible, and I am working on this. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I thank you for these comments, and also for the very useful copyedits, which have certainly improved the text. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kleinzach

I've removed the 'Further Reading' heading leaving 'Selected bibliography' - I don't think both are needed, though by all mean switch them if you prefer the other one. The list looks excellent now. The only suggestion I have would be to announce the peer review on the Composers Project as they have some editors working intensively on Mozart who don't take part in the opera Project (for example Opus33). --Kleinzach 05:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Opus33

Charles Rosen's The Classical Style has quite a bit of commentary on the operas in general and might be a good reference source here. Opus33 (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a listed source. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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

Hello!, I've been trying to get Lockdown (2008) to GA status for about a 2 months now (with alot of help from The Hybrid) and I would like to get some better feed back about the article. So tell me about any mistakes I have left or anything I can do to it to make it better. Because I would really like to get it to GA status by TNA's next PPV Victory Road (2008), which is on July 13.--WillC 10:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SRX
Lead
  • The first sentence in the lead (not the intro), should be reworded to The main event was Wrestler A versus Wrestler B for Blank title
  • Team Cage won the match after Rhino pinned Storm following a Gore. - Should be reworded as well, Team Cage won the match when Rhino pinned Storm after performing a Gore
  • All the matches in the lead should not be sourced with the same source, if only one source is available, dont source the lead at all, its not required by WP:LEAD unless their is some questionable statement, like As a tradition, every match took place inside the Six Sides of Steel, this needs verification.
Background
  • iMPACT! should not be written like this, per WP:PW/MoS it should be written as the article's name which is Impact.
  • During the weeks leading up to Lockdown, Joe said that if he did not win the title at Lockdown, then he would quit professional wrestling forever - so every week leading up to the PPV he said this?
  • Joe then did not show up on iMPACT! for several weeks, the reason being he was (kayfabe) training for his and Angle's world title match. - needs to be reworded, as he stated that he was training for his match against Angle at Lockdown or along those lines.
  • During the time of Joe's training, Angle was also training. He faced new opponents on iMPACT! each week in MMA fights. - doesnt make sense to link opponents to jobber, just say jobber.
  • In one of these fights, Tomko and A.J. Styles switched back and forth every sixty seconds to fight Angle.[8][10] During Angle's time training, Angle said that he would beat Joe at Lockdown to show to all of the world that he was the best wrestler in the business today. - the time of these events needs to be more specific
  • For the second feud, the teams should be elaborated.
  • Tomko decided that his teammates would be Styles and Team 3D (Brother Ray and Brother Devon). - If AJ Styles is meant here, then it should be written out completely, just not linked.
  • Sting returned the next week on the first "Live iMPACT!" during a brawl between Team Cage and Team Tomko. - Live Impact doesnt need to be stated here, its not that special of an episode.
  • In the third feud, Booker should not be used throughout, his full name should be used since its short.
  • There isnt a limit to the amount of feuds that need to be outlined, but preferably it should be 3-4, I insist on removing the women's feud, the Kip James/BG feud, and if possible the Xscape match, but seeing the caliber of that match, it can remain. Though consider placing the qualification matches in a table used in WrestleMania XXIV for the Money in the Bank qualification matches.
  • These video segments were called Rough Cut.[6][13][8][9][10][7] - Six references is outrageous and redundant, a link to every video is not needed, just one or two.
  • Besides this, this is to much over referencing in the BG, 1-2 sources should only be used, and try to remain consistent.
Event
  • The pay-per-view (PPV) began with a pre-tape of Mike Tenay inside the Six Sides of Steel, where he promoted the TNA World Heavyweight Championship match between Samoa Joe and Kurt Angle, and reminded everyone that if Joe lost, he had to retire.[16][17][18] - 1) Over referencing, 2) This is nontable, pre taped segments are non notable to the PPV, 3) PPV should not be abbreviated in parenthesis
  • The table of on screen talent should be made collapsible as it is in other PPV articles, See here for an example. Also because the same reference sources the on screen talent, make them general references and place them at the top as it is in the example.
  • Actually the whole first paragraph of the event section needs to be removed its all non-notable and non relevant to the article per WP:PW/MOS
  • Im not event gonna go through this whole section, this whole article is in need of desperate copy-editing, here is an example Before the match began, Mike Tenay went down the X-Factors. The order of entrances were as follows: were as follows???
  • The following match was the Queen of Cage Match - Queen of cage match? Maybe, Queen of the Cage match?
  • Like I said before, the article is need of desperate copy editing, remove promos, segments from the event section, they are non notable and unrelevant. Cut down on some of the match, the Styles match is enormous as is the Angle/Joe match, and does not need play-by-play.
Aftermath
  • Most of the stuff I mentioned in the BG section applies here as well, and a copy-edit is needed.
Results
  • The table needs to be updates like the one used here and here
  • I'm not sure whether we incorporate and idea about elimination matches, I think it was not to list it, as it would be in the prose, but if I'm wrong look at WT:PW or discuss it there.
Notes
  • Not needed, some of it is relevant but not to the article, except the ticket sales, that could be placed in the BG of the event.
References
  • Needs to be changed to two columns
  • Also, many of these refs rely on 3-4 refs, some of them are used over 20 times, that is ridiculous, it needs to be cut down. You need more diverse sources, but reliable ones. WWE-Zone is not reliable, 411 Mania is questionable today. Consider using sources from the Wrestling Observer, Slam Sports, and PW Torch, and others outlined here
Closing comments
  • This article needs major work, I do respect that you expand TNA articles, as WP:PW is mostly WWE based, but you should use WWE GA's as a guide to help you when you write these articles.SRX--LatinoHeat 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

  • Okay, I fixed the lead problems. I didn't notice that they were screwed up since, User:The Hybrid and User:Nikki311 didn't say anything about them. I thought they were fine but I fixed them. My sources are Pro wrestling history, Pro wrestling edge, and Online World of Wrestling. Those are just results. Not a report. Just a results page.
  • I've placed a reference for the Six Sides of Steel part. Should I just remove all the references from the lead. I do have 2 other ones I can place in there. What should I do there? This is the first article I've ever done this with, trying to get it to GA is what I mean.

Background

  • I've changed the Joe saying he'll retire part.
  • I've changed the part where is training.
  • I thought opponents sounded better than He fought Jobbers each week. Though Tomko and AJ weren't jobbers.
  • I've rewrote the part where he says he is the best and fighting AJ and Tomko.
  • In what way should they be elaborated?
  • I've fixed the Styles part.
  • I feel the Live iMPACT should be special since it is the first one in the history of the show. That seems really notable to me.
    • Yes, but it's not a special episode, for example, the first LIVE episode of SmackDown!, so what, its still SmackDown.
  • I've fixed all mentions of Booker and changed them to Booker T.
  • I feel they should all stay since the article is about the ppv. So if it is about the ppv then they should all be mentioned. I don't know what you mean by Money in the Bank. The matches aren't even in the article. I changed it though to something else. Maybe it will work.
    • Oh, my bad. Just place the qualifying matches in the prose and not in a list, they aren't needed, and a section is not needed just for those matches.
  • I've removed 4 and left 2.
  • Okay is that all with the Background? I fixed everything you said.

Event

  • Why is pre-tapes not notable? That is how the event began. That seems notable to me. I removed it though.
  • I've fixed the were as follows part.
  • Why should "The" be Italicized? It is called Queen of the Cage.
    • It shouldnt, I was just highlighting the word that should go there, in the event section, it only said Queen of Cage, and not Queen of the Cage.
  • Why are we removing stuff that happened at the event? What is the point of the event if it is just going to say they fought and Joe won? Promos are notable. It was bulidt to the match. I was told by Mikki311 that stuff before the match sure be added but not doing pla by play which I didn't. I said there was chain wrestling, hard hits, punches, and kicks. That isn't play by play. I placed more enfasis on the main 2 matches.

Results

  • Fixed

Notes

  • How is not telling about the Fan Interaction okay but in WrestleMania it was okay to talk about production?
    • Because production is important, its how the event was produced, the fans have nothing to do with production.

References

  • How do I make 2 colums?
    • {{reflist|2}}
  • I got the references from a discussion in WT:PW where LAX said they were all good. Also I have probably 10 more sites that I can use.

Re:Closing comments

  • Thanks for the advice. I've fixed everything you said. I don't think it is that bad. Just small mistakes. This is my first time at writting a article and trying to get it to GA status but I don't know what to do after the peer review though.--WillC 11:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mainly, this article needs major rewording, and more compliances to WP:PW/MOS. IMO, it's not in shape to pass it's GAN. Also to answer your question, you have to wait for the Peer Review to close, which takes about 10 days after no one writes in this PR. Then you place it on the waiting list at WP:PW for a week, then you nominate it once a week is up. But it's not ready, sorry (IMO).SRX--LatinoHeat 14:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After I remove the promos and segments and change a few little things. Will it be ready then?--WillC 19:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to the comments on my talk page, no, this article has a far alot of work to do. Wait for other users to give their review, im just one user with his own mindset, others may have different ideas. So just hold on ;)--SRX--LatinoHeat 23:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how it has alot of work left. I have references. If I place more references in there that say the samething as my others then it would be redundant. Also it wouldn't be consistent. I've removed everything you said and fixed everything else. I've had 2 editors copyedit it. I don't see what is left. Will you please tell me what is left? I just want to get it to GA status. I don't see many others saying much about Lockdown since everyone else works on WWE stuff. This is the first time I've ever done this and I just want to learn the ins and outs.--WillC 23:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can give you a tutorial on how to write PPVs. In all honesty, this article is far from becoming a GA. Would you like a tutorial?SRX--LatinoHeat 23:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, In all honesty I hope you're wrong. I've worked really hard. It was in my sandbox for a long time. But yeah I'll take it.--WillC 00:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons

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 it could become a Featured List. I think it is close to FL status but would like more pairs of eyes to check through it before I put it forward to FLC. Format-wise, I have borrowed heavily from existing football season lists such as Aston Villa F.C. seasons.

Thanks, Jameboy (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Perhaps bold the title
  • You could add a wl to West Bromwich Albion F.C. in the image captain. I don't think it needs a full stop either because it's a sentence fragment.
  • Not an essential one. I prefer RU and W (or WN) for Runners-up or Winners. It makes the column look neater, I feel.
  • You could possibly add wikilinks to individual season entries for The Football League, Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup, etc.
  • Try splitting the others column as per Bradford City A.F.C. seasons and Leeds United A.F.C. seasons to align the rounds.

Everything else looks pretty good. Should be a shoe-in for FLC, in the near future. Peanut4 (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I've incorporated some of them already and will look into the rest and report back again soon. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've dealt with most of the above. WP:BOLDTITLE suggests that the title need not be in bold, but I'm open to ideas. That just leaves the wikilinks. This is how I think it should look - I haven't implemented all of the below yet, as I'm keen to get your thoughts first:
  • Season links to Season in English football, e.g. (e.g. 2006–2007 links to 2006-07 in English football)
  • Link first instance of each division to division article (e.g. Div1 links to Football League First Division). Similarly, FA Cup links to FA Cup and Charity Shield links to Charity Shield.
  • Regarding the cup 'rounds', my thinking is to link to the final article (where Albion reached the final and if that article exists), else link to the season article (if it exists). So W links to 1888 FA Cup Final and SF links to FA Cup 2007-08. I'd prefer to leave League Cup seasons alone for now though, due to the proliferation of redlinks.
  • Given this, what should link to the Premier League or Football League season article? For consistency with the cups, I guess "League Position" would be closest. e.g. 4th could link to The Football League 2006-07. Do you think that would be OK?
  • I'm considering how and when to repeat wikilinks. If someone was top scorer for several seasons in a row, it would seem sensible to link them just once, as the links are close together. Similarly with 'Other' competitions that are played within a few years of each other. However I think wikilinks should be repeated where they are quite far apart, e.g. Charity Shield.
Let me know what you think. --Jameboy (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All looks pretty good. But I'll reply to two of your points.
  • I've added links to individual seasons in the positions, as you suggest above, at Bradford City A.F.C. seasons.
  • I'm unsure what to do about repeated linking. Many seasons entries don't repeat linking competitions, but do with top scorers (and I'm guilty of that too), but it doesn't seem to be consistent. I'm not sure it's a huge problem either way, but it might be worth getting a wider range of thoughts on this one. Peanut4 (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments
  • In general, you might consider having a look at more recently promoted season lists. Bradford City is good, and Leeds was very much a community effort with an in-depth peer review.
  • Lead. The opening sentence of list articles has been the subject of much debate (see here, for starters).
  • The players in bold bit belongs in the key, not the lead.
  • "local cup competitions are not included due to them being considered of less importance than the FA Cup and the League Cup" reads awkwardly; perhaps rephrase as something plain, like "locally-organised cup competitions are not included."
  • The last sentence only repeats content from the first two.
  • Lead as a whole could perhaps do with a bit more content.
  • Image. WP:MOS#Image size recommends that the lead image should be no smaller than 300px, and as Peanut said the caption shouldn't have a full stop.
  • Table. Strongly suggest you go to RU/W instead of Runners up/Winners, and split the Europe/other column into 2, one for competition name and one for round reached, as per Bradford seasons. Makes the table look neater, and means fewer cells wrap to two or more rows.
  • Where there are joint leading scorers, suggest separating them by a line break rather than a slash.
  • Was the United Counties League in 1893-94 a first-team competition? and the note about "final replay being held over" needs explaining.
  • Perhaps change the wartime wording to something like "The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the xxxx World War". Apart from any arguments about the definition of "competitive", the early rounds of the 1946 FA Cup were played in 1945.
  • Key. Have you gone to darker shades of green and pink than used by other lists for any particular reason? Normal-weight wikilink-blue is very hard to read against that shade of pink.
  • Notes. Suggest combining notes 3, 9, and 24 into one, reading something like "The Charity Shield was first played for in 1908, and was renamed the FA Community Shield in 2002", and just putting it at the top of the column.
  • In note 4, wikilink playoffs and test matches.
  • In note 23, wl "on aggregate".
  • In general, put full stops at the end of footnotes.
  • References. I'm impressed that the RSSSF source dated 06/2007 was retrieved some four months previously ;)
  • You need a source for Mr Phillips as 2008 top scorer. Perhaps in the top-of-column note, include "Sourced from Matthews (2007) until 2007 and from xxxx thereafter." Incidentally, I'm very envious of your Matthews (2007); don't suppose you know if he plans any advance on Blues (1995)?

hope some of this helps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the suggestions - I have started working through them. I will work through the rest and report back again soon. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for these. I felt that the list was in reasonable shape generally, and these sorts of specific points were exactly what I was looking for in order to improve it further. I have dealt with the majority of the comments, so here's what I see as being outstanding:
  • The opening sentence of the lead I'm still a little unsure of. As I said to Peanut4, I have decided not to bold the title after reading WP:BOLDTITLE, but could be persuaded otherwise if there was a good reason. I want the opening to introduce the list without sounding too "false", but I'm still not convinced I've managed to do that.
  • Albion did play their first team in the United Counties League (I have all the line-ups), but more than that I haven't been able to find out. They beat Small Heath, Stoke and Wolves in the group stage, and lost to Derby in the final. This suggests that it may have been a regional competition, and as such I should remove it based on my own criteria. It's a tricky one, but in the absence of further information I'm thinking it may have to go. Matthews gives no reason as to why the replay was held over until the following season.
  • I wanted to use "standard" colour names for the shading; I found the the green #DDFFDD in particular very faint and hard to pick out. If it's just the pink that is a problem I could change that back to #FFCCCC?
  • No idea when his next Blues book is due... I guess you'd have to ask the man himself!
Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to the lead, I don't know; I'm glad my lists got in before they started trying to insist on decent prose. Do you think it might work better if you start with what is currently the first sentence of the second paragraph, about the club's foundation, and then talk about what the list covers and when it starts from and why, and then mention first winning the FA cup in 1888? That's only an idea, I don't know if it would run better that way round.
  • Didn't realise my lot were in this United Counties thing till you said, Matthews doesn't refer to it. According to Tony Jordan, it was a first team comp for us also, but he calls it the Midland (United) Counties League, which does rather imply regional.
  • As to green and pink, I'm not sure that my particular variant of colour-blindness ought to take precedence over any other. You should be aware that FLC reviewers do these days tend to point out that according to WP:COLOR, editors should "ensure that colour is not the only way used to convey important information". People who understand English football will see that bolding the change of divisions serves to indicate promotion/relegation, but those who don't, might not, so be prepared to point that out.
  • Leading goalscorers (with a view to the future). I'm not keen on Soccerbase for historical stuff, but they're pretty good on "big clubs" these days, so I might be tempted to reference Phillips to their squad stats page, which has a dropdown box for other seasons.
  • As to multiple linking, I would. The reader shouldn't have to chase up and down the page trying to find the first instance of any particular item.
In general, looks better now than it did, and I'm glad some of my suggestions were helpful. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunderland Echo

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 spent the past few weeks building up what was essentially a stub, and I suppose my ultimate goal would be to take it to FAC eventually, as the paper is 135 years old this year and a little bronze star would be a great way to mark the anniversary! However, it is nowhere near GA, let alone FAC, at the moment and I would be very interested in any suggestions, pointers, guidance etc on which way forward I should now go.

Thanks, seahamlass 15:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Planet 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 it has gone through a merger and I need to make sure it makes sense, or if there are any missing bits that should be included. Also, I want to know how close it is to GA status.

Thanks, Serendipodous 10:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. This generally seems quite well done and I think it would probably pass GA with a few tweaks.

  • Per WP:MOS#Images, there should be an image in the upper right corner of the article if at all possible: Start an article with a right-aligned lead image. Of the images in the article, I like the comparison of TNOs best, but can understand how it might be misleading as an image as these are not (now) planets. I also like Image:Outersolarsystem objectpositions labels comp.png as a lead image.
  • While the article is generally well-referenced, there are a few statements that need a ref, such as was far too small to account for the discrepancies in the orbit of Uranus. If there was a Planet X, it was not Pluto. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • This image needs a fair use rationale: Image:Pluto discovery plates.png
  • There are several very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow of the article. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded, if possible.

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 ><>°° 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it seems fine. Here's a few comments that I hope are helpful:

  • The second sentence in the lead seems too long. Can it be split?
  • The flow of the lead section seems backwards. I think the second paragraph should be inserted after the first sentence, with the "Pluto was considered..." moved down to a second paragraph.
  • "After the discovery of Neptune, however, there still were some slight discrepancies in those orbits, and also in the orbit of Neptune itself." This uses a plural "those orbits". To which orbit(s) besides Uranus does this refer (since Neptune is already mentioned)?
  • "summarily handed the job of locating the world" -> probably meant "planet" here, as "world" often refers to the Earth.
  • The paragraph on "Tombaugh's task" should clarify that the images were take of matching locations on the sky. Only by aligning the plates does the comparitor work. Also I think "task was to systematically image" may read better than "task was systematically to image".
  • The paragraph that begins "Once found, Pluto's faintness and lack..." doesn't quite work for me. The second sentence seems to contradict the first; a planet with a diameter of 9,000 km is much larger than Mars. Also, any object with mass will perturb a planet. You might want to clarify what you mean.
  • The statement that "they have not cleared the neighborhood of their orbits" should probably be explained.
  • "...currently set in elongated orbit..." is missing an "an".

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I've never been asked to split an infinitive before. How racy :-). I've had a go at editing the lead, but the way it's turned out makes me think that the article should now go back to Planet X. Serendipodous 08:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Planets beyond Neptune explains the article purpose better. Planet X sounds like a movie title. =) —RJH (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Ruslik: This is generally a good article.

1) In the last section the hypothetical Mars-like object at 60 AU should be mentioned (see [2]). This idea has been largely abandoned by now. However 10 years ago it looked quite plausible.
I'd need to know why it's been abandoned. Serendipodous 09:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is explained in Lykawka et al., 2008 (ref35)—the observed distribution of TNOs is different from one that follows from the model. Ruslik (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Lykawka's article, only the abstract. Serendipodous 17:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The arXiv full text PDF should be freely available (arXiv:0712.2198). ASHill (talk | contribs) 19:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2) I think paper written by C. Tombaugh needs to be cited.
3) Reguarding various mass and radius estimates of Pluto these papers may be helpful: [3], [4], [5].

Ruslik (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General aviation in the United Kingdom

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a new article built from scratch. I'm looking for people's opinion mainly on how well it reads. Have I explained things well? Is the langauge clear, or is there anything that confuses? Does the article flow well? Also, are there any issues with comprehensiveness? Thanks, FactotEm (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/General aviation in the United Kingdom.

Blackpool tramway

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 see what work needs to be done to improve it. I would like to get the article up to GA and possibly FA class, and also I would like to get some of those tags at the top removed! I would also like to know what sections need to be largened, which to be split, merged, moved etc. I also want opinions on whether or not the fleet list should be added seperately, or within the article.

Many thanks, BG7even 20:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment from Ruhrfisch:

  • In order to get to GA or far beyond that to FA status, the article needs to expand the lead per WP:LEAD
  • Also must be better referenced. Right now there are some whole sections that have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V.
  • I also think several of the sections are far too short and should be combined with others or possibly expanded.
  • Finally I think the article would benefit from splitting out the information on the various types of tram cars into a separate article (perhaps a list?) and leaving a summary behind per WP:Summary style. See Talyllyn Railway for a recent FA (good model) that split out its list of stations effectively.

Hope this helps. If you want more comments, please ask here. Please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cream (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 in time, should it be improved, I want to nominate it for Featured Article.

Thanks, Cubs Fan (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2008 (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. Also, there are barely any references at all, large sections of the article are unreferenced. 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. 15:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I agree with Ealdgyth that the biggest problem facing this article on its path to FA is a lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • 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. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK
  • Logic seems to point out a problem with this header "The future (2006-present)" - last I checked the time from 2006 to now (2008) was called the past. See WP:HEAD 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 found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Greencards

edit


This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I'd like to get this to FA status. It was previously at FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Greencards/archive1 but by the end I was short on time to go through all of the suggestions and requests, so I let it run out to bring it back for more work, and Peer Review. Any input that could be helpful to get it to FA would be wonderful!

Thanks, rootology (T) 18:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.[reply]

  • I would treat the FAC as a very detailed and thorough peer review. Go through it carefully and make sure that every point has been addressed. Look at issues raised as examples and check for other possible problems and fix those. Once you think all of the issues have been addressed, go back to the editors and ask if they would mind looking at the article again before the next FAC. Fix any additional issues they raise before FAC.
  • Article generally looks good, but make sure to provide context for the reader who does not know much about them. For example there are four people in the lead image, but the article lead says there are three members. A caption that identified the people pictured would be helpful (from the lead I am also not sure if Kym or Carol is the woman member)
  • Article could still benefit from a copyedit, for example Early on, Young was a singer in Outback country bands and acts, including Gina Jeffreys.[3][4] "a singer in ... Gina Jeffreys" just sounds odd. Perhaps this could be something like Early on, Young was a singer in Outback country acts, including Gina Jeffreys' band.[3][4] or in Before the band formed, Carol Young and Kym Warner both knew each other, and according to Warner had been drawn to bluegrass and American roots music through an appreciation of George Jones and Merle Haggard.[7] Later, Young and Warner were living together in Sydney, ... the use of "Before the band formed" followed by "Later" makes it sound like they lived together in Sydney after the band formed, but the lead says they formed it in Austin. You get the idea. WP:PRV is one place to find people willing to copyedit.
  • Watch out for peacock language like "outrageous" in According to McLoughlin, the idea of an American bluegrass band composed of two Australians and an Englishman is not outrageous: Also the quote after it should use blockquote and not cquote per the MOS.

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 ><>°° 01:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the feedback. I've gone over each of the points so far from the FAC and will go back to all the people who helped on it directly after covering your points, and before going back to FAC. I hadn't thought of that... for the word "outrageous", that was the descriptive term for the whole dichotomy of foreigners playing such an American music style, right in the source:"
"Since bluegrass is such an American music style, the thought of two Aussies and a Londoner playing it might seem outrageous."
If it is a direct quote that is fine, but you might want to make it clearer that it is a direct quote. Sorry for the confusion, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laser brain comment

Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get some comments to improve it. Thanks, Gary King (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arkansas Razorbacks in the NFL Draft

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 hope it is close to being a Featured List. This is the second third list of its kind, the first second being List of East Carolina Pirates in the NFL Draft which was nominated and promoted to WP:FL. However, this list is bigger than the first one and would like comments on how to improve the article to meet the criteria of WP:FL.

Thanks, Reorion (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JKBrooks85

edit

Very good work all around. It's clean, well-cited, and easily understandable. The dead link checker didn't turn up anything. I modified the lede slightly for clarity purposes, so feel free to check that to make sure that I didn't change anything too important too badly. There's only two things that I'd suggest changing:

But those are minor things, and though I'm sure someone will find something to disagree with during FLC, I think it's good to go once those fixes are made. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of India

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 restructured the whole article, added new sections and it took three hours for it.This is one of important pages concerning India.

Thanks, Vijay Sai (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Lead does not follow WP:LEAD - there is not even a mention of foreign relations in the first two sentences. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the article may need fewer sections / header too
  • Article is severly lacking in references - whole sections are completely unreferenced. Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. 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
  • Section headers do not follow WP:HEAD - they should not have links for example.
  • Article needs a serious copyedit for flow and typos.

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 ><>°° 21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Bryant

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 what to do in order for this article to be at least good article status.

Thanks, Annoyomous24 (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quick comment by Doncram IANASP (I am not a sports person), so i hope u get other reviews. But, Kobe Bryant is very prominent and even i know of him somewhat. I appreciate that the intro addresses the sexual assualt issue, upfront, which it needs to do, although i am not sure the full resolution of it including fact of a settlement reached needs to be in the intro. But, lacking in the intro, and in fact buried until the section titled "Departure of Shaquille O'Neal (2004-2007)", is any discussion of the other big story with respect to Kobe Bryant, that he is very talented obviously but chose not to cooperate with his coach and with Shaquille O'Neal (sp?), over ego issues perhaps. His egotism, perhaps, led to conflict with both of them, and to Shaq's leaving. And it continues to play out like some kind of tragedy of ego, that Kobe is great, yes, but not a team player, and hence the Lakers are far less. Frankly i liked Shaq, and the coach guy, and i think it woulda been great if Kobe had cooperated and the Lakers coulda ruled. My biases and/or misunderstandings aside, i think some allusion to this issue and ongoing tragedy / tragic failure / tragic failure of hubris perhaps, should be included in the intro, and that it is equally or more important than the nationally-prominent sexual assault issue (again, which should be at least mentioned in the intro). Also, the wording of the section title "Departure of Shaquille O'Neal (2004-2007)" is weird. Shaq left on some particular date, he did not gradually fade away over a 3-4 year period. Should it be titled "Competition and conflict with Shaquille O'Neal" or something like that? Be more direct. And foreshadow this with some mention in the intro. Hope this quick comment is helpful. doncram (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Bristol

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 that it would provide good feedback before the article is taken to Featured Article Candidates. I have been working on this article for a long time with a few editors and it is necessary for a few fresh pairs of eyes to look at it. I don't think the History section is particularly strong although one does become hyper critical of an article when considering whether it should even be nominated for FAC . Is this article missing anything which out best University articles have?

I'm not particularly good at nit-picking and having put so much work into this article and those which split off it so really need someone to rip it apart! All feedback appreciated

Thanks, Francium12 (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flood (Halo)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC again; comments on layout, content, et al are appreciated.

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy comments
  • I think there are a few more parameters on Template:Infobox VG character that could be filled in.
  • "For Halo 3, Vic DeLeon..." - context; who's he?
  • Check the italics on the ref 1 title.
  • "The Flood were added early in the development stage of Halo: Combat Evolved, before the game had made its jump from the Macintosh platform and Bungie was bought by Microsoft; a design for one Flood form appeared as early as 1997" - this needs reorganising; it's all over the place and hard to make sense of.
  • "ringworld Halo" - should Halo have italics here? It varies.
  • "takes place at the same times as the Master Chief hunts for Keyes during Halo: Combat Evolved" --> "takes place at the same time as the Master Chief's hunt for Keyes during Halo: Combat Evolved"?
  • In the Halo Graphic Novel section, one story is in italics, the other in quotes. Be consistent.
  • "Whereas the Flood are only hinted at being intelligent in Halo" - as in, throughout the series?
  • "Actress Aisha Tyler said that "[every time the Flood appear], even though I've played it a million times, is a totally terrifying moment." - what makes her an RS on video games?
  • What makes http://www.teamfremont.com/reviews/Halo2.shtml reliable?
  • Same for Gamecritics.com

—Giggy 07:20, 10 July 2008 (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.) 13:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Colchester Gladiators (American football)

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 managing to get it onto DYK at the beginning of the month, I feel I may be able to get this up to at least GA standard (and possibly up to FA class) but I'm not quite sure how to do this.

Thanks, Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 13:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. 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 - Other teams and activities is not in the lead now, for example.
  • Make sure to be clear on dates - where it says "currently" in the lead it should give the year, or the Roster should give the date or season
  • Provide context for the reader - the Team season records table needs explanations (wikilinks) for W LT PF PA. Or the table notes the merger and name change to Essex Gladiators, but not the resumption of the old name later. See WP:PCR Also any reason why the table is not sortable?
  • Numerous WP:MOS issues - headers do not follow WP:HEAD, any chance of more images, perhaps one of them playing, see WP:MOS#Images, 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 ><>°° 00:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary FRCA

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 edited the Primary FRCA article into easy to read sections trying to match the sections given in Final FRCA which I have also edited. References have been added.


Thanks, Olimorgan

Ruhrfisch comments: A fairly short article - peer review is usually for more developed work, but here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is often useful for ideas on structure, style, refs, etc. ACT (examination) and SAT are both exam articles that are B class and may offer some ideas.
  • 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, for example ST3.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, so include something for the sections on Syllabus, Form of the Examination, Marking Scheme, and Membership. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The lead sentence should probably be something like The Primary Examination of the Diploma of Fellowship of the Royal College of Anaesthetists (commonly known as the Primary FRCA) is ...[1]
  • Avoid jargon - explain or remove it. So spell out MMC, GMS, MCQ, etc. the first time and put the abbreviation after in parentheses for reference and use it in subsequent mentions. See WP:JARGON
  • Any chance for an image of any sort?
  • Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections as they break up the flow of the article.
  • Avoid bullet lists - convert to prose.
  • Any reason why this article could not be combined (merged) with Final FRCA? Perhaps as "FRCA Examinations" with redirects from this and Final FRCA?
  • What makes this topic notable - see WP:NN? Where are the independent third-party sources on 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
  • Much of the article reads like a how to, not an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOT
  • Article could use a copy edit to clean up / polish prose.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just have a few comments to add:

  • When I compare this page to the Primary FRCA Guide, the latter seems much more comprehensive (albeit not encyclopedic). I'm sure you can find ways to further expand this article in a meaningful way.
  • The language of the Entrance Requirements section seems much too terse. It also may be unclear that "pounds" is a monetary unit.
  • I didn't know until I saw the "Marking Scheme" section that the test came in four quarters. Perhaps this could be expanded upon?

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Series (2007)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Myself and LAX have decided to work on getting this article to GA status, but were need your help. Anybody who could stop by and give us some tips for improving the article, please do so.

Thanks, -- iMatthew T.C. 15:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article but while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. I note that December to Dismember (2006) is a FA and may be a good model here.`
  • 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, but the Montreal Screwjob (another FA) is only mentioned in the lead, as is the official song. Please see WP:LEAD
    • I see where you are coming from here, but generally professional wrestling pay-per-view articles use the first paragraph of the lead to give background information about the pay-per-view itself. The actual background section is about the feuds in the pay-per-view. So the official song and mention of the Montreal Screwjob should probably stay where they are, unless you have an idea of where they can be inserted in the article. -- iMatthew T.C. 11:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no problem with them being in the lead, just noting that WP:LEAD says they should also be mentioned again somewhere in the body of the article. Perhaps the song could be something like "Wrestler X entered the ring to the strains of the official song ..." (no idea how the song was used, but you get the idea) and the Montreal Screwjob could be mentioned in context too somehow - despite ten years having passed since the Montral Screwjob, tensions between Y and Z were still high? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article needs a copyedit, here is an example from the lead The predominant match on the Raw brand was Randy Orton versus Shawn Michaels for the WWE Championship, which Orton won by pinfall after executing an RKO.[8] but "predominant" does not seem to be the right adjective here - the other brands list the "main match" and the "primary match".
  • Also avoid or explain jargon - in the same sentence above, RKO is jargon and should be clarified (it is link, but as a redirect)
  • Some sentences do not seem to be logical - for example in The main matches on the undercard included a 5-on-4 Survivor Series match between Team Triple H (Triple H, Jeff Hardy, Rey Mysterio and Kane) and Team Umaga (Umaga, Mr. Kennedy, Montel Vontavious Porter, Finlay and Big Daddy V), and ... it is described as a 5 on 4 match, but then the four member team is listed before the five member team, why not the other way around?
    • No, because in pay-per-view articles, the winning team generally goes before the losing team, but then again, that seems un-logical, so I'll fix it. -- iMatthew T.C. 11:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, again I do not know the wrestling convention. Even if the team sizes were made clearer it might help The main matches on the undercard included a 5-on-4 Survivor Series match between [the four members of] Team Triple H (Triple H, Jeff Hardy, Rey Mysterio and Kane) and Team Umaga (Umaga, Mr. Kennedy, Montel Vontavious Porter, Finlay and Big Daddy V), and ... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd that the Background section is longer than the Event section
  • Since this is entertainment, shouldn't there be some sort of reception information in the artermath section? What were the ratings / number of viewers for the Pay per view event? What did any critics or commentators say about the show?
  • Per WP:MOS#Images the images should be set to thumb to allow reader preferences to take over. Vertical images can be made smaller using "upright"
  • About 90% of the refs are from the WWE. If possible, more third party, independent sources would help a lot.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 03:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gardens of Versailles

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 as the article as been edited and the layout modified per Wiki MOS.


Thanks, E. Lighthart (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MeegsC
  • Sources should be in a standard format (citation or cite book/web/whatever).
  • The first source (Château de Versailles) under Notes gives a "404" error when clicked on.
  • Per WP:MOS, section titles shouldn't have multiple caps (i.e. The Problem of Water) unless referring to proper names (i.e. July Monarchy is OK—though you should lose the "The").
  • Per WP:MOS, there should not be a period at the end of the caption on the lead picture, as it's not a complete sentence.
  • The whole article needs a thorough copy edit. For example:
    • The gardens are boarded by the urban areas—I believe you mean bordered
    • which relatively unchanged until the expansion ordered—needs a word between which and relatively
    • a furry of activity—presumably, you meant flurry

If you'd like further comments, please respond here! : ) MeegsC | Talk 10:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MetaCarta

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 article about MetaCarta satisfies the criteria for featured article.

Thank you, ISitn (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment - please read WP:WIAFA, which are the actual criteria for Featured Articles. There is no way this is even a Good Article, let alone a FA. The lead does not meet WP:LEAD, the article is lacking references needed per WP:V, the three refs it has do not meet WP:CITE, and the prose is nowhere near at a professional level. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If youwant more feedback, please ask and I will be glad to give more specfics. What's there is a good start, just needs a lot of work to get to FA standards. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proxima Centauri

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is about the nearest star to the Sun. Based on the currently available sources I think it is a fairly comprehensive high-level treatment. Do you have any thoughts on improvements?

Thank you, RJH (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think it is pretty close to FA as is, so here are some fairly nit picky comments for improvement. I also note I am not an astronomy expert, so I may have missed something obvious to someone who is.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Barnard's Star, Sirius and Tau Ceti are all star FAs and may be useful models
  • I agree that the lead needs to be expanded. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - Please see WP:LEAD
  • Somewhere I would note where on Earth one can observe this star (with a telescope). My understanding is that you have to be in the southern hemisphere or close to it to do so. Perhaps in the Observation history section
  • In the Characteristics section, I would put the apparent magnitude into context even more by mentioning the lowest magnitude that is visible to the naked eye. See WP:PCR
  • I would also spell out VLTI - avoid or explain jargon
  • This needs a ref, and is the only place I could find that does - Other scientists, especially proponents of the Rare Earth hypothesis, disagree that red dwarf stars can sustain life.
  • Oops, this in a footnote also needs a ref: By comparison, the Apollo 10 achieved a record velocity of 11 km/s.

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 ><>°° 02:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes your comments were helpful. I do the occasional PR here as well.—RJH (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad they helped and hope you get some more comments. I have seen your reviews and appreciate them - I have a standard closing statement I paste in, perhaps I should change it? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to change it on my account. Thank you. =) —RJH (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik comments: I agree the article is close to FA. However I has some comments.

1) "These flares can grow as large as the star and reach temperatures of 2 million K[9]—hot enough to radiate X-rays." The cited temperature is not supported by refs. This temperature probably corresponds to the quiescent corona, not to flares. The flare temperatures are usually 107 K or higher. The part about coronal/chromospheric activity should be expanded should be expanded (see [6], [7], [8], [9]), and include something about mass loss and stellar wind. Some numbers for X-ray flux and energy of flares would be helpful too.
2) "Proxima Centauri is orbiting through the Milky Way at a distance from the galactic core that varies from 8.313–9.546 kpc and with an orbital eccentricity of 0.069."—impossible precision.
Probably. I just used what was published, but I've reduced the precision in the article.—RJH (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3) It should be mentioned (In 'Possible companions' subsection) that the activity of the star makes RV (and transit to some extent) search of planets difficult. So one should not expect spectacular results.
4) Some will complain about the use of {{e}} template.
5) The star has a high density. It think this fact should be mentioned in the text (and infobox).

Ruslik (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases

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 requested that I do so when I nominated it for featured list status here. As was explained to me, the article has the following problems:

  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Not done - virtually no prose at all.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. Not done - no lead other than the repitition of the title of the list.
  3. 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. Done - although it would need to be checked.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities. Not done - nothing other than a series of numeric links which non-experts cannot relate to or find any context for.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. Not done - several WP:MOS breaches.
  6. 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; and it has a minimal proportion of red links. Not done - a morass of numbers with no additional information.
  7. 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. Done - can't see major problems here.

I personally like the way the list is right now (that's why I nominated it to be a Featured List). It's minimalist but effective in allowing quick navigation to any of the over 10,000 cases that the Supreme Court has decided. But apparently I'm in the minority there. However, I can see that maybe it needs a better intro. One more thing was that the list has been moved from "Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases" to "List of United States Supreme Court cases" which has caused a few problems because there's already an article at that location. Anyway, I nominated the list in part to get feedback but peer review may have been a better place for that so I would really appreciate any comments or suggestions. Thanks, Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Samuel Tan (talk · contribs)

Summary: indeed, minimalist, but confusing at first glance

Per WP:SAL, "Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria."
Your lead section is unambiguous because it is phrased awkwardly. Read plainly, you seem to be saying that your list of lists is obtained from the Reports, which is not true because the Reports do not contain the complete list of lists. You can make it less ambiguous by zooming in to what your list actually contains.
Your list contains the volume numbers from the US Reports. So you can simply begin the lead section with "This is a complete list of volumes from the United States Reports."
Doing so will comply with the suggestion in WP:SAL to start each complete list with a sentence like "This is a complete list of Xs."

Right now, the list is confusing at first glance because it looks like a list of integers. Make it clear that it is a list of volumes, and it will be vastly improved.

I don't have any comments on the structure of the list itself, although some editors may want you to divide it into sections by starting numeral. You may want to consider that, or wait for comments from other editors.

That's all! :)

-Samuel Tan (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the intro to the list.

This is an unusual list. Standing alone, it has no encyclopedic content. It is not, for example, a list of the capitals of countries in Africa sorted by population, or a chronological list of the queens of Belgium, or a ranking of the world's 428 richest people in the year 1977. It is, and is intended to be, a meta-list of U.S. Supreme Court decisions organized in the same way the Court's reporter of decisions organizes them -- by including the decisions in successive volumes of United States Reports. As such, some of the featured list criteria don't apply, and some only apply trivially.

I disagree that "nonexperts" have no context for the links on this page. First, I doubt any nonexpert will come to this list without seeing any individual article about a Supreme Court decision, or any smaller list, or knowing what United States Reports is and how it is organized. Armed with that small bit of information, the nonexpert will understand that this is a list of links to the tables of contents for each individual volume.

Second, anyone who undertakes any legal research project -- lawyer or not -- will know that legal research is tedious because multiple searches through multiple types of information are required to obtain the information he seeks. To the lawyer, these searches are second nature (or facilitated by tools like Westlaw); to the nonlawyer, he understands that he needs patience in order to arrive at the information he seeks.

For these three reasons, I don't think that this list should be "featured" in the sense of exhibiting to the general public how useful Wikipedia is. I like the list -- a lot -- exactly the way it is, and don't want it to go away. But I find it difficult to evaluate this list against the criteria for featured lists because the criteria so obviously don't fit this list.

---Axios023 (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The list is not exactly encyclopedic in a conventional sense but is extremely useful for the creation of new and important encyclopedic articles. Perhaps I have exhibited some frustration with the Featured List criteria because I also like this list for those reasons and the criteria don't seem to apply. Another reason for why I may seem a little confrontational is that I have the bar exam in less than a month and I don't seem to be able to stop editing wikipedia!--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David McCullough

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have completely re-written this article from scratch. I hope to get it up to a GA, help on anything would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Blackngold29 02:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

  • Lead
    • On the lead generally: it looks rather thin. It should be a summary of the whole article, as required by WP:LEAD
    • It’s a little odd to see two former presidents (and the Brooklyn Bridge) described as "topics". Would "subjects" be more dignified?
    • Although linked, it would be better if American Experience was described in the text as a documentary television series..
  • Early life and education
    • Is there any explanation of the unusual middle name?
    • "ranging from…" should not be followed by a simple list. I’d suggest that the "ranging from" wording should be altered to "including".
    • "In 1951,he, as did his three brothers…" is a very awkward formulation
    • I am a bit confused by the sentence which begins: "He served apprenticeships…" What does this mean? In Britain, apprenticeship is a long process; I take it that McCullough spent only a short time at the various places that you mention, as part of his degree studies. Can we have some clarifying details about these employments?
    • "He would graduate…" should be "He graduated…"
  • Career section: the short preamble to this section is misplaced. The first two sentences belong in Early life. The graduation information we already have. The bit about not receiving any research training and learning the writing process while writing The Johnstown Floods is very odd, given that by that time he had spent a dozen years as a writer. I’d lose this confusing statement.
  • Early career
    • Suggest "the recently formed…"
    • "He would later be…" should be "He was later…"
    • Suggest "working in (or at) various jobs…"
    • You should specify that one of these "various jobs" was with the magazine American Heritage, before introducing this title.
  • Good news McCullough
    • Poor choice of heading, I think
    • Suggest "two new publishers offered him contracts…" (not "a contract")
    • "…to advise Jimmy Carter and the United States Senate on the Panama Canal" seems a bit general. Presumably his advice was sought on some specific aspect of the canal?
    • "Carter would later say…" Suggest "Carter later said…"
  • "History is about people"
    • Again, an odd title choice, which appears to be not so much a quote as a misquote. I would recommend a rethink – it does not describe the section adequately.
    • Delete comma after "fourth work" (first line)
    • As the Brave Companions essays are still in print, presumably it would be right to say that they "include works about…", rather than included.
    • Comma required after Truman ("Truman, about Harry S Truman…”
    • I’m not sure that Sinise’s awards are relevant to this article
    • "fastest-selling" requires a hyphen
    • Paragraph break required at: "McCullough’s latest work…"
    • Full stop, not comma, should follow "sequel to 1776"

The remaining sections seem OK. General point: in the article as a whole, McCullough has been presented entirely in relation to his works. Does he have a personality? Is he associated with other aspect of American life? There is no mention within the article of his 54-year marriage or anything else about his private life. These are big voids in a biographical article, which would benefit a great deal from some filling out of these details, to give a more rounded picture of the man.

I added some information on him and his family. Still, the section is a bit bare. If anyone knows anything else, that would be nice. Felicity12 (talk)

I hope that my suggestions are of some help.

Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All suggestions have been addressed, with the exception of his family life. I will add this and include something about it in the intro, which should give that the proper length. Thank you! Blackngold29 05:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Film

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Golden Film is a comprehensive article, that treats its topic without going into unnecessary details. It follows Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and style. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know which improvements the article needs in order to pass as featured article. – Ilse@ 13:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Article is generally well done but the prose is a bit awkward and could use a copy edit. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The image comes from a website that seems to indicate it is copyrighted, but my Dutch is very poor and I am not sure what the disclaimer says. Is this a free image or not?
    The website mentions copyright, but as you can read on the image description page, Speravi gave permission to use the image under a GNU FDL license. – Ilse@ 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, for FAC you will probably want to send a copy of the permission email to Wikipedia:OTRS. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I no longer have the email and I can't find any explanation on Wikipedia:OTRS about permission emails. – Ilse@ 10:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    QUoting from the page: "If you are an experienced Wikipedian with a question for OTRS about image licensing or permissions Please e-mail permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Hope this helps, you may need to contact the copyright holder again to get the image through FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few examples of awkward sentences
    • For each awarded film there is one trophy for the film crew and another for the film cast. perhaps better as something like Each film that earns the Golden Film receives one trophy for the film crew and another for the cast.?
    • their receiving films? While the cast and crew have considered their receiving films to be successful, critics have said that films that sold only 75,000 or 100,000 tickets cannot be considered a commercial success.
    • during the original cinema circulation? A Golden Film is awarded to a film from the Netherlands once it has sold 100,000 cinema tickets in the Netherlands during the original cinema circulation.[1]
    • Even this See for a chronological list: List of films that received the Golden Film.
  • For FA the article has to be written at a professional level.
  • Another FA criterion is comprehensiveness. While what is here seems fine, it just feels like there is something missing. I think it might be a case of providing context for the reader - see WP:PCR
  • How many Dutch films are released each year? What percentage of Dutch films earn the Gold Film each year?
  • How many tickets does it take for a film to be a commercial success (break even / make a profit)? I know many countries subsidize their film industries - is this the case in the Netherlands?
    I believe this question is already answered in the section 'Response to the award'. "Johan Nijenhuis, the director of Full Moon Party, has admitted outright that he considers only 300,000 visitors a failure." and "It starts to be something for a producer when 350,000 or more cinema tickets are sold." – Ilse@ 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I wasn't sure if that was just for that film / that director or in general. Might want to somehow make it clearer that that is for all films. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who gets the actual award - whose house or office is it in generally?
  • In the four years before the award, the bext percentage was 6.1%, in the years since the award started the worst percentage was 9.2% What are the explanations for this? Is it just the award or is something else going on or does no one really know?
    Interesting issue, but I have not found any analysis, and could therefore only speculate about it. – Ilse@ 10:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS#Quote block quotes should only be used for quotes that are 4 lines or longer
    I posted a question on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Block quotes: four lines or four sentences?, so I will come back to this later. – Ilse@ 16:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most refs look good but you cannot cite Wikipedia as a reliable source - ref 12.
    The Wikipedia article used is a featured list. It is used as a reference in this article in order to say how many films have been awarded a Golden Film in each year and how many films in total were awarded, for which at least 52 references are used. You don't consider refering to the featured list is an acceptable exception in this case? – Ilse@ 16:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no way this will get through FAC with a cite to a Wikipedia article, even a FL. Is there no reliable source that is a list of all them by year - that could be cited here? I also note the External link to the official Golden Film website is now a redirect to some sort of film festival. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Netherlands Film Festival (www.filmfestival.nl) awards the Golden Film. The externally linked website (www.goldenfilm.nl) currently redirects to the most recently awarded film on the website of the film festival. However, the list of awarded films on this page is incomplete and does not contain dates, so in order to count the number of awards per year, 52 additional references are needed. (Previously, several users insisted on splitting off List of films that received the Golden Film from this article.) – Ilse@ 10:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 04:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments; I am looking into the issues you have raised. I have already peer reviewed an article shortly after I had listed this article for a peer review, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Polar city/archive1. – Ilse@ 16:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your review! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Wallwork

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 it has the potential to become a Good Article. One specific piece of information that is currently missing is the number of Wallwork's apps and goals for the England under-20 team. Any help finding this would be appreciated (I have provided some links on the article's talk page that may provide a starting point)

Thanks, Jameboy (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article about a player I have never heard of. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is useful for ideas on style, structure, etc. There are 96 FAs at Category:FA-Class football articles, many on players, that may be useful as models.
  • The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. 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.
  • Avoid using words like "currently" in He is currently unattached, having played most recently for Sheffield Wednesday. Instead try to put things into context like He is unattached as of June 2008, having played most recently for Sheffield Wednesday.
  • There is almost no information about his "alleged" attack on a referee in Belgium. Comprehensiveness is a FA requirement and I think for GA they would want more details on this too. Since he was found guilty (served a sentence imposed by a court) wouldn't that drop the "alleged" part?
  • Also thought there could be more detail on the stabbing incident - why was he stabbed, for example?
  • Added a couple more details again. According to the court case, it seems it was an argument over a woman. I'm not sure the best way to write this in so have so far left it. Peanut4 (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid or explain jargon - see WP:JARGON. For example, The Hawthorns is referred to twice times, but is not linked until the second time (should be linked the first time, and not the second) and is never explained in some brief way.
Indeed. Referring to a club's stadium in this way is perhaps more of a journalist's style. It doesn't add much to the article so I have re-phrased the article to exclude it. --Jameboy (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article could use a copyedit - one example - why not combine these two sentences On November 30, 2006, Wallwork was stabbed seven times whilst on a night out at the Sugar Lounge night club in Manchester.[42] He was stabbed in the hand, back and stomach. to get something like On November 30, 2006, Wallwork was stabbed seven times in the hand, back and stomach whilst on a night out at the Sugar Lounge night club in Manchester.[42]
  • When I read someone was banned for life for attacking a ref and stabbed in a bar fight, I start to wonder if e has some issues. Is there any sort of commentary on him as a person / footballer that could be used here? WHat about comment on his style of play?
There is already a quote from Bryan Robson regarding his footballing qualities, although I'd like to add more material on his style of play if I can find it. Without any firm evidence, we can't say whether he has "issues" or not. We should certainly not attempt to link the two incidents, since the stabbing was an unprovoked attack. --Jameboy (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information on his personal life that could be added?
  • Refs look good
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 18:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

edit
  • "and has also spent more than two months out of the game in 2006 and 2007 after he was stabbed in a nightclub." - lose the "has"
  • "Wallwork was born in Newton Heath, Manchester. " - very short sentence, maybe combine with the next one....?
  • There's a lot of consecutive sentences in the first paragraph which all begin "He (such and such)" - maybe try and vary the language a bit
  • "he grabbed referee, Amand Ancion, by the throat" - no need for commas round the ref's name
  • "However, when his mother died, he and his team mates each wore a black arm band for the match against Bolton Wanderers in February 2003" - the "however" makes it seem like this sentence is in some way qualifying the previous sentence, which isn't in fact the case, so I would ditch it
  • "Bradford, who were on the verge of administration" - suggest "administration" be wikilinked to something appropriate to make it clearer to non-footy fans
  • "Back in the top flight" - "top flight" is a bit slangy
  • "The club engineered a "Great Escape" from relegation" - why is "great escape" in quotation marks and with capital letters. It makes it look like this is some form of official name for the act of avoiding relegation, rather than simply a bit of tabloid speak
  • "During the match between Barnsley and West Brom, later the same day, live on Sky Sports, there was a "Get well soon Ronnie!" message that repeatedly popped up." - consider rewording this, it reads very poorly. Also, "West Brom" is an informal contraction/slang
  • Under the "honours" heading, don't use "Premiership", the correct name of the competition is "Premier League"

Other than these points, all looks good, I think it should easily make GA -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the comments, I think I have now addressed them all. --Jameboy (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secret of Evermore

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 in existence for a long time and only recently been expanded properly from Start-class to B-class. With improvements and suggestions from editors, I believe that with the article's information from numerous paper and online references, it has the potential to be a Good article along with the numerous good and featured topics of WikiProject Square Enix.

Thanks, Hibana 20:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy comments
  • I don't really like the first paragraph of the lead. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20080409 is useful for lead organisation... basically you should mention a release date, and specifically saying that Square developed it would be good.
  • "the player will need to switch between the boy and the dog in order to solve various puzzles." - sounds gameguide-ish, but it's info that should be there... can you reword it?
  • "Secret of Evermore takes many of its interface and gameplay aspects from Secret of Mana" - if that was a prequel, then say so.
  • Damn that's quite a few screenshots... fair use issues?
  • "Despite this controversy, Secret of Evermore received fairly good reviews" - I don't see how this "controversy" (is it?) would lead to bad reviews...
  • You may wish to use Template:VG Reviews.
  • Magazines/newspapers need to be in italics everywhere (see MOS:ITALICS).

Generally looks good - probably close to GA standards. Still needs some work before FA. —Giggy 05:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William de St-Calais

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC soon, and would welcome suggestions about how to eliminate jargon and improve the prose. Especially welcome would be anything that shows how a non-specialist would need context.


Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton: Here are some initial comments; more will follow

Identities:The main problem at the start of this article is confusion over names. The article subject’s name is William; both kings he served were called William. The subject is referred to in the article variously as "William", "the bishop", and "St-Calais". References to "the king" had me wondering "which king?" - I spent quite a lot of time working out who was who. It would certainly have helped if they had been a bit more inventive in their choices of names in those days (think of all those Matildas!), but there it is.

May I suggest a means of clarifying these different identities? First, reserve the name "William" for the subject, and refer to him always either as "William" or "Bishop William", but not, except in the clearest of contexts, as "the bishop" or other names.

Secondly, after the first mention of King William I, parenthesize ("The Conqueror"), and refer to him thereafter as the Conqueror, not as King William or "the king" – everyone knows who William the Conqueror was. Incidentally, in the Early life section you refer to him as Duke William of Normandy without explanation that this is indeed the Conqueror (I know the link is there, but I think the article should be self-sufficient on such matters).

Thirdly, identify King William II as "Rufus" or "William Rufus", and refer to him thereafter in this way. Long-winded formulations such as "King William II of England", after first mention, are a little tiring.

Let me know what you think about this way of clarifying the "who’s who". Meanwhile, I am reading through the article, and will give detailed comments later. For the time being I would point out, from the lead, that:-

  • Something is missing from: "While bishop, William replaced the canons his cathedral chapter with monks…" (third lead sentence)
  • Councillor is misspelt (first lead para)
  • The word "bishop" occurs three times in the first sentence of the second lead para, and is repeated in the sentence following.

More to follow,

Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Brian. I'm on the road this week, probably until the 5th or 6th, so it'll be a bit before I can get to these, but just wanted to let you know your comments are always appreciated and welcomed! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some more:-

  • Early Life: I have copyedited this section, mainly to reduce repetitions – there were five mentions of Bayeux in the first two lines. I’ve also introduced "William the Conqueror", and connected him to the Duke of Normandy. Does it seem clearer? My own view is that it does – or could do, when the names in the lead are sorted out.
  • Bishop of Durham: I have done a few small copyedits
    • "considerably freed" is an odd phrase. Perhaps: “which would have considerably reduced interference in the diocese”.
    • Shouldn’t "archbishop of Canterbury" be capitalized? (it is, earlier)
    • Comma required after "…Jarrow to Durham"
    • "The group had started…" Suggest this sentence is simplified to read: "This community had been founded at Jarrow by Reinfrid, a Norman ex-knight and monk of Evesham Abbey, and Eadwine, an English monk from Winchecombe Abbey"
    • Next sentence: Suggest: "After the community had settled in Durham, William named Eadwin (spelling?) as prior…"
    • "…before the Norman Conquest preparatory re-establishing monks in the cathedral". Not grammatical: "prior to" re-establishing… makes sense.
    • Since it’s been established who Odo was, delete "the king’s half brother"
    • Comma required after "imprisonment"
    • Suggest change "the king’s permission" to "royal permission", to avoid repetitions of "king”"
    • For same reason, suggest "…to explain to the pope the reasons for imprisoning Odo.
    • Commissioner for the Domesday Book

More to come,

Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and here it is:-

  • Rebellion
    • In order not to cause confusion with names, could the first sentence be altered to read "Soon after William Rufus’s accession to the English throne in 1087, Bishop William became one of the new king’s most trusted advisors"?
    • We have already established that Odo was the king’s uncle, but when we last met him he was in prison. Could we have: "along with the now-released Odo of Bayeux"?
    • The word "though" after 1088 is redundant
    • Just "Odo" will do from now on, but what are "magnates"?
    • "William behaved suspiciously" sounds like opinion. I’d delete this, together with the word "then" before Odo, so that this sentence reads: "Around Easter 1088, Odo and many of the magnates [...] Normandy on the throne. Then: "After the king had set off with William and some troops to counter Odo in Kent, William suddenly deserted, shutting himself in Durham Castle".
    • I’ve put a para break here, to ease the reading, and have copyedited the second para, so please check for factual accuracy.
  • Trial
    • Can "his fief was forfeit" be rendered into plain 21stC English?
    • "His fellow bishops did not believe him". Citation required.
  • Return to favour
    • "no more was heard of his appeal". His appeal to Rome, presumably?
    • Suggest: "requesting that William be restored to his see"
    • Suggest: "…William quickly became one of Duke Robert’s principal advisors"
    • Suggest: "Duke Robert, the king’s brother, had persuaded the king to allow Bishop William’s return, perhaps…" etc
    • "William" (not St-Calais) "secured the end of the siege…"
    • Suggest "William returned to Durham"
    • should "archbishop of Canterbury" be capitalized?
  • Diocesan affairs
    • "did all in their power to support Malcolm’s sons…" Support in what way, or against what?
    • "Robert de Mowbray…also challenged the bishop’s authority…" Don’t understand the “also”.
    • First sentence of second para is awkward. Could it shorten to: "As bishop, William inherited a long-running dispute between the monks of the cathedral chapter and the bishops"?
    • The last sentence post-dates William, & perhaps shouldn’t be here.

OK, one more section to go, I'll do later. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is it, my final comments:-

  • Death and legacy
    • The dream story is a bit clumsily told. Poor phrasing: "…asking the knight where was one of the bishop’s servants". Also, what is meant by the "dream guide"?
    • I don’t understand: "…whether or not it was based on the exact copy of this manuscript". What point is being made here?
    • Frank Barlow is linked in the last line, though he is mentioned (unlinked) in the previous paragraph.
  • Notes: As ever, your sources are very impressive. There are a few more opportunities for reference combinations, notably [9]&[12] (Knowles), [15]&[16] (Knowles again) and [30]&[31] (Richardson).

I hope that you will find this review helpful. I’ve suggested possible improvements where I can. My chief concern has been the possible muddles over names, and how these confusions might be avoided. I’d certainly like to look again, when you’ve had a chance to respond. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalore

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 is already a GA. Suggestions to promote this article to FA status will be very much helpful.

Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this is quite an interesting article and it seems to have a great deal of information in it. I think it needs some MOS clean up and a good copyedit to reach FA level. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many city FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places, including Ahmedabad, which may be useful as models.
  • 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 Etymology and Climate do not seem to be in the lead, as two examples.
  • I also think the lead could be four paragraphs - please see WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set at thumb so reader preferences for width takes over. Vertical images can be smaller with "upright"
  • Some of the sources may not meet WP:RS - what makes www.inida9.com (Ref 19) a reliable source, for example?
  • Refs are also not consistent - 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
  • Provide context for the reader - just in the lead I had to click on Western Ghats to understand what they were, but it were "Western Ghats mountains" or perhaps mountain range, that would be clearer. See WP:PCR
  • Spell out numbers ten and less, so New Mangalore Port is India's 9th [ninth] largest cargo handling port[,] handling 75% of India’s coffee exports and the bulk of its cashew nuts.[5] Also is there a way to avoid handling twice in the same sentence?
  • Another awkward sentence - what does "by Mangalore standards" add? Does Mangalore have different standards for temperature and humidity compared to the rest of the world? The most pleasant months in Mangalore are from December to February – during which time the humidity and temperature are the lowest by Mangalore standards.[36]
  • For help with a copy edit ask one of the volunteers at WP:PRV or one of the editors listed at WP:LOCE
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 16:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kensplanet

edit
  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many city FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places, including Ahmedabad, which may be useful as models.
    • We will try to emulate the style of all FA's as far as possible.
  • 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 Etymology and Climate do not seem to be in the lead, as two examples.
    • We are working hard to modify the Lead. We are trying to include details from each and every section.
  • I also think the lead could be four paragraphs - please see WP:LEAD
    • The Lead is now of 4 paragraphs as per WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set at thumb so reader preferences for width takes over. Vertical images can be smaller with "upright"
    •   Done. All Images set at thumb.
  • Some of the sources may not meet WP:RS - what makes www.inida9.com (Ref 19) a reliable source, for example?
    • (Ref 19) removed since it fails to meet WP:RS. Additionally, all such refs which fail to meet WP:RS and WP:V removed
  • Refs are also not consistent - 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
    • We are working to make Refs consistent. It may take some time.
  • Provide context for the reader - just in the lead I had to click on Western Ghats to understand what they were, but it were "Western Ghats mountains" or perhaps mountain range, that would be clearer. See WP:PCR
    • We are working to provide context to each and every such term which may be unknown to many people. It may take some time.
  • Spell out numbers ten and less, so New Mangalore Port is India's 9th [ninth] largest cargo handling port[,] handling 75% of India’s coffee exports and the bulk of its cashew nuts.[5] Also is there a way to avoid handling twice in the same sentence?
    •   Done
      Old Sentence: New Mangalore Port is India's 9th largest cargo handling port, handling 75% of India’s coffee exports and the bulk of its cashew nuts.
      New Sentence: New Mangalore Port is India's ninth largest cargo handling port. It handles 75% of India’s coffee exports and the bulk of its cashew nuts.
  • Another awkward sentence - what does "by Mangalore standards" add? Does Mangalore have different standards for temperature and humidity compared to the rest of the world? The most pleasant months in Mangalore are from December to February – during which time the humidity and temperature are the lowest by Mangalore standards.[36]
    • "by Mangalore standards" removed.
      Old Sentence: The most pleasant months in Mangalore are from December to February – during which time the humidity and temperature are the lowest by Mangalore standards.
      New Sentence: The most pleasant months in Mangalore are from December to February – during which time the humidity and temperature are the lowest.
  • For help with a copy edit ask one of the volunteers at WP:PRV or one of the editors listed at WP:LOCE
    • Surely, we will contact them once the article is ready for a FAC. Till then, we'll try to improve the article in our own ways.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.
    • We'll try to resolve all such issues.
  • 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).

Thankyou for the review, Kensplanet (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hylton Castle

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 re-wrote and added a great deal of content to it over the past few weeks and want to get it up to GA or possibly FA status. My prose probably needs a little work and I plan to retake the pictures I added to remove the white light in the backgrounds, but apart from that, the article is comprehensive and has information from all major sources on the subject. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks, Craigy (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I enjoyed reading this interesting article and think it is probably about GA already and not too far from FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement, with an eye toward FAC:

  • A model article is often useful as a source of ideas and examples to follow. There are 66 FAs at Category:FA-Class Architecture articles, several of which seem like they might be useful models - Buckingham Palace perhaps?
  • The lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD to three paragraphs I think. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but heraldry and the chapel do not seem to be in the current lead.
  • I would try to provide context for the reader - for example give the dates for King Athelstan and William I of England in the Early history section. Or what date is this: It was later returned to the family through Henry's nephew, John Hylton, de jure 15th Baron Hylton.[3]?
  • I also would probably try to be as careful as possibly in keeping all of the Barons Hylton and other Hyltons straight. A few places
  • Does this sentence really need six references? It was later re-built in stone by Sir William Hylton (1376-1435) as a four storey, gatehouse-style, fortified manor house, similar in design to Lumley and Raby.[7][8][9][10][11][2]
  • Refs should be in numerical order, so [1][2][3], not [2][1][3]
  • I would also be consistent about page numbers in refs - Surtees and Emery should probably have the page numbers in the ref and not in the Bibliography
  • Per WP:MOS#Images images are supposed to be set to thumb width so as to allow reader preferences to take over. Vertical images can be made smaller with "upright". This can be ignored for a few images (maps, detailed pieces).
  • Since you plan to retake some of the pictures, is there any chance for a closer shot of the arms on the West facade? I would also put the numbers below the coats of arms as they obscure them now.
  • The castle is said to be haunted by the spirit of the Cauld Lad of Hylton. needs a ref
  • Whole thing needs a copyedit, it is mostly well written but could be polished a bit.
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 20:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I've acted on some of the points and will do my best with the others. Do you know of any users out there who regularly copyedit articles, as I'd like to ask for their assistance? Thanks, Craigy (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some are listed at WP:PRV, although it is now dead, looking at the list of participants at WP:LOCE may yield others. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I got it sorted :-) Craigy (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superman Returns

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 see it get to at the least Good Article status, and preferably FA at last. There was a previous Peer Review, but that was all the way back in 2006 and the article is much improved. Thanks, rootology (T) 18:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The plot section seems overly long and detailed to me. The article needs to makesure it is written from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U
  • Article needs more references - the last two paragraphs of Production and last three of Visual effects have zero refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Information in refs given is not complete - for exampe, 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
  • Lead is too short for WP:LEAD and does not summarize the whole article. The soundtrack and sequel are two headers not in the 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 ><>°° 03:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tohru Honda

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 what additional work may be needed before nominating it as a GAC. I've attempted to follow the guidelines for a character article at WP:MOS-AM. Thanks. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a brief summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Development is not there now, as one example.
  • Provide context for the reader - an interested reader will not necessarily know who Rin and Hanajima are in Several other characters, including Kyo,[11] Rin,[12] and Hanajima,[13] tell her she needs to look out for her own interests and not shoulder everyone else's burdens. for example. Or why is she living in a tent when she has a mother and grandfather?
  • Make sure the article is written from an out-of-universe perspective, see WP:IN-U. The plot section seems to be overly long and detailed, while reception needs to be expanded.
  • Per MOS:QUOTE and WP:PUNC the punctuation usually comes outside of quotes, so change However while "Tohru is notorious in the series for being happy and cheerful even in times of great taxation,"[59]

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 ><>°° 01:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, that's helpful -- thanks. (And a "darn it" to myself, as I keep forgetting that Wikipedia interprets logical quotation differently than the house style I'm used to.) One thing, though: could you expand some more on the out-of-universe language -- what passages were you particularly noticing as a concern? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll see what I can do to compress the plot, now that I have some distance. However, she is the protagonist of a long and complicated series. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of it is that the lead has plot but not much development or reception, and the reception section is fairly short. This makes an already long plot section seem even longer. I read the MOS guide on anime article - linked in the talk page - and the Fruits Basket article. The plot there is muc shorter and may give some ideas. The reception section includes some quotes that mention Tohru, such as The real strength of Natsuki Takaya's artwork isn't that that it looks good—though it definitely does, from its beautiful characters to the intricately rendered textures of their clothing—but how well it communicates mood and emotions. Not content to rely on facial expressions, though she does them well, Takaya is particularly apt at using shading and shadows to indicate character's mental states... The details of character's emotions—the disparity between Tohru's private emotions and her public front, the punishing intensity of Kyo's feelings for Tohru—are not only discernable but tangible, all without a word being spoken. —Carl Kimlinger, Anime News Network[52] Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not happy with how I handled the text of the Reception section as it is -- maybe it's time to scratch it and start over. As for the Development, I know of some additional material that can be used (the DVD commentaries) but I haven't been able to access it. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Romanov

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 greatly expanded it over the last few days. Any outside comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good job! The article looks much better than it did a short time ago. So here are my thoughts:
  • It is not usual to use citations in the lead paragraph. WP:LEAD
  • If there are several facts in one sentence that are all verified through the same source, you can just put the reference at the end of the sentence. You don't need to cite the same source three times in one sentence.
  • The prose, while generally good, does not always flow very well. Some of the longer sentences "run on" and should be split into two or more smaller sentences.
  • Pronouns should be used more extensively, e.g. "Ownership of the club was very fractured, with no individual shareholder owning more than 20% of the club."
  • Some portions of the article have too many pictures. If you have three or four on the screen at the same time if becomes distracting.
  • Citation #65 seems to be broken.
  • Would a "See Also" section be appropriate?

The citations are very comprehensive - that is probably the article's greatest strength. You have done a lot of reseach here and it shows. The article's biggest weakness is its language. In places the prose seems forced, and the paragraphs do not always present cohesive ideas. All in all it is a very good article. I am going to give it a B rating now, but I am confident that if you put it up for GA review it would pass easily.

By the way, I have an article of my own up for peer review. If you have a minute I would greatly appreciate your thoughts: Wikipedia:Peer review/Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean/archive1‎Plasticup T/C 17:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I have made a few changes. My connection at home was down last night so it might take a little time to make the full changes and to review your article.

Warwick Castle

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 essentially run out of ideas to improve it. I'd like to take the article to WP:FAC but would like it to be checked over by a fresh pair of eyes first. I know the lead needs expanding (I've barely touched it since I started the rewrite a few weeks ago). All ideas are welcome and I'd like to thank contributors in advance. :-) Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Descendants of Charles II of England

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 a peer review to find out what I can do to get it to Featured List status, I've exhausted almost all resources on the topic to build the list and feel it should be well on the way to passing. Thanks for any help! - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The article needs a copyedit - for example, just in the lead missing word here including Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton who became Prime Minister of Great Britain, cricket pioneer Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond, [and] parliamentary reformer Charles Lennox, 3rd Duke of Richmond. Or this is a sentence fragment Though William is part of the royal House of Windsor, rather than the House of Stuart.
  • The lists could use some explanatory text to explain things and put them into context, for example in the "Child by Lucy Walter" section, explain why only the first one is Duke of Monmouth, then only one Duke of Dalkeith, then there are the 2nd through 10th Dukes of Buccleuch, but no first duke. Why?
  • Or in Children by Catherine Pegge where there some text about the daughter, there are no dates for her to put her into context - was she older or younger than her brother?
  • 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, but although Diana Pincess of Wales is in the lead, she is not in the list(s). I am also not sure what the criteria for inclusion in the lists are.

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 ><>°° 13:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Buffalo Field 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 created this article a while back and it was initally assessed start class, and recently I have been adding a lot of information to the article, and I am hoping to get this article to GA or FA before the end of July and I was wondering what I could be doing to improve the article to GA/FA quality.

Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Interesting choice of article topic.

  • Article needs more references, for example the last three paragraphs of Task forces have 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 I also note that all of the refs given are from the FBI and most are from Buffalo - there need to be more independent third-party references such as books or magazine or newspaper articles.
  • Article lead is not a summary of the whole article - see WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • The bullet point lists need to be converted to flowing prose text. The article also gives no context - what is the history of this office - when did it open? Who is the agent in charge? How many agents work there? Comprehensiveness is a criterion for FA and to a lesser extent GA.

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 ><>°° 13:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Speirs

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 try and get the article to GAN.

Thanks, Peanut4 (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

edit

Looks excellent, just a few minor points:

  • Image is far too large and quality suffers as a result
  • "Glasgow Merchants Charity Cup" - apostrophe on Merchants?
  • "But after just two seasons, the First World War broke out." - sentence fragment, could do with being merged with another sentence
  • "By 1901, the family had moved to nearby Govanhill, and Speirs worked as a clerk" - does that refer to him or his father?
  • "It was to be City's second season in the First Division following their promotion in 1907–08,[5] O'Rourke wanted to strengthen his side after the club narrowly avoided relegation in its first season in the top flight." - missing "and" or similar between 1907-08 and O'Rourke, alternatively maybe split into two sentences?
  • "However, it was the following season, when Speirs...." - no need for comma before "when"
  • "for the final at the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre" - at the time it was just called "the Crystal Palace"
  • "Speirs lifted the newly-made cup, which was made...." - I would say "which had been made"

Hope that helps, other than points I think it looks really good, and it's great to see such a well-developed article on a player from before the First World War..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks very much for your comments. I've managed to come across some more info, which will hopefully expand on this article even more. It certainly makes a difference writing about a pre-WWI footballer than modern day ones. Peanut4 (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Oldelpaso

edit

I'd be comfortable with passing this as a GA as it already stands. Given the usual difficulty in sourcing an article on a player from this period it is very comprehensive. My only points are minor:

  • The word "just" is used on several occasions when not required. Try looking at each one and thinking "Would the meaning change if it was removed?"
  • Another grammatical one: the phrase "was to be" is used a few times. Usually the simple past tense of "was" suffices.
  • The part about conscription should be in the body as well as the lead.
  • Looking at it again, I may have added a link incorrectly. Were Annandale a youth team? "Junior football" has a specific meaning in Scotland, boys teams are instead referred to a "juvenile".
    • Again, I've just moved this wikilink to the next par. I think Annandale were a boys team (the source isn't totally sure either), so I've wikilinked it with Maryhill, which were part of SJFA. Peanut4 (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rangers finishing third the season after finishing fourth may have technically been an improvement, but even 100 years ago the Old Firm were expected to dominate, and third would have been viewed as failure. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The O.C. (season 1)

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


This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi, I'm interested in ultimately getting this list to the standard of FL, however this is my first real drive of an article, and I would appreciate any guidance and comments people have.

Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/The O.C. (season 1)/archive1.

Conan (2007 video game)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to bring this article to Featured Article status. My key concerns are the prose, grammar, and reading "flow". I appreciate comments to help address this. Any critique on the contents and presentation are also welcomed. During the article's good article nomination, Ashnard have brought up several issues at Talk:Conan (2007 video game)/GA1, so interested parties might want a look through to see if certain issues need further discussion on.

Many thanks, Jappalang (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I think the article is pretty good already and the main thing is to polish the writing and clean up a few places. For example in the lead Despite the reputation of the franchise, Conan sold poorly and THQ considered it a financial loss. Something is either a loss or it is not (that's what accountants are for), so I would write something like ... Conan sold poorly and was a financial loss for THQ. or later in the lead Composer Mike Reagan also received acclaim for his music for the game. He later gave live performances of the game's soundtrack at Video Games Live shows. It can not be also as no one else is said the have received acclaim. I would rewrite it as something like Composer Mike Reagan received acclaim for his music for the game, and later gave live performances of the soundtrack at Video Games Live shows. I would ask at WP:PRV for help with a copyedit.
    Thank you for pointing those out. I would appreciate more of this. I had invited several copyeditors to participate in the peer review but so far, none have joined. I do plan to ask a copyeditor to go through the article before sending it to FAC, but would like to get any possible content issues out of the way first. I will go through the rest of your suggestions later. Jappalang (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb to allow viewer preferences to take over.
    Done. Jappalang (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would explain who / what Conan is before talking about the locations. Someone who knows little or nothing about Conan will also not understand what Stygia is.
    With two reviewers pointing this issue (Ashnard being the first), I add the context of Hyboria and Conan the Barbarian as the first sentence (and listing the locations specifically as locations of the fictional world). Would this do? Jappalang (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see this a providing context for the reader - see WP:PCR. I think it makes more sense to change the order and talk about the fictional locations after the fictional main character is described. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward sentence Conan is the protagonist in many of Howard's literature and has become the figurehead of a franchise. Perhaps Conan is the protagonist in many of Howard's stories and a franchise has been built around the character.? Also why is Howard referred to by last name only, but Franzetta has first name too? Be consistent
    Suggestion taken. Howard is referred by his last name here in the subsection as he was already identified at the start of the section. Frazetta is named in full as this is his first mention in the main article text. Is this fine? Jappalang (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK for full name for Franzetta - thanks for explaining. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the reception section I would identify critics by name and perhaps quote more of their reviews - it is helpful to know who said what, so add specifics to Many critics complained that Conan copied many ideas from God of War.[2][3][4][5] A few reviewers, however, found this forgivable and stated that the game was made to be fun without any higher ambitions.[39][43] for example.
    It could be a matter of preference as I prefer writing in prose summing up the reviewers' opinions; I tend to find "quote farms" less clear in presenting this and harder to picture in an encyclopaedia. A few quotes could, however, flesh out the articles and your suggestion was timely in helping to reduce the amount of references following a statement; I shifted a reference with a particularly intriguing quote from a source. Did it work? Jappalang (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a video game person, but if I were reading a movie article, then knowing who the critics were would influence my opinion of their reviews. I like the quotes added, but I do not think it would harm the article to say things like X, Y and Z thought it was too gory, while A, B and C praised the game play (or wahtever). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:39, 9 July 2008 (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 ><>°° 02:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second look - there are several places in the article where the word choices could be improved, some of which I already pointed out. Since FA requires professional level writing, these are a problem for FAC. here are two more examples:

  • The barbarian's profile was further elevated in pop culture by Frank Frazetta's portraits of him.[7][12] I tend to think of portraits as being of real people - weren't most of them paintings (a possible better word) used as book covers?
  • Several places have short sentences that could be combined, for example Instead of finding treasure, he frees Graven from a magical prison. Graven is a wizard who had been imprisoned for his transgressions. could be something like Instead of finding treasure, he frees Graven, a wizard who had been imprisoned in a magical prison for his transgressions.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. AnnaFrance has graciously agreed to copyedit the article next week, so the article's language should be improved by that time. Jappalang (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2008 (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.) 12:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Albania

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 a dispute on whether Bulgaria and Serbia should be listed as countries who have left cultural marks in albania, the discussion is here

Thanks, CD 10:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Here are some general observations before detailed comments on the text.

  • Lead: Given the range of the article evident from the Contents list, the lead is a little too short to be "a concise summary of the whole article", as required by WP:Lead
  • Etymology: I don’t think a whole section on etymology is necessary, especially as there is a main article dealing with this. Some of the information might be transferred into the section dealing with early history. Also, the satellite image looks wrongly placed in this section.
  • Structure: The article looks in need of a more formal structure. At present it is subdivided into a large number of sections, but they don’t appear to be organized in any particular order. Information in the article needs to be presented in a more logical sequence, with sections grouped together as subsections under a main heading. I would suggest that you look at the article Greece, or Finland, to get ideas of how the sections might be better structured.
  • Climate: You need to include a climate subsection under Geography.
  • Gallery: I’d check the Wikipedia policy on picture galleries. Offhand I can’t quote the exact regulation, but I’m pretty certain that they’re not allowed.

If you would respond to these initial points, I will come back with my comments on the text.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Control (Janet Jackson 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 because…I am working towards passing both GA and FA nomination. Any editors who are music-savvy are encouraged to comment or give criticism. Thanks, The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Sillyfolkboy

Henderson Village

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 more opinions on how to improve it. Thanks, - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments:

  • The article is just a stub so far. I think can think of several ways to make it more complete and more interesting. You might tell us, for example, more about where exactly this is in Georgia (middle, south, north, coast), how many miles it is to something big and well-known like Atlanta, and what highway or highways are nearby. Give us some dimensions; how many acres does the resort occupy? What's the weather like at the resort? Days of sunshine, amount of rain? What kinds of vegetation and wildlife might a visitor see? What sorts of homes? How big are the cottages? Who goes there? Is it always full? Is it notably different from other resorts? What's special about it?
  • You want to make sure that this is an encyclopedia article and not an ad for the resort. It would be good to find more sources of information about the place in addition to Henderson.com. Newspaper articles might be one possibility. If no sources exist, the article may not qualify as encyclopedic.
  • The web citations should include author, title, date of publication, URL, and access date if these are known. The citation templates at WP:CIT can be helpful in remembering what data to try to include and where to put it.
  • It's not clear to me whether the hunting grounds, Wimberly Event Center, and rose garden are on the resort land or outside of it. You should clarify this and give more details about those places if they are important.
  • The "rose garden" link goes to a disambiguation page, which doesn't explain "rose garden". In any case, rose garden doesn't need to be linked since most readers will already know what the term means.
  • The hotel infobox has a place for an image, and it would be good to include one if you or a friend have a digital camera and can take a suitable photo, upload it, and license it for use in Wikipedia.

I hope you find these comments helpful. If you have questions, please ask. Finetooth (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Doncram comments:

  • A wording problem is the use of conjunction "it's" (short for "it is") when possessive "its" is meant.
  • It is phrased that the resort, or some part of it, is "remembered for" its listing in the 2004 Silver Spoon. I find that a little awkward, and doubt that there are many people who actually know of and remember those 2004 awards. Wouldn't it be more natural to say something about the resort was "recognized" by the Silver Spoon award, or just say the resort received the award?

Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Grande Glaze Ware

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 I first posted it, a couple of my fellow archaeologists thought it might be too technical for Wikipedia and therefore might be marked for deletion. My questions are: (1) is an article of this general type "too technical" for Wikipedia; and (2) if it's generally acceptable but too technical in places, where and how does it go over the line? Other comments welcomed, of course.

Thanks, Dogofthedesert (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and I do not think it is too technical. This is a really good initial effort, but it does have to follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style - see WP:MOS. While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further to meet MOS standards. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • Get rid of this note at the top: Note: this article includes in-text references, as is common in U.S. archaeology journals. Most archaeological dates are approximate. Would you include such a note at the top of a manuscript submitted to an archeology journal? I would include the "dates are approximate" info in the body of the article.
  • The article is missing a lead, which should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Please see WP:LEAD
  • 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. The current Introduction section could be the basis of a decent lead, but it makes no mention of the two keys for classification (rims and paint style)
  • The article should have an image in the upper right corner as part of the lead. I would use one of the images of a bowl, probably the red slip complete bowl.
  • Biggest problem the article currently has is with references. The MOS allows several styles of refs, but it has to use one and only style consistently throughout. This seems to use two different styles of refs.
  • Article needs many more references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.
  • Article has many very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which interrupt flow. These should be combined with other paragraphs or possibly expanded.
  • A few sections - Rim C and Rim D for example - are also very short and should be combined or expanded
  • Images are supposed to be set at thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over - see WP:MOS#IMages
  • Provide context for the reader - make captions clearer. I thought at first that the rim images were of patterns on the pottery, not cross sections.
  • The article uses bold and italics way too much per WP:MOS#Italics
  • Parts of the article read like a how to manual (on classifying pottery), which is not what Wikipedia is for or about. See WP:NOT
  • The headers for sections do not follow WP:HEAD
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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 ><>°° 04:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second look by Ruhrfisch As requested here is a second look at the article. It is improved - there is a lead, the references are consistent, the image captions are clearer and the images are licensed properly. Some more work is still needed, here are my suggestions.

  • The lead should probably three paragraphs per WP:LEAD and the length of the article. Much of the "Overview and cautions" section could be adapted for an expanded lead.
  • Biggest problem is still a lack of references. The lead does not need any (as it is a summary and the refs are in the article) but the rest of the article needs many more. For example, the last three paragraphs of "Overview and cautions" have no refs, neither do the whole sections on Glaze B Rims, C, D, and F. If this were up for Good Article, that would be enough to "quick fail" it. I assume the main author is an expert in the field, but the idea is to provide references to reliable sources so that anyone could check the facts or read further if they wanted to.
  • Please read WP:HEAD - the current headers do not follow this. For example, typically only the first word is capitalized and articles are not included, so "A Key Based on Paint Styles" might be "Key based on paint styles"
  • Headers are also not supposed to repeat the title of the article or other higher headers, so "A Key Based on Rims: The Mera System" might be better as something like "Mera key system: rim based" and the subheaders might then be "Glaze A", "Glaze B", etc.
  • As noted before, try and avoid very short paragraphs (one or two sentences) or sections (same), so could it be "Glazes C and D", for example?
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - I am not sure what might be a good model, but Borobudur is a FA. Others may be listed at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Art.2C_architecture_and_archaeology

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shojo Beat

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get an idea of where the article stands. I have it tagged for copyediting, but are there any other major issues? Anything else that may need to be added/expanded on? How is the format/organization? There really isn't a good MoS for magazines, so sort of went with what seemed appropriate/natural and by looking at some GA/FA magazine articles and adapting to this particular type of publication. Goal after PR is a GA nom.

Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Feel free to beef up the "History" section with details, as it's a bit sparse. As usual, any tidbit of how the magazine was received helps. When I was thinking about the items an article like this would have, my immediate train of thought was: "History/development/production", "Features", "Reception/awards/cultural impact", which the article has it stands, but feel free to expand as you see fit. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yah, I am finding the reception info is some of the hardest stuff to find for magazines. They aren't reviewed very much, so mostly just circulation numbers. I think all the verifiable history is there, but will double check :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for reviewers: are sources on each start and end of series needed in the table, or is it considered to be implicitly sourced to the magazine issues listed without the need for an inline citation? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therapeutic hypothermia

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 to be the best it can be. I also would like it to attain enough quality to someday be featured.

Thanks, Spencer Kline.

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Most pressing concern is the images, most of which appear to be copyrighted and need fair use rationales. Excessive fair use is not allowed either and several of them do not appear to be useable in this article even with a fair use rationale - the Newsweek cover and the ambulance picture come to mind. Also the Baron Dominque Larrey image, while old enough that is probably free, should not have the watermark it now has. See WP:IMAGE and WP:FAIR USE
  • 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
  • References are not formatted properly - use of templates such as {{cite web}} and {{cite journal}} would help here. Ref 5 is also ;isted as an External link - no need to duplicate. "See also" is for articles of interest not already linked in the article.
  • The article does not seem to be written from a neutral point of view - language like "This promising data has lead [sp = led] to the initiation of human studies. Unfortunately, at the time of this article’s publishing, no results have yet been returned." See WP:NPOV
  • The article reads a bit like an advertisement for the Arctic Sun in spots - I note you have also written that article mostly. If you have a connection to the device, please see the conflict of interest policy.

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 ><>°° 12:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands (Regional) League

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm not sure there's enough "meat" to the content to go for Featured Article (although feel free to tell me if you disagree), but Good Article should be achievable. Let me know what might need tweaking first......

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not spotting much to take issue with as I read through, only minor things:

  • began to drop out in favour of playing in more local leagues - could be construed as teams joining more than one local league, but I'm unsure how to reword it. "localised" would sound odd, "geographically compact" forced and awkward.
  • In one year alone Bangor City, Worcester City, Wellington Town and the reserve teams of Cardiff City and Wrexham all resigned from the league - presumably 1938?
  • Although the league lost further clubs to the Combination which, unlike the League, recommenced play in the 1945–46 season - though the context is obvious, the suspension of competition during wartime isn't stated anywhere.
  • A year later, 13 of the Combination's 14 remaining clubs left to join the League, which effectively absorbed its former rival. - who was the 14th?
  • A question that springs to mind, but that probably isn't answerable, is why the league has a superfluous (Regional) in its title, seeing as the West Midlands is itself a region. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fethullah Gülen

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we -the editors- would like to clarify if it's appropriate to define this person as a philosopher. Since we don't see any refences mentioning him under "Philosophy of Religion" and "Philosophy of Education" pages, it's causing major disputes among editos. We would like the editors contributing subjects related to "Philosophy and Religion" review both article & discussion pages to provide us some input, so then this dispute would -hopefully- be resolved.

Thanks, AA 21:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

it is actually decided by consensus of the contributing editors after a long discussion.[10] additional evidence can be found here for his philosophy books, in the last paragraph of the news. Philscirel (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC) I don't think we have the consensus after all, otherwise as an editor, I wouldn't escalate the issue here. Nonethless I will raise a request for comment. Regarding concensus, I remember we had a concensus (2-to-1) to include "Criticism" session, but you objected. Please see the discussions for "Criticism". (AA 20:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

please stop using this media to degrade gulen. we are trying to write a biography. using wiki standards, just like in the Noam Chomsky example you provided, we can move the related info to a different article. Philscirel (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolex

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 unilateral; it looks al an adverticement booklet. I got many such boocklets by email. The anti-rolex progranms trash these boolkets out from my mailbos. I was sure, that it is personal attack against me; them I discussed this with my colleagues, and it happens, that they also get a lot of rolex-messages. I begin to investigate this problem and found many independent confirmations that Rolex is famous spamming subject. Many other users delete the rolex messages without to open them. After to get such an evidence, I wanted to mention this in Wikipedia, and I found, that the name "rolex" is already occupied with the adverticement of a company, than has the same name. I tried to move the article to Rolex(company); then I tried to reproduce some part of its content in Rolex (company) but id did not work...

Therefore I ask some independent users (who neither buy any product of the Rolex (comapny), nor work for it) analyze the content of the article mentioned. I insist that in the present form it looks like adverticement of the company, occypying the name that deserve to be a disambig page. I insist that the main menaing of the word "Rolex" is spam: the number of rolex-messages greatly esceeds the number of watches prodiced by the company which carries the same name. I had offered references in support of my point of view. Please, recover my references for the discussion.

Thanks, dima (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed this Peer Review request because this is not a request for Peer Review. If you want to file a RFC, that would be more appropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earle Mack School of Law

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'd like to get the article up to WP:GA status and would like peer review feedback on the article before I take that step. I'd like to know if the prose could be improved (prose is not my strong point), if any of the sections could be/should be expanded on, whether the references are all right (reliable? citation format?), etc. Any critique on the article at all would be appreciated. Thanks! --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 02:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: A nice and generally well-done article. Since the school is quite new, it makes sense that the article is a bit short. I think it is fairly close to GA status already, here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is often useful as a source of ideas and examples to follow. There are a number of college and university FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Education and two are on schools within a university: Tuck School of Business and Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering and may be useful models
  • The lead needs to be expanded and should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Please see WP:LEAD
  • 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 - for exmple the 5 other law schools in the area are only in the lead.
  • To be a complete summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Facilities and co-ops do not seem to be in the lead now
  • Avoid needless repetition - the history section and the facilities section both talk about the current building and that it opened on January 8, 2007
  • I owuld also make it clearer in the History section that the new building is only temporary - will it still be used by the law school after the new building opens in 2012?
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • I think the references look good otherwise and everything that needs a cite seems to have one.
  • As for expansion of the article, perhaps more on the new building - will the college also expand then? Also any more background on why they started the law school in the first place? What was the reaction in the area and from the other local law schools? Was there any criticism of the new school? Any scandals?
  • Article could use a copyedit - ask at WP:PRV or one of the editors listed at WP:LOCE
  • Avoid jargon - photo caption uses "CoL" and an External link is just "Drexel" - spell things out for those unfamiliar with the college and university. See WP:JARGON
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Keep up the good work and 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, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks! I've taken care of some of the smaller items like citations and I will get to the larger intro, expanding, clarifying/moving around info and getting a copyedit during the weekend. Once again Thanks! --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 22:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded a few of the section. To note: I'm not finding any criticisms or initial reactions on the law school besides 'it opened and it's here' right now and I cannot find anything on the expansion of the school in 2012 besides the one article. I've expanded the intro to a paragraph though I am wondering if it could be expanded more (I just feel like I'm repeating stuff in the article when I try to add another paragraph) and I'm about to make a request for a copy edit. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 05:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SOmetimes there is not anything to find, just worth looking for it though. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

edit

I've done some very minor copyediting, this is a refreshingly well written article! Kudos to the main writers! I understand that being a new school has its challenges as far as finding "criticisms and history". At the risk of showing my own ignorance, are there any references that show how the "first class" of 2006 did on the bar, or have they not graduated yet? How long is the program (as far as # of years) before taking the bar? If they had, say a 10% pass rate vs. a 90% pass rate, that would in my mind fit well in the "academics" section. Other than that, I was actually struggling to find things to fix! I switched out all the hyphens to ndash's per MOS , added a couple of commas...wow, not much to do as far as CE. Let me know if you want me to take another look through, the article can always be tweaked and tweaked. Again, kudos to the writers – well done! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Honestly I'm surprised you think the article's so well written, but then again I'm my own worse critic. The first class should graduate sometime in 2009 so there's no statistics yet for that.. I did find a snippet of an article that had projected rankings based on certain criteria but the rest of the article was one of the very few things I don't have free access to with my school and I'm not willing to shell out $15 for it. Ndash's and other grammar edits kill me.. so thanks so much for going over that. If you do find anything majorly wrong in the text I wouldn't mind another go through but so far everybody I consult say it looks "fine." --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 21:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, I've seen some doozies, right down to "if you want this to be a GA, you should probably have more than one 50K paragraph with no punctuation." By that standard, this article is terrific. It has subheaders!  :-) Thanks for the answer to my question, it was my hunch all along, but I had to ask. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was completely wrong with my endashing, I misinterpretted WP:DASH. I've reverted my changes of hyphens to endashes, my apologies. I did another read-through, and I'm not seeing anything else (from a copyediting standpoint) that needs attention. Excellent article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sterling Yard

edit
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has just recently been promoted to GA-class, but received little as far as a comprehensive review during the process. I am specifically looking for feedback as to whether this article is capable of successfully making its way through WP:FAC. Of course all other comments/suggestions are welcome! Note: there is very little information available about Yard's personal life (family, early life, etc), so I've done what I can as far as research. Thanks, María (habla conmigo) 12:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: from Sillyfolkboy.

  • I fixed a couple of minor things on the article myself.
  • Thanks!
  • Though not directly related - perhaps a short mention of Yard should be in the wilderness article. A quick check reveals that very little connects to the article, a crying shame for work of this quality. Try to find related pages/articles/people and relate them to Yard: Don't be gratuitous, just be relevant. National park might benefit too. Stephen Mather and Wilderness Act are other possibilities.
  • I agree, the article needs to be linked to from other articles. I added a few, but the others (Mather, NPA, NPS, Wilderness Act, etc) would have to be rewritten somewhat first, I think. I'll work on that.
  • Wikilinks seem sparse in areas though i'm not too sure of how to remedy this (or if it's a problem at all).
  • I added a couple more.
  • "Yard became convinced that the valley was "lost" after finding crowds, automobiles, jazz music, and even a bear show." This should be rephrased as "lost" (though probably a quote here) is a little ambiguous. Maybe say the valley was spoiled (spoilt?) or something similar.
  • "Lost" was the word he used, so I reworded it as "Yard stated that the valley was 'lost'". Is that clearer?
  • "passed up for interim Director" Small d for director here (?)
  • I'm never sure, to be honest! Changed it to lowercase just in case. :)
  • Perhaps consider removing run on referencing - as shown in the first paragraph of "Early life and career". This is more of a personal preference than policy though, i think...
  • The repetition bothers me as well, but I think I'll keep it for now. I have fears of {{fact}} tags from people who want every single fact and date sourced, even if it's by the same source that follows in the next sentence. Gah!
  • Though not necessary perhaps some internal/external links could be helpful in see also/external links sections. Ignore this if you feel it unnecessary however.
  • Added a couple, including the official Wilderness Society website.
  • Is there no more information on his death? Not even the state he died in?
  • Earlier in the paragraph it's said that his home was in Washington, D.C., which is where I'm guessing his bed was located. :) How about, "During his final illness, Yard ran the society's affairs from his bed, where he died at the age of 84..."? It's not stated in any of my sources where he was buried, who he was survived by, etc.

That's all i've got for the moment. I must say that I feel sorry that the good article process did not offer any improvements. I hope you find my thoughts helpful.

If these problems are all dealt with I may post more suggestions to improve the article.

If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.

Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions, I really appreciate it! María (habla conmigo) 17:22, 19 July 2008 (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.) 13:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Ealdgyth! María (habla conmigo) 20:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Looks very good and pretty much ready for FAC to me - here are my comments, mostly nit-picks:

  • Since you plan to write articles on all eight founders of the Wilderness Society, would it make sense to add a template listing all eight to each of the articles?
  • You know, I thought about that. Maybe after I've finished Benton MacKaye. :)
  • Need to add NPS after first use of National Park Service, so resulted in legislative support for a National Park Service [(NPS)] in 1916. Yard served as head of the National Parks Educational Committee for several years after its conception, but tension within the NPS led him...
  • Done.
  • Would it make sense to combine these two sentences, to something like In 1935 he became one of the eight founding members of the Wilderness Society, and acted as the society's first president from 1937 until his death eight years later.? perhaps use "its" instead of "society's"?
  • Done; much better, I agree.
  • Assuming the editor and publishing jobs are listed chronologically, his jobs before going to Washington DC were in book publishing, so is this accurate n 1915, Yard left the newspaper business and moved to Washington, D.C. at the bequest of a friend, Stephen Mather.?
  • I'm not too sure of the timeline, to be honest; the small details I've found don't make it very clear. For now I've just removed "left the newspaper business and".
  • Also in the sentence quoted, I think it is request, not bequest (unless his friend had died)
  • Doh, fixed.
  • I would give more / explain more on the background on the naional parks in 1915 - when were the parks established, what agency supervised them then?
  • I'll see what I can find.
  • Word choice Yard's most successful publicity initiat[iv]e during this time ...?
  • Fixed.
  • There is only one so shouldn't it be "the"? The onslaught of publicity spearheaded by Yard and Mather resulted in the creation of a [the?] National Park Service;...
  • Yes, and fixed. :)
  • Needs a ref was angered when the position was given to Horace Albright, who was only 27 years old at the time.
  • Added.
  • Explain more about "National Parks Educational Committee" - was it part of the NPS?
  • Yes, and made clearer.
  • Awkward At first the only full-time employee of the association, Yard believed that eligible national parks had to be considered scenically stunning.
  • Re-written.
  • I understand it, but "The Wilderness Society and death" just sounds odd - could the death be moved to the next section, making it "Death and legacy"?
  • Done; definitely a better setup, I agree.
  • I think the MOS asks that all caps titles be made title case in refs, so change ^ a b c "R.U. JOHNSON RESIGNS AS CENTURY'S EDITOR; Robert Sterling Yard Succeeds Him in Charge of the Magazine", The New York Times (May 31, 1913). Retrieved on June 12, 2008.
  • Done.

Hope this helps, yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, as always. Thanks, Ruhrfisch! María (habla conmigo) 12:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F-20 Tigershark

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It seems that my concept of prose intersects only marginally with the rest of the world's, so that's the first thing I'm looking for. Any gaping holes in the historical record are also of more than a little interest. Maury (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you may want to post this request on the talk page of the WikiProject Aircraft as well to attract additional reviewers.--McSly (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Got some nice hits too. Maury (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've received an astonishing amount of help cleaning up the article. I think it's safe to close this request. Thanks everyone! Maury (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the heads up - I will archive this Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cúcuta

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 think is a good article and I just need suggestions to improve it.

Thanks, User:Ricardocolombia (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see your message on my talk page; I don't think I'll have time to review the whole article, but I've quickly looked over it and I'll try to help.
  • "Its altitude is 320 m above sea level, with an average temperature 28°C and annual average precipitation of 1,041 mm." Remove that from the lead, and merge the third and fourth paragraphs; three is probably good for an article this size.
  • If possible (not a requirement, just preferred), try to remove the citations from the lead: just make sure you write about it further down and cite a source there (ex. about the border being the most active international one: that could go in geography, with the citation there rather than in the lead). However, everything in the lead should be mentioned further down, at least in passing.
  • The maps, climate, and population can go alongside the text like normal images; try not to break the flow of the text if you can help it.
  • Whenever possible, don't have lists (like the one I'm making now :)). For example, the first one, with the zones, towns, and settlements, is probably necessary. However, for the people, you could write a paragraph and mention them each in a sentence (same with bridges, monuments, and parks). For the schools, universities, and distances to other cities, I don't think it's necessary to list them at all; maybe it would be better to just mention them in passing (and mentioning a few of the more important ones in the text).
  • "The Anthem of Cúcuta was legalized by means of Decree 039 of February 8, 1984, by Mayor Luis Vicente Mountain Forest. The lyrics were written by Dr. Manuel Orillo Martínez, and the music by the master Pablo Tarazona Prada. It was chosen as the Anthem of Cúcuta by a unanimous vote in a contest held in the Theater Zulima." I selected that at random, and it's unsourced. Try to find sources for all the facts (25 for an article of this size is far too few: if you notice featured articles, they have a citation for nearly every sentence in the article).
  • "Congress of Cúcuta," "Constitution of Cúcuta," "Earthquake of Cúcuta," "Flag of Cúcuta," "Seal of Cúcuta," "Anthem of Cúcuta," "US–Colombia Free Trade Agreement implications for Cúcuta." No need to remind us, it's unlikely we'll forget the name halfway.
Good luck, and sorry again for the delay and short review. · AndonicO Engage. 09:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sunderland A.F.C. players

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 a broad range of comments on how to improve it. I've based this article of List of York City F.C. players and List of Ipswich Town F.C. players which are both Featured lists. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge comments: Overall content seems good. Looking at FL criteria it's main downfall is citing sources.

  • Delete the first reference - it lacks relevance and it is to the Soccerbase homepage. Done - Removed.
  • The only point of the second reference is to show that Whitehead and Collins are still at the club. Done - Removed.
  • You should provide reference(s) which can be used to check a lot the information in the list, like a book or something. Will try
  • Note 7 could be better worded to make it clearer. Done
  • I don't think note 18 about Gates being a former football commentator on local radio is relevant. Done - Removed.
  • Bold the title in the lead section. Comment - This would be inappropriate per WP:BOLDTITLE.
  • In the lead it says "Also, all England players to have won a cap while at Sunderland are included.", however according to Sunderland A.F.C.#Notable_players, Bob Kelly and Kieran Richardson have also won caps whilst at the club. Note - I must have forgot about Kelly, but Richardson hasn't appeared for England while he's been at Sunderland, I'll go change the info at the before mentioned link. I couldn't find any of Kelly's appearances or goals, so I'll leave him out.

Quick comment from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

edit

"This includes those who have represented their country whilst playing for the club....Also, all England players to have won a cap while at Sunderland are included." - well if all players capped while at the club are included, then it's kinda stating the obvious to separately note that all players capped for England are included...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Done - Removed confusion. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another point - above you appear to confirm that you agree that Bob Kelly played for England while with Sunderland, yet go on to state "I couldn't find any of Kelly's appearances or goals, so I'll leave him out." - you can't make the claim that the list includes all capped players if you choose to omit one....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Done - Managed to find Kelly's stats after rummaging. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

edit

If I'd noticed this sooner I'd have reviewed it sooner. You've done the basic work, which looks fine. I haven't checked that you have all the Sunderland players with 100 apps or more, or proofread your figures, presumably you have (though very recently, and about six months after List of Birmingham City F.C. players was featured, I found one player I'd left out entirely, and another one who'd apparently played 200 league games out of 162 total appearances, so there will be mistakes).

  • Lead. Needs more content, and more interesting content. All you have at the moment is a list of what the list does or doesn't contain, some of which (Appearances are for first-team competitive matches only etc.) would do better above the table or as a footnote to the appearances column. Talk about some of the players, any records they might hold, either for Sunderland or general (Alf Common?) Standards have risen since some earlier lists were featured (which is nice for those of us that got in before they rose :-) Done - Expanded.
  • Opening sentence starting "This is a list of" is discouraged, whether it's bolded or not. And avoid the word "notable"; all footballers who played in the Football League are notable, by definition. 'Done - Removed that part.
  • I don't know how keen FL reviewers currently are on including players for subjective reasons, like First professional captain.
  • Colour coding. Per WP:COLOUR, you can't use just colour to convey information, you need to have some sort of symbol, or bolding/italics, or footnote labels, as well. Done - Used bolding.
  • Is date joined the year the player actually signed for the club (as a 15-year-old, for instance), or what? Comment - The date joined column is when they played their first game according to the stat cat.
  • Position. The relevant article is called Association football positions. Done - changed.
  • I'd be very wary of regarding Soccerbase team records as reliable. As an example, for my own club, it gives Malcolm Page's 28 caps for Wales as the club record; there are now four players with more than 30.
  • Date left column doesn't sort properly (probably because of the dashes).
  • Your footnotes (club records, only player to captain three north-east clubs, etc) need sources. Done
  • As do those players having been capped for countries other than England. scottishfa.co.uk, soccerscene.ie, nifg.co.uk, Danish FA, probably Norwegian FA all have individual player pages, FIFA has pages for players having played in FIFA competitions. Done
  • And the England-capped players need linking to the englandfootballonline reference. Or alternatively, against each player in List of England international footballers (alphabetical), which is an enormous list, there is a reference to his individual englandstats page, which highlights the club(s) he was at when he won his England cap(s). Done - Referenced from englandstats.com.
  • It'd be nice (but probably asking too much :-) if each player was referenced to their individual statcat page. Done - Took a while but, phew, done it ;)
  • There are quite a few redlinked players. FL criteria these days do allow redlinks but currently there are too many, for my taste anyway. Done - Created all.

That'll do to be going on with... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starved

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 when the episode synopses are complete (something I plan to to do in the next week or so) the article will be at or near GA status. My biggest concern is with the production section. I think it's pretty decent but I'm afraid a reviewer might decide it's a little thin. I wanted feedback specifically on that aspect of the article as well as of course feedback on the article as a whole. Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • A model article is often useful for ideas - I note Smallville (season 1) is an FA and may offer examples to follow.
  • The epsiode summary for the first one seems too long / overly detailed, while there are no summaries for the other episodes. This is my biggest concern for GA - comprehensiveness of the article. What else is there looks pretty good, well referenced.
  • I would provide context for the reader - for example, put the Nielsen ratings into perspective by explaining what they mean, and compare them to the ratings of the FX show that was kept by the network. How about the ratings for the other six episodes too to expand the reception section. See WP:PCR
  • It is not clear to me from the article how many episodes were originally ordered - 7 seems an odd number and I suspect it was more, but less were made when the plug was pulled. This needs to be made clearer

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 ><>°° 11:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the feedback. As always, it is appreciated. The episode summaries are complete. I'm continuing to work on trimming them but these episodes are pretty complexly plotted and are kind of defying shortening. I don't have a source on how many episodes were originally ordered but given that the concurrently-ordered It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia had a seven-episode first season it's reasonable to conclude that the order here was also for seven. I don't know of sources for the Nielsen ratings for the other episodes. Otto4711 (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sometimes see Nielsen ratings in newspapers (print) but am not sure where to look for past ratings either. One summary vs the rest blank may have looked too long. Sounds like it was just a seven episode order - bad guess on my part. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was created shortly after the announcement of the game in September 2007. The game is still unreleased, and it is updated as new information is released. Because of a change in Featured topic criteria, this game and the other unreleased games need to go through peer review for the Kingdom Hearts topic to stay featured.

Any comments you may have to improve the article are welcome and I'll try to address them as best I can. (Guyinblack25 talk 06:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Giggy comments
  • "It is an installment in the best-selling Kingdom Hearts series" - 1st installment? 10th installment? Say which one.
  • "The game features Roxas during the time period of Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories after Sora entered a deep sleep." - took me a while to work out that these are characters. Needs to clarify a bit to say you're describing the storyline here.
  • Generally it's OK, but it feels like (a lot of the time) short stubs of information have been tacked on and the flow has been disrupted. Random example: "The title, "358/2 Days", is a code that Nomura has stated the player will understand the meaning of at the very end of the game. The word "day" is attached to the title as a reference to the daily life of Organization XIII. The Nintendo DS was chosen as the system before plans were decided." (how does the last bit fit in?) Better to duplicate the refs and start sorting the info.

Yeah... not that much to say for now. —Giggy 13:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've tried tweaking the lead to address your first two comments. Unfortunately, since three titles are being released and no real dates have been set for any of them, saying which installment it is would be speculation at this point. But we'll be sure to add it in when we have more concrete info.
The text has also been massaged a bit to improve the flow. Hope it's an improvement. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment The references are not all formatted the same way (last name/first name order is not consistent). Kariteh (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye. Authors have been formatted as "Last name, First Name". Let me know if I missed any of them. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Peter Jones (missionary)

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 kinda stuck on how to push forward. I hope to push it all the way to FA; as it stands, I think it teeters around good. However, only myself and one other editor (CJLippert) have made any substantive contributions to the article, and external eyes are desperately needed. What's missing? What's poorly formatted? What's unclear (this is especially troublesome with only two active editors.

Thanks, WilyD 18:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchardb comments

  • Here are two points I can think of at first glance:
    • The subsection titles in the Youth section sound awkward. The section itself should be names Early life to stay in line with the majority of biographical articles.
    • The article relies a bit too heavily on a single source, Donald B. Smith. Although I acknowledge that other sources may be hard to find, it would be a good idea to seek them.
--Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 12:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Lead does not follow WP:LEAD. It should describe the importance of the person, his impact, etc., which i think is covered in later sections of the article, and it could have less detail about his birth and death (giving his death date twice in the intro!), which are covered in later sections. There is no mention of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd expeditions, Wesleyan vs. Methodist politics, in the intro. I've seen another reviewer comment, in other reviews, that his rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the article may need fewer sections / headers too.
  • I think the subject is interesting but you could make it more clear to the average reader what is interesting about Peter Jones and his life. I certainly don't want to suggest that you overstate his importance or impact, and perhaps the main story line is that he had less impact than could have been hoped for, but his importance is not made clear in the intro and in the article as a whole. You state "Jones did manage to obtain some concessions from various provincial governments, such as having control over the trust funds for the Mississaugas of Credit turned over to their chiefs, but he was never able to secure title deeds." What i don't understand is the importance of this failure, and whether this was a tragedy, or how much of a tragedy this was, in the larger scheme of things. Or what would have been the downside, for others, if this had succeeded. I could imagine that he was one of few that tried, that almost succeeded in doing something important on moral, ethical, political grounds, etc. Did this failure on its own, or with other failures, lead to further tragedies, protests, etc. like Canadian native protests in the 1970's or so, which, sorry, i am only dimly aware of. Was the failure ever remedied? The title of a later section "Mississaugas obtain title deeds" sounds promising, but i am not clear in that section, much less in the intro, about whether things were resolved satisfactorily. I understand from that they got some land eventually, but it wasn't their own land, was it? (How was the land held, by the way, title to the entire tribe or split to individuals, in that semi-resolution?) Some more indications on how his actions fit in with the larger sweep of history, and some links to earlier and later history, in at least a "see also" way would help. Another theme that could be clarified and possibly be elevated is the Wesleyan vs. Methodist politics. He resigned from one church, could you explain more, and perhaps link to appropriate Wesleyan and Methodist history articles elsewhere in wikipedia, if there are such?
  • Perhaps you were shy to introduce any suggestions of "what might have been", if only he had lived. However, if others have speculated along those lines, you can fairly introduce such topics stating what reliable authorities have speculated, in my opinion. Wp:Be bold, and all that!

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). doncram (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season 2007-08

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I feel this is good enough for GA-class, has excellent information for all those interested in this season for Tottenham Hotspur F.C. with a good collection of citations.


Thanks, Govvy (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments
  • There are some weasel words that need sorting, for example "Tottenham were earmarked by many..." Earmarked by who?
  Done Have removed that sentence, Govvy (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the dates are not in the standard format specified in the manual of style. May 11th, 2008 should be 11 May 2008.
  Not done I will check through the dates, but I wont link to dates, as that has now changed. Govvy (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:DASH, you need to use the dash, rather than the hyphen for scores and seasons. So 2-1 should be 2–1, and 2007-08 should be 2007–08.
  • I don't think you should hide your references, they are important. I'm not sure if there is a policy or guideline on this though.
  Not done I am not sure what this refers too. Govvy (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence in the main prose section ("With the 2008-09 season set to begin...") is problematic. It is too long, heavily point of view and is not cited. In general the prose section could do with a few more citations.
  Done Must have been removed by someone else. Govvy (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numbers less than ten are generally written in words, so "7 points" would become "seven points" for example.
  Done done by someone else. Govvy (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Premier League table is a little busy, colour-wise. If I'm reading this article, I'm interested to find out where Spurs finished so this should be immediately obvious. I would therefore probably not colour in any of the other teams, or at least make Spurs more prominent in the table.

Hope this helps for starters. --Jameboy (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

edit

Quite a bit of work to do here, I think. Specifically........

  • Lead is only one sentence, it needs expanding massively
  Done Have expanded it. Govvy (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "5th" should be "fifth"
  Done The noted section was removed in the end to be more neutral Govvy (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tottenham were earmarked by many" - like who? Desperately needs a source. In fact the first three paragraphs (with the exception of one sentence) are completely unreferenced.
  Done Have removed "Tottenham were earmarked by many" Govvy (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Premier league 2007-08 season" - "League" should have a capital, also this should be wikilinked
  Done Govvy (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sunderland not wikilinked
  Fixed Govvy (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Done was done by someone else. Govvy (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "7 points" should be "seven points"
  Done was done by someone else. Govvy (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tottenham continued to demonstrate poor form" - POV, needs to be rewritten
  Removed Have rewritten to be neutral. Govvy (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This disastrous start" - POV, needs to be rewritten
  Removed Have rewritten to be neutral. Govvy (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manchester City et al need to be wikilinked
  Done by someone else. Govvy (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Top 4" should be "top four"
  Done The bit which you note was removed. Govvy (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Uefa Cup" should be "UEFA Cup"
  Done by someone else. Govvy (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during Spurs' loss to Getafe in the Uefa Cup, It was....." - "it shouldn't have a capital letter in the middle of a sentence
  • Currently Martin Jol is wikilinked the second time his name is mentioned, but not the first - should be the other way round
  Fixed Was fixed by someone else. Govvy (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to wikilink Juande Ramos three times in three consecutive sentences
  Done by someone else. Govvy (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blackpool not wikilinked
  Done Someone has already done it. Govvy (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standard practice is to use unsponsored names of competitions therefore it should be Football League Cup, not Carling Cup
  • " a 2-0 win over Blackpool in the Carling Cup, Immediately following...." - I think "immediately" is meant to be starting a new sentence, so there should be a full stop after "Cup", not a comma
  • "it was made clear in the public forum...." - reference?
  • "Carling cup" - capital letter needed on "Cup"
  • "ending Citys' 100% home record." - should be "City's"
  • Dates not correctly formatted/wikilinked eg January 27 2008
  • "Spurs went out of the FA Cup Fourth Round" - more accurate to simply say they went out of the FA Cup
  • "went out of the FA Cup Fourth Round to a 3-1 defeat at the hands of Manchester United at Old Trafford. Tottenham took the lead through Robbie Keane but eventually lost to Manchester United" - as you've already established they were playing Man U, it is not necessary to state who they lost to
  • "league cup" should be capitalised, also it is wikilinked to a disambig page rather than an article
  • "Tottenham were eliminated from the UEFA cup in the last 16 round by PSV, The first leg...." - no need to wikilink Tottenham yet again, "cup" should be capitalised, and sentence once again ends with a comma
  • "heralded a 1-0 defeat for tottenham" - capital needed on the club's name (occurs again in the next sentence)
  • "Tottenham's achievements ranging from terrible football...." - playing "terrible football" is hardly an achievement!
  • "Tottenham are, once again, being tipped as a team to challenge the top 4" - once again, completely unsourced weasel words
  • "....will mean the Tottenham fans, and indeed the club itself, will be expectant of that also, but if one thing is for sure, that is Tottenham will be adamant that they vastly improve on their mid-table finish of this season." - completely unsourced, written in an unencyclopedic style, could be dispensed with completely
  • Manay headings use unnatural capitals eg "Premier League Table" - no need for a capital T
  • Ditch all the colour in the table, it looks horrible
  • "The team kit for the 2007-08 season is produced by Puma and the main shirt sponsor is Mansion" - should be in past tense, the season is over
  Done I think someone else did that. Govvy (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the "Injury List" in an apparently completely random order?
  • Friendlies - some have attendance as "N/A" - did nobody turn up? If the figure wasn't reported, better to put "not reported" or similar
  Done changed as suggested. Govvy (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I would put commas in the attendance figures eg 30,000 not 30000
  Done been through the article and added commas. Govvy (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the references hidden? There's only 39, so it's hardly going to unduly extend the article to show them
  Fixed I assume they were hidden at some point by someone else fixed that. Govvy (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the above helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meher Baba

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 several editors in the past have expressed on its talk page their interest in seeing the article achieve A or FA status. One other has thought it should be demoted from GA. So there is general lack of consensus on how best to improve the article and move it toward FA. An objective outside observer's perspective would be of great help at this time. One prior peer review was done in December 2006 and since then editors have made efforts to respond to each of the excellent suggestions. I hope someone with experience in peer reviews will take the time to give this page some needed additional feedback and direction.

Thank you, DeanaG (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and I learned a lot about someone I knew only a little about before. While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further to FA quality. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are a large number of Biography FAs and some in the Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Religion.2C_mysticism_and_mythology section may be useful as models, perhaps Adi Shankara
  • The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but it makes no mention of his two automobile accidents, for example
  • My biggest concern is that the article seems to be written almost entirely from a Meher Baba perspective, which does not seem to meet WP:NPOV
  • Looking at the references, for example, most seem to be by Meher Baba or his close associates or followers. The independent third party sources are mostly news articles used to confirm realtively minor details like dates and places. Again, there should be as many third party, independent sources as possible.
  • Article needs more references, for example the are some fact tags. Or these two paragraphs are uncited (and the second is italicized in the original for some reason): Gatherings of Baba followers are highly informal and social in nature. Special effort will be made to gather together on Amartithi, the anniversary of Meher Baba's death, and on his birthday. and Most Baba Lovers observe Silence Day individually on July 10 of each year, keeping verbal silence for 24 hours in accordance with the requests Baba often made for his followers to keep silence this day. or the last three paragraphs of the Metaphysics section
  • 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
  • Article has many one and two sentence paragraphs, which break up the flow. These should be combined with others or possibly expanded.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images all images should be set to thumb width to all reader preferences to take over.
  • The image Image:Meher baba car.jpg has no caption
  • There seems to be almost no critical commentary on him and his teachings. What do academics think of him? What have academics written about him and his philosophy?
  • I only count four people here for the five masters: He also contacted other spiritual figures, who he later said were the five "Perfect Masters" of the age: Hazrat Tajuddin Baba of Nagpur, Narayan Maharaj of Kedgaon, Sai Baba of Shirdi, and Upasni Maharaj of Sakori.[10]
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

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, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have just discovered your comments, Ruhrfisch, for which I thank you very much.
I believe that most of your stylistic comments are now addressed in the current version of the article, which has been worked over pretty good...Your concern about NPOV requires addressing by explanation.
I and others have done what we can to NPOV the language of the text. As to using 'academic' references, here's the rub: There are very few references to MB written by 'objective' persons. It is not wrong to say that for the most part academics either ignore him, or quickly come under his sway, and start writing like devotees. This is true of 3 academics referenced in the article: Cohen, Chapman and Haynes, who wrote dissertations on MB, and later expanded or adapted them as devotional works. There are very few 'anti-cult'-types who discuss MB and his followers, as the group is fairly benign, loosely organized to put it mildly, and eschews evangelism or canvassing in any form. The Meher center gate is locked, but this is to keep out the Lost Tourists of Myrtle Beach -- all registered visitors and guests to the center are given keys so they can get in and out whenever they want. I've been involved with groups whose leaders had controversial or critical writings (Swami Muktanada, Yogi Bhajan); Meher Baba doesn't appear to have these sorts of 'expose' type controversies. So, in a nutshell, we're mostly stuck using Bios from devotees (extremely well-researched and legit bio, but devotee-based nonetheless), and news articles, on those few occasions when MB managed to hit the MSM.
For a person who influcenced SO MANY celebrities in the 1930-1960s, and through them so many Average Persons, especially Average Hippies, Meber Baba is distinctly lacking in many of the trappings of similarly famous Spiritual Icons.
If I can find ANYTHING objective or critical, I try to find a way to shoehorn it in. There's just not that much.
Thanks for the comments.--Nemonoman (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew West (musician)

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 trying to get it to GA-class, and this is my first article that I've tried doing so with. I'm still working on a couple of things, and although it's in pretty good shape right now I'd really appreciate feedback on what improvement the article needs. Specifically, I'd like to know if the article needs cleanup in any areas and if it's expanded and covers the subject enough.

Thanks, Jamie☆S93 20:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:Royalbroil

edit
  • He is the only person with an article with the name Matthew West, so the article should get moved to Matthew West. The other person has unknown notability with no article. Even if the other person is notable, they are likely much less notable than he is. So by WP:COMMONNAME the article should be renamed for the musician (the main, most common usage). —   Done, albeit very shakily on my part. ;-)
  • The image in the infobox should be transwiki'd to Wikimedia Commons. The licensing on the images is right. —   Done, hopefully well.
  • The lead section says he started in the late 1990s, and the infobox says 2001. They should agree with each other. If he started as an independent musician in the 1997, then the infobox should be changed. —   Done
  • "spring of 2008". Per WP:SEASON, it needs to be changed to the months (early 2008?) because the seasons are the opposite in the northern and southern hemispheres. —   Done.
  • "He first began writing songs while at home on college breaks in the sanctuary of the church where his father was a pastor." is awkward because there's too large of a break in thought between the verb songs and object sanctuary. "He first wrote songs in the sanctuary of his father's church while he was home on college breaks" is better, but I hope you can find a better way to explain that his father was the pastor. —   Done I've left it lacking the bit about his father being a pastor, but after trying to add it in, I figured that it only breaks up the sentence's flow, so I've dropped it.
  • "Although at first not interested, he ended up attending the event after learning that he had already been signed up and others had paid for it" is written too passive. How about "Although West was not interested at first, he attended after other people signed him up and paid his entrance fee." —   Done, minor tweak for factual accuracy.
  • "There West met a representative from Word Entertainment" - "there" could be improved. How about "West met a representative from Word Entertainment at the event... —   Done
  • I found it confusing that Word Entertainment talked with him, and he got signed by Universal. —   Done, should better now. I researched it again, and it turns out that it was actually Word Publishing, and the contract gave him a jumpstart with professional songwriting. I've added that info, which should help with the connecting between Word and his career later on.
  • "West was told that the chances were low of regaining the full use of his left arm, having come close to severing a major artery" needs a citation. —   Done. One source said it actually happened, several others say that it was "close", one less-notable ref gave an actual (mm) millimeter length statistic being exteremly close – thus I've changed it to "very".
  • Did anything else happened between his signing in 1999 and his major label debut in 2003 besides his injury? Any touring? Did he have a job? —   Done. Well, I dug up a couple of other facts, and it turns out that he had already done song writing for some popular musicians and touring the US as an indie artist before the injury. The timeline should be stronger in the beginning now.
  • "After "More", "The End" and "You Know Where to Find Me" were also released as singles off the album." is not a complete sentence. —   Done.
  • Do you have any information about who he toured with before his first headlining tour? —   Doing... →   Done.
  • The text doesn't have the chart peak of the songs. —   Done. Actually, because of an unclosed "ref name", that one sentence about You Are Everything got lost.
  • Cite the Dove Award nominations (if not done in the text), note any he won —   Done
  • What was/were record label(s) for the independent albums (if available) — I've searched for that kind of info, but can't seem to find out anything about it, even with my #6 EMI/CMG reference.
  • Cite compilation contributions (you can cite the first instance if one source has all of them) —   Done, first ref covers the first 4 items on the list.

Note that I've been a picky GA reviewer compared to most, so these comments don't mean it's bad. In fact, I think it's very close to meeting GA criteria. Great job for your first GA attempt! Royalbroil 21:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Washington, D.C. just achieved GA status and I would like to keep the momentum going to move the article along. Any comments about the content, breadth, focus, references, etc. would be greatly appreciated. More importantly, if there's anything that you feel would keep the article from obtaining FA status, please make your comments known so that those issues may be corrected. Thank you for your time.

Best, epicAdam (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reader's advisory

edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get input from librarians and non-librarian editors on the article.


Thanks, JohnRussell (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs)

I'm actually an academic librarian, so I believe I'm relatively qualified to review this article. :) I see where this article is going, and it's definitely a notable subject as far as librarian studies goes. However, it needs quite a bit of work in order to be fully comprehensive. Here are some thoughts to consider that pertain to the lead, only. From the lead you should be able to rework the entire article.

  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead (or introductory) section is meant to be a summary of the entire article. A lot of information in the lead is overly detailed or not simplified enough. Most of it also does not appear in the body of the paragraph.
  • In the very first line, define in the simplest terms possible what reader's advisory is. "Reader's advisory is a service that involves suggesting fiction and nonfiction titles to a reader through direct or indirect means."
  • Second, where is it most often used? Public and academic libraries as well as bookstores?
  • Who is giving the advice? Professionals? By what means? Databases, personal knowledge?
  • What constitutes as direct or indirect means?
  • What is the history of this service? How has it evolved (i.e., internet advisory services such as What should I read next?) over time? What is its legacy?
  • Perhaps most importantly, how is this service notable (see WP:NOTE)? What are the benefits? Think outside of the personal (someone wants a good book to read) and think more professionally. Do sources say anything about increasing public service output, patronage, etc?
  • Leave the explicit example (Matilda) out of the lead; if you explain things well enough, you won't need such an example!

For more general comments:

  • The "History" section should come first and be expanded, as the template says. Sources, sources, sources. Librarians love them and so do Wikipedia. :)
  • Sections like "Questions to consider asking in the readers advisory interview" and "Readers Advisory Resources" make the article seem more like a reference guide than an encyclopedic article. The information can be worked into other sections, but it needs to have a focus. Again, the article should define and describe the process, not actually do it.
  • The images need captions/explanations.
  • Remember that everything within the article must be cited, but items that are in the lead (which theoretically appear later on in the body) do not generally need to be cited. Refs should be from reliable, third party published sources.
  • Also remember that citations must be formatted correctly as per WP:CITE and should include pertinent information such as author, publisher, published date, and access date. For citation templates, which are not required but are very helpful, see WP:CITET.

I hope these ideas have helped. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via my talk page. María (habla conmigo) 15:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High-Definition Multimedia Interface

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 eventually get it to FA status. I have been working on it for the last few months and would appreciate any comments on how to improve it further.

Thanks, GrandDrake (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/High-Definition Multimedia Interface.

Lightning protection system

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it could use some help.


Thanks, Tdreyer1 (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two issues that jump out at me is lack of a history perspective and the lack of much comparison between different systems. How long have these various systems been around and where did the ideas behind them come from? Why would someone use a certain system? Is one cheaper? Or easier set-up? Or more reliable? Also I have problems with the structure of the article. There not much natural flow between the sections. "Risk assessment" should be the first section and be expanded to explain the risk of lighting strikes and renamed to something more general. I imagine most people would understand the fire hazard but I imagine there is more damage that can be done by lighting than just the chance of a fire started. Electrical equipment fried for example.--BirgitteSB 22:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4X

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article recently passed its GA review with flying colors. All along, I've hoped this article would reach FA status and had a feeling that this would be much harder to reach. The research here is solid, and the content is thorough. But "brilliant prose" isn't my strength. I would appreciate advise on how to reword different parts of this article to reach FA status. I know this may be selfish, but I'd like this to be a learning experience for me just as much as a chance to improve the article. Thanks in advance. Randomran (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/4X/archive1.

2008 Sichuan earthquake

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 seems ready for GA, though neutrality and the length of the article is disputed. Any small errors like grammar are also appreciated if mentioned. Thanks, haha169 (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

edit

My thoughts:

  • Could "Great Sichuan Earthquake" be bold texted as it is a common name for the event? Particularly as Wenchuan earethquake is bolded
  • The first sentence could be split, it is a little complicated with all the brackets and units etc.
    • It is, but its possible to figure it out upon closer inspection. I'm quite frankly at loss for a better way to split it, though. That would involve some word changing in which I'm not so good at. --haha169 (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parsons actually told the New York Times that there was a "heightened" risk of large aftershocks." has no cite.
  • first two sentences of "tectonics" section can be merged into one paragraph.
    • But the second sentence is in uniform with "According to the British Geological Survey:", in the sense that they are both "titles". That wouldn't look so good on the right side of the article. --haha169 (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image captions could be expanded more in places. Particularly the USGS shake map, which although not too complicated might profit from some caption explanation.
  • Wikilink the olympic games if you have not done so elsewhere above its mention at the end of "immediate aftermath".
  • "The earthquake left at least 5 million people without housing, although the number could be as high as 11 million.[68]" this is mentioned twice, perhaps a sentence explaining why the estimate could rise so?
  • first three sentences of "property damage" don't need to be three seperate paragraphs
  • Last para of "property dammage" has no citations
  • "Military and nuclear damage" as per WP:MOS citations go after punctuation, not before.
  • "Rescue efforts" first para is too short to stand alone
  • Wikilink "14 May 2008"
  • Last two paragraphs of this section could be merged.
  • The image captions in this section are better, use them to get an idea of what the earlier images could benefit from.
  • Wikilink May 19 2008 in the image caption of "reactions within China"
  • "signs and predictions" could all be merged into one paragraph
  • wikilink US Geological Survey if you haven't already. (I may have missed an earlier wikilink"
  • References -> Notes or Footnotes (just a suggestion, it's what I always like to see personally)
  • A very comprehensive External links section, good job.
    • Thank you! :) I made them using a format from the Indian/Sri Lanka tsunami that happened back then...

All in all, a very good article. The criticism sections which deal with the reaction from China seem sourced well, though I can't speak the language, it seems a reputable source. Grammar errors are few and far between. All the technical basics are done very well. Hope my ideas help. SGGH speak! 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for you peer review! It was very helpful, and the article is now one step closer to GAN. --haha169 (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Initial Comments from Meldshal42

edit
  • Japanese seismologist Yuji Yagi said that the earthquake occurred in two stages: "The 155-mile Longmenshan Fault tore in two sections, the first one ripping about seven yards, followed by a second one that sheared four yards."
  • In section:Extent of tremors
    • It is written in almost every little part in this section that "after the quake" ...

-Is this after the main shock ended, or after the main shock started?

The article is very good. It's just a bit hard to read with all the citations and hubba jubba. Hard work has been evident. --Meldshal42 (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment by Hemlock Martinis

edit
  • First thing off the bat is the lead. While it does an excellent job in breaking down the scientific aspect of the earthquake, it does not provide a similar level of detail to the other aspects of the disaster. The lead exemplifies this. I would suggest rewriting the lead to be a more appropriate summary. The scientific data could be moved to a separate subsection, likely under the "Earthquake details" section. The new lead should then be painted in broad strokes and not get bogged down in minutae. Try this: three paragraphs, with the first paragraph about the scientific details (magnitude, epicenter, area of impact, etc.), the second paragraph about the immediate impact (casualties, damage, the schools and the quake lakes), and the third paragraph about the long-term impact (how the Chinese govt. responded, how the international community responded, what impact this had on the Olympics and other big events, etc.). --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L'Opéra of the Palace of Versailles

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 obtain suggestions for improving the article.

Thanks, E. Lighthart (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The article needs to be divided into sections - the first section will be the Lead section, which is required as a overview and summary of the whole article. See WP:LEAD. I think other sections could be on the predecessor theaters, and history.
  • Why are the last names of the architect, etc. all capitalized in the infobox?
  • The article has too many images and galleries / tables of images are frowned on in FAC - Template:Commonscat is one way to deal with this. A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - see Her Majesty's Theatre, which is a Featured Article about another royal opera
  • Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK. See for example superb, magnificent, and finest in Today, with its superb acoustics and magnificent décor, the Opéra represents one of the finest 18th century opera houses extant in Europe. If these are from a source, it might be better to quote the 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 ><>°° 02:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly revised layout with sub-headings

edit

I've spent a lot of time on revising the layout of this article to make it more readable and not allow it to flow all over the place when viewed on screen.

It will make any review of content much easier, I think. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since editor User talk:Elighthart has chosen to create a gallery of images, I've posted this on his talk page:
"While I see no problem per see in setting up a Gallery, most people's regualr-size screens cannot see 4 images in row without considerable scrolling back andf forth.
To make this easy to see in a single scroll down of the page, I am going to change those sectiuons with more than 3 images across back into 2 below 2.
However, one reason for creating a series of sub-heads is that the piece is long and unbroken. Sub-heads would help. Your comments please - on the TALK PAGE where I am posting this also." Viva-Verdi (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any comments? Viva-Verdi (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I thought Viva-Verdi's revisions were good, the article needs sections direly. The images looked elegant centered, with headings, and in few numbers together but the formatting seemed difficult and strained. I think that most of them should go in a gallery at the Commons, rather than at the end of the article as they are now, with the best arranged individually throughout the article. Here is a link to the gallery that can be added to the page:
 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Vues d’intérieures du Château de Versailles–L’Opéra.
Regards, dvdrw 01:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further inspection I noticed that the photographs are templated with Commons:template:PD-Art which I think is the incorrect license as they are original photographs of architecture and interior design not reproductions of prints or paintings. That template is for "[...] reproduction[s] of an original two-dimensional work of art." So I wouldn't spend too much time on galleries and image placement, they may be deleted for being not under suitable licenses.
Regards, dvdrw 04:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest statues in the United States

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 restructured the list into a table. Thanks, -- User:Docu 09:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Wackymacs (talk · contribs):

Brief Ruhrfsich comment:

  • I agree with Wackymacs comments above. If you want to go for Featured List I would suggest expanding the lead from one sentence (see WP:LEAD), making the criteria for inclusion in the list clearer (what is the minimum height to be included and why), fully formatting the references, and avoid using "see article" - add information on each statue. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Zacharias

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've spent a lot of time working on this article and would like to get it up to FA status. I would like to know what could be improved on. For some of my own ideas, I would like to add more about Ravi Zacharias International Ministries as a whole (apologists involved, etc), along with Wellspring International and Ravi Zacharias Trust. I would be interested in knowing if this would warrant its own article or if it should be added here. Also Ravi Zacharias has co-written a lot of books with his colleagues and appeared on DVDs, which I would like to add to the list of works if this is warranted. Any other feedback is welcomed.


Thanks, Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few opinions, for what they might be worth:
  • Lead section could probably be expanded
  • If information on the subject's personal life is available outside of his ministry, I might add the relevant information on that as well
  •   Done Might move the "Thought" section to after the "Ministry" section, or maybe try to integrate the two
  • Regarding your own suggestions above, if the RZIM and other groups are sufficiently notable as per WP:NOTABILITY and by amount of content to have reasonably detailed articles of their own, then that might be the best way to go. If not, content regarding those groups could certainly be added here. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2008 (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. 14:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  Done
There are still a number of websites lacking publishers. Current refs 4 and 5 for a start. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor period

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've added some significant events of the period, tried to cleanup the daily life in period section (which I'm doing at present..), made grammar corrections, etc. I'm aware a few of the references are from rather poor so I don't expect anyone would see this as a WP:GA but I'd like some feedback as to if I am going in the right direction!?, cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, but I don't really see much future for this article. I'm not sure that it serves any useful purpose. The "Tudor period" is a very broad field of study, far too broad for a single article. There are existing, detailed articles on each of the Tudor monarchs, an article on the Tudor dynasty, other articles dealing with all the great events during the 118-year period. There is no useful role for an article which consists of little more than a few random, scattered facts across a range of topics, with no discussion or analysis.

Your best bet, in my view, is to try and develop an article on a single aspect of Tudor life, e.g. "Schooling in Tudor times". This is just a suggestion, but there were important educational developments during the period, and there are lots of sources to draw on. You might prefer a different topic, but choose one which is well sourced, beyond Britannica or other simplistic internet sources.

Good luck, Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Fields Forever

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 an important Beatles song, and definitely needs to be have a good standing on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Greater Crested Tern

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 welcome feedback before FAC. GA assessor said lead was too long so I've reduced to three para (article length = 30,000)

Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Sabine's Sunbird

I've made a few edits, and now some general points.
  • I'm not sure why a general description of the morphology of terns is placed at the start of the taxonomy section. It might be better to discuss the placement of the terns in relation to gulls, skimmers and skuas.
  • The Greater Crested Tern was originally described as Sterna bergii by Martin Lichtenstein in 1823, but was moved to its current genus Thalasseus (Boie, 1822) following mitochondrial DNA studies ... This is going to confuse the hell out of lay people. The placement of the date after the genus name makes sense if you know that genera were commonly erected, abandoned and then resurrected when genera get split down the line. If you don't know that it would seem that the move happened on that date, which will really confuse people who know that DNA wasn't discovered until 19something or other. I suggest rewording it, or at least making it clear when lumping and splitting happened in the past.
  • An early Pliocene fossil bone fragment from the northeastern United States closely resembles a modern Royal Tern. It may be an unexpectedly early (3.7–4.8 million years before present) specimen of that species, or an ancestral member of the crested tern group.[7] - relevant to the genus article perhaps, but it seems slightly out of place in this article.
  • The young terns fledge after 3 to 40 days - missing number I think
  • When terns nest, it takes a while for the pair to become established. The male initially pecks at any bird entering his territory, and will repel any intruding male. Once a bond with a female has been established, a bit clumsy, it could perhaps explain a bit about pair formation, and also what happens to territoriality after pair formation.
I'll take another look soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comments, I'll follow them up later. jimfbleak (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Followed up, mostly straightforward I think - I didn't want too much in the taxonomy order-family-genus bit because there's so much uncertainty above genus level. jimfbleak (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pair formation in the species is much clearer now. I'll have another comb over tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a discrepancy between the map and text. The species is described as a vagrant to the Cook Islands, but the map shows the species occurring over pretty much all of Polynesia in the winter (which would include the Cooks). The description of the wintering range across the Pacific is actually pretty vague, I've seen the species in Fiji myself. If you don't have book on the range in the Pacific I may be able to help, btw. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's there is pretty well all I've got - I could just chop the Cook Islands from the vagrancy bit, but if you can improve the range, that's great> jimfbleak (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the advantages of a New Zealand university (and God alone knows there aren't as many as I'd like) is a reasonable collection of works on Pacific birds. I'll check it out tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I followed it up (sorry for the delay, was sick on Friday and didn't visit the library. Pratt et al does indeed have the species as a vagrant in the Cooks. It does however breed on a number Pacific islands; which flat out contradicts the map and is simply omitted from the text. There is no one place that really describes the full extent of the species, I think distribution and habitat needs to be expanded a bit. I have added the info on the Pacific range and cited it (using your preferred templates no less!). Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you're better, you must have been poorly to succumb to cititis (: I thought at the time that vagrancy ony to the Cook Islands seems odd, but it's clearer now. jimfbleak (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unindent - The article formatting is terrible on my large screened home computer - the cladogram pushes the subspecies table off the page and under the taxobox. It is utterly unreadable. I am also wondering a bit about structure, I feel perhaps the description of the differences between teh subspecies might not be better in the text, or at least mentioned (like see table for differences).
  • I will search for more precise info on distribution at work and add it, at present it is too light. But you need to fix the map to reflect the breeding distribution in the Pacific.
  • It might be worth mentioning that their colonies are often multi species in the first paragraph of the breeding section.
  • Overall I like it. I will search and add some stuff, I should be able to find out some info from HANZAB on the range, site fidelity (if at all) colonial fidelity (pretty common in seabirds) incubation stint length, exploitation (likely) and some other titbits that should bulk it up just a bit. But it should be good to go soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:41, 27 July 2008 (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.) 13:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

General aviation in the United Kingdom

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 article was recently reviewed, and all issues raised there addressed. Since then, the article has been expanded with additional information to make it as comprehensive as possible, and I have gone through the prose in detail. I'm considering putting it up for FAC now, and would appreciate any comments that would help towards a successful candidature. Note: the previous PR was archived only 5 days ago, but the same reviewer has kindly agreed to have another look now. Any other input is also welcome.

Thanks, FactotEm (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/General aviation in the United Kingdom/archive2.

Anstey Hill Recreation Park

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 as far as I can tell a comprehensive treatment of the subject but requires text polishing before approaching featured article status. Seeking in particular commentary on MOS issues and the comprehensibility of the text


Thanks, Peripitus (Talk) 03:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MeegsC
  • In the first paragraph, the word significant is used twice within two sentences; can one of these be reworded?
Fixed - first changed to "uncommon" which is an alternate used by the source
  • The meaning first sentence of the second paragraph is unclear: did the government begin buying land because of that report, or is the reason that the government started buying land contained in that report?
Report caused the purchases - I've swapped it around to remove the ambiguity
  • Anstey Hill "and surrounding park"; should there be a "the" in there before surrounding park?
Perhaps....not sure so I've added it in
  • Mannum is linked at least twice.
And once linked incorrectly - all fixed here.
  • Yurrebilla is enclosed in quotation marks in the lead, but not in the article. It should be consistent.
Quotes gone - it seems just used in most places (sources) as a proper noun
  • As of 1983, 145 species of birds were either known or expected to be found in the park. There have been 98 bird species sighted in the park's area by 2006, though not all specifically within the park's boundaries. That's a pretty significant drop; is the reason for the decline known?
No drop. in 1983 they expected to see 145 species but had only recorded 98 by 2006. This is usual for wildlife reports in the Adelaide hills as there are a large number of species that are uncommon but seen in many places. Reports often list these as expected species though, due to the lack of recording and small numbers of animals, it's unlikely all will be seen. Do you think this is unclear enough to need rewording ?
  • The Gun Emplacement (or just Emplacement) is sometimes capitalised and sometimes not; again, this should be consistent.
Fixed - only one place. The remaining overcapitalised use is referring to a generalised emplacement not the Gun Emplacement directly.

These are some initial comments; if you'd like more, please respond here! MeegsC | Talk 18:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the look and comments. - responses above - Peripitus (Talk) 23:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the ref formatting for you. IIRC NE Road and LNE Road have no hyphens per the street deirectory. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Blnguyen - the hyphens felt intuitive but I see you're correct. I changed a couple more - looks to be consistent now - Peripitus (Talk) 11:57, 12 July 2008 (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.
    • Per the MOS, titles of weblinks shouldn't be in all capitals.
    • What makes http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/australia/SAgermanindex.htm a reliable source?
      • I used this as it was an easily available secondary source. I have access to the primary records but it seemed better to use an available online source so others could verify. As to the reliable question: The website is maintained by Sue Swiggum (noted in some places as a professional historian of immigration history). She notes that the data is sourced from The South Australian Register, Saturday Janaury 24th, 1846 and, given the non-controversial nature of the data, it seemed unnecessary to question her accuracy of reproduction - 01:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
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.) 12:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Always helpful to get critical review...thanks ! - Peripitus (Talk) 01:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Cogan (footballer)

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 could reach Good Article status.


Thanks, --Jimbo[online] 19:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many minor grammatical/semantic issues I could comment on (but I had a late night last night and can't be too late to bed tonight), but it looks thoroughly referenced, and there are no obvious problems of Wiki-technique. Are there similar rules for U21 international teams as for senior teams, that only games against teams of the same status are regarded as caps? Kevin McE (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No work tomorrow, so I might get those comments, and some proposals, done now, although Brian has raised many of the things I would have mentioned:
Intro: The FA Cup final did not take place in Millwall, and Millwall and not, I would suggest, so much bigger a team than his others as to merit that phrasing. Dates of transfers to previous clubs seems too detailed for an intro. He previously played for Millwall, for whom he played in the 2004 FA Cup Final, Barnet and Gillingham. Cogan had been with Grays Athletic on loan in March 2008, before signing for them in July 2008.
Career: If he previously played for Belvedere, it is odd to say that he started his career at Millwall (he was not pro at 15). Cogan joined Millwall from Dublin side Belvedere at the age of 15,[2] waiting four years, until 20 April 2004, before making his debut in a Championship game ...
If he was at Millwall 4 years before he played, what does it mean to say his time there spanned over three seasons? (How many more than three?) Why is the score in the UEFA cup worth mentioning if the FA Cup final result is not?
The construction of "time lasting" an amount of time seems odd. He was at Barnet for just one season before.... What is a "matchwinning goal"? Are we certain that none of those matches were won by 2 or more goals?
Comma after 1st mention of Jepson, and ...Jarvis, who had left Gillingham...: pluperfect tense (but I agree with Brian in terms of tone).
Tautologous to say "away defeat at Watford": away defeat to Watford or 3-0 defeat at Watford.
That Jepson was Gills manager had already been mentioned: the date of Stimson's replacing him, or at least the month, would be illustrative.
Gillingham released Cogan at the end of the 2007–08 season, after he made...; given what goes before, it is scarcely necessary to mention that he did not hold down a regular first team place.
announced that Cogan would sign for: conditional voice for historic future. Has he actually now signed for Grays? If so, this sentence needs updating, if not the lead is seriously erroneous.
If his only appearance for RoI U21s was against a "Madeira select", does that actually count as an U21 international appearance?
References The link on footnote 14 does not give any details of him refusing a loan. Link on note 19 is entirely misdescribed
One paragraph would be fully sufficient for his time at any of the clubs. Kevin McE (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these now done. Still not actually clear that the signing at Gray's is confirmed, although I have made that assumption. Kevin McE (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

This is a rather short article, presumably reflecting that Cogan's career is still in a relatively early stage. If his career should subsequently flourish, then the article could grow accordingly. At present, however, there's not a lot to say.

The prose, meanwhile, needs a lot of attention. Writing in single-sentence or near single-sentence paragraphs should be avoided. The following are specific style points that need attention:-

  • "…replacing Peter Sweeney in the 80th minute" and "signed his professional contract in November 2004" are two entirely separate events which require separate sentences, not connection by "and".
    • Separated sentances.
  • "…two UEFA cup appearances against Hungarian side Ferencvaros, losing 4-2 on aggregate" is not grammatical.
  • Fourth paragraph: wrong punctuation, typos, inappropriate non-encyclopedic language ("Jepson tipped Cogan to fill the void…", and "Championship outfit Wolves") written in football magazine style.
  • " …a bad string of results" should be "a string of bad results"
    • Done
  • Punctuation: full stop required after "…on loan in February 2008".
    • Done
  • "During which he scored five goals in thirteen Conference National matches." Is not a full sentence.
    • Reworded to "..., scoring five goals in thirteen Conference National matches."
  • The sentence beginning "Gillingham released Cogan…" requires re-punctuation.

I agree with the above comment that the referencing is thorough. However, the subject himself needs to develop before the article can.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)
  • Phrases such as "the Underhill side" are possibly a little journalistic. Someone not familiar with football would not know that Barnet play at Underhill, so Underhill needs to be linked or explained. Better still, rephrase to remove it, as it doesn't seem to add much value in the context it is used.
  • In the lead, the bit about "He left Millwall in 2006, spending a year with before joining..." doesn't seem to make sense. Should it be "spending a year with them" or something similar? --Jameboy (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally left stray words behind when I edited the lead, meaning to leave it as it appears now in the article, and can be seen above as my proposal.

DOS

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'm looking for outside opinions to its:

  1. Tone not too techy; where it is techy people have tried to include hatnotes to the broader subject
  2. Readability, and if changes in the sections would be beneficial
  3. If it seems to be sourced sufficiently

Additionally, I'm working toward good article status, so any input on what it's lacking would be great.

Thanks, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - the lead does not even mention that DOS stands for Disk Operating System. 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 - Windows ME (one example) is in the lead only. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs more references, for example the 1st and 5th paragraphs in History. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • Article needs cleaned up - the lead has parentheses problems and there are many short paragraphs that could be combined or possibly expanded.

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 ><>°° 03:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by User:JeremyMcCracken

  • I need to point out what you said about the lead. DOS does not stand for Disk Operating System; the oldest origin of MS-DOS (the original) was called Quick and Dirty Operating System (QDOS), which was carried over. I thought it had been backronymed, but couldn't actually find a source saying that it had, so I'd removed that from the lead. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wackymacs found me a source for that; thanks. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wackymacs (talk · contribs)

  • This is too short. DOS was the world's most-used operating system during the 1980s, with hundreds of variants running on almost every personal computer in existance at the time. The History section neglects major points, and is not up-to-date.
  • There should be a section on the software available for DOS, discussing the availability and prices in comparison with other desktop operating systems.
  • Consider adding a section on the limitations of DOS (and criticisms?)
  • Why isn't there a section about the architecture, kernel, etc of disk operating systems?
  • Please use books instead of websites for your references. There are plenty of good published books on DOS, and some are available on Google Books (with free previews):

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

  • Thanks for the suggestions. This is why I had a peer review- the limitations section hadn't occurred to me. I just added it. I'm not sure what's missing from the history; you might take a look at the timeline of Comparison of x86 DOS operating systems. The history section, as well as that of MS-DOS, were an intertwined mess, and some of the more version-specific points were put there. Per the software for DOS, I didn't think there was any, but I'm not sure how to source something like that anyway (though I'd be curious to know what is out there). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean. Every operating system has software (otherwise, it serves little purpose to the user). As I said, buy a few books on DOS or look in the library and use them as sources. Your other option is to use newspaper archives (see www.time.com and www.nyt.com for their extensive online archives) and also Thomson Gale Infotrac, which you should have access to through your state/county library system. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean new software. I think its important to cover how DOS was partly so successful because there was always a lot of software available of it. It was often something IBM boasted about in their ads. At the time, other operating systems couldn't match the amount of software and games out there for DOS. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Software section done. I know very little about kernel design (other than that DOS systems have so far been monolithic); if you know more than I do please add. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Cup champions

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 some re-working and improving of the list I feel that it is close to being at Featured lists standard, and would like to get any ideas from PR process as to any problems or improvements that can be made to the list. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters

  • a) Rename to List of UEFA Cup Winners not Champions. I associate Champions with winning a League, not a Cup.
  • b) Use seasons (e.g. 1982-83) rather than single years (1983) for each edition of the cup.
  • c) Mention the previous Fairs' Cup at least somewhere in the lead. Almost all statisticians regard the UEFA Cup as a direct continuation, if not exactly the same cup renamed and taken over by UEFA.
  • d) I'm not sure about the 3-letter country codes under the flags. Use the full country name if you feel it is needed at all, possibly gaining space in the table by merging the venue and city columns
  • e) If you're going to give the result on penalties in the two legged finals, do the same for the single match finals, not just indicate with an asterisk and a footnote.
  • f) Change the title of the last table to something like "Winners and runners-up by country" - it's currently headed "champions", but the table also lists losing finalists as well.
  • g) I'd think about changing the links for each season to go to the general UEFA Cup article for the season rather than the specific final match article, but I'd not be too worried about this one.
  • h) Change the order of the first two sentences of the lead around.

Hope that helps - fchd (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)
  • I understand why you have placed the aggregate score as such to position it under the scores, but the venues look a bit strange being over two lines for the second leg, when that really isn't the case. Peanut4 (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)
  • Strictly speaking, "City" should be "City or town". Wolverhampton for example was still a town in 1972.
  • Can you explain how this article fits in with the main UEFA Cup article? Both have tabulated lists of all UEFA Cup finals, albeit that the one here is probably better, layout-wise. My point is that we have duplication of information, so do you plan to remove or simplify the table in UEFA Cup, and point people here (i.e. List of UEFA Cup champions) for the details? --Jameboy (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Holby 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 hope eventually to nominate it for WP:Featured List status, and would like advice on how to improve it with this in mind. The article has undergone major change over the past couple of months, from [11] to as it stands at present, and I welcome suggestions on how to advance and refine it further. Many thanks, Frickative 22:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I am pretty sure the lead image needs a credit / source for each of the individual images in it - see the lead image in Radiohead for an example, here: Image:Radiohead.jpg
  • Provide context for the reader - Holby City is not linked in the lead and the link to Casualty is a dab. See WP:PCR
  • References need to all be reliable (imdb is not considered to meet WP:RS) and need to provide the same information consistenly - Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.

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 ><>°° 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talk page: You ... said that the lead needs to be more "accessible and and inviting", how exactly do we do that to improve the article? ^_^ steveking89 22:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Accesible and inviting are both taken from the introduction to WP:LEAD, by which this should be a two or three paragraph lead - it is now just one paragraph and needs to be expanded.
  • I have never seen this show or heard of it before I did the review. The lead should tell me enough about the show and the cast members that I want to read the article. From reading about Holby City and Casualty (TV series) (neither of these exact links was in the lead when I reviewed this initially) I have some idea of what is going on, but I would expect the lead would give some brief history of the program. Mention when it started, that it is a spin off of Casualty, that characters and plots will sometimes crossover, and what it focuses on. I also find it very interesting that there are none of the original cast members left on the show - why such turnover?
  • Model articles are useful for ideas and examples to follow. I note that List of cast members of The Simpsons, List of Harry Potter films cast members, List of Meerkat Manor meerkats, and List of Survivor contestants are all FLs and may be useful models.
  • 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 - the article may need fewer sections / headers too.
  • What about the show and characters in it do you find interesting? Can that be worked into the lead somehow to draw the reader in?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FLC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. (Bear in mind that FAC and FLC might have differing requirements about where to put citations, but the reliability of sourcing should stay the same between the two processes.)
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.) 11:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I believe the article is almost ready for FAC, but it's not there just yet. And I think some feedback from the community is just what it needs. All comments are appreciated. Thanks, Bogdan що? 11:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments:This is a broad, complex, and interesting article. It is generally very well-written, well-illustrated, and informative. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • I would say that the weakest part of the article is the lead, which contains information not found in the main text and fails to mention whole sections of information found in the main text. An example of the former is the list of countries bordering Ukraine. The list appears only in the lead and not in the Geography section. Examples of whole sections not mentioned in the lead include language, literature, sport, demographics, religion, education, and infrastructure. Since the lead is to be a fair summary or abstract of the main text, the lead of this article needs considerable work. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a brief mention of the topics covered in each section of the article. For an article this comprehensive, it's probably necessary to write the final version of the lead last, after all the other sections are complete.
  • I found the punctuation of the first sentence of the "Etymology" section confusing. Perhaps something like this would be better: Ukraine is from Old East Slavic ukraina, meaning borderland. It derives from u, meaning by or at, and from the Slavic root kraj, meaning edge or region.
  • The direct link from the Etymology section to the Gallaudet site should be turned into a citation that appears in the Reference section.
  • The Manual of Style (MoS) says to avoid placing images directly below a second-level section head. Thus the map of the Golden Age of Kiev should be moved down or to the right.
  • Date ranges like 1917–1921 should be compressed to 1917–21 per the MoS.
  • Orphan paragraphs consisting of only one sentence should usually be merged with another paragraph or expanded. One example: "In Ukraine, gender roles also tend to be more traditional, and grandparents play a greater role in raising children than in the West." I see several others.
  • Full dates such as July 16, 1990, need a comma after the year.
  • Metric expressions should also be given in imperial units; i.e., 1,200 square kilometres (460 sq mi). The primary unit, kilometres, should be spelled out. Expressions in degrees Celsius should also be given in °F.
  • The "Geography" section might also include some geology. What major geologic forces shaped the land that became Ukraine?
  • Except in complex listings such as tables of demographics, it's generally better to spell out "percent" rather than using an expression like 5%, according to the MoS. I see a mixture of the two (percent and %) throughout the article.
  • Reference 6 gives "The New York Times Terminology Of Nationalism Dec 3 1991" but needs an access date and might mention the Associated Press (AP) as the author. Most of the references look complete, but I'd recommend one more run-through.
  • Page ranges in the references should be connected by an en dash rather than a hyphen, and the second item in the range can often be shortened. Example: "Piotrowski p. 352-354" should be "Piotrowski p. 352–54".
  • To track down the last of the nit-picky things like the en dashes, the percents, and the metric conversions, you might seek the aid of a copyeditor who has not been working on the article and who, therefore, will be looking with fresh eyes.

If you found these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, particularly one from the backlog, which is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2008 (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.
    • This is something I always question, but using a general encyclopedia as a source for a general encyclopedia is a bit odd. Any chance the Encyclopedia Britannica sources can be upgraded to something that isn't an general encyclopedia? Same for the Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta.
    • Also should note that Encyclopedia Britannica is a fee required source.
    • What makes the following sources reliable?
    • For consistency, either list authors last name first or first name first through out your references. Pick one style and go with it, rather than mixing them.
    • Please spell out abbreviations such as UNIAN in the references so that folks don't have to click through to see what they are.
    • Per the MOS, titles in all captials for websites shouldn't be in all capitals.
    • Make sure that your non-English sources state the language they are in in the reference.
    • Make sure your website references give the publisher and last access date always. (current ref 128 is an example of missing publisher)
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.) 12:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yasukuni Shrine

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 recently GREATLY overhauled the article by referencing it, creating new sections and even breaking out other sections. I would love to get this to a GA sometime in the near future.

Thanks, --TorsodogTalk 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • This looks pretty good and seems close to GA. Biggest problem is refs - it still needs some refs in some sections, for example the whole Eligible categories section has no refs, and the non-table prose in Kami by conflict also has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Not all refs have the required information, for example current refs 1 and 2 do not list the publisher. 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
  • There are a large number of External links, probably too many by WP:EL. Some of these could be used a refs, especially since so many of the current refs are from the shrine itself. The article needs more independent, third-party refs, but the ELs, Further reading and last three uncited refs look like they would be good to add as refs (mostly).
  • Article uses too many bullet point lists - some should be converted to prose. The use of image galleries is also discouraged - {{commonscat}} works well

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 ><>°° 22:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur radio in India

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…

  • Need to check if I have covered all possible angles.
  • For brilliant prose.

Thanks, =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we would like to get it promoted to Featured List. The list is complete and well sourced, the problems we face are small grammer issues that can be easily fixed with a quick peer review. We have promoted a similar list to FL (Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium)), please help us promoting this one too.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: How does Austria's commemorative coin production match with that of other countries? Is Austria one of the countries that produces the most coins, or one of the least, or neither? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Among the Eurozone members, is one of the highest producers although can not compare with the high-rollers France and Spain. Austria mints more than 10 in average per year, while other countries mint just 5/6 per year. You can take a look at the other countries (just a few to finish, almost all lists are completed) at Euro gold and silver commemorative coins. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just curioues ... why? Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because that would be good info to add to the article (not really "notability" per se, but it adds a sense of relevance to the article). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got you point, but considering that the goal here is to FL all list of all countries, is it really worth? The other article I mentioned would cover your point. What do you think? Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a point. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imagawa Yoshimoto

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 about an important historical figure and I'd like to see how it can be improved.


Thanks, Tadakuni (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


A couple of minor points. The statement about some claiming Ujiteru was poisoned should be sourced. The reference to the 1915 Encyclopedia Britannica should be updated. Fg2 (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I removed the poisoning reference because "some say" doesn't make much difference-- he died "suddenly," either way. Also, the reference isn't to the 1915 Britannica, it's to a book the company published-- should that still be updated? -Tadakuni (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking out the mention of poisoning was for the better, although if someone finds an appropriate source it would be interesting to put back in. Regarding the EB source, thanks for pointing that out. I'd suggest finding something newer, and maybe a reviewer can suggest a source in English or Japanese. Works on Japanese history approaching a century old often turn out to be based on unreliable sources. But if nothing newer shows up, it might be a simple matter of rephrasing it along the lines of "some historians once accepted the figure of 40,000." Fg2 (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Begins

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 is currently a Good Article and I want to get it up to Featured status. The previous peer review can be found here. Any feedback and suggestions on improving it for FA will be very much appreciated

Thanks, Greg Jones II 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. 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 Batmobile, Batsuit, and Soundtrack are not in the lead, for example.
  • Article needs references in a few more places - there is at least one fact tag and the last eight entries in Cast are uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow Superman (film series) is a FA and may offer some ideas. Other FA film articles are at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media
  • Could the Design and SPecial effects sections be combined? Effects is quite short 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 ><>°° 03:07, 8 July 2008 (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.) 12:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added {{rs}} to those references and will get to them. Gary King (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews/press releases are ALWAYS reliable. Do not delete cites from Superherohype, Indielondon and Batman on film. Alientraveller (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. How do we know a site has accurately reported the interview? The site itself needs to have a reputation for fact checking and reliablity. Same for the other sources being used. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Yes, interviews are more reliable than most self-published websites, but we still need to make sure that the site publishing the interview is at least somewhat reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Superhero Hype! is a reliable source for interviews, set visits and so on, just like IGN and other similar sites. I can't really speak for IndieLondon, but there's no reason to believe a site would make up an entire interview. Alientraveller (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it reliable though? Not everyone is into superheroes or comics. IGN is reliable because it is reasonably large media company, other media companies refer to it, and it has been established for a while. Same needs to be demonstrated for other sites. No, I'm not saying that the site necessarily made up the interview, but we need to know how long the site has been around, etc. For an interview, yes, we're not necessarily looking for the same standards we would look for if this was a BLP issue, but it still needs to be above Weekly World News standards. If a site is the website of a published journal/newspaper/magazine, that helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just linked the article. The WSJ and EW consider it reliable. It is not a blog, it is a film news website and part of the Crave Media network. Alientraveller (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There you go then, done for Superhero Hype. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Batman on Film, they've been interviewed here,[12][13][14], and I would consider that good enough if you cannot believe they actually interview people working on the comics and films. Alientraveller (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that fingers are broken across the nation today. Try here: http://www.timeout.com/film/news/488/ to see that the interview is fully covered by numerous media. That some editor chose one site covering it over another shouldn't impugn the source automatically, AGF when an apparently sourced item appears, and the content matches the source. Do some legwork, google a bit. '2008 Nolan Dorchester Batman' found me a number of websites covering the interview.ThuranX (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The Wikipedia article should incorporate the critical analysis from Film Criticism, which I listed here. I think we should see about this analysis and others to "raise the bar" in terms of Featured Articles having extensive thematic detail (which is a little bit of a rarity). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville Sounds

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
  Done - These issues have been addressed. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to nominate the article for FA status. The article is currently a "Good Article." I would like comments/suggestions for improvements or changes that should be made before nominating it for a FA.


Thanks, NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Killervogel5

edit
  • The following sentences need citations:
    • "The team plays their home games at Herschel Greer Stadium, which opened in 1978 and currently holds 10,052 fans."
    • "The team fielded in 1981 was recognized as one of the 100 greatest minor league teams of all time."
    • "Of the three nine-inning perfect games in the history of the PCL, two have been pitched by members of the Sounds."
  Done - All three have been cited. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several redlinks throughout the articles. If this were to be a featured article, they should either be removed or stubs should be created for them (the latter would be preferable).
  Done - I created articles for most of the red links. A few of them linked to individuals who don't meet notability, so they have been de-linked. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go through the article and make sure dates are linked at their first appearance, and that's all. For example, in the Reds era, 1987 and 1989 are not linked, then later in that paragraph, they are. It's a proofreading thing.
  Done - I think I got them all. I left the year in the lead because it seems right and in full dates where autoformatting comes in. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uniforms section has no references. A good guide that I was given is that every extraordinary claim and every paragraph should have at least one reference.
  Done - References for uniforms have been added. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is just a quick overview from me. I'm sure more experienced reviewers can contribute more. Good luck! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Learned Hand

edit
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is about a famous American judge. We've listed it for peer review because we are planning to take it to FAC and would like to iron any problems out in advance. Neither of us are from the United States (British and Canadian), so help spotting non-U.S.-English idioms would be appreciated. We are not conversant with legal matters in general or U.S. law in particular, so it would be particularly useful if mistakes, infelicities, or imprecisions in that aspect could be pointed out. Many thanks in advance to anyone who reviews the article. qp10qp (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to add except that despite the "we'"s above qp10qp has done by far the most work on this article! And though a judge might not sound terribly interesting, this forward-looking chappy was not your archetypal bombast, and thus interesting to read about and review. We would welcome your comments and suggestions.--Slp1 (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Emw2012 (talk · contribs)
  • Inconsistent usage of British- and American-style quoting. Whichever form you choose, it should be consistent. I would have fixed this myself if I'd known what style the major editors preferred for the article.
I didn't think it was inconsistent: the style was the "logical" one, but I admit that it may appear inconsistent since one varies the position of the punctuation according to that in the sources; for example, a quote may appear to be a full sentence that requires a full stop within the quotes but may actually be part of a longer sentence in the original, therefore requiring the stop after the quotes. I agree, however, that this is problematic; and since this is an article that attempts American English, I have now gone through and placed all the relevant commas and full stops within the quotation marks. Crumbs, I will be eating corn dogs next. qp10qp (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reintroduced a measure of "logical" punctuation in response to SandyGeorgia's edit summary referring to the MOS. I'm getting a bit befuddled now, fearing that the more I try to make the punctuation consistent the less consistent it might be. Why couldn't Hand have been British? Then I could have punctuated on autopilot!
  • Unless used to describe nationalities, nouns describing areas of study usually aren't capitalized. For example, "Law", "Philosophy", "Economics", "Law School" (but not "Harvard Law School") should all be lowercase ("English", "Latin" and "Greek" remaining capitalized). I'll go through and fix this.
Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 'Albany legal practice' section, is "laisser faire" actually how it was spelled in the source? The phrase is usually spelled "laissez-faire". If the original author did in fact spell it "laisser faire", then the quote should probably read "...laisser faire [sic]".
Well spotted! Yes, Hand did spell it that way, and with no hyphen, but I'd left out the "sic". Now added. qp10qp (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think I did include the [sic] long ago, per Gunther but someone passed by and deleted it. I don't care either way.--Slp1 (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Laisser faire" is perfectly acceptable, if uncommon; it's certainly not an error, and doesn't deserve a "sic" (which is heavy-handed at the best of times) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And here's the OED: "1825 [MARQ. NORMANBY] Eng. in Italy I. 296 The laissez faire system of apathy. 1848 Simmonds's Colon. Mag. Aug. 338 Mammonism, laissez-faireism, Chartism, currency-restriction [etc.]. 1873 H. SPENCER Stud. Sociol. xiv. 352 Shall we not call that also a laissez-faire that is almost wicked in its indifference. 1887 Contemp. Rev. May 696 The ‘orthodox’ laissez-faire political economy. 1891 S. C. SCRIVENER Our Fields & Cities 168 Laissez-faire is the motto, the gospel, of the person who lives upon the work of another. 1932 G. B. SHAW Platform & Pulpit (1962) 252 A Cabinet of talkers and Laisser-fairists. 1944 A. JONES Right & Left 16 The Conservative is neither a planner nor a laisser-faire-ist. 1966 Guardian 1 Dec. 8/6 Professor Peacock..isn't too keen on being cast as a ‘relentless laisser-fairist’." Note the last three instances. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I dislike the intrusive sic too. In this case, the source does use one, and so I suppose it is justifiable to include it. qp10qp (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think they have settled down now. qp10qp (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I think it's an exceptional article, and should be nominated for FAC.

Many thanks for your prompt review. Much appreciated. qp10qp (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks!--Slp1 (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2008 (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.) 13:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much.Slp1 (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is more reassuring than the Ealdgyth MOT certificate! Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the images are PD and should be on Commons, most already are. I'll take care of this and make a Commons article on him, add cats, etc. I'm an admin there too. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Do you think the lead image has the right license? (At a stretch, I worry that "life of author plus 70 years" may not have elapsed.) As a Commons admin, your comment on the Talk:Learned Hand#Images thread, re the picture of Learned with his father, would be appreciated. qp10qp (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Swatjester (talk · contribs) I preface these comments by saying I haven't read the entire article, so some of my concerns may already be addressed.

  • Not enough citations in opening paragraphs. Specifically, this claim: Even when he criticized the civil-rights activism of the 1950s Warren Court, Hand retained his popularity. and The profession suited his detached and open-minded temperament, and his decisions soon won him a reputation for craftsmanship and authority. However, many of those sections should be quite easy to source, especially the historical parts.
We can ref these statements if necessary, and, of course, we are obliged to do so when requested. I'd like to hear other views before taking this step. Refs were kept to a minimum in the lead to give readers a smooth entry into the article. Certainly there are refs in the body of the article that cover all of the points in the lead, qp10qp (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Philosophy, more explanation of how he was a positivist, and that the positivist view tends to echo the Legal Formalist view. According to Prof. Volokh, Harvard Law School has extensive studies of Learned Hand's judicial philosophy on file in their library, thus making them citable references.
I agree that some more on the positivism is needed (we were discussing this yesterday); I have plenty of material, so I will do that. May take some time. qp10qp (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added an explanation of what Positivism means in this context. I'm not sure about mentioning formalism as well, in case the reader starts to get -ismed out, what with Relativism, Pragmatism, Positivism. Hand always advised a more imaginative approach than strict formalism, anyway. qp10qp (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This post from the Innocence Project quotes Learned Hand in almost a legal realist viewpoint, and argues that he was critical of the justice system's excessive formalism in criminal defense cases.
Cheers. Will check this out.qp10qp (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something to this effect to the influence section.--Slp1 (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the ones in the article or further ones? The flowery praise has been kept to a minimum (I think), and largely restricted to quotes from jurists or newspapers. In truth, nearly everything one reads about Hand is inter-larded with praise—even when he is being criticised. I found this a bit sickly and hadn't realised the legal profession could be so luvvy. qp10qp (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a famous quote that occurred in a conversation between Learned Hand and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in which "“Do Justice, your honor. Do justice!” Hand cried as Holmes pulled away. Holmes turned and called back to the younger judge. “That is not my job. My job is to apply the law.”" I don't have a reliable source for it, but it might be worth noting that Judge Hand very much admired Justice Holmes.
    • I think the quote is probably apocryphal: I haven't seen it in my reading in any case, and haven't been able to source it otherwise either. But it is certainly true that Hand admired Holmes, and I have added it to the text about their interaction re Masses. --Slp1 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is apocryphal. It can be sourced in one or other secondary version by typing "Holmes" "Hand" "that is not my job" into Google Books. On closer inspection of the hits, though, this tends to be prefaced by "it is said", "it is told", "traditionally", and the versions of the exchange vary considerably. What is lacking is the quotation of a primary source behind it. I would not really be in favour of including this, since the sentiment itself is rather simplistic. Although it is supposed to have happened when Holmes was riding in a carriage and so would have been early in Hand's career, this does not sound like the authentic voice of Hand to me at all. The story is left out of Gunther, Schick, Griffith, etc., and so I think we should omit it too, but I'm open to persuasion. qp10qp (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review. Some food for thought and much appreciated! qp10qp (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've been following qp's work on this for a while, and now taken the chance to look at some sections in further close detail. From time to time there are a few nits to pick, but frankly, this article is already well above the average standard at FAC. It's an extraordinarily impressive piece of work. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and for your help with the ref formatting, etc. qp10qp (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sullivan

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

A quite good biography already, but needs a little more work to get to FA. Any advice towards this end is welcome. =)

Thanks, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cichlid

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…

Several authors have worked towards getting the cichlid article to WP:GA status and I think it's in a good position to be nominated and assessed as a WP:FA. I would like a peer-reviewer to look over the article and provide some feedback as a pre-assessment for WP:FA nomination.

Thanks, MidgleyDJ (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2008 (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.
    • Generally galleries are frowned on at FAC.
    • http://www.abc.net.au/farnorth/stories/s1313845.htm deadlinked (current ref 16)
    • Okay, I've never run across http://filaman.uni-kiel.de/ this source before. What makes it a reliable source?
    • Looks like current ref 43 the IUCN Red List of threatented Species has some formatting glitches. I'd fix, but have no clue what it should look like.
    • Current refs 46 DeSilva S. S. .. has a bald link in the ref. Links should be formatted with titles. Same for current ref 52 Smith P. F.
    • Is http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/show_article.php?article_id=331 from a website for a magazine? Note I'm not a fish person, so utterly unfamiliar with fish magazines. (current ref 54)
    • Current ref 55 www.aquafriend.com is given me a "get this domain name now" page...
    • http://www.africancichlids.net/articles/neolamprologus_brichardi/ doesn't load. (current ref 39)
    • Current refs 56, 57, 58 look like they are supposed to be newspaper articles. Maybe use {{news}} to format them correctly. (The title of the article would be in quotation marks, the newspaper should be in italics, etc.)
    • Same goes for a number of other refs, the titles aren't in quotation marks, which makes it difficult to see what is the title.
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.) 15:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I would have the lead be more accessible and less detailed, and the article have more information and details - for example, swap this from the lead As a group, cichlids exhibit a similarly wide diversity of body shapes, ranging from strongly laterally compressed species (such as Altolamprologus, Pterophyllum, and Symphysodon) through to species that are cylindrical and highly elongate (such as Julidochromis, Teleogramma, Teleocichla, Crenicichla, and Gobiocichla).[4] with this from the Anatomy and appearance section Cichlids have a great variability in body shape, ranging from compressed and disc-shaped (such as Symphysodon) to elongate and cylindrical (such as Crenicichla ).[13] See WP:LEAD
  • I know these are in the semi-automated review too, but FAC really frowns on inconsistent spelling (British vs American English) and image galleries (if they are on Commons, {{commonscat}} works well)
  • The list of 220 Genera will also likely be a bone of contention at FAC - why not make a list of Cichlid genera and get an FL too? Could also put some of the images in it.
  • Provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. For example, A distinctively shaped otolith. I know otolith is linked, but perhaps adding "a structure in the inner ear" would help. I also note this is a list and may need to be converted to prose for 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 ><>°° 20:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird

I'm a big fan of cichlids after I did my undergraduate thesis on the taxonomy of a Lake Malawi genus. I hope to see this featured in the future. Anyhoo...
  • Extinction - if memory serves the hybridization of some lake Victoria species caused a few extinctions and was caused by reduced water clarity breaking down isolating mechanisms amongst closely related species. Deserves a mention I feel. Given that the extinction of the Lake Victoria cichlids is the largest mass extinction in recent history, the whole section may be worth expanding a little and should be mentioned in the lead. It is worth hunting down threats to add Nile Perch to Malawi and Tanganyka as well, as this would increase the level of distaster.
  • You mention sexual dimorphism in the gallery but not in the Anatomy and appearance section, in fact no mention is made there of the many gaudy colours. The treatement of the types of shape is rather superficial as well.
  • Range and habitat - habitat, you mention some brackish habitat species, but since mosts species are freshwater a bit more of a mention of the types of freshwater? There are river species, pond species, pelagic species (it was pelagic ones I studied, pretty cool for freshwater reall!). This ties into appearance and diet as well.
  • Mating system - is kind of short, could just get merged into the main section, possibly at the top.
I'll have another look soon but that should give you a bit to work with now. I hope it helps, and I'm glad someone is working on this. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Road

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 about a football stadium for peer review because I feel I have taken it as far as I can with the available sources, given that it was demolished 85 years ago. There probably isn't enough material to justify an FA nomination, but GA seems an attainable target. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Robert Burnell

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 at some point and am looking for suggestions on how to make an obscure subject understandable to non-specialists, as well as advice on prose.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, not comprehensive, by Doncram

edit
  • In intro, I find this a bit awkward:"He was elected as Bishop of Bath and Wells in 1275, after King Edward had appointed him chancellor in 1274. Burnell continued to enjoy the king's trust until the bishop's death in 1292." Until the bishop's death?, what bishop?, oh you mean Burnell's death. I see the need to clarify which man died. But perhaps the last sentence could be just: "For the rest of Burnell's life, Burnell enjoyed the king's trust." Not sure if that is better. Anyhow, this a little awkward especially being in the intro, perhaps could reword to avoid.
  • I find some ambiguities in the last paragraph, within "It was substantially different in plan than the older hall style houses, with the private quarters at the back of a large hall. Instead, at Acton Burnell, the bishop's quarters were located well off from the main public spaces of the building, and included a latrine." I'm not sure
    • if the previous/older "hall style houses" is a well-defined set (can it be linked?);
    • if Acton Burnell is still a "hall style house" if it is laid out differently
    • if private quarters in older hall style houses had latrines or not.
    • what is meant by a latrine (can it be linked?)
By the way, Latrine describes something different, what sounds like an outhouse, a separate structure.
  • Do you mean: "It was substantially different in plan than previous hall style houses, which had private quarters at the back of a large hall. Instead, at Acton Burnell, the bishop's quarters were located well off from the main public spaces of the building. The private quarters included a latrine, which was also unusual."

Hope these quick comments help. doncram (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenacious D

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 keen to nominate this for FA status but recognize that this still has flaws. I am confident about the content, but feel that some of the sentencing and ordering could be improved. Any comments would be appreciate, and I will act on suggestions. Thanks, Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Smiths 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 I'm looking to take it to WP:FLC but feel it could do with copyediting first (not my strong point).


Thanks, JD554 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Music videos? You'll need to cite each of the directors too. Use mvdbase as a starting point, but they aren't considered reliable enough to cite.
The trouble is that source is extremely unreliable: half of what it claims are videos were actually one-offs for a specific TV program. Without a reliable source for which songs had proper promo videos and their directors, I felt it best to leave them out.
You don't need to list everything given there, pick out ones that you know were reeleased as a video ("This Charming Man") for example). The discog would not be comprehensive otherwise. indopug (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you check that The Complete Picture DVD for credits? From what I know it has all the music videos. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. indopug (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tribute albums needn't be listed per MOS:DISCOG since they aren't by The Smiths themselves.
Removed.
  • I think a sentence mentioning the plethora of compilations released after they disbanded deserves a mention in the lead.
Done.
  • The "Title" column width of the various tables can be reduced; there's a lot of empty space on my screen.
Reformated. It was that wide because of the tributes, but now that bit's gone...
  • The Other album appearnances should only include songs specifically written for that record or those that weren't released before.
Those are unique versions not available elsewhere at the time of release.
  • If you get hold of a Smiths book, maybe you can find chart positions of other territories ... ask around.
I've checked the online sources for European charts (Lescharts.com etc), but the ones listed are all I can find.
  • Since there are free pics of Marr and Morrissey, I think you can combine them to create a composite pic for the infobox.
The free pics of Morrissey all seem to be post-The Smiths.
That's alright; some pic is better than no pic. It serves the same "encyclopedic purpose" of identifying the band members. indopug (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image added --JD554 (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

indopug (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of those singles should be listed as non-album singles, unless they were specifically released to promote a specific compilation. For example, those three 84-85 singles weren't actually singles from Hatful of Hollow; they were non-album singles compiled on the release. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same holds for "Charming Man". It was only included on the US version of The Smiths. Even "hand in Glove" was released much before the album, obviously without the intention of promoting it. indopug (talk)
I think I've got the singles sorted. The last two which were released after they disbanded I think were released by WEA to promote those compilations. --JD554 (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2008 (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.) 11:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

1998 Comfrey–St. Peter tornado outbreak

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 article recently passed GA, and I'm hoping to submit it for FAC at some point in the near future. There are currently not any tornado outbreak articles that have been promoted to FA, so there isn't a clear cut definition of how an article like this needs to setup to be FA-worthy. (There has been one candidate that I know of, but it was not promoted.) I think the two things I'm looking for the most are:

  1. Can you think of any other areas or topics an article like this should cover to make it comprehensive enough for FAC.
  2. Are there any other obvious things that would need to be fixed before submitting for FAC.

Thanks, WxGopher (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2008 (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.
    • You spell out one abbreviation (NCDC) (thanks!) but don't on NOAA. Probably should do all of them.
    • Current ref 14 (Steil, Mark) is lacking a last access date Same for current ref 18 (same author)
    • Current ref 25 (Coleman, Nick) is lacking last access date.
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.) 13:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Got em all, thanks! WxGopher (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wackymacs (talk · contribs):

  • Lead does not summarize the article, needs expansion per WP:LEAD. (I would add another paragraph of equal size to the current one.)
  • Do not link months/days on their own (only link full dates with year).
  • There are a couple words which don't need to be linked, such as 'Weather forecasters' and 'thunderstorm'.
  • Images licenses are fine, sources look good.
  • Overall prose looks very good. This is a nice, short article that is well referenced.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I was wondering about the lead... I think it looks better now WxGopher (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asthma

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 the article has been around 2 years since promotion to FA. I was thinking of putting it through a FA review but then I thought a peer review might be a better first step. I was wondering whether any areas need expansion due to changes in technology,treatment and knowledge in this time. I know some areas are lacking citation and I'll work on that ASAP. Just any suggestiongs in general would be appreciated.


Thanks, Ziphon (ALLears) 12:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

BirgitteSB

edit
  • Lead: Not a proper summary of the article; needs expansion.
  • Signs and symptoms: Avoid the repetition of of the symptoms in the first two paragraphs. Too many parenthetical.
    • What the distinction between "hallmarks of an asthma attack" and "signs of an asthmatic episode" that they should be separate paragraphs? Organization of section is questionable.
    • Despite the severity of symptoms during an asthmatic episode, between attacks an asthmatic may show few or even no signs of the disease This should be last sentence of first paragraph (overview of section) rather than last sentence in the paragraph on sign of severe attacks.
  • Cause:
    • Asthma is caused by a complex interaction of genetic and environmental factors that researchers do not fully understand yet. While it continually reads "genetic and environmental" the environmental subsection is presented before the genetic ones. Change to match.
  Done Ziphon (ALLears) 11:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with other complex diseases, many genetic and environmental factors have been suggested as causes of asthma, but not all of them have been replicated. Replicated? Replicated in controlled studies, or in isolation of other factors?
    • The hygiene hypothesis is a theory about the cause of asthma and other allergic disease, and is supported by epidemiologic data for asthma . . . This should be moved out "overview section" and put under the "environmental section"
  DoneZiphon (ALLears) 11:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Environmental sub-section: Bullets points should be converted to prose. This section reads like it is about "juvenile asthma" can it be made more general or if not specify "in children". Find more info on adults to balance what cannot be generalized.
  Doing... I'll try find some info on adult asthma Ziphon (ALLears) 08:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, as with all association studies, replication is important before genetic variation (such as a single nucleotide polymorphism, or SNP) in a certain gene is thought to influence asthma This is too technical. Try to explain it better.
    • The CD14 SNP C-159T and endotoxin exposure are a well-replicated example of a gene-environment interaction that is associated with asthma. How about "exposure to endotoxin from bacterial infections"? Try to not require the reading of linked articles to comprehend a sentence.

  Done I've tried to explain it better. Ziphon (ALLears) 09:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pathophysiology: Needs an overview paragraph.
    • During an asthma episode, inflamed airways react to environmental triggers such as smoke, dust, or pollen Do we really need to go over examples of "environmental triggers" so shortly after reading that section?
    • inflamed airways . . . The airways narrow and produce excess mucus . . . I don't airways is consistently defined in the same way here. The tissue becomes inflamed and produce mucus, but it is the passages that narrow.
    • The airways of asthmatics are "hypersensitive" to certain triggers, also known as stimuli (see below). In response to exposure to these triggers, the bronchi (large airways) contract into spasm (an "asthma attack"). Yuck on the parenthetical. Also isn't this a little to introductory for this portion of the article.
    • The normal calibre of the bronchus is maintained by a balanced functioning of these systems, This is the opening of a new paragraph; what systems.
    • Stimuli subsection Rewrite as prose.
    • Pathogenesis subsection Should be either the first or last subsection; or else part of the overview without a titled subsection. Looks like a bulleted section with the bullet points removed. Make into proper prose.
    • Asmatha and . . . subsections Rewrite as a single subsection called "Coincedencee with other disorders". Add info on eczema and allergies per the following section.
  • Diagnosis: This section is completely lacking in organization and at times internaly repetitive. Needs to be re-worked into something cohesive.
    • The basic measurement is peak flow rates That really doesn't make sense. How is peak flow rate (links to the meter) a "measurement"?
    • Bulleted diagnostic criteria Even more incromprehensible to me. Is this dianosising that a person has obstruction or that the known obstruction is reversable? What do the the criteria actually mean in lay terms?
  • Prevention: Seems to be about prevention of attacks rather than prevention of asmatha. I would clarify this in overview paragraph mention that attacks can prevented or reduced in severity by medication and aviodence of triggers. Then make a new subsection called "Preventive medication". Or on second thought cut the section and merge as discussed below. Also rewrite bullet points in prose. Severely trim the information on air filters and merge into the "Avoidance of triggers" sub-section.
  • Treatment Needs serious re-oranization. The subsection titles are not mutually exclusive and earlier info is repeated. Bullets --> Prose.
    • The most effective treatment for asthma is identifying triggers, such as pets or aspirin, and limiting or eliminating exposure to them This is either a treatment or a preventaive. Don't repeat this in
    • Medical subsection This is repetative of preventive medications above. Maybe you should cut the preventative section altogether and merge everything into treatment. Is there anything that is really prevents of the disorder? Unless you mean to get into the Hygiene hypothesis, which is not currently covered, it is all really a treatment.
    • Long-acting β2-agonists subsection Quotations are ecessive. Why is this info in it's own subsection?
    • Treatment controversies' Why is this info in it's own subsection?
  • Prognosis: What is the prognosis for adults?
    • most studies show that early treatment with glucocorticoids prevents or ameliorates decline in lung function as measured by several parameters. This does not make sense.
  • Epidemiology: Why are we re-hashing the reisk factors again?
    • Asmatha and athlectics subsection Is this really "Epidemiology" or rather a risk factor and/or trigger?
  • History: This needs to be cut or a lot of work put into writing a comphensive section. Certainly the large quotation is unneeded.

As this was a FA, I jumped right into a detailed review. A quater of the way through I nearly abandoned this as I would not normally put so much time into an article put up for review with such obvious flaws not yet fixed. This needs a lot of work and I hope you really mean to address the issues. Some general issues: Sometimes things are written as if the article is "AsthmaCoincidenceinternallyincomprehensiblediagnosingreversibleasthmaavoidanceorganizationpreventativerepetitive attack"excessive rather than "AriskAsthmaathleticscomprehensivequarterAsthmaAsthmasmatha"; make an effort to clarify that you mean "during an attack" or similar. Often the article focuses rather narrowly on children, more generalized or specifically adult info is much needed. {{Fact}} tags need to be taken care of.--BirgitteSB 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia national football team

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 is has recently been largely increased in quality. Though not a successful football team when compared to some other greater nations, it is still very well known in the sport and the article is very unique for its category. It involves such statistics and historical information that other great articles do not have (eg - first ever competitive loss, first competitive goalscorer, and even a statistical records section of all home games played and statistical records of all recent managers etc.)

Very well written, I myself have read it many times and come to the personal conclusion that there is not one minor detail in the history of this football team that has been left out. All relevant information is included, plus additional and unique extras. The lead page is the main of it, I think that is the only thing (if anything) that may possibly diminish the articles chances of becoming a featured article. I really dont see nothing wrong with it, but I am open to all types of suggestions and critical reviews. Anything that may be wrong with it, just mention it.

If its any help to your reviewing, another national football team article that is on the featured article list is the Scotland national football team.


Thanks, Domiy (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi there, although it is an article that appears to include all necessary information, there are no references to back things up. Every challengable fact needs a footnote to support it. There must be many 1st party sources to back things up, as well as websites, books etc? rocketman89 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, I have to strongly object. There ARE references included in the article. Since, as the article states, Croatia has only had an active team since 1991, there isnt a need for sources as strong as say for the Scottish team page (which is already a featured article). But other than that, the majority of things stated on the page do have references to them. The only thing that wouldn't have a reference is the section explaining football in Croatia during the 1940's. Thats pretty much impossible, you will never find a reference that can back up the SIMPLE fact that football was played in Croatia during this time. Its an assumed fact, just like one would assume that the sum of $8million does exist, even though they have never seen it before and have only heard it of others.

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

edit

I have to agree with the comment above, the article is massively short on references. You say "there isnt a need for sources as strong as say for the Scottish team page" - I don't see why this would be the case at all. There might not need to be quite as many refs (numerically speaking) for a team with a much shorter history, but the fact that this team has a shorter history doesn't mean that things don't need referencing at all. For example....."Croatia are still undefeated in all competitive games played at Maksimir Stadium" - source? "At many times however, the Croatian fans have been the centre of harshly accused racist behaviour." - source? "Their singing of the national anthem at the opening group game against Brazil was also voted by FIFA as Moment of the day." - source? "More throughout the years, domestic bands such as Dino Dvornik, Zaprešić boys, Prljavo kazalište, Baruni and others composed many singles in support of the national team." - source? "This was done under the chaotic guidance of Graham Poll who was largely criticized for his inability to control the match." - source? This is just a selection, there are many many more examples. There are also problems with the quality of the English and some POV statements like "Croatia went on to excel amazingly", but these can be corrected fairly easily. The issue with the references, however, is a massive stumbling block and, unless it is addressed, the article has 0% of success at WP:FAC....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


OK thanks for the accurate advice. I will go ahead and add references to every advanced statement I can find and then request that it be re-reviewed. I've already done so to a large majority of the article.

Domiy (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Thisa article has gone through numerous GA nominations, and the latest one would have been productive if the page was semi-protected, but most of the edits were reverted by IPs, so it did not pass. I would be willing to work on this article to bring it up to at leat GA, and a peer review would help a lot in getting the article there.

Thanks, ~ Bella Swan? 14:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be expanded. 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 plot section seems way too long and too detailed, especially when compared to the other sections of the article. See Wikipedia:WAF#Plot_summaries and Wikipedia:Plot summaries
  • The Reception section needs to be expanded - the Wall Street Journal had an excellent review of the novel, as did Newsweek (which was on MSNBC.com). Since this is the last book of the series, could there be some mention of critical reaction to the book as the end of the series as well?
  • The article has some very short paragraphs (one sentence on John Williams composing the film music, for example) and some fairly short sections (Choice of title, Spoiler embargo, etc.). These could be combined with others or expanded.

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 ><>°° 02:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Chapman

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A biography of one of the most influential association football managers of all time, mostly written by myself. I'd like to hear thoughts and suggestions from the wider community with a view to working towards FA status. Opinions particularly welcome from anyone with knowledge of Northampton/Huddersfield Town/Leeds City but of course I'd like also to hear non-football fans' opinions too.

Thanks, Qwghlm (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Morrissey 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 I'm looking to take it to WP:FLC but feel it could do with copyediting first (not my strong point).

Thanks, JD554 (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2008 (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.) 11:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many examples at Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Music. I would pick a recent FL as the standards have recently become tighter for FLs. Meshuggah discography is one recent FL that may be a good model.
  • Article needs more references, for example the lead is entirely without refs. Since this is a list, the lead needs refs (see models).
  • Article needs a good copyedit - just one sentence from the lead Since The Smiths disbanded in 1987 he has released nine studio albums, two live album[s], eight compilation albums, 38 singles and six music video[s] on HMV, Sire Records, Parlophone, RCA Victor, Mercury Records, Sanctuary Records, EMI, Reprise Records, Rhino and Decca Records. The last part (... on HMV, Sire Records, ...) seems overly detailed for the lead, which is a summary - could it just be something like on ten different record labels?
  • Any chance to write a stub for the one redlink "Now My Heart Is Full"? It is not required for FL< but it looks odd in an otherwise complete list.

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 ><>°° 15:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Parade

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 GA nomination has passed and I am wondering in what ways this article can be improved to bring it closer to FA. Is more information needed in some places? What sections aren't as strong and need work? What other things are there to do to further improve this article? Any help is greatly appreciated.


Thanks,  Orfen  T • C 19:53, 9 July 2008 (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.) 11:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • What is here generally looks good, although it seems a bit brief. While length is not a FA criterion, comprehensiveness is, and it may be that the article needs to be expanded to be more comprehensive. Just as an example, the lead to the The Black Parade World Tour is a much better summary of the tour article than what is in this article. See WP:Summary style
  • Only the Reception and Versions sections are longer than one paragraph. I also note that the reception section has a one sentence paragraph The album holds a 79/100 score based on 24 reviews at Metacritic, which equates to the site's categorization of "generally favorable reviews".[26] which should be combined with another or perhaps expanded.
  • Could these two sentences be combined somehow: The Black Parade has also been certified platinum by the RIAA for selling over 1,100,000 copies.[21] As of August 18, 2007 the album has sold 1,169,697 copies in the U.S.[22]? Professional prose is an FA requirement.
  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many album FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music that may be good models. I am not a music article person, so this is about all I could think of.

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 ><>°° 15:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Show

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'd really like to work on bringing this article back up to Good Article status. I've done a little work already, but any suggestions/ideas/advice would be really appreciate. Thanks, Shoemoney2night (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I think it's pretty damn great as it is. Have you seen the recommendations made on the talk page of the article? It gives the reasons the article was delisted as good. I noticed that there are quite a number of statements that are not referenced: many more statements than you find in the average article ARE referenced and it's generally very good but there still remain quite a few which are not. I guess if that were addressed it might please the quality reviewers quite a lot. That's the only thing I would fault it on. More pictures would be a bonus but I realise ones we are allowed to use would be hard to come by. --bodnotbod (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the review! Referencing is definitely high on my list of priorities right now. -Shoemoney2night (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're most welcome. It's just a shame there aren't more people offering suggestions. Tell you what, when I submit this text I'll put a plea for more input in the 'edit summary' and perhaps a few people will see it on 'recent changes' and come and say a few words. --bodnotbod (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. While this is good, it needs some more work to get to FA quality.

  • Article needs more references - for example the first, third, and sixth paragraphs of the Current format section have no refs now. 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. Current refs 28, 44 an 59 are just links with titles. The further reading sound like things that should be refs for stuff in the article. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Per WP:Summary style, there should be a brief summary of the awards at the Awards section (not just a link)
  • I found the organziation of the article a bit unclear, especially towards the end. For example, Correspondents, contributors, and staff seems like it should come before the very end.

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 ><>°° 19:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments, it's a huge help! -Shoemoney2night (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more thoughts from a second look:

  • Provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR. For example, explain here that the correspondents in the field segments previously were always faked - just the actor in front of a special effects screen: During the week of August 20, 2007 the show aired a series of segments called "Operation Silent Thunder: The Daily Show in Iraq" in which correspondent Rob Riggle reported from Iraq.[7]
  • Would it make sense to rename "Current format" to just "Format"? Then start with the original format and then describe the current format? Chronological order seems more logical to me. I would also rewrite the Studio section in chronological order - it flows better.
  • The show has (and has had) some fairly well known comedians on it and has given career boosts to several of these. For example Steve Carell is mentioned only once and his name is not wikilinked then. Perhaps the Correspondents, contributors, and staff section should mention some of these previous cast members.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. "upright" can be used to make vertical images smaller.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, you've been a really big help and it's hugely appreciated. I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with regard to the studio section, though - it appears to be in chronological order already to me. Cheers, -Shoemoney2night (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words and I will try to clarify. The studio section's first sentence starts with the current studio (present), then talks about the move to this studio in the second sentence (past). Then it mentions the old studio (now for the Colbert report) in the third sentence (more distand past) and then returns to the current studio for the rest of the section. Since the discussion of the show itself starts with Kilborn and moves to Stuart, why not start with the original studio (and give its location), then mention the move and its transfer to Colbert, then talk about the current studio? That is what I mean by chronological order - not start with the present and then work backwards. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemaniac comments: I've been tracking changes to the article that you've been making, and I must say that your contributions have been excellent. I particularly like how you've been able to balance out the positive and negative criticism the show's garnered over the years, as well as your adding of images and your creation of subpages. Not really much I can add to what the other reviewers have already said, but, due to my experience in the GA process, I definitely must stress citing more references, although you appear to already be on that. Other than that, I think you've given the article a vast improvement and I see no reason why it can't pass GA. Heck, the way the article is now, you could probably just skip GA altogether and try for FA status. In any case, if you need any other assistance in this matter, I'd be happy to provide some. Good luck! Regards, Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 19:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the comments, and the encouragement - I really appreciate it! :) -Shoemoney2night (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wipeout 3

edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to FA class whenever I have time to... Thanks in advance, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the Special Edition? --Mika1h (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ashnard comments
  • "race against human and A.I. opponents," I think you'd be hard pushed to name me any other multiplayer racing games where this doesn't apply. Seems needless in the lead. Info doesn't seem to be in the main body of text further down.
  • "Visually, The Designers Republic". Reading the rest of the sentence, "visually," doesn't seem to mean anything here. Would "regarding visuals" work?
  • "neutral design" What does this mean?
  • "allowing for crisper graphics". Not a fan of "allowing for", but that's my opinion. Crisper than what?
  • "techno" and "electronica" should be wikilinked.
  • I'm no expert in grammar, but I'm failing to see why "would be" is used in the last sentence of the lead. Same for last paragraph of "Reception".
  • The first letter of a caption still needs to be capitalised.
  • "Players control futuristic hovercraft owned by special corporations and pilot them on racecourses." Wow, this game sounds promising—"futurisic" and "special", woah. Saying they're made by "special corporations" leaves me non-the-wiser. Could mean anything.
  • "Shields can be regenerated in a pit lane, set apart from the main course" "Which is"? You could otherwise remove the comma.
  • "The default game mode bestowsawards medals onto the top three finishing craft" Better?
  • "to beat courses in a certain amount of time." Grammar: you do not "beat" the course.
  • "racing experience of earlier game" Obvious error.
  • "Wipeout 3 was the first Wipeout game to take advantage of Sony's PlayStation controllers with analog sticks, in orderused to offer smoother control overof the player's craft." Better?
  • "tacked-on" Remove unless it can be quoted; informal.
  • Inconsistency with how "Wipeout 3" is spelled out—"wip3out".
  • "IGN named Wip3out the most accessible game of the series, and the title was named the 92nd best game by the publication in 2007." Probably best if you name the occassion specifically here, i.e. "IGN's Top 100 Games".
  • The Designer Republics', I thought it was "Designers Republic", thus making the apostrophe erroneous here.
  • "bring the locales of the series to life" Probably best if you could quote this phrase here, as the locales aren't technically "brought to life".
  • "A major fault reviewers found with the game was the steep learning curve of the game." Repetiton.
  • "GamePro found that proper handling required lots of patience and practice." "lots of" sounds unprofessional here. "of the game" is probably redundant.
  • "sense of disappointment that the series broke little new ground." Talk literally please.
  • No sales? I take it you've checked, David?

Okay, would probably do fine at FAC, although, as in Midtown Madness, an absence of sales data would deter me from supporting. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:29, 25 July 2008 (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.) 13:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs)

  • Ok, sorry if I repeat other comments, but here's what I see
  • The game cover image has no source in the fair use rationale
  • Does the game have a plot or characters? that would be good to include
  • Double check, make sure reception and development are comprehensive, and you got everything
  • Copyedit, and then take to FAC.
  • If you need any more suggestions, leave a note at my talk page and I'll look again.

Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment theory

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 we've put a lot of work into it recently and I would like to get it to FA status. At the moment I feel I've reached that "beam in the eye" stage and need help as to where to go from here.

Thanks, Fainites barley 22:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

History of Fort Lauderdale, Florida

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 it is near to Good Article status, and I'd like to get a review before sending it through the gantlet.


Thanks, Horologium (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wackymacs (talk · contribs):

  • I don't like the lead intro. Can you make it start with "The history of Fort Lauderdale, Florida..." ?
  • Most articles have a picture in the lead, you might want to add one there.
  • This needs expansion. There are published books on the history of Fort Lauderdale which should be used.
  • A search on Google Books brings up over 900 books with limited preview you can use to expand the article: (Good rule of thumb: University Press books are excellent reliable sources)
  • What makes http://www.stock-market-crash.net/florida.htm a reliable source?
  • Don't use {{Citation}} if you are using the Cite web, Cite news, etc templates. See WP:CITE.
  • Other good reliable sources include nyt.com and time.com newspaper archives. There's also ESBCOhost and Thomson Gale Infotrac, if you have access to them through your state/local library system.
  • The prose looks good, and this seems to be well on its way to featured status if its expanded enough.
  • If I were you, I would skip the GA process (waste of time) and keep working on this for FA status.
  • A 'Further reading' section would be nice, but not necessary.
  • I hope my comments are useful. Please ask if you want any help or further comments.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Suit Gundam 00

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 due to the edit war that happened some time ago between Collectonian and Jtrainor. Collectonian tagged this article with the justification that it suffers from several problems, so I've decided to list this article for peer review in order to seek help and advice on how to improve this article.

Thanks, Frozen Slime (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether that is the correct justification for requesting a peer review, but here goes (Note that this review is not complete, and that further input will be required. I did not review the actual content in detail.):
  • ...first to be set in a non-fictional era (Anno Domini).\The series is set in a futuristic Earth ...—These facts seem to contradict one another.
  • The original air dates (first season) should be provided in the lead.
  • Ensure that the article follows the manual of style (Wikipedia:MOS-ANIME#Layout for a series article).
  • Update the Non-free / fair use media rationale (See Image:Mew_Mew_PS_Game.jpg for an example).
  • The article requires a copy edit.
    • apparently selling — WP:OR?
    • 2nd, 7th ... spell out numbers lower than ten.
    • The primary protagonist of the show. — Fragmented.
    • He owns an orange Haro to aid Gundam Dynames' defense and movement when sniping. — Fragmented. (There are more examples.)
    • is told told in the format — word duplicated
    • Instead, it reveals and discuss the — discusses.
    • There are too many one or two line paragraphs.
  • References should be cleaned up (e.g. 42, 43, 44: Only the title have been provided.)
  • The article (esp. the plot section) needs serious cleanup.
  • There are way too many consecutive links in certain areas, for instance four consecutive links in First Season.
  • The article should be rated as C class, in my opinion.
  • It seems to me that the article contains quite a bit of possibly irrelevant material:
    • 世界経済連合, sekaikeizairengō?, abbrev. ユニオン Union, lit. World Economic Union
    • I do not think it is necessary to list the countries in these factions.
    • I cannot make proper sense out of the plot section, as it concentrates to much on details, and very little on the overall plot.
    • The article does not seem comprehensive. I am left wanting further information.
G.A.S 16:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish National Antarctic Expedition

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 further feedback on its style, general presentation, and use of images. This is a sister-article to William Speirs Bruce, a recent FA promotion, this time dealing in detail with Bruce's main expedition, which was an important milestone in scientific polar exploration. All comments welcome.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup champions

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is close to being FL standard, and I hope that the peer review process will iron out any kinks in the list. Thanks, NapHit (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major coment

  • Lead needs exspanding.

Minor comments

  • Merge the year cells for the finals that went to replays.
  • This seems to be more a list of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup finals.

Buc (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of Buc's comments. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Since the cup is no longer awarded, make sure the tense is consistent (and past). For example, the caption should be something like "The UEFA Cup Winners' Cup which the champion received from 1961 to 1999."
  • The tables in the Most Successful teams and Champions by country sections have no references.
  • The notes are inconsistently placed - R is in with year, the other notes are in with score, and the note "a" on Valencia in 1980 is in the Notes column. They should be in the same place (probably score column).
  • Is Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation a [[WP:RS|reliable source]? WHy not use the External link from UEFA as a ref?

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 ><>°° 02:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rambo's Revnge

  • Were the three replays played at the same location, I suggest clarifying this or noting replay venues if different.
  • "winning the competition four times until it was abolished" I think "before it was abolished" would be better, however I think you could end the sentence at "four times" as you mention that the competition ended for good two sentences before.
  • I'd possible suggest sorting locations by counrty first e.g. Barcelona, Spain given by {{sort|Spain, Barcelona|[[Barcelona]], [[Spain]]}}
  • I'd distinguish using West Germany using where appropriate   FRG

Generally it looks good though. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meshuggah

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 the article to pass the featured article criteria even before I add it to featured article nominations. So I thank everybody who gives me some suggestions. I just want to know what needs to be improved so that the article passes the FA criteria. Thanks a lot, Cheers :)  LYKANTROP  09:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've red User:AndyZ/Suggestions and corrected some things. But I still need opinions of other experienced users...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am still in the middle of copy-editing the article, but one thing I noticed is your heavy reliance on the band's official bio. That will cause you a lot of problems at FAC should you decide to list it. You will need to find more reliable, secondary sources to back up many statements. --Laser brain (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know. WP:SELFPUB. But do you think that those facts are controversial or contentious? Where else can I find such details about the biography?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, probably not. But rest assured, they may be challenged. If they are, I'd be glad to help you find other sources. A good place to look is a database named General OneFile. Most libraries have access to it. You can type in "Meshuggah" and it will search tons of magazines for articles about the band. I found a 27-page article named "Re-casting Metal: Rhythm and Meter in the Music of Meshuggah" that would probably have tons of great info. --Laser brain (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would be really glad If you help me with that. The General OneFile sounds very interesting. I will search in some libraries, but I am not sure if it is so spread also in Europe. In which form does the General OneFile give you the article(s)? Thanks for the help..--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added some sources to the text more appropriately. Less text is based only on the official bio now.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I have done some copy-editing through the whole article. I didn't do much in the lead section of "Musical style" because, frankly, it is very hard to edit with so many refs. I think we will need to slim them down. I know people love to argue about genres, but can we stick to one or two reliable sources for each item? --Laser brain (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cannibaloki

With a bit of experience I have as editor the only three things that I do not like in this article are:

  • Lack of a band's photo for the infobox.
  • The session Musical style, there is in my opinion an excess of references.
  • It could not stop talking about the affection in the article, with respect to the references that were retired from the Meshuggah's official website - biography, it certainly is a problem. --Cannibaloki 16:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


M3tal H3ad

From the lead

  • "extraordinary technical" - is POV remove the extrodinary, it glorifies them
  • important hard and heavy bands - hard what? this is awkwardly worded for someone who doesnt know about genres
  • Rolling Stone and Alternative Press are publications and should be in italics
  • Jens Kidman, who also played rhythm guitar until 1991, and Fredrik Thordendal, were some of the first band members. It says they are members in the first paragraph, seems redundant. The history section can deal with the founding members.
  • groundbreaking release - POV, attribute the quote to the person who said it or remove "groundbreaking"
  • for their accurate calculated fusion - according to..? "accurate"?
  • With 1998's Chaosphere, they made an impression on the guitar, drum and metal magazines - necessary? also remove "the" if you do keep this strange sentence OR how about rewording to something like "With growing popularity the band was featured in several guitar, drum etc etc - "metal magazines" is also too vague for the common reader, try heavy metal music
  • I actually think you should restructure the lead. There is too much information on who left/joined/plays what.
    • Just mention the current line-up
    • Any high charting albums
    • Any sales figures
    • Any big world tours/festival appearences
    • Number of releases
    • Some style/influence (you kind of got that down)
  • Look at Metallica. The first paragraph introduces the current line-up and past members (i wouldn't with this band as they aren't as popular, ex everyone knows about Mustaine and Cliff) Paragraph 2 and 3 deal with the band's history/rise to fame/some criticism/style. Paragraph 4 is about releases, sale figures, album positions, awards. Just keep it simple and brief. Goodluck. M3tal H3ad (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a lot. The lead has been rewritten. The only 2 things I kept (for now) are "groundbreaking release" and "accurate calculated" - They have sources further in the article, I would like to duscuss this rather than just delete it. Do you think it is otherwise ok? The first paragraph of the lead is the total sum of the band (current members, what kind of band they are), the paragraph 2 and 3 are short history + style, the 4 is sales, charts, big tours (numbers, mainstream info). --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
  • Their latest album obZen was released in 2008. This sentence seems a little weird.
  • Meshuggah have been labelled as one of the ten most important hard [rock] and heavy [metal] bands by Rolling Stone and as the most important band in metal by Alternative Press. I don't think the brackets are needed, as it's not a quote.
  • Meshuggah was originally formed in 1987,[3] comprised of vocalist Jens Kidman, guitarist Johan Sjögren, bassist Jörgen Lindmark and drummer Per Sjögren. "Comprised" &rarr' "Comprising".
  • This 12" vinyl EP had only 1000 copies released, sold by local record store Garageland. Use {{convert}} for the 12" measurement
  • Is it possible to cut down on some refs in the "Musical style"? A few sentences have as many as 15, which makes it hard to read.
  • I'll have some more comments later. Good work overall. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks...The problem of the convert template is that it shows as "12 inches (30 cm)", but I need 12" (30 cm) or 12-inch single (it can't say 12 inches single), so I did it without the template as the 12-inch single article.
    • I did a sources reduction of that section already some time ago (this is how it was looking originally :)). I re-ordered them a bit again and I hope its better now. But the problem is that some of the sentences just contain lots of information with many sources. --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More comments
  • The debut album is also been described as a relatively immature but original release. "Is" → "has".
  • Nick Terry of Decibel Magazine describes the album as a four-movement symphony. Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
  • Are there any sources for the Discography?

That's it from me. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is fixed now.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn

Sorry if it seems I have been ignoring you, I will take a look now. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the 1995 groundbreaking release" - Groundbreaking seems a little POV- you could certainly explain/quote in the main body to support that, but I would leave it out of the lead.
  • "Erase Improve for their "calculated" fusion of death metal," - Again, quotes in the lead should be avoided, and, if they are needed, cited. I'd just remove the word.
  • "and has sold 11,400 copies in the first week" - Why not just "and sold"?
  • Last paragraph of the first section is a little short- if you're looking to take this to FAC, I know a lot of people pick fault with that.
  • Ok, just reading through this, and I am seeing nothing much at all. The writing is great, the detail is good, statements are referenced...
  • Another short paragraph in the middle of "Chaosphere and Nothing (1998–2002)"
  • "In February 2004, Dick Lövgren officially joined the band,[6] Meshuggah subsequently recorded and released the I EP, which contains a single 21-minute track, released on Fractured Transmitter Records[1][9][21] Catch Thirtythree, the only album on which programmed drums have been used, was released the following year on May 31, 2005.[22]" This sentence doesn't quite work for me. I think it should be split in two, the tenses need sorting and something else. I'm not actually sure exactly what is being said.
  • "A remixed and remastered version Nothing with re-recorded" - "of Nothing", surely?
  • "Tomas Haake told Revolver:" a link to Revolver (magazine) would be good.
  • "which started in the US and proceeds to Europe, Asia, and Australia." - U.S., "will proceed" or "is now proceeding" would be better here, I think. Or maybe not, but I think the word needs changing.
  • Maybe this is just because I'm a Brit, but this is a European topic, should British English not be used? I'm looking at "caused music journalists to categorize" here.

Sorry that's so short, and sorry it's so late. Overall, I have to say it's a very well researched and written article, and I can't see any reason that it should have any problem at FAC. I'm surprised I wasn't familiar with the band until now, so thanks, I've learnt something. I may take another look over the article at some point, but this should give you a little bit to work on. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. It is all fixed now.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Like this
  2. ^ Like that
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/July_2008&oldid=704355179"