Wikipedia:Peer review/January 2011

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.

---

Cancer

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is most likely to become the med collaboration of the month in January and I think it would be a good idea for a reviewer to find out what is wrong with the article before we work on it. This way we can save some time down the road.

Thanks, Peter.C • talk 01:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments from RJHall—Here's a few thoughts I had:

• To me, the Pathophysiology section should go first, followed by Classification. That will set a baseline understanding of the disease. Causes and Prevention should be next to each other.
• In the Classification section, what is meant by "the type of cell that resembles the tumor"? This could be made clearer.
• Germ cell tumor paragraph, "In adults most often found" is awkward English. The same form is used throughout the paragraph.
• The Classification, Diagnosis, Prognosis, Signs and Symptoms, and substantial parts of the Management and History sections lack citations.
• In the Causes section, the meaning of the percentage ranges is unclear. Is this variation in cause vs. type?
• "Cancer related to ones occupation..." How is this connected to chemicals?
• In the "Ionizing radiation" section, you might also mention the effect of nuclear weapons testing, nuclear reactors, nuclear materials handling, and the atomic bomb drops on Japan.
• The Diet section seems to be a mixture of Causes and Prevention, whereas it is filed under Prevention.

—RJH (talk)

Finetooth comments: I'll limit my comments to matters related to the Manual of Style. Just at a glance, I see several things that will need attention as you develop the article.

• Large blocks of text need inline citations to reliable sources. For example the "Classification", "Signs and symptoms", and "Heredity" sections are completely without sources, as are the third and fourth paragraphs of the "Infection" section. Those are merely examples, not a complete list. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for every paragraph as well as every unusual claim, every set of statistics, every direct quotation. If an entire paragraph is supported by a single source, the citation should appear at the very end of the paragraph. In other paragraphs such as the first paragraph of the "History" section, an inline citation or citations supporting the claims in the first part of the paragraph don't cover the remaining claims, which may also need support to satisfy WP:V.

• WP:MOSBOLD favors extremely limited use of bolding. The existing article often uses bolding for emphasis, but italics should be used instead. For example, nothing in the "Classification" section should appear in bold except the section head, which is bolded automatically. The same is true of the "Glossary" section.

• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests turning lists into straight prose paragraphs when feasible. The glossary is probably best as a list, but at least some of the others are doubtful. I think the article is too list-y as it stands.

• Quite a few of the references are malformed or incomplete. Refs 9, 69, 70, and 71 are examples.

• The "Reference" entries should be in alphabetical order. The formatting of the entries should be consistent. Book entries should include, at a minimum, the author, title, date of publication, publisher, place of publication, and ISBN.

• Images should not overlap sections, and they should not displace section heads or edit buttons. MOS:IMAGES has details. File:Symptoms of cancer metastasis.svg, for example, overlaps two sections and displaces an edit button. So does File:Thorax pa peripheres Bronchialcarcinom li OF markiert.jpg.

• File:Clara Jacobi-Tumor.jpg looks out of the page and would be better positioned on the left, looking in.

• Disagreements may arise about whether or not the article is too US- and Europe-centric. I'm not saying it is, just mentioning this as something to think about as you go along. I would consider adding some examples or statistics from other parts of the Earth where feasible.

• The featured articles listed at WP:FA#Health and medicine may provide useful models to imitate.

• WP:MEDMOS has many useful tips about medical articles.

• The tools at the top of this review page find four dead links in the references and three links in the text that go to disambiguation pages rather than the intended targets.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

---

List of ATP number 1 ranked players

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has had one failed FLC with little feedback so I am hoping to nominate it again. Just need to get some feedback from the community.

Thanks, 03md 19:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Afro's Comments

• Bold is used for emphasis this is discouraged per MOS:BOLD.
• The only table which sorts correctly is in "Year-end number 1".
• The Doubles number one section seems totally inconsistent and under emphasized, in regards to coverage of the article it seems to be List of ATP number 1 ranked singles players.
• The sourcing seems to be heavily primary.
• MOS:TEXT also discourages the use of the small html tags.

Afro (Talk) 06:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-

Prose issues

• Some unnecessarily cumbersome phrasing, e.g.:-
  • "the immediate cumulative 52 weeks" - why not "the past 52 weeks"?
    • Done.
  • "their counting tournament count" → "their counting tournament total"
    • Done
  • "Since the ATP began a ranking system for the first time in 1973..." This is unnecessarily repetition of information we've only just been told. Either: "since ranking began in 1973..." or "Since 1973..."
    • Done
• "Pete Sampras holds the records of six year-end number 1, and for most weeks (286) as the top ranked player..." The nature of Sampras's first record is not clear from this. Does it mean: "Pete Sampras the record for the most year-end number 1s (six), and for most weeks..." etc?
• You can avoid repetition later in this sentence by saying: "... while Roger Federer has the most consecutive weeks..."
  • • Done
• "Two players have reached the number 1 ranking without having won a Grand Slam tournament." For clarity, you should insert "previously" after "having" (in view of Lendl's later success)
  • • Done

Useful information not provided

• How often are the rankings recalculated? After each week? After each tournament?
  • • Done - I hope that's clear enough.
• Does "year-end" refer to the end of each calendar year? Why is there a particular significance in being a year-end No. 1? (why, for example, is Federer's 6 year-end No. 1s specially noted?
  • • Done
• You explain in general terms how rankings are calculated, but there is a need to be more specific. Prsumably more points are awarded for performances in some tournamanents than in others, with Grand Slams the most pointworthy? Do you have details of this? Do points keep their full value for the whole 52 weeks and then fall off the player's record, or do they slowly depreciate in value, as with golf's PGA rankings?

Tables

Thes look very impressive. I am not able to chech the accuracy of the information, but I am assuming this has been checked and double-checked. A few minor issue:-

• If you are going to use bolded figures, this must be for a clearly-explained purpose. What, exactly, do the bolded values in the right-hand column of the first table signify? If it is each player's final total of No. 1 weeks, what about players who are still playing (Federer, Nadal etc)?
• Tiresome though it is to do, numerics always look best in columns when they are centered
• You need a specific definition of "active player"

Doubles

• There is nothing in the lead that refers to doubles, so this table came as a surprise. You need to add information in the lead relative to this table – if you propose to keep it. My own recommendation would be to make it the subject of a separate list; there is enough information here without this extra table.
• I am having some difficulty understanding this doubles table. What are the numbers in parentheses after the players' names? Also, I thought that doubles pairs would be ranked, rather than individual players, yet until around 2003 we have single players. More explanation needed.

I appreciate that the lists have been prepared with considerable effort, but believe that some further work is necessary, particularly to the accompanying text, if this is to succeed next time at FLC. Please use my talkpage if you need to discuss any points from this review, or if you want me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Mauritian Tomb Bat

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because my fellow students and I have worked very hard to raise the small stub of the Mauritian Tomb Bat and turn it into a credible article. We would like to submit it to the Wikipedia world to have it reviewed by knowledgeable people who are just as determined as we are to shed light on a subject and do it justice. We would like it to be a good article that is factual, correctly formatted, and that is presentable to the Wiki world. We would like to in the future submit it to possibly GA, or maybe even FA, but in order to obtain this we will need the insight and guidance of veteran Wikipedians and scholars. We are willing to take the hits. We would especially like to know what data we are missing, any references we missed, or other mistakes that hold back the article. Thanks you so much, Jraffe0404 (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Hello project member(s)! One broad concern I have is that there don't appear to be enough wikilinks. If a term seems complex and has an article that adequately explains it...wlink it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, and this is by no means critical at this stage in the game, can the range map be zoomed in on Africa (I will not feel bad if this comment goes unrecognized, there's a lot of work to be done before we need to worry about the appearance of the range map).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

...but if it could be done with respect that would be nice. if you are seeking someone to expend the time to critique your work - then placing such prerequisites is probably not the best way to solicit volunteers. Frankly, if the critique improves the work - we need not be hyper-sensitive to the attitude by which "the hits" are given. What do you want - a smiley face beside your grade? --JimmyButler (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And candy after!?  :-D NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Fixed. ( :) :) :), haha ) --Jraffe0404 (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone ran it through the copy-edit mill pretty good. It reads a lot better now.

(A stylistic comment I have is the lead needs to be a little more encompassing and needs to follow the layout of the article a little better. For instance, the bit about it being of 'least concern' is in the middle of the lead while it's the last section in the article.)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment:Which paper is ref #14 referring to? I've gone through and fixed a couple of ref things but this one stands out.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Modern Family

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope that eventually this article could be come a featured article or a good article like multiple other television show articles

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Maury (am I doing this right?)

Sorry, but I really don't think this is GA quality, and needs some serious work. Here are some issues:

1) too much trivia. 2) the lead is longer than the body. 3) the body is all broken up into parts with no apparent order 4) Origin and Pickup should be merged into History 5) Special Guest Stars should be removed, it is subject to change and this article is not a list. 6) The list of countries and premiers is definitely not something that should be in the article

Sorry, I realize this looks like a pile-on, and it is, but I think a couple of hours of editing could fix all of this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I agree with Maury Markowitz that the article is something of a hodge-podge with no apparent order. I have some other thoughts as well; here are a few of them:

• Isn't the material in this article already adequately covered by Modern Family (season 1) and Modern Family (season 2)? If some of the material in this article is new, couldn't it be merged with one of the other articles?

• Will readers who are color-blind be able to make sense of the color-coded chart?

• The claim (repeated twice) that the show received unanimously positive reviews is doubtful, unsourced, and contradicted in the "Criticism and controversy" section.

• Quite a few of the citations are incomplete or malformed.

• The tools at the top of this review page find three links in the text that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets and one dead link in the reference section.

• Before doing more work on this article, please consider my first question. Is the article worth saving, or should it be a candidate for deletion? Finetooth (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  

---

1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've returned to this article after a break, and would like to try to bring it to FA status. Reviews from uninvolved editors would be very helpful. I've kept a copy of the last version I can vouch for at User:SlimVirgin/Lydda3.

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle/archive2.

---

Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's been quite some time since I've worked on this page, and after a long hiatus I'm ready to work on it again. However, I've worked on some of the corrections mentioned before, and was wondering if I could get another GA review for this article so I can bump it up to that level (I admit there are plenty of flaws as-is, but would like to know how to improve). If someone could give both specific and general advice, that'd be great.

Thanks, ♥puff! 11:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• One or more print reviews for this game may be found in the Online print archive. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This sounds like a fun game. However, to have any chance at GA, the article will have to be significantly improved. The Gameplay section seems much too long to me, and that is something mentioned earlier by other peer reviewers. The sourcing is problematic in ways I discuss below, and it may be that some of it stems from original research, especially the experience of playing the game. If so, this violates WP:NOR and by itself will keep the article from attaining GA. These problems are fixable; that's the good news.

• "Black Hole has quickly recovered from their defeat... " - Shouldn't this be "its" defeat since "Black Hole" is singular?

• The first peer reviewer of this article pointed out problems with the lead, but those concerns have not been addressed. Please read the first review again and try to deal with the first two items. The lead should not include important information that does not appear in the main text, but it should summarize the whole article, not just parts of the article. WP:LEAD has details.

• Another issue raised by two reviewers in the first peer review was the length of the "Gameplay" section. It is still quite long and seems to be essentially unchanged in length since the first review. Check to be sure that none of the Gameplay section relies on original research as defined by WP:NOR rather than reliable sources per WP:RS.

• Check to be sure that the citations actually support the claims. I'm not sure they do. For example, I see nothing here about the lack of a field-training mode or Orange Star even though this source is cited for "The player begins the campaign in Orange Star, which is treated as the tutorial of the game, since Black Hole Rising has no field training mode."

• Citation 6 (used 13 times) is puzzling; what exactly is being cited? If this is meant to cite the game itself, that won't do since the game is what is called a "primary source". Making sense of a primary source usually involves original research. Instead, Wikipedia relies heavily on what are called "secondary sources", such as interpretations published in professionally edited journals (on-line or off) and similar sources as defined by WP:RS. Those kinds of sources make claims that are verifiable per WP:V, whereas original research is not verifiable.

• Some paragraphs in the article are unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to include at least one source for every paragraph as well as a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every unusual claim.

• The first peer review suggested looking at FA articles such as Turok: Dinosaur Hunter to see how other editors have handled similar topics. This is still a good idea. Note that Turok: Dinosaur Hunter has a short Gameplay section and relatively long Development and Reception sections.

• Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, citation 14 needs the author's name, Scott Jones, and the date of publication. Citations to web sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date if all of these are known or can be found.

• File:AW2Map.png should be moved so that it does not displace a section head. MOS:IMAGES has details.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

---

New Finland, Saskatchewan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to see which areas need improvement, and if there are any missing subjects. Would like to see if it could become a "good article" at some date.

Thanks, SriMesh | talk 02:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

General points

• Two disambiguation links: Dakota and St. John's Day

Fixed, thank you.

• The toolbox indicates ref 20 as a dead link, though it worked perfectly OK for me.

Works for me too.

Lead

The lead should briefly summarise the full contents of the article. This lead concentrates almost entirely on the location of the district and its geographical relation to its neighbours. It needs to be rewritten. Note that leads are broad summaries, and should not include small details

I think this lead adds some information from most of the sections of relevance, without being too long for the length of the article proper.

General prose

There are numerous prose glitches throughout the article. Some examples, taken from the History section

• "the first Finnish settler arriving to..." → "the first Finnish settler to arrive at..."

Fixed

• "...setting up a homestead on SW 1/4 Tsp 36 Rge 17 W2". You need to give a prose description of the location

Fixed, I used the abbreviations for the further usage of the legal land descriptions. In Saskatchewan, this is a commonly used rural address such as the term "123 Main Street" is a common term for urban dwellers.

• In this context it is better to say "by" or "from", rather than "as of"

Fixed

• "To this effect..." → "With this in mind..."

Fixed

• Sentences sould not begin "So, ..."

Fixed

• "This letter was in response to articles placed in the Finnish newspapers by the United States who wished to discourage settlement in Canada." It would be clearer if you said "negative articles", and placed a comma after "Unitd States". Incidentally, shouldn't this be "United States governement" (or whatever US agaency as responsible)?

Have to look up original source, or cannot make this change.

• "Many of these new immigrants were "Church Finns" who had an emphasis on religion and established their religious institution, the St. John Suomi (Finnish) Lutheran Synod by 1893; building their church in 1907." Sentence is too long, and clumsily phrased. I suggest something like "Many of these new immigrants were "Church Finns" with strong relious beliefs. By 1893 they had established their religious institution, the St. John Suomi (Finnish) Lutheran Synod; in 1907 they built their church."

Changed

• Confusion in the chronology. You report the building of the church in 1907. You then go back to 1899 to record the growing population. You follow this with an undated sentence "The community had erected both a church and two schools" – presumably referring to some time after 1907. Needs more clarity.

Fixed

• "Curently is too vague (Wikipedia articles have long lives). You need to be specific, e.g. "In 2010..."

Fixed

With this number of problems identified in the first section alone, it seems clear that the article needs a thorough all-through copyedit.

Other points

• Why give the 1899 population in the infobox?

First and only enumeration of the district

• In the infobox, the "density" is given as "5.4/km²", while the "Statistics" table shows "0.6 inhabitants per square kilometre"

The infobox density is for the community, the statistics table in the article is for the rural municipality or RM as per the prose in the demographics paragraph. Changed the statistics template for the new and improved one

• "Note:$15.00 would be the same as about 0.00" ?

This is the wikipedia template calculation which does the arithmetic automatically, I tried to make a clarification to the numerical calculation which was arrived at.

• What are the small numerals (90, 91, 160) in the Geography section?

This is the "rp" command from the wikipedia template for citations. It is a pre-written code by wikipedia programmers, you would have to take it up with them why they do their bibliographic references in this manner, it is how they advise to do it on the citation template page. The small numbers (90, 91, 160) refer to the page numbers from these books which are not online.

• In the "Statistics table, what does "Ranked Not Available out of 5,008" mean, and what is the point of including headings when information is "not available"?

I don't know this is a wikipedia template, I don't know why it was written this way, talk to the template developers for the 2006 census...it is like that on all Canadian articles which use the template, as Statistics Canada did not make the information available, Maybe the wikipedia template designers wanted the 2006 template to be comparable in statistical documentation to the 2001 template. This comment would be best asked on the 2006 census template talk page.

See that there is now a new statistics template in use, so changed to the new one...no way to change the template title as far as I can see.

As to the article's more general development, some of the sections look in need of development, e.g. Geography, Education (mostly a list of schools). I believe that this could be a credible Category B article, but a fair amount of further work is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Addressing comments made in the above PR SriMesh | talk

---

Chandra Levy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it underwent substantial expansion, notably with differing points of view that reached equilibrium prior to GA review. We are interested in the assistance of an objective third party editor to prepare the article for FA review.

Thanks, KimChee (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: An interesting is somewhat sad article, that probably needs a llittle more attention if it is to succeed at FAC. Here are some points

Thank you very much for the detailed comments. KimChee (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Disappearance and search

• Some awkward close repetitions with "that same day", "the next day" and "the same day"
  •  Done
• Should "Congressman" be capitalized? And shouldn't it be "US congressman"?
  •  Done. KimChee (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Could we be told what the Klingle Mansion is – museum, gallery, private house, etc?
  •  Done. KimChee (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• There seems to be a long gap, betweeen May 10 (search of Levy's apartment) and July 25 (search in Glover Avenue). What was happening meantime?
  •  Done. I am impressed you caught this important detail. The reason for the delay fits with events that set the tone for the rest of the article. KimChee (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Relationship with Condit

• Two "ands" in the first sentence; sugggest rephrase
  •  Done
• Word "claimed" overused in second paragraph. Possible synonyms: asserted, maintained, alleged
  •  Done. KimChee (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• It is not clear who the flight attendant Ann Marie Smith is, or why she should be questioned during the investigation
  •  Done. Added information from another source that clarifies her effect on the investigation of Condit in the Levy case. KimChee (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Word missing? "...44 percent of American respondents thought that Condit [was] involved in Levy's disappearance..."
  •  Done
• The next sentence should not begin "However...", since it doesn't counter the first; rather, it reinforces it. It is appropriate that the third sentence begins "However...", as this does present a contrast.
  •  Done
• "The poll had a margin of error of three percentage points." Not worth including; all polls do, and the mrgin of error is not a relevant factor here (even ifit understood by readers)
  •  Done
• Last sentence of section has nothing to do with the the section subject (relationship with Condit)
  •  Done. Moved to more appropriate section of the article. KimChee (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Discovery of remains

• Area statistics for Rock Creek Park differ from those shown in the park's WP article [2,820.34 acres (11.4135 km2)]
  •  Done. Upon checking, the actual area of the park is 1,754 acres; the 2,820 acres include other parks within the local jurisdiction. KimChee (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct. We are discussing the portion of Rock Creek Park within Washington DC. However, I am uncertain that the police knew that Chandra Levy would have confined her jog to the DC border. She was about a mile away from the MD line and if she had stayed on the road instead of taking the trials, she could have easily run into Maryland. So I don't know which data is best for this article. Racepacket (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Arrest of suspected killer (retitled to "Identification of the prime suspect")

• "Gaundique's former landlady stated that his face became scratched and bruised around the time of her disappearance." Should be "Levy's disappearance".
  • This sentence was rephrased because of other edits to this section (noted below), so this issue may no longer apply. KimChee (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Guandique denied attacking Levy.[34] On November 28, the FBI administered a polygraph test, which the informant failed." Clumsy, needs rwodin, e.g. "Guandique denied attacking Levy.[34] On November 28, the FBI administered a polygraph test to the informant, which he failed."
  •  Done. KimChee (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Missing from the story is any reason for the change of mind and the decision in April 2009 to prosecute Guandique. What new evidence had come to light? There are further confusions: was Guandique still in prison when the decision to charge him was taken? Why did the court order a search of his cell?
  •  Done. Another excellent observation. I added sources and information pertaining to the assignment of new police investigators in 2006 and new reporters in 2007 that influenced the outcome of the case. KimChee (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• What were these errors in processing evidence that led to a nine-month trial delay?
  •  Done. KimChee (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Trial of Guandique

• We ought to know the trial charges. Presumably first-degree murder, but later there is reference to six charges, four of which were dropped. Then we have "two remaining charges of first degree murder." Was he being accused of another murder?
  •  Done. There were variations in the murder charges that involved kidnapping and robbery. All six counts from the grand jury indictment have been added to the previous section. KimChee (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Prosecution witness Armando Morales, a fellow member of the Mara Salvatrucha gang..." Fellow-member with whom? And what is the relevance of mentioning the the gang membership?
  •  Done. Rephrased to clarify that Morales and Guandique were fellow gang members, which was relevant in establishing why Guandique would share confidential information to Morales. KimChee (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Is Morales the "informant" from the previous section? Either way, this needs to be clarified.
  •  Done. Rephrased to clarify that the first unidentified informant in the D.C. jail and Morales in the Kentucky penitentiary are two different informants. KimChee (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• At the end of the section I'm puzzled: was Guandique convicted on Morales' evidence and on the statements of the two attacked women, with no forensic evidence to link him to the Levy case?
  • Yes, your observation is correct. Though the end of the middle paragraph mentions that the defense argued what you brought up, I added a sourced comment about the conviction having been called a "miracle" for being reached through circumstantial evidence. KimChee (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Media coverage

• "Following the September 11 attacks, media critics and the cable news executives themselves cited the Levy case, as well as the concurrent sensational coverage of a string of shark attacks, as being evidence of the media in action,[59] as well as illustrating the manner of U.S. news coverage immediately preceding a major attack on the country." I don't know what is meant here, especially the last part. How could the media know that a major attack on the country was about to happen? Unless the idea behind this sentemce can be expressed more plainly, I'd recommend dropping it.
  •  Done along with other work during a subsequent peer review. KimChee (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Undocumented immigrant". This is the first indication we have that Guandique was an illegal immigrant. This should have been mentioned earlier.
  •  Done. There had previously been some discussion of relevance versus political correctness with other editors, but I have placed this detail in the lead. KimChee (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• "a tale of the tabloid and mainstream press pack journalism that helped derail the investigation." What, specifically, is this referring to? How did the press "derail" the investigation?

I hope it is clear, that the press was hounding Condit as their prime suspect, including staking out his apartment building 24/7. Racepacket (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Impact

• "...a function which it gave up in 2009". Clarify what function it gave up.
  •  Done. This was rewritten to clarify that the organization was actually merged into another. KimChee (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• A story related to a 1997 disappearance cannot be said to be part of the impact of this case. In fact, I'm not sure that very much of the information given in the section can be described as "Impact" - possibly the founding of "Wings of Protection". Maybe a different title would be appropriate.

I hope these comments are helpful, and wish you success with the article If you have queries to raise with me, would you ping my talkpage as I am not able to watch peer reviews at present. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Los Angeles Lakers

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its part of an NBA wikiproject FA push. Myself and other editors have done a lot of work on it. I'm not a Lakers fan so I've been concentrating on neutrality, a category which I feel I've helped in. Its long by standard measurements, but its only 39kb of prose. That isn't really long considering Edward Elgar, an article on a 19th century British composer, recently passed FAC with broad, unanimous support, while containing 57kb of prose.

Thanks, AaronY (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems comprehensive and generally well-written and illustrated. It has some layout problems that should not be hard to fix, and another proofing would be a good idea, particularly a sweep to ensure subject-verb agreement, as noted below.

"Text sandwiches"

• The Manual of Style advises against creating text sandwiches between images on the left and right sides of the page. A text sandwich occurs in the "1968–1974: Wilt arrives" section that I think you can fix by moving Gail Goodrich down about a half-dozen lines.

• A bigger problem occurs in "2004–2007: Rebuilding" and the section below it. Here you have a text sandwich and an image that overlaps two sections, another MOS no-no. You might be able to make File:BynumLAL.jpg fit by greatly shortening the caption. Probably one of the other two will have to be deleted to make the layout work. MOS:IMAGES has details about image placement.

• The Phil Jackson and Pat Riley images overlap sections starting with "Head coaches". Perhaps you could combine two short sections under a single head to make a section big enough for both images.

Subject-verb agreement

• This sentence occurs in the "1989–1999: Post-"Showtime" dry spell": "The next two seasons, Los Angeles made the playoffs, but were eliminated in the second and first round, respectively." - When you use "team" or "Boston" or "Los Angeles" as the subject, I think you need to use a singular verb to match the subject; i.e., Los Angeles was. On the other hand, "Lakers were" would be fine since "Lakers" is plural. It would be good to go through the article once more looking for more instances like this and fixing them; i.e., "Boston is", but the "Celtics are".

Lead

• NFL, WBNA, WBL, MVP, and other abbreviations are usually spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use in an article, as you have done with National Basketball Association (NBA).

• "... the team acquired another multiple MVP award winning center, this time Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, in 1975... " - Too many adjectives. Suggestion: "... in 1975 the team acquired another center, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who had won multiple MVP awards... "

• "They also hold the record for longest winning streak (33) in NBA history in the 1971–72 season." - Thus us a bit awkward because it seems to say that they held the longest winning streak of that particular year. Suggestion: "They also hold the record for the NBA's longest winning streak (33), set during the 1971–72 season."

1947–59

• "They had hired Mikan, who had been the team's General Manager for the previous two seasons... " - This should be "general manager" without the caps, just like "head coach".

1959–68

• "Led by Baylor's 34.8 ppg and 19.8 rpg, Los Angeles won 11 more games in West's first season." - This might be interpreted to mean that the team won only 11 games that season. I think you mean that they won 11 more than the year before; that is, 36 games.

• "a potential game winning 18 foot jump shot" - Add hyphens to compound adjectives; i.e., "a potential game-winning 18-foot jump shot".

• Would it make sense to link "jump shot" to jump shot (basketball) here on first use in the article? How about "center" and "forward" in the first sentence of the first section after the lead? Ditto for any other special terms that some readers might not understand.

1974–1979"

• Something is missing from the caption, "Los Angeles acquired Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in the 1975." Or should "the" be deleted?

1979–1989

• "Using last year's Finals defeat as motivation... " - It might be more clear to say, "Using the past year's Finals defeat as motivation... ".

1999–2004

• "After taking a three games to one lead in the Western Conference Finals, the Trail Blazers won the next two games to force a game seven." - The logic of this sentence is that the Blazers took a 3–1 lead in the series, but that's not correct. Suggestion: "After the Lakers took a 3–1 lead in the Western Conference Finals, the Trail Blazers won the next two games to force a game seven."

• "The 2003–04 team played in a media circus created by the teaming of four stars and the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case." - The sentence suggests that the the media circus focused on the teaming of four stars with a sexual assault case, but that is not the case. Suggestion: "During the 2003–04 season, the media often focused on the team's four stars and on a sexual-assault case involving Kobe Bryant."

• "and wrote a book about the Lakers 2003–04 season where he heavily criticized Bryant" - "Where" seems to modify "season". Suggestion: "and wrote a book, in which he heavily criticized Bryant, about the Lakers 2003–04 season".

References

• Citation 65 has a date format that should be flipped from 14 December 2010 to December 14, 2010. All of the citations should use the same date formatting.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment We have some people working on those right now. I have an additional comment; should we mention their cheerleaders in here? I have a source that says while they were in Mennesota they became the first team to have cheerleaders. AaronY (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm also a little concerned with this sportsecyclopedia website:[1] How do we know that this is reliable and passes WP:RS? AaronY (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced that website with a reliable print source in all but two instances. If someone wants help replace the last two that would be great. AaronY (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've done most of the comments above. The abbreviations and linking of special terms are not done, I will finish then in a day or two.—Chris!_c/t 20:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Median nerve palsy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I am a student from California Polytechnic State University in Pomona. We are doing a class project for a Kinesiology class called Movement Anatomy and Kinesiology. As part of the project, our group is responsible for researching a topic and either updating a Wikipedia article or creating a new one. We decided to create the Median nerve palsy page. Any input would be helpful. Thanks, Jjjballr911 (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. This is a good start, and I have several suggestions for further improvement.

• Significant parts of the text lack citations to a source or sources. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for every paragraph in the article except, usually, the lead. If one source can verify all of the claims in a paragraph, the citation should come at the very end of the paragraph. In addition, each set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every unusual claim should be supported by a reliable source. The first three paragraphs in the "Anatomy" section, for example, are without sources even though the claims they make cannot be said to be common knowledge. They do not at the moment meet the guidelines of WP:V.

• The lead of a Wikipedia article should be an inviting summary or abstract of the whole article rather than an introduction. Nothing important should appear only in the lead. On the other hand, it's a good idea to write a lead that includes at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead, for example, says nothing about "Diagnosis". I wouldn't worry much about rewriting the lead, though, until the other revisions are done. I usually re-write my leads one more time at the very end of the process; I can't do a proper summary until I know for sure what needs to be summarized. WP:LEAD has further details.

• The language of the "Anatomy" section is highly technical. Although it's not possible to make every topic clear to every reader, the Wikipedia audience includes many people unfamiliar with specialized jargon. The links help, but it's a good idea to try to explain at least some of the terms in ordinary English. Instead of just pronator teres, for example, you might write "a forearm muscle called the pronator teres".

• Since an encyclopedia audience is general, it's better to use a word like "people" than "patients" and to avoid describing the audience as "you". WP:MEDMOS is a good source of information about writing about medicine.

• It's often helpful to look at featured articles covering similar topics. WP:FA#Health and medicine lists such articles.

• Many of the citations are just bare urls. At a minimum, a citation to a web site should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access. I find it helpful to use the "cite" family of templates to organize the citations. You will find these at WP:CIT. If you use them, don't mix them with the "Citation" family of templates found at WP:CIT also. Look at Asperger Syndrome in edit mode, for example, to see how {{cite journal}} is used.

• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests turning lists into straight prose whenever feasible. The existing article is too list-y. For example, the lists in "Signs and symptoms" and "Causes" would be easy to render as plain prose.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Written Chinese

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in preparation for submission to FA. I appreciate time and attention spent on any or all sections of the article.

Thanks, BrianTung (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Instead of a long blow-by-blow list of items, I have done a bit of copy editing of the article and added some links, and a comparison of those would convey more information than a written list (and I'd rather edit anyway). While the article is very informative and interesting, it needs copy editing to clarify some sentences and get rid of repetitiveness. Some sentences need to be broken up and some words aren't quite suitable in terms of diction. You might want to ask a good copy editor such as Ericoides (talk) to work with you on the article, because as far as I can tell that's the only problem I can see that would keep it from attaining FA status. It's a shame Ling.Nut (talk) retired. You also might want to reformat the refs in WP:HARV style; a more professional visual appearance seems to be important in the FA process. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Some comments:

• The page makes extensive use of simplified characters, long before the article mentions their existence. I suggest that you briefly mention the existence of simplified characters in the lead (and say that this article includes both traditional and simplified versions of the characters, when the two are different).
• Suggest moving the 2 sentences about the characters being square to after the third sentence in the first paragraph of that section (where you talk about the components being combined). You can then start a new paragraph about the Shuowen Jiezi.
• In the font on my computer, a lot of the characters are difficult to read. Perhaps you should use inline images, or a larger font for the example characters that you are using to illustrate various points about their composition. (Use the normal font where it is just translation.)
• In the section about stroke order, it would be nice to have an animation of a character being drawn (including which direction the strokes are in)
• Speaking of which, I don't think that you mention direction of the strokes - e.g. whether horizontal lines are written left-to-right or right-to-left
• I would say that in the PRC, left-to-right order is near-universal
• The section on simplified vs traditional characters seems to have a strong PoV in favour of traditional characters
• It is probably worth mentioning that modern readers who are used to simplified characters will have difficulty reading traditional characters (if at all), and presumably vice versa.
• Perhaps move the "Function" section to before "Evolution"
• You don't mention Radicals for simplified Chinese
• There should probably be a section describing how characters are entered in computers and mobile phones. (For example, mobile phones allow you to enter either the pinyin, or to enter the stroke order - a photo of a Chinese mobile-phone keypad will help in this description.)

Bluap (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Josef Fitzthum

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…an image has been added to the infobox from the German Wikipedia page of Josef Fitzthum. Would like to see the article assessed from "Stub" and assess WP Germany. I feel an effort has been made to improve the article from a "Stub". Feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, Adamdaley (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

I've updated the assessment to Start class. I am unable to assess B2 (coverage and accuracy), but feel that at least each paragraph needs an inline citation at the end of the paragraph if it is to make B class. Beyond that, other suggestions I have are mainly presentation:

• there is a typo in this clause: "as a commander of the for the establishment of the Aufstellung..." (of the for the...) which should be fixed;
• there is an issue with this clause: "...the Austrians had done here during..." ("here" is the issue, it should be "there");
• what is the relevance of the Literature section? Is it necessary? Does it relate to the conflict as a whole, or just to the subject? AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Australian Rupert - To me the literature maybe books containing additional information about Josef Fitzthum and the Waffen SS he was in during World War II? I don't have any of those books, or read German, even though I did learn a little German in High School for 10 weeks. Thanks for looking at the article. Adamdaley (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Australian Rupert - They are books containing information. Although I cannot find ALL of them on [Amazon.com], the one's I do find are books containing the author's name and name of book. Maybe that section could be renamed to "Further Reading"? Adamdaley (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009

This isn't a period I'm a specialist in, but one gap in the article seems to be Fitzhum's political views. It notes that he was notable as a politician, and I'm guessing (given his SS links!) that he was on the right-wing of European politics at the time, but it would be useful to explain what he stood for, why he was politically detained etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not much into politics myself especially a foreign country's politics and a time that was way before my time! Adamdaley (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Critical responses to David Irving

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This article did not have a discussion page and WP Banners. Would like to know if I have added the correct banners and receive feedback from possible improvements or corrections of my own edits. Like to receive input on Rating the WP Banners and their importance where required. Thanks, Adamdaley (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Adamdaley, I'm somewhat unclear about your reason for requesting peer review. As stated on the instruction page, peer review is generally for mature, high-quality articles that are being prepared for the featured article process. If you are just looking for general feedback, you should use the article talk page. Anyone can assess an article up through B-class; you don't need to request a peer review to assess the article. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Interpretive science

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in getting feedback on what needs improvement and how this (really short) article could be expanded.

Thanks, Novus Orator 09:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I apologize my review has been slow - I have had some internet connection issues and lost a nealry complete reveiew. This is so short there is not a lot to comment on, but, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The article needs to be expanded and once that happens it will need a lead section. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nNothing 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. I can see this having at least three sections on expansion: 1) a definition section with some concrete examples; 2) a history section; and 3) a criticism section
• The article needs to give the reader a clearer idea of what the theory involves. This could include the current definitions in the article and should also include some specific concrete examples of how it has been used in several disciplines
• The history would tell who introduced the theory, when and why. Where has it had its greatest successes? Is it more common in certain fields of study or certain countries or certain universities?
• The criticisms section would follow WP:NPOV and maintain a neutral point of view, but still present the positive and negative reaction to and criticism of the theory
• The external links tool in the tool box in the upper right corner finds one dead EL
• The quotes should not be italicized per WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:ITALIC
• The references need some work. First off, please make sure that the sources used are all reliable. What makes sociology.com a reliable source, for example? I was surprised that there were no books were used as sources and that it appeared that no journal articles were cited.
• Make sure that refs give full information - for example currrent ref 2 gives full citation information at the very bottom of the web page "Myers, M. D. "Qualitative Research in Information Systems," MIS Quarterly (21:2), June 1997, pp. 241-242. MISQ Discovery, archival version, June 1997, http://www.misq.org/discovery/MISQD_isworld/. MISQ Discovery, updated version, last modified: September 23, 2010 www.qual.auckland.ac.nz" The current ref in the article is just "Michael D. Myers. "Roots of Interpretive Research". Association for Information Systems. http://www.qual.auckland.ac.nz/. Retrieved 21 October 2010."
• The second quotation used is incorrectly cited (the article cites a source, but that source is quoting this material itself).
• I would link to Verstehen which seems related.
• I would explain how (if??) this theory can explain things like Chemistry and Physics and much of Biology (where the positivist model has been extraordinarily successful).
• None of the see alsos actually seem to discuss this theory in their articles - they link to it in their see also section (and Inforamtion theory does not link to it at all)
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details
• In general peer review is for well developed articles - this is not, but I hope these suggestions are useful.

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Richard Riot

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I had come across this article and felt that it was in good shape to be a Good article. I added references and expanded the intro and some of the sections. I would like to know if there are any changes than need to be made to this article prior to going to GAN. Any advice on improvements to it, and a quick look to be sure I have not made any glaring grammatical errors.

Thanks, Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'll try to do a more thorough review later (ping me if I forget), but some quick thoughts:
  • Neither of the FU images of the newspapers add anything that cannot be conveyed by prose, imo, so I suspect they fail WP:NFCC. Also, why no picture of Richard himself?

Removed the NFCC pics and replaced with free images including one of Richard

• • I don't see any value in the template conversion of the fines into 2010 dollars. Seems unnecessary to me, and lacks context.

I thought that since I had used the template on the damages that all of the money values should have them. I have removed them.

• • There are aspects of the riot that are mentioned in History of the National Hockey League (1942–1967) that aren't noted here: namely, the opinion of the English media, fans and players, Richard's personal appeal to stop the rioting, and his promise to come back the next season and lead the team to the Cup.

Thanks, for pointing out the additional information. It will take a little of time to incorporate the new information. Richards appeal is noted at the bottom of the riot section.

• • There should be more on his impact on the Quiet Revolution, and the long term legacy of the incident.

Most of the references I found only mention it in passing, but I will dig up some more references and try yo expand this more.

• Resolute 19:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I agree with User:Resolute about the images and the dollar conversions, and I'm too unfamiliar with the history of the incident to have any idea about missing content. The dollar conversions, as I understand them, depend on which calculator you use. In the case of small fines like these, the conversions don't seem important enough to bother with. Here are just a few observations of my own:

• The Clarence Campbell quotation is much too long; by my rough count, it's about 275 words. My rule of thumb is to avoid exceeding 100 words. More than that is likely to be a copyright violation. WP:COPYVIO has some information, and WP:NONFREE has more, including this: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea... Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." I'd be inclined to paraphrase the essence of what Campbell said rather than quoting him.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll have to take a look at it and figure out the best way to paraphrase the quote.

• The date formatting in the citations needs to be consistent.

• The items in the "Bibliography" section should be arranged alphabetically by the authors' last names.

• For book entries, please include the place of publication. WorldCat usually has this information if you don't have it in your notes.

Thanks for the link I'll have to find and add those.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the comments looks like I've got some more work to do.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 04:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can add from my sources. In particular, I have a book, Canada on Ice, that features numerous Maclean's Magazine stories about hockey, including an 18-pager on the riot. Hopefully I can add some from that in the next day or too. Overall though, this article does look close as is. Resolute 03:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Anything you could add would be greatly appreciated, and although this goes without saying feel free to change anything in the current article you think could be done better. Thanks--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Maxim comments: Generally good, but it was lacking a bit with regards to long-term implications outside of hockey in Quebec.

• I started a bit, but I have a strong feeling that relevant material that could be added related to Quebec would be in French sources.

that was a big concern of mine as I was trying to dig up material about the correlation in a more substantial way then just mentioning it had an impact.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 06:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Lead is short.
• There are a few stubby paragraphs (e.g. after the Campbell quote; I agree with Finetooth that it should be trimmed, it really is excessively long)
• There might be structure issues with regards to background information -- I think it's interspersed throughtout the article too much. I'm not the main editor of the article, so I'm reluctant to make really sweeping changes, but I'm thinking a Background section would be beneficial. What I'd include is a bit about Maurice Richard (previous incidents (so first paragraph from the Incident section), his cultural status, about his career a bit), previous ethnic tensions, and basically how the atmosphere was like in the NHL at the time (so perhaps move the cartoon if found acceptable to that background seciton).

I wouldn't consider myself the main editor myself (the article has remained pretty stable for over a year), but I think you make a good point about adding the background section. I'll try to add one but I don't know what my editing time is going to be like over the next week or so. If you want to (not asking you to btw) feel free to add it in other wise I will attempt to add it in a little while.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 06:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

background section added.

• Images were really small before.

Thanks for increasing them they do look better at the larger size.

Hope this helps. Maxim_(talk) 22:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ravenswing comments: I quite disagree on the Campbell quote. First off, "too long?" "Too long" for what? Is there a MOS limit to which people are referring? Or is this just a personal preference? Secondly, there is no copyvio involved; the quote is from the official statement released by the league on the matter, and is no more under copyright than any other press release. Since this is the only policy-based reason proffered to truncate the quote any more than it already has been, the quote should be restored.  Ravenswing  01:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'm indifferent about the quote, I removed it because of the above concerns. As it stands the quote was sourced from a copy-written book, which I think the Vio claim is referring to, Don't know if that makes a difference or not (I tried to find a different reference for the quote and was unable to find a reliable source prior to changing it by doing a Google search and was unable to find anything containing the entire quote). I also understand the comments about it being long as you do kind of get lost in it. Right now I'm inclined to keep it out but if a consensus is reached I have no problem with re-adding it.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 02:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I plan on readding it myself, if the only policy-based objection is the erroneous one of copyvio.  Ravenswing  23:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Cuisine of Madagascar

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to take this GA article to FA but since this is my first time, I invite an experienced editor to provide feedback on any changes that may be required to achieve the FA level of quality.

Thank you! -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Speak with User:Ruhrfisch, great PR guy.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just from going through the toolbox links on the right, the images need alt text and the sea also and notes sections should be switched in order.--Banana (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think this is fixed now. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is very good. The prose is professional throughout; the article is well-organized and well-illustrated. The one thing that caught my eye again and again were the over-linking and under-linking. Here are a few comments and suggestions:

• The linking in the lead is a bit strange. For example, Malagasy is linked on second use rather than first; zebu is linked twice; rice is linked, but maize and cassava are not.

• My rule of thumb for wikilinks is to decide what terms to link, then to link them no more than once in the lead and no more once in the main text. Exceptions occasionally arise but not often. In every case, it's best to link a term on its first appearance rather than later. I would not link pastoralist more than once, but I'd link swidden agriculture on first use. You are right to link tenrec, but why not link hedgehog?

• I'd suggest making the heads and subheads more telegraphic. For example, "History of Malagasy cuisine" would be better as "History"; readers will know from the article name what kind of history is meant. Rather than repeating "cuisine" and Malagasy" in "Contemporary Malagasy cuisine", I'd suggest something like "Contemporary dishes". "Early period: Prior to 1650" could be shortened to "Before 1650"; there's no need to say that this was early. The post-colonial subhead could become "After 1896".

Early period

• Link to Malaysia and Polynesia in the first sentence (Malayo-Polynesian).

• "which corresponds with the emergence of complex, structured polities in the Highlands" - Link to polity?

Slave-trade period

• "Manioc was brought after 1735... " - Link "manioc" to cassava or change to "Manioc (cassava)... "?

• "and drinking coffee and tea on the northern coast and rice cakes" - For clarity, maybe "and drinking coffee and tea on the northern coast, and eating rice cakes... "? Otherwise the sentence suggests that "drinking" applies to the rice cakes.

Kingdom of Madagascar

• "King Andrianampoinimerina successfully united these fractious groups under his rule, then used slaves and forced labor (exacted in lieu of taxes for those without means to offer material payment) to systematically work the irrigated rice fields around Antananarivo, ensuring regular grain surpluses enough to feed the entire population consistently and export products for trade with other regions of the island." - Too complex. I'd suggest breaking this into two separate sentences.

Colonial and post-colonial

• Link Mille-feuille and croissant?

• I changed it so terms link on first use only and took action on all the other revisions you cited here. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Images

• I'd make the lead image 300px instead of "thumb".

• I'd consider moving File:Zafimaniry woman.jpg to the right side of the page so that she aims in rather than out. Because of the way she is bending, she is directional. She might swap places with the rice-paddy image to maintain your left-right alternating layout pattern.

• File:Kaka pizon (pigeon) Madagascar food.jpg should be moved to the Commons and the old tag replaced with the new one (after the move). Likewise File:Kobandravina.jpg.

• I don't actually know how to move files to the commons, but I will poke around and try to figure it out. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• I might suggest fleshing out some of the image description pages a bit to make it easy for the FAC fact-checkers to determine that the licenses are correct and the descriptions complete. I looked at all of them; I replaced the old "move to Commons" tag on two of them with the new tag since they'd already been moved. That's how I came to notice the two that hadn't been moved. Any photos that you took yourself should say something like "own photo" in the description so that there's no doubt about the authorship. As far as I can tell, the licenses are valid; one of the Flikr photos is not checkable, but the other Flickr photos were licensed CC-by-SA with no restrictions that would cause problems on Wikipedia.

• I made all your suggested changes to the images in the article... although I had a little trouble figuring out how to change descriptions once the files were moved to commons. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thank you, -- Lemurbaby (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this very interesting article (which made me hungry reading it). I agree with all of Finetooth's comments above and, as requested, here are some affitional suggestions for improvement.

• I would try to avoid vague time expressions like "to this day" and "today" and "recently". Instead if possible try to use terms like "as of YEAR", so Bol renversé, a type of fried rice from neighboring Mauritius, has been recently popularized in upscale urban restaurants.[19] could perhaps be something like Bol renversé, a type of fried rice from neighboring Mauritius, became popular in upscale urban restaurants shortly before 2010.[19] (I am guessing based on the date of the ref book) One problem is that things can become outdated fairly quickly, so "recently" in 2010 may not seem so in 2012 (only 366 days away).
• There are a few sentences that may be challenged at FAC as needing references. The two I found just now were By 600 CE groups of these early settlers had moved inland and began clearing the forests of the central Highlands. as well as Smoked and dried seafood and meats, fruits, dried maize and cassava, salt and other products were exchanged between regions at designated marketplaces. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• I would say explicitly somewhere early in the article that French is one of the official languages of the island (since so many of the foods have French names)
• Imports section has two paragraphs which are only one sentence long - the effect is a bit choppy and I wondered if these could be combined with other paragraphs (or perhaps expanded)
• Great images!
• I was a little surprised that only three cookbooks are cited as refs (as far as I can tell - my French is non-existent)
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details

• There are very few cookbooks on Malagasy cuisine in any language. I'm working on an English-language one for publication early this year. I have made changes to remove vague language as well as I could in ways that can be substantiated. Thank you for your helpful comments. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Elimination Chamber

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has had more work done on it since its last peer review, FLC, & GAC. I would like to know if it's finally ready for anything.

Thanks, Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 01:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• The concerns from the GA Review three months ago have not been addressed. Since there have been no substantial edits since that review, I recommend starting with that list first. See here for the review comments. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Emirates (airline)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, given how transparent Emirates' board and inner workings is, and how well known the airline is, I'm surprised that the airline is not up to GA standard.

Thanks, Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 04:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The article is not ready for GAN. Here is a short, incomplete list of problems. I don't see your name in the list of significant contributors here. I hope you are planning to work on the article.

• The tools at the top of this review page find 12 dead urls in the citations and a link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.

• The article has a major clean-up tag at the top of the "History" section. The issues raised by this tag and the "citation needed" tags should be addressed.

• Some paragraphs in the article are without sources. For example, the second and fourth paragraphs of the "Origins" section lack sources even though they make claims that include dates and statistics. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every claim that is unusual, and at least one citation for every paragraph.

• The external videos, if used at all, belong in the "External links" section rather than in the main text. Likewise, the link to Wikinews.

• Many of the citations, such as citation 101, are incomplete. Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access, if all of those are known or can be found.

• Where feasible, lists should be turned into regular prose paragraphs. WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has details.

• Images should not overlap sections or displace edit buttons or create text sandwiches. WP:MOS#Images has details.

• The Manual of Style frowns upon extremely short sections and extremely short paragraphs, which give articles a choppy look and feel. Two solutions are to expand or merge the shorties.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Geelong High School

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am requesting a peer review for this article because I would like to get some feedback on what is needed to bring this article up to Good Article status. The article is a C-class article at the moment and I want to improve it even further.

Thanks, Joker264 (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I like seeing articles about schools, and I have no doubt that you can improve this one. Here are several suggestions that should help get you started.

• Many of the claims in the article are not supported by inline citations to reliable sources and thus do not meet WP:V. The entire "History" section, for example, is without sources. My rule of thumb is to include a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every claim that is unusual, and every paragraph. If one source supports an entire paragraph, the inline citation belongs at the end of the paragraph.

• The lede should be an inviting summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. It might be good to put off major revisions to the lede, though, until you've finished with major revisions to the main text. Even though the lede comes first, I often write it last.

• Why are all the images red-linked and invisible?

• Avoid starting sentences with numbers. "1973 saw the old canteen converted into an arts/craft room... " is an example.

• Use blockquotes instead of fancy quotes for quotations of four lines or more. WP:MOSQUOTE has details.

• The Manual of Style frowns upon extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sections because they create a choppy look and feel. Two options for fixing shorties is to expand them or to merge them with other shorties.

• Try to write ordinary prose paragraphs when feasible rather than creating lists. I use lists only when prose really can't do the job. WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has details.

• Most of the citations are malformed or incomplete. Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all of those are known or can be found. I like using the "cite" family of templates found at WP:CIT to help me organize my citations. If you choose to use these, don't mix them with the "Citation" family found at WP:CIT also. You can see how these work in edit mode by looking at other articles that use them. See Plano Senior High School, for example, which is a featured article.

• Although featured articles are not perfect, they are often good models to imitate. You can find a list of other featured articles about schools at WP:FA#Education.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Herbie Hewett

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been promoted to GA, and as I feel I have got this article as far as I can, I'd like opinion on whether there is enough here to take the article onto FA. Hewett had a relatively short cricket career, retiring early, so the article is quite short. Primarily due to the fact that he wasn't an overly prominent player, and due to the time period he played in, there is little information on his personal (and non-cricketing) life. It is unlikely that much more can be revealed on this, although little gems may be gleaned.

Thanks, Harrias ^talk 22:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I am not an expert on cricket, but I enjoyed it and could follow most of it. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

• One of the FAC criteria is comprehensiveness, so the fairly sparse amount of material on his life outside of and after his cricket career may be a problem. I wondered if any contemporary obituaries might have useful information? When I read the article, my three main questions were: 1) more about his time at Oxford (what did he study, when did he start and finish his studies), 2) how did he earn a living (was he a professional cricketer - but the lead says he was an amateur)? did he live off an inherited sum of money as so many upper and middle class people seemed to in that era), and 3) what did he do for the last 20 years of his life (besides the few details given)?
• I have access to an archive of the Times and his death notice says he was the only son and names his father (it is quite short otherwise). The Times, Monday, Mar 07, 1921; pg. 1; Issue 42662; col A Says he was the "only son to the late William Henry Hewett" and that the funeral would be held the next day (March 8) at Norton Fitzwarren, Somerset. Both of these items could be included in the article.
  • I also now found his obituary in The Times - it only talks about cricket - Mr. H. T. Hewett. (Obituaries) The Times Monday, Mar 07, 1921; pg. 14; Issue 42662; col D

~~*Have added some detail in from this. Harrias ^talk 22:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I do not think the article is "quite short" - I used the page size tool and it is 22 kB (3824 words) "readable prose size"
• The disambig link finder shows that there is one dab link that will need to be fixed.
  • Fixed.Harrias ^talk 22:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - most articles link a term once in the lead and then once on first occurrence in the body of the article. Here, as one example, Wisden Cricketers' Almanack is linked four times in the article.
  • Have fixed those that I have spotted. Harrias ^talk 22:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Language concerns - overall the prose is good, but it has to be at a professional level of ENglish to pass FAC (which is often one of the most difficult criteria for articles to meet). I will try to point out some language an other issues as I read through the article.
• Lead - 1st paragraph has three sentences in a row beginning with "he" - try to vary this. I would also start the first sentence of the third paragraph with Hewlett instead of he.
• The lead should probably mention in some way what little is known about his life outside of cricket, probably in the last sentence or at last the third paragraph.
  • Have mentioned he was a barrister. Harrias ^talk 22:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• In Early life I would say what year he started at Oxford and probably gives his age.
  • I don't have anything solid on this; he played the Freshman's match in 1884, but I'm not certain if he started in late 1883, or early 1884, both were possible at the time.
• In Oxford and Somerset (1884–1888) I would include some statement early on about how long he was at Oxford, and also give anything that is known about what he studied or his final degree (or lack thereof).
  • Ditto above; I'll do a little more digging, but may have to just specify that I can't specify! Harrias ^talk 22:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Needs a ref : He made one other appearance in 1884, against Lancashire.
  • Added. Harrias ^talk 22:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Watch for places where the prose can be tightened: His first match for Somerset that season was made against Hampshire in mid-July, during which he scored his maiden half-century in first-class cricket, remaining 50 not out in the second-innings of a five-wicket victory for Somerset.[12] could be something like Hewett scored his maiden half-century in first-class cricket in mid-July, in his first match for Somerset; he remained 50 not out in the second-innings of a five-wicket victory for Somerset over Hampshire.[12]
• There are several reviewers at FAC who really do not like verb + ing constructions, so I would try to avoid them wherever possible (a few is OK)
• I am not sure what the score-asterisk means - can it be linked or somehow briefly explained at its first use He started the 1886 season well, scoring 151 for his college and 164* for Perambulators against Etceteras.[1] I was also not clear what the two teams were - Oxford clubs??
• More tightening possible Although he top-scored in the Seniors Match,[14] he was not initially selected for the eleven and it was not until the university's third game that he was selected. could be something like Although he top-scored in the Seniors Match,[14] he was not selected for the eleven until the university's third game.
• What team was he playing for in The next year, 1888, he scored back to back half-centuries early in the season against Warwickshire and Staffordshire before making his debut for the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC).[20][21] Assume Somerset?
• This section says 1887 was his final year at Oxford, but later this sounds like an Oxford match in 1888 - was he playing as a student or an alumnus? ...scoring 201* for Senior Common Room against Christ Church in 1888.[24]
  • I don't know, I don't have access to that source, I'll see if User:Nigej can help. Harrias ^talk 22:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• I would try to get someone who has not seen the article to do a light copyedit. You could also try not reading it for a few days, then printing it out and reading it out loud slowly.
• It looks like you have been very diligent in tracking down sources - if there really is nothing else on his life outside cricket, then I would make this very clear in the nomination at FAC.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details
• I would also make sure that the first sentence of a new section states the obvious - for example in the Captaining Somerset section, the first sentence mentions neither Somerset nor the fact that he was captain.
  • Bit of confusion, think I must have moved half a sentence over and not the other, which resulted in some duplication between sections too! Harrias ^talk 22:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• The lead says "Hewett practised as a barrister, having been called to the Bar at the Inner Temple." but the body of the article just says "Hewett trained as a barrister at the Inner Temple, where he passed at least one exam in 1890."
• I was thinking that the article could say something like "Hewett's obituary in The Times only mentioned his cricket career, and did not mention his later life." I also think it could say something like "His obituary did not mention a spouse or children."

Nopt sure what else you want me to look at - if you have specific questions, please ask on my talk page, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Iran

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list.

Thanks, *** in fact *** (contact) 13:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Please see the Good Article reassessment review at Talk:Iran/GA1. A quick check shows that the reviewer's suggestions there have been largely ignored, for example the first one: "Text should not be squeezed between left- and right-aligned images" and the second one, "There are at least four dead links." The existing article has many text sandwiches between images, and the link-checker tool at the top of this review page finds at least 26 dead links and others that are suspicious. Please consider each of the recommendations made by the reassessment reviewer before seeking another formal review. Finetooth (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Not Myself Tonight

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it can easily become a GA with a some modification. Thanks, ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 22:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• Dablinks (tool in the box on the right of this peer review page) shows a disambiguation link; please fix it.

• Checklinks show a dead link.

Lede

• Two consecutive times of having "The song" start a sentence might be repetitive.

• "... in the dancefloor."

  "... on the dance floor."

• "some reviewers also referred to it as her best uptempo recording since her 2002 single "Dirrty"."

  Not supported by sources; see below.

• "... featured a S&M theme, ..."

  S&M might not be commonly familiar enough to warrant bypassing expanding it into its full term (per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Abbreviations). That said, if the abbreviation is used, then it is "an S&M", not "a S&M".

• "... has been performed by Aguilera at The Oprah Winfrey Show ..."

  "On" the show, not "at". Does it really matter? Lots of artists perform their songs on talk shows.

Background

• "Aguilera revealed the title of her upcoming album, as well as the name of three new songs in the February 2010 issue of Marie Claire magazine."

  Consider that a reader decide to skip the lede (which is a summary of the article) and starting the main text. This sentence does not help him or her and might prove more confusing (Full name of Aguilera? What is "her upcoming album"? What does this have to do with "Not Myself Tonight"?).

• "... after a twenty-four hour countdown on her official website ended, ..."

  "Ended" is redundant.

• "it was revealed that a song called "Not Myself Tonight" would be released as the first single from the album."

  "A song called" is redundant.

• "The single's artwork was also published, showing Aguilera dressed as a devil and sporting a PVC bodysuit, suspenders and chains."

  Awkward phrasing: "sporting" can be associated with the "artwork". See User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing on the issues with noun plus -ing constructs and how to resolve the issues with such constructs.

• "... an 18 second excerpt ..."

  "... an 18-second excerpt ..."

• "... but actually received its first full airing ..."

  "Actually" is dramatic; the sentence can be simplified to "... but was aired ..."

• "... and then was released via download ..."

  "Then" is redundant. Available for download from where?

• "... on U.S. radio on April 5, 2010, and then was released via download in the United States and many other countries ..."

  It seems weird to see the abbreviated country name first, then the full spelling.

Critical reception

• "The song received positive reviews from critics, warming up to Aguilera's return to her sound and style of the "Dirrty" era. James Montgomery of MTV News ... Bill Lamb from About.com gave the song ... Vibe magazine was impressed with the song: ... Anthony Ramos of Access Hollywood said "The tribal-beat infused track is her sexiest record we've heard since 2002's "Dirrty" ..."

  Except for Ramos, none of the other reviewers mentioned "Dirrty". How does this back up "her best uptempo recording since her 2002 single" in the lede?

  Do not use curly quotation marks (single and double).

• I am not enamoured with what I see as a quote farm; basically, the section is a listing of quotes from the reviewers. Long quotes (longer than 4 sentences) are supposed to be block quoted; the way this section is written, it would be several blocks (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Block quotations. It would be better to analyze the commentaries and arrange relevant points in thematical paragraphs.

Chart performance

• What is "most added song"?

• "It is Aguilera's third highest chart debut behind 2008's "Keeps Gettin' Better" debuting at number seven ..."

  Again a noun plus -ing problem. This sentence can be interpreted that "Not Myself Tonight" debuted at number seven (which is wrong).

Music video

• "... filmed from April 7 to April 9, 2010, over three days in Los Angeles, ..."

  There are three redundant words.

• "Each day it featured a different look of Christina portrayed in the video. It premiered on Vevo on April 30, 2010."

  The website ("It") premiered on Vevo on that day?

• Again, long quotations (longer than 4 sentences) are recommended to be block quoted.

• '""A lot of that [video]" ...'

  Why the double double-quotation marks.

• "Aguilera sporting several hairstyles and outfits, ..."

  "Aguilera sported/wore <choose one or the other, I think "wore" would be better"> several hairstyles and outfits, ..."

• "Actress Jenna Dewan appears in the video as a woman that Aguilera straddles."

  Does it matter?

Influences and concept

• "... monocle Xtina wears ..."

  Who is Xtina? Even though this is a quote, it can be explained via square brackets (WP:MOSQUOTE).

• "The ending scenes of the clip feature product placement of Aguilera's fragrance."

  I question the significance of this.

Reception

• "As with the song itself, several critics praised the video for its return to Aguilera's Stripped era, ..."

  Again, a single reviewer's opinion (Montgomery's) does not make for "several critics".

• Less than the earlier "Critical reception" section, but there is still a sense of a quote farm here.

Live performances

• " ... on June 10, 2010 and ..."

  Missing comma

Sources

• About.com is a situational source: it is not a reliable source in terms of Wikipedia's policy, but its author might be experts of the field. What makes Bill Lamb a recognized expert on the subject (note: this means industrial recognition)? Ref: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches.

Media

• File:Christina Aguilera - Not Myself Tonight.jpg

  Fails WP:CITE#IMAGE. Where exactly was this image obtained from?

• File:Notmyselftonight.ogg

  Specifically what elements of this sample are critically discussed in the article, and cannot be reasonably explained in words to help readers understand those critical commentary? Left unexplained in the fair use rationale, this could constitute failure of WP:NFCC #8.

• File:Not express myself.JPG

  The contextual significance here is a bit thin. One might argue that there is no reason for a visualization of Montogmery's comments.

Addressing the above would raise the article's chances for GA or FA. Jappalang (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Novice7

• Just one thing. What's the significance of Madonna's music video screenshot in the article? Doesn't it fail WP:NFCC criteria 8? If Aguilera's music video screenshot is placed along with Madonna's, to provide comparison, it'd be better.Novice7 | Talk 16:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Pyramid Head

lkxuhyidtfhvuixogjufjcjkcbjicjcdkhgfihfdifhzxjfzjdhzkfgvljlsdihod;gtfhpzosrfhrisvelmv0rdtyrean miller

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it is close to becoming a featured article (it recently reached A-class), but not quite. Basically, I would like to know how to improve it. Thanks, Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I had never heard of Pyramid Head before reading this. I found the article to be more interesting than many pieces about computer games, largely because the analysis section adds something substantial to think about. I especially enjoyed reading that section, but I think the whole article is good. To reach FA quality, you will need to smooth and tighten the prose here and there and and clarify some ambiguities, and I have doubts about the second fair-use image. Here are a few other suggestions and comments as well:

Lead

• "Silent Hill: Homecoming". - This title appears in the lead with a colon but without a colon later in the article. Delete the colon?

• I think it might be helpful to add "computer-controlled opponent" or something similar in parentheses after "boss". The link helps, but non-gamers are likely to think the word means "office boss" or "company boss" if they don't click on the link.

Design and characteristics

• "Of the creatures that appeared in Silent Hill 2, only Pyramid Head features an "overtly masculine" appearance." - Since the second verb is present tense, shouldn't the first verb be "appear"?

• "As revealed by Konami's The Book of Lost Memories, Pyramid Head's appearance was a variation of the outfits of the executioners from the fictional history of the town, who wore red hoods and ceremonial robes to make themselves similar to Valtiel,[7] a monster who appears in Silent Hill 3." - It might be better to split this sentence by adding a terminal period after "town" and beginning the next sentence with "They wore red hoods... ".

• "Pyramid Head also shares traits with Valtiel, such as similar gloves, cloth stitching, and following the protagonist of the game." - Perhaps smoother would be "Like Valtiel, Pyramid Head dresses in gloves and stitched cloth and pursues the game's protagonist".

Silent Hill 2

• "He first appears from behind a gate and makes no attempt to attack him.[3] Later in an apartment, James walks in on his rape and murder of two Mannequins... ". - Even though you are probably trying to avoid repeating the actual names over and over, the "he", "him" and "his" in these sentences are a bit ambiguous. I think it would be better to use the names; i.e. "Pyramid Head first appears ... and makes no attempt to attack James... Later, James walks in on Pyramid Head's rape... ".

• "She reminisces about a trip that only he and Mary took to a hotel in Silent Hill, before trying to seduce him." - Perhaps "... before she tried to seduce him"?

Film

• The caption says, "... for his film portrayal, Gans changed him... ". - Would this be more clear as "... for his film portraylal, Gans changed Pyramid Head... "? The "him" is not only ambiguous, it seems to contradict the claim in the main text that the monster of the film is female (although played by a male actor).

• "Pyramid Head's physical appearance differs from Silent Hill 2. Red Pyramid's appearance is conjured from a female perspective." - Merge to avoid repetition? Suggestion: "In the film, Pyramid Head appears to be female rather than male." Or, if that is not what you mean, make the meaning more clear. I'm not sure what "conjured from a female perspective" means.

Silent Hill Homecoming

• "Mindful of his role in Silent Hill 2... " - Again, "his" is ambiguous. Does it mean "Bogeyman", or does it mean "Pyramid Head", or does it mean Alex? Technically, Bogeyman didn't appear in Silent Hill 2, if I am understanding this correctly. I think "his" means "Bogeyman", but then the reference to Silent Hill 2 does not make sense.

Other

• Nothing inside a direct quotation should be linked. If you want to link "fan service", you'll need to paraphrase. Something like "The writer, Tom Waltz, later said he regretted the cameo, added merely as fan service"?

Analysis

• WP:MOSQUOTE frowns on fancy quotes: "Styling of apostrophes and quotation marks: they should all be straight, not curly." You might try a quote box instead. See {{quote box}}.

Images

• I doubt that the fair-use rationales for two Pyramid Head images will survive close scrutiny. Is the second one really necessary for a reader's understanding of the material? It might even be said that the second image shows the opposite of what the caption suggests; to me the monster looks small and peculiar rather than tall and powerful.

Other

• The dab checker at the top of this review page finds one link ("escapist") that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Rasta Thomas

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has been done on it, and it is extremely well-referenced, but it needs help with flow and really just a second set of eyes. Please help!

Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have rated this article as Start-class, as it is clearly no longer a stub. However, I don't think it is yet ready for a full-scale peer review, which is intended for "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate" (wording from the WP:PR page). There is some basic development to be carried out before the article qualifies for review under that definition. Here are some areas for work

• There are several citation tags that need attention
• The lead needs to be developed into a summary of the whole article, rather than providing only an introductory sentence.
• Article structure: More than two-thirds of the article's text is in the Professional career section; the other sections are very short, sometimes only a line or two. Thus the structure looks completely unbalanced. Some of the sections need considerable development - for example, the "Commentary" section tells us hardly anything.
• Prose style - a few random points:-
  • Single sentence paragraphs should be avoided.
  • New sections should not begin with "He..." The name is necessary.
  • At present, five of the six paragraphs in the Professional life section begin "Thomas..." Some variation of phrasing is advised.
  • You shouldn't force your readers to click on to a Wictionary link to found out what an "etoile" is
  • By "season" performer I assume you mean "seasoned"
  • "While Thomas was dining with choreographer Vladimir Angelov, a friend told Thomas that he was wasting his talent by only performing at galas." Is the information that they were dining relevant? Did a "friend" just walk up and start telling Thomas things? The sentence reads very oddly.
• Linking: Your wikilinking is inconsistent. For example, you link Washington D.C. twice, but some cities, e.g. St Petersburg, or Takoma Park, are not linked at all. Neither, strangely, is Bad Boys of Dance. Incidentally, the "Kennedy Center for the Arts" sould be Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and that should be linked, too.
• Disambiguation: there are disambiguation links to Arthur Mitchell and Metropolitan Opera House
• One of your external links (Rasta Thomas, front cover) is dead
• Images: I appreciate the problem in obtaining a free image of Thomas, but it is possible to enhance an article such as this with some imaginative use of images associated with the subject. Had you thought about this aspect?

I hope these comments help you decide how to develop the article further. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Albert Luykx

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have added additional WP Banners such as WP Biography and some perimaters, such as Infobox and picture. WP Military History because he was in the Nazi Waffen SS, and that he ended up in Ireland with businesses. They were rated (WP Biography and WP Ireland were rated as "Stub"). Like someone to re-read the article and rate the WP Banners. Thanks, Adamdaley (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Please someone read the article and give their opinion on whether it should be a "Stub" or "Start" article please. At least for WP Biography and WP Military History. Adamdaley (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Please see the peer review for Critical responses to David Irving. The same considerations apply here as well. Finetooth (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Warren County, Indiana

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I and another editor have put in quite a bit of work on expanding and improving it, and ultimately would like to see it reach "good article" status and perhaps "featured article" status. If there are issues with references, or with grammar, or anything else relating to style, I'd certainly want to resolve such issues. In particular, the "Health Care" section is not very large, and we've had some difficulty in finding much relevant information we can cite on the subject; so suggestions on where and how to place that information would be welcome.

Thanks, Omnedon (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: On the whole, what you have already is well-done, generally well-written and clear. However, it's not yet ready for another run at FAC. I think it is not quite comprehensive, and it has some remaining Manual of Style and layout problems. Here are my suggestions:

• Some of the paragraphs in the article are partly sourced via inline citations embedded within the paragraphs. Presumably these citations support the claims in the sentences they are attached to but not to later sentences in the paragraph. Those later sentences in this article often include claims that need sourcing but lack it. One of the FAC reviewers saw this problem and suggested a remedy, saying, "A general rule of thumb is to ensure there is at least one citation per paragraph, and to end each paragraph with a citation." A very short example of this problem that occurs in the "History" section is the last sentence of the fourth paragraph: "When railroads began to appear in the 1850s, they in turn superseded the canal and made it possible for towns to flourish without river access." The claims made in this sentence need a source; they are not common knowledge, especially the date. The same sourcing problem occurs in the last two sentences of the sixth paragraph of this section and in other paragraphs in the article as well. I suppose that exceptions to the general rule might be sentences that contain only claims that everyone probably accepts as accurate without verification; e.g., "the sun rises in the morning", but the general rule of thumb is that it's a good idea "to end each paragraph with a citation". This would include each of the paragraphs of the "Demographics" section. If the Census Bureau source supports the claims in each of these paragraphs, the citation should be added to the end of the first three paragraphs as well as the last. A bot probably generated the original material, but the bots only do what they are programmed to do. The first paragraph of the "Geography" section needs a source; published maps are generally reliable sources for boundary lines, river courses, and similar data. You can use the "cite map" template for map citations.

Some of these citation issues have been resolved, but I see that there are some more still to do. The demographics section now has more specific references, at least one per paragraph. Update: All paragraphs now end with citations.

• A good rule of thumb for paragraphs, sections, and subsections is to make them substantial rather than extremely short. A short one now and again is fine, but a lot of short ones make for an article that looks and feels choppy. In this sense, the "History" section looks good to me, but the "Geography" section is broken into too many small subsections. One of the undesirable side effects is that the map of Warren County overlaps two sections and displaces an edit button. Furthermore, I think the map is a bit too small at 250px and would be more readable and appealing at 300px. What I would suggest is that you eliminate the subheads from the Geography section entirely and rely wholly on prose flow to make the reading logical and seamless. This would probably include moving the townships paragraph up to just below the three-paragraph description of the county as a whole. Then would come the incorporated towns, the unincorporated towns, and the extinct towns.

I've done as you suggested, and like the result.

• I think I'd eliminate the "Railroads" subhead in the "Transportation" section. An unintended side effect of the short subsection here too is that the image of the grain elevators does not quite fit in the available space. On my computer screen, it displaces an edit button.

That has been done.

• I would suggest solving the problem of the too-short "Health care" section mentioned in the FAC by merging it with "Education" under the head "Education and health care".

Good idea; I've done that.

• Instead of breaking the "Government" section into what are essentially subsections indicated by bolded phrases, I would eliminate the bolded phrases entirely and make the prose do the work. I'd consider merging the one-sentence orphan paragraph that starts the section with the second paragraph and tacking the one-sentence orphan at the end of the existing section to the end of this new merged first paragraph. Each of the other paragraphs could stay in the same order but without the bolded phrases, and I think the section would look much better and would be logical and easy to follow.

This was a section written by another editor and inserted into all of the Indiana county articles some time ago, but having looked at this more closely I agree. This has been done.

• Some of the images are too small. I adjusted the lead image to 300px by adding a size parameter to the infobox and specifying the size. The "thumb" setting by itself defaults to 220px, but maps should generally be bigger. MOS:IMAGES has details.

I've enlarged the maps, and will look into the other non-map images.

• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests using straight prose rather than lists whenever feasible. I'd recommend turning the 10-item unincorporated town list into a single sentence and incorporating it into the unincorporated town paragraph.

I had converted part of the list to prose before, but now I have merged the rest of the list into that paragraph and have rewritten it based on township, since there seemed little other logical order in which to mention them in paragraph form. It may still need a bit of work, but at least the bullets are gone.

• To satisfy the FA requirement that the article be comprehensive without going into unnecessary detail, you will probably need to add something about climate, possibly a "Climate" section. I haven't found any FAs about counties, but there are quite a few about cities listed at WP:FA#Geography and places. See Ann Arbor, Michigan, for example. Climate charts with data sourced to the Weather Channel (which is considered a reliable source) are common in articles about U.S. cities. You could probably use the data for Williamsport as representative of the whole county. Have any notable blizzards, tornadoes, or floods ever affected this county?

This is in progress. A preliminary "climate and weather" section has been added.

• You might consider adding something about geology to the geography section. What kinds of rock underlie the county? How old is it? Why is the county essentially flat? What made the potholes? Where do the natural springs come from? Where did the county come from, geologically speaking?

User:Huwmanbeing has added some geological detail.

• You might find the suggestions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline helpful even though its focus is cities rather than counties. For example, the categories of "sports", "parks and recreation", "utilities", "media", "arts and culture", or "notable people" might trigger thoughts about what might be said about this county.

Not surprisingly, there are not very many notable people from Warren County -- but there are a few, and they now have a section in the article. A media section has also been added.

• To keep certain groups of words from becoming awkwardly separated by line-break on computer screens, Wikipedia uses a no-break code to hold the parts together. I added one of these to "19th century" in the lead, and you can see what it looks like in edit mode. You'll want to track down similar groups in the article and add the codes. Other candidates would be things like $10 million and 4 a.m. WP:NBSP has details.

I've applied this in some cases and am looking for more.

• "World War II and the economic revival of the late '40s and '50s" - I'd suggest using 1940s and 1950s for clarity and consistency.

Done.

• "the adjacent Weiler-Leopold Nature Reserve supports a diversity of flora" - What kinds of flora? In fact, what kinds of flora are typical in the county? I assume the wooded areas are quite different from the farms. Ditto for fauna? Are fish important to the county in any way?

User:Huwmanbeing has added some descriptions of flora in the area.

• "TMF Center, GL Technologies and Kuri-Tec facilities in Williamsport; and the Tru-Flex Metal Hose and Dyna-Fab" - Outsiders won't know what those places manufacture. Would it be helpful to spell out as well as abbreviate things like TMF Center and to briefly describe their operations?

In the case of TMF Center, this is what the business calls itself, and I have not yet found what "TMF" stands for, precisely; but having said that, yes -- some basic description of the businesses would definitely be useful. We'll add that. Update: These businesses are now briefly described.

• I added a {{clear}} template at the end of the Demographics section to prevent the table from overlapping the Reference section. On my computer screen, that overlap was causing the colwidth template to be ignored.

• Citation 40 does not seem to link to a page of data. The problem might lie in the URL. The GNIS URLs can't simply be copy-pasted into citation templates. An FAQ at the USGS GNIS site explains this. A work-around is to use a gnis template embedded in a citation template, like this one, inside the usual pair of ref tags:"Populated places in Warren County, Indiana". Geographic Names Information System (GNIS). United States Geological Survey. You'll have to look at this in edit mode for it to make any sense. Fill in the blank parameters with the appropriate information; for "identifying number" use the GNIS ID for the page you found the data on. (I'm not sure where you found it, so I can't add the number for you.)

I've looked over the GNIS FAQ and have fixed that URL.

• Citation 32 has a dead link.

It would appear that the Niches Land Trust site has changed recently; the current URL has a digit "2" after "WeilerLeopold", so that has been fixed.

• If you add new material, especially big blocks of material such as a climate section, you'll need to rewrite the lead to include a summary of the new material. I usually re-write my leads one last time after everything else substantial is done.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think these are all excellent suggestions. Some have already been addressed; others will take more time and research, but that's a good thing. This is just the sort of thing that the article needed, of course, and I appreciate your efforts here. Omnedon (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• This looks like a complete article. As it appears you are aiming for FA status I'll list just a few issues, though they may not be very significant:
  • Other settlers followed, but probably not until around 1822. - "followed" implies a direct connection: Cicott and these new settlers. If there is a connection, state it. Otherwise, perhaps try Other settlers eventually came to the area, but probably not until around 1822.
    • Good point; I can see how a direct connection could be inferred from that wording, but I don't know of such a connection, so I'll modify that. Omnedon (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Naming the town after Joseph Warren seems random. Was there a connection between him and that area or the founders? maclean (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • From what I've read about the histories of this and other places, it seems to have been fairly common to name places after famous people who may have had no direct connection with those places, and in this case it may have been a whim of one of the founders, or perhaps an effort to find someone whose name had not been applied as frequently as people like Jefferson or Washington -- or perhaps there was something more specific, but I have found no mention of the connection in any of the sources to which I have access. However, if I can discover a reason I'll include it with a citation. Thanks for your input on this; it's much appreciated. Omnedon (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      

---

Appaloosa

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we would like to take this article to FAC and would like an outside (non-horsey) opinion on it before we do. Its last PR was over two years ago and there have been quite a few changes made since then. Comments on jargon are especially appreciated, as well as thoughts about whether the layout makes sense.

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition, we'd like a good review of the history sections to be sure we have some cross-disciplinary review! Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 20:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Curtis Clark (talk · contribs) comments

• "In 2007 the registry generated more controversy by allowing the use of two drugs banned by major international equestrian organizations but allowed by other stock horse organizations." Which registry? The original or the new one? Which drugs? This is rather vague for the lede.

There has only ever been one registry, Oh yeah, that reallyminor new one, have to see if its even still around, but we can clarify that. Thanks --MTBW

• "The original Appaloosa also tended to have a convex profile..." I assume this means the head in profile, as exemplified by the accompanying photo?

Yes. Is there a better way to phrase that? --MTBW

"Convex face"?

Looks like Dana got that? --MTBW

• "Quarter Horse mares crossed on Appaloosa stallions produced horses suitable for sprint racing and halter competition." Halter competition as quarter horses? It seems like any breed could have halter competitions; why would adding quarter horse make this more likely?

Will clarify, in Appy competition,-- MTBW

• "Most foals are born with lighter colored coats than they will have when they shed their baby hair with the exception of gray horses, which are born dark and progressively become lighter." Implication is that this refers to Appaloosa foals, but iirc it is true of foals in general. Needs clarification.

It was also a verbatim copy from the source. Whoops! I fixed that, hope it's clearer now. If we can find more sources on the weird things Appy foal coats do, it would be fun to add, not sure if we can find a source. --MTBW

• According to Leopard complex, it is an incomplete dominant. Are unspotted horses heterozygous for Lp, or is the spotting suppressed by other genes?

We don't know, the genetics haven't been completely deciphered. We did run this section past Countecanter, our genetics guru, and she edited and updated it a bit, maybe six months ago or so. However, one working theory is that homozygousity creates the more vivid patterns while heterozygousity creates the solids, maybe the varnish roans, the minimal spotting, but does keep the sclera and striped hooves. The spotting is probably not suppressed other than by things like Gray or Dominant White -- stuff that suppresses all other colors! We probably need to do another run over to the Appaloosa project to see if there are updates. But for now, assume that this is about all we know. Montanabw^(talk) 21:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• (Interesting rope bridle on the Nez Perce horse--it might be useful in a tack article if it isn't already in use.)
• There may be no sources for this, but I'd be interested to know how many horses accompanied Chief Joseph's group, vs the horses left behind.

Have not found sources, I might be able to find something if I personally go over to the historical society library and dig into history on the Big Hole battle. Montanabw^(talk) 21:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• "unless the owner DNA parentage-verifies the horse"--it's clear what that means, but it sounds awkward. Is the verb "DNA parentage-verify" in common use? If not, perhaps "unless the owner verifies the parentage through DNA testing".

I like your wording, though "parentage verified" is lingo we do use. --MTBW

• "Any horse that shows Appaloosa markings carries the "Leopard" or Lp gene, which must be present in at least one parent." Technically it's the dominant allele of the gene (every horse has the gene, most with the wild-type allele). "Gene" and "allele" are used incorrectly interchangeably a lot, and I'm not sure you need to fix it, but geneticists will always wince when they see it used that way.

Feel free to help us on that. I would be glad to see that fixed as I get a little fuzzy on usage myself (I do "get" the difference between a gene and an allele, but not well enough to phrase stuff properly! Can you help, or point us to someone who can? --MTBW

'Any horse that shows Appaloosa markings carries the Lp allele of the "Leopard" gene, which must be present in at least one parent.' The wording makes sense if Leopard complex has the terminology correct, but I'm not sure whether it's true. Does that seem right to you?--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe better: 'Any horse that shows Appaloosa markings carries at least one Lp allele of the "Leopard" gene; each parent can provide either the Lp allele or the "wild type" lp allele found in most other horses.'--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Check my edit on this in a second or two, see if it works. Montanabw^(talk) 23:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's still rather dicey (technically, every horse has two alleles of the Leopard gene, just as every human has two alleles of the sickle cell anemia gene; it's which alleles they have that's important). If your reference doesn't fully cover this, there are two possibilities:

• Leave it dicey, avoiding charges of WP:OR but causing the few geneticists who read it to roll their eyes.
• Write it accurately, which may result in WP:OR accusations (unjustified IMO; it's no more OR than performing simple math on referenced numbers)

You might want to ask KimvdLinde for a second opinion; she has impeccable geneticist cred, and I'm sure she's dealt with this before.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea to ask Kim. I've been so damn burned with being three words off and getting screamed at for OR (mostly by a certain blocked editor we both know), and then the bashing of poor user:Rlevse over a SOURCED paraphrase that someone deemed a copyvio that I wonder how anyone can write anything these days. Montanabw^(talk) 18:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WAHOO! and HELP! Just found this, November 2010 article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2052.2010.02119.x/pdf May answer all needed questions. Montanabw^(talk) 19:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've skimmed the reference and read the changes to the article, and I'm happy with the way you've worded it. When I read it, I nod my head, "Oh, wow, interesting," rather than "I wonder what's really going on".--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. If you wish, take a look over at talk and tell us what you think of Kim's idea that we create a table for the coat colors,with thumbnail examples? Montanabw^(talk) 04:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Done for now.

Thanks for all your comments. Very helpful! Montanabw^(talk) 21:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting article!--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you know another non-horsey reviewer who is familiar with FA criteria, send them over for a look-see! Montanabw^(talk) 23:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Mike Cline Comments

• This statement Ultimately the Nez Perce drew the line at the Wallowa Valley of Oregon. While their leader, popularly known as Chief Joseph, was attempting to negotiate a new treaty, a small group of warriors attacked settlers in 1877. in the Nez Perce War section is factually incorrect and not actually supported by the Malone cite referenced. At the time of the attack on the settlers, all the bands of Nez Perce, including Joseph's were camp at Tolo Lake enroute to the reservation. Howard had given them 30 days and Joseph and others were complying. The revenge attacks resulted from some inter-band jealousies that erupted in warrior-like behavior beyond the control of the chiefs. The war started when Howard sent troops to punish the Nez Perce, despite the fact they were complying with his orders.

More to come

I'd be thrilled if you have an additional source for Tolo Lake, which I can't find in Malone. I'll see if I can tweak the article per what I do have. Please see if I am now in line with Malone, Roeder & Lang, p. 135, which states (typos mine) Montanabw^(talk) 06:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC):

"For a dozen years, the nontreaty bands, including that of Chief Joseph in Oregon's Wallowa Valley, continued to live in the traditional way, off the reservation. But by the mid-1870s, increasing white settlement in these areas led to heightened demands for removal of the nontreaty Indians to the reservation, The whites' demands finally came to a head in early 1877. In May, one-armed General Oliver O. Howard, Civil War hero and commander of the army's Department of the Columbia, conferred at Lapwai with Joseph and the other nontreaty chiefs. Howard ordered the chiefs to move onto the reservation within the impossible deadline of thirty days. In mid-June, as the nontreaty Nez Perce gathered east of the Snake River, several bitter young men of White Bird's band struck out angrily and killed a handful of white settlers."

If you need a source: Nez Perce Summer, 1977, Jerome A. Greene, pages 1-24 --Mike Cline (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Mike. I have reworked that section to Malone, (more than just the para above), supplemented by another source for some minor details. I think that what happened was the the Appaloosa museum stuff got tangled up with the Malone stuff and possibly the Haines source added in yet more. We've found some previous material from the Appy sites to be unreliable and some was put in about 2007 and even the Appy site has updated since, thus I'm glad you put your eagle eye to this! I took some of it apart sentence by sentence and put it all back together again with a footnote after almost every statement. Let me know if this is an improvement and remains readable. Montanabw^(talk) 08:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

BW, have read the rewording and it is much more accurate. I am winging my way east at the moment and will be away from my library all week, but did remember that in one of the last two issues of the Montana Magazine of Western History, there was a very good piece on the Nez Perce War. It might provide some insights not contained in the more dated literature. Good luck with the review --Mike Cline (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to trot over to the library and take a peek. New stuff always useful! Montanabw^(talk) 19:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I did a literature search as requested (Web of Science and JSTOR), but came up mostly empty-handed. Most of the articles were case reports, or dealt with genetics of color patterning and blindness. The one good-looking review is unfortunately in Italian.

Title: Historical and morphological review of the Appaloosa breed of horse, with consideration of colour inheritance. (Italian)

Author(s): Lubas, G.; Bertani, P.

Source: Annali della Facolta di Medicina Veterinaria di Pisa Volume: 41 Pages: 348-355 Published: 1988

Title: GENETIC-RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BREEDS OF HORSES AND PONIES IN THE NETHERLANDS

Author(s): BLOKHUIS, HJ; BUIS, RC

Source: ANIMAL BLOOD GROUPS AND BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Pages: 27-38 Published: 1979 see [2]

Unfortunately I don't read Italian (and I don't think any of the other editors do either), so the first is pretty much useless to us. Also, both of these are rather outdated (1988 and 1979), and with as many advances as have been made in genetic testing and historical research over the past 20-30 years, I would be wary of relying on them too much. However, thank you very much for conducting the search; it's always good to know that someone else has looked and found nothing/not much too! Dana boomer (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• if you have JSTOR access, check out JSTOR 453271 for a brief discussion on the name Appaloosa and its variations, and JSTOR 454356 for a bit more of the same (let me know if you'd like me to send PDFs).

• Both of these look quite interesting (judging by the title alone; I can't get JSTOR to give me even a preview). Could you please e-mail them to me? Dana boomer (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• PDFs sent. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

While I'm here, a complimentary nitpicking:

• replace the remaining page range hyphens in the refs with endashes
• make sure page range format is consistent (e.g. pp. 92–95 vs. pp. 296–7)
• current ref 19 (Sponenberg, Equine Color Genetics, p. 93) gives the book title, while earlier instances with same author don't
• format of current ref #36 (Spencer III) needs format tweaking

• I"m not sure what the problem with this is? It uses the cite journal format... Dana boomer (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't "Western Livestock Journal: 50, 53–55." be formatted like "Western Livestock Journal 50: 53–55."? Sasata (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Nope. It's pages 50 and 53 through 55. No issue or volume number. Any way we can make this more clear? The cite journal template doesn't automatically include "p." or "pp." and if we include them manually it will make this one different from all of the other journals we're citing. Dana boomer (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, I see... in that case there's nothing more to do (that I can think of). One last nitpick: citations from the templates all have fullstops after them, while the shortform cites for books do not, so you might wanna add them to make everything consistent. Sasata (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Are you sure that's necessary? We haven't had any problem with this format in other recent horse breed FACs, see Marwari horse, Cleveland Bay and Haflinger (horse). Dana boomer (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Definitely not necessary, just depends how consistent you want the refs to look (I've seen it requested at FAC before... not by me). Sasata (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• #44 has stray <
• change et.al. to et al.
• there must be some way to format the template so it doesn't show "pp. Rule 204 A 1, 2, 3." maybe put it in the "id=" parameter or something

• I don't think cite web has an id= parameter (at least, not that I could find in the template documentation, and when I tried it it didn't work). I used the work= parameter instead; this isn't exactly what it's for, but it looks OK, IMO. See what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Good enough. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• why is the pdf in ref #66 showing in lower case while all the others are upper?
• #70, 76 needs commas
• #77 should be Ride 'em, not Rid' em
• #87 has author display in different format than the rest. Also, it is volume 6, issue 1
• does #90 really need to give the authors credentials? (DVM, MSc)
• "Richardson, Bill and Dona (1968)." even if they have the same last name, I think it standard to give both names in full.
• Several of the image captions are complete sentences and require periods.

• I think I've done this, but may have missed some. Dana boomer (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'll save the rest for the FAC :)

• Thanks for the comments. I think I've taken care of all of the above, and have left replies for a few of them. Dana boomer (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the imput, Sasata. Anything we can fix prior to FAR, the better. My blood pressure hates rush jobs! And thanks also to Dana, who fixed some of MY screwups!  :-) Montanabw^(talk) 21:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

---

John Culshaw

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I have gone as far with it as I can, and would be glad of input from other contributors. John Culshaw was one of the most important figures in the history of recorded classical music, and he deserves a proper article. He maintained a lower profile than his professional rival Walter Legge but his achievements are no less valuable, even four or five decades after his Decca triumphs. All suggestions gladly received. Tim riley (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-

Early years

• It would be good to show the date of Culshaw's first published Gramophone article (March 1945), and provide a link to it. Here it is
  • Excellent suggestion. I'll do so.

Decca

• "It was followed by a popular introduction to concertos and a guide to modern music." I would say "It was followed by two further books; a popular introduction to concertos and a guide to modern music." You could give the titles: The Concerto in The World of Music Series (1949), and A Century of Music (1952).
  • Good. Done.
• Second paragraph: As the section is headed "Decca", I think the novel-writing detail is a little out of place here. Perhaps it could be put elsewhere, or at least in a paragraph of its own.
  • Move up. I think it works all right just before the Decca section. (Later - moved it right down into the publications section near the end – better there, I fancy.)

Capitol

• I'm not entirely happy with the sentence "He was prevented from encouraging the soprano Kirsten Flagstad from retirement, or signing the conductor Otto Klemperer—a misjudgment, as Culshaw noted in his memoirs, that Walter Legge of EMI was quick to remedy, with great artistic and commercial success." I have tweaked it a bit, but it still looks in need of attention. A "from" in front of "signing", maybe, and perhaps some movement around the end?
  • Done.

Stereo and the Decca Ring

• "Flagstad, whom he persuaded out of retirement..." I would refer briefly here to his unfulfilled wish to record Flagstad in his Capitol days - and I'd mention that she was 62 in 1957, a bit old for all the Heiaha Hojotoho, wouldn't you say? Also, she was unwilling to record the whole opera - but if she sang Sieglinde in Act I, and Brunnhilde in the Todesverkundigung scene and in Act III, then I reckon she's sung more than a complete Brunnhilde!
  • Done. She was chiefly afraid of the high notes at the start of Act II, especially after the bitching when Schwarzkopf was discovered to have sung Flagstad's high Cs in the EMI Tristan a few years earlier.
• "In the early years of stereo, Culshaw worked with Pierre Monteux in Stravinsky and Ravel, Solti in Richard Strauss (Arabella), and the first of many New Year's Day concerts by the Vienna Philharmonic and Willi Boskovsky." The grammar is awkward here; the sentence has become telegraphic, with some words apparently missing. I would suggest: "In the early years of stereo, Culshaw worked with Pierre Monteux in recordings of Stravinsky and Ravel and with Solti in a recording of Richard Strauss's Arabella. He also recorded the first of many New Year's Day concerts with Willi Boskovsky and the Vienna Philharmonic."
  • Done.
• Mention that Flagstad sang Fricka in the 1958 Decca Rhinegold
  • Done.

Britten, Karajan and others

• A few more dates in the section would help, e.g. when was the recording made in Coventry Cathedral, when was the Requiem recording issued? When were the Britten operas recorded, etc?
  • Done and will do, respectively.

Later years

• "By 1967 Culshaw wished for a change..." - seems somewhat laconic. Were there issues that led to him wishing to leave the recording industry? Was it the completion of the Ring cycle that made him feel his main work as a recording producer was done? A sentence or so of explanation might be worthwhile.
  • Done.
• Second paragraph: four consecutive sentences begin "Culshaw..." Some variation preferred.
  • Done.

Image captions

• The images could be better related to the text, so I suggest making the captions a little more informative, e.g. "Birgit Nilsson, who sang Brunnhilde in Culshaw's Decca Ring cycle", etc.
  • Will do.

Sources

• Just under half of the ninety-odd citations are to primary sources, i.e. Culshaw's own works. About 30 of these are to his autobiography. Bearing in mind that there is no biography, I suppose this is inevitable but it might be worth seeing if there are other secondary sources for some of these citations. For example, does Culshaw have an ODNB entry?
  • Yes, there is an ODNB article, and I have made six references to it, but it is not, in my opinion, the ODNB's finest hour. It draws heavily on the Times obit (which I have also used) and there is at least one statement that is plain wrong, and another that I think highly unlikely. Grove is pithy but adds nothing to the other sources.

I've been interested in Culshaw ever since I saw on DVD Humphrey Burton's TV film ("The Golden Ring", I think) about the making of the Solti Ring. There is an interesting line note from Burton, with a great vignette of Culshaw: "Culshaw was like some captain of the skies, surrounded by faders, filters and flickering meters, with trusted aides colleagues on either side acting as musical lookouts and steersmen, bringing sound channels in and out according to Culshaw and Parry's master plan." Of the relationship between Culshaw and Solti, Burton says: "I doubt whether the give and take between a great Wagnerian conductor and a recording producer with his own Wagnerian concept has ever been more faithfully captured".

• I first saw Burton's film at a private showing for family and friends in Southport at which the projectionist was none other than John Culshaw. I was a mere boy at the time. Tim riley (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent article. I look forward to seeing it in its finished state. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent haul of suggestions. Shall ponder, incorporate and report back here. Grateful thanks. More anon. Tim riley (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

All now attended to. Warmest thanks for these helpful suggestions. Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments Well done. I've read Ring Resounding, and remember the discussion of the sound effects in Das Rheingold (Donner's hammer, the gold being piled up by the Nibelungen, etc.) Here are a few comments:

• Early years:

" failing to pass the examination in banking theory" Perhaps it would be wise to stress that the examination was set by the Bank. If it was.

Good. Done.

• Decca:

"he produced the first LP versions of Savoy Operas with the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company" Now, you Brits sometimes unexpectedly exclude the "the", but shouldn't this be "the Savoy Operas"?

Yes indeed. Done.

More coming, did not mean to hit "save page".--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Capitol

" company's bureaucracy at its headquarters in Los Angeles." Clunky string of dependent clauses trailing off which ought to be settled with a string of adjectives. Say "bureaucracy at the company's Los Angeles headquarters".

Yes. Done.

"the soprano Kirsten Flagstad" Obviously Flagstad was a controversial figure in the postwar period. Culshaw, as I recall, discusses this in Ring Resounding Did Capitol's reluctance to take her on have anything to do with that?

The main cause was that Culshaw's boss at Capitol had a phobia about opera. He even suggested that the Paris Opéra orchestra, which Culshaw had under contract, should be billed on the record sleeves as the Paris Academy orchestra, because the public wouldn't buy anything with the word "opera" in.

• Stereo

"Finding, on his return to Decca, that" I'd delete both commas.

Done. Better.

"he was made manager of the company's classical recording division" Did Lewis have anything to do with this? If so I'd mention.

None of the sources actually say so, but Lewis ran Decca as an autocrat, and we can reasonably assume that Culshaw's promotion was Lewis's choice. Culshaw's predecessor in the role, Victor Olof, defected to EMI, and Culshaw was hastily appointed to fill his place.

Gramophone quote. I'd write before the quote when this quote appeared. I assumed it was contemporary, realized at the end of the quote it was not, and had to reread.

Good! Just the sort of thing one never spots in one's own prose. Done.

"Todesverkundigung". Surely it should be italicised? And perhaps it should be translated as well. I think I remember which scene that is, near the end of Act II, but if someone who has seen the Ring live six times can't remember ...

It is indeed from Act II (scene 4) where Brünnhilde comes to warn Siegmund that he's for the chop. I suppose the nearest translation would be "Death Announcement", but that sounds a bit like something in the classified ads of the newpapers. I'm not sure about the italicisation: on the (rocky) analogy of arias in conventional operas I'd say quotes but not itals, but am wholly biddable on this.

"In the early years of stereo, " Might be more effective if you said "those early years of stereo".

Definitely.

"– as in his other operatic recordings including Richard Strauss's operas Salome and Elektra, also with Solti and Nilsson –" I think you are straying too far from the point in this dashed clause and should cut it after "recordings", perhaps the rest of the info could be put in later.

This was another editor's addition, which I wasn't wild about and will happily delete.

While you do in an image caption, you nowhere mention Solti was a conductor ...

There was passing mention in re the Walküre Act III set, but I have added another to the Capitol Brahms Requiem sentence.

• Britten etc.

Might do well to mention that the War Requiem was done for the consecration of that eyesore.

Done.

Surely the first two sentences of the van Karajan paragraph can be combined?

That would make a hellishly long sentence, though.

"Other artists with whom he worked for ..." Your mileage may vary, but I'm not thrilled about laundry list sentences.

Point taken. I've chopped it up a bit. I want to make the point that Culshaw worked with a wide range of performers, not just the Wagner specialists.

• Later years:

" to television, becoming BBC Television's head of music programmes." No need to repeat the word television, just say ... from the record industry to become BBC Television's head ..."

Yes.

" universities of Houston, Southern California and Melbourne." I don't think this is a proper way of referring to them. Perhaps "the University of Houston, USC, and Melbourne University".

Done, though that's four occurrences of the word "university" in one sentence.

Ooh, he had an OBE? Shouldn't you mention this either as a postnominal of the lede mention of his name or else on his picture caption?

Unless it's compulsory I'd rather not for a tuppeny-ha'penny gong like the OBE, but if I must, I will, obviously.

• Publications

If A Place of Stone was published, you should say so.

Yes. Done.

I'm not thrilled about the list of musical publications, it is another "laundry list". At the least, I would take out the publishers, and perhaps it should be placed in its own section as a short list. Editor discretion though.

Good point about the publishers. It isn't such a very long list, and though I personally prefer bulleted lists, WP seems not to like them within articles.

Again, a good read about someone whose book I had read but I doubt I've thought about in a long time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Most grateful for these points. Many thanks. Tim riley (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Matthew Cox

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a little article I am getting ready for FAC. Its about a con man whose story I found interesting. Thanks in advance if you decide to comment. AaronY (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

HOLD ON I am having a little bit of a problem here. AaronY (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Cryptic C62

Resolved issues

Who is Jeff Testerman? I am very curious as to why 21 of the article's 37 sources are authored by him. Cox has received a limited amount of media coverage. Since the story was big in the Tampa Bay area, a lot of the reliable sources that exist are from the St. Petersburg Times, and this one reporter in particular. Although the story was mentioned in other major national newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune, Fortune, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution it received only fleeting coverage there. AaronY (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC) "Born in Florida," Is this really the most specific information that can be found about where he grew up? Yeah basically although he received national coverage, this is the most specific info I can find. Maybe there is government database I can check. "After being fired from the company when he was convicted of mortgage fraud and received probation in 2002," The inclusion of "and received probation" is awkward. If you can find a good way to rephrase it, go for it, though I think it would be fine to simply remove that bit altogether. I removed it; I included it because when he leaves the state later he immediately becomes a fugitive for not checking in with his parole officers. But I don't think I need it. "He recorded that sale for $233,000," I don't understand what this means. He sold something for 90k but then pretended to have sold it for 233k? What does that accomplish? He arranged for financing in that amount, she says without her knowledge. Clarified. "His ex-wife Keyla Burgos, who is mother to his son, was one of the two shareholders." I find it a bit odd that this marriage is not revealed to the reader until now. I've only seen her and his son mentioned in the source used for this article and one other article, which just reiterates that they were married and later divorced. Tbh this might be it too; since he's in prison for a long time now, and seems to have ratted on everyone he bribed, I don't expect many more stories about him to come out. "He was so brazen he took out one mortgage under the name of..." POV phrasing which glorifies Cox unnecessarily. A fun fact indeed, but it can be approached more neutrally. You're right about this. I guess I just wanted to make it clear why he was doing it, but its self explanatory "He was reported by the couple's 60 year old babysitter, Patsy Taylor." Who does "the couple" refer to? Brian and Shaniqua or Cox and Gardner? Cox and Gardner. Fixed. "Taylor was put in contact with the attorney of Rebecca Hauck by the St. Petersburg Times reporter." There's only one reporter for the St. Petersburg Times? Duh. Fixed. "He escaped capture due to a chance series of events." No he didn't. It says in the very next line that he was arrested upon return from the hotel. How does that qualify as escaping capture? I guess I could say he temporarily escaped capture? "Cox was arrested on November 16, 2006. Indicted on 42 counts." It is unencyclopedic to include sentence fragments like this. Also, it is not clear what those 42 counts were. This was paragraph was copyedited by another user. I have reverted it to the old version, will clarify. "While courting Arnold he took her to crime films such as The Italian Job and Catch Me if You Can—which he reportedly adored and watched several times—and began to detail his criminal plans to her." This definitely needs a citation. Done. Hmm? Perhaps the edit did not save correctly; the sentence in question still appears to be unsourced. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC) "After Arnold refused to get breast implants and abandon her son, Cox began courting another woman." Easily among the strangest sentences I've ever read on Wikipedia, and one which (unless I'm mistaken) is not covered by the nearest citation. I've put the correct citation on it. I know its odd, but what can I say the guy liked fake breasts. This also appears to have not been saved correctly. Perhaps you merely dreamt of adding a source here. :P --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Yeah I left a note above to hold on; I saw a few problems and needed some time to work on them, plus I had stuff irl to do on Mon and Tues. Taken care of now, but there are some things I'm still working on. AaronY (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC) "...with Gardner, and a new friend of his, Brian Williamson, and his friend's wife." A bit odd that Brian's name is included but his wife's isn't. Suggested rephrasing: "...with Gardner and his new friends Brian and Shaniqua Williamson" Inserted. Erm, I was kidding about the Shaniqua part. I have no idea what the wife's name is, so I just made one up. Me ≠ reliable source! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Oh, duh. I see now that the name of the man's wife was never mentioned. Thats the only source where the Williamsons were interviewed or mentioned. I just put the previous phrasing back in, though it is somewhat clumsy. AaronY (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC) "When Cox was first arrested the FBI talked to him about White, who they were investigating" Assuming I'm reading this correctly, I would recommend inserting "also" before "investigating" for clarity. Done, good catch. AaronY (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• The lead does not make it clear when any of Cox's crimes happened, which is of particular importance when considering the modern-day value of the money he acquired.
• "He was aided by several female accomplices, some of whom are in prison or have served time there." Awkward phrasing which does not make it clear why the ladies went to prison. Suggested rewrite: "He was aided by several female accomplices, some of whom were convicted of <INSERT NAME OF CRIME HERE>".
• "The novel's protagonist, written obviously as a copy of himself," So the protagonist was cloned? I suggest replacing "himself" with "the author" or "Cox".
• "Although as of 2010, the United States Attorney's office has not brought charges against any of his 13 Tampa area cohorts, even Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert A. Mosakowski informed a judge in 2005 that he planned to bring charges against up to 13 accomplices." It's a bit odd that this isn't written in chronological order. Suggestion: "Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert A. Mosakowski informed a judge in 2005 that he planned to bring charges against up to 13 of Cox's accomplices, though this has not yet happened as of 2010."
• As an overall comment, this article seems to be overly focused on trivial details, such as the type of car that Cox drove and the size of his lovers' breasts. I suspect you will receive a lot of flak about this if you take to FAC, as details should serve to inform the reader, not amuse them.

  The whole article is kind of trivial tbh. Subtrivial even. I was actually inspired to write it after watching Dateline and then noticing the sources existed to create an article. I've got much more "important" projects in the pipeline but this is just a different type of article I'm working on for variety's sake. Plus since this is short it should be less work at FAC, and won't kill me like the last serious article I nominated nearly did.

  Anyways, the facts are that he wanted his girlfriends/accomplices to get breast implants or he would dump them. What can I say? He's not exactly Michael Corleone. Should I just change Infiniti to luxury car? I figured it was better to be specific. Also, he and his fictional protagonist shared certain specific details. The Audi car they drove is one detail, maybe say "the same exact car"? I guess I could go into the facts of specific cases more, but its just the same m.o. repeated over and over and over again. I think I've got the interesting specific details. The case history begs for summary style tbh.

  I'm no expert on writing crime BLPs, so whatever you judge to be the best level of detail is fine by me. I just wanted to give my overall impression. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've finished reading through the article. I intend to watch this page to clarify and discuss issues as needed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Outlaw Star

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed Outlaw Star for peer review after making several improvements the past few months and would like a little bit of extra commentary on how to improve it further. The production section needs expansion, possibly from interviews with the creator(s), notes in the back of each manga volume (only available in Japanese, German, and Italian), or information from the guidebook, none of which I have access to. Any extra help is appreciated.

Thanks, ~ Hibana (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good. I guess the lack of production is the only thing that may bother this article from becoming GA. I'm not familiar with the series, but shouldn't it be pointed its ending? If it's an episodic story, then I guess reviewers would help to reference such fact.Tintor2 (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This generally looks good. I'm sorry I don't have easy access to the foreign-language sources you seek. Are none of these available through libraries or bookstores? Here are a few suggestions about prose and style.

Anime

• "Bandai released Outlaw Star on DVD in Japan in two halves with the first 13 episodes released on August 25, 1999, and the remaining 13 episodes released on November 25, 1999." - "With" doesn't make a very good connector in cases like this. Suggestion: "Bandai released the first 13 episodes of Outlaw Star on DVD in Japan on August 25, 1999, and the remaining 13 episodes on November 25, 1999."

CDs

• "The musical score for the Outlaw Star anime series was composed by Kow Otani." - Flip to active voice; i.e., "Kow Otani composed the musical score for the Outlaw Star anime series"?

Legacy

• Since the broken English makes Takehiko Itō sound a bit silly (though I don't think that is your intent), I would suggest using a paraphrase in correct English.

References

• Wikipedia house style in some cases takes precedence over other styles. This is usually the case with ALL CAPS in the citations. Thus in citation 23, for example, instead of "Sehou Bukyo OUTLAW STAR (Futere Hero next generation OUTLAW STAR) DVD Memorial Box Part1", I'd recommend "Sehou Bukyo Outlaw Star (Futere [sic] Hero next generation Outlaw Star) DVD Memorial Box Part1". Ditto for other citations using all-caps in titles.

• The date formatting in the citations should be consistent. In some cases, you use something like 2008-12-01, but in others you use something like December 1, 2008. Pick one and stick with it throughout the "References" section.

Other

• The dab tool at the top of this review page finds one dab, "Kadokawa".

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The Unraveling

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've done a lot of work on this recently, and I'd like to get it promoted to Good Article status. It's a pretty little-known release. I'd just like to know where I go from here. Thanks for everything dudes, Silverskylines (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I think the article probably has GA in its future, but it could use another proofing. I found and fixed some small errors in punctuation, spelling, and grammar, and I mention others below, but I don't think I caught them all. I also wonder if something more could be said about the song lyrics and the themes. I see and hear the emphasis on the instrumentation, but do the lyrics matter? If so, how? Here are further suggestions:

• A question about number agreement often comes up in music articles. Is the word band singular? If so, shouldn't the pronoun referring to it be "it" rather than "they". If so, the second sentence of the "Background" section, "Prior to The Unraveling, the band independently released and distributed an eponymous demo album, Transistor Revolt, before changing their name" isn't grammatically correct. Likewise, if "Rise Against" is singular (an it rather than a they), then the first sentence of this section is grammatically incorrect as well. I'd suggest going through the article sentence-by-sentence to make sure that the nouns and pronouns agree in number.  Done In most articles that achieved featured/good status, I've seen the "band" antecedent as plural because it refers to the group/members. If it comes up during GA review, I'll be sure to change it.

• Fat Wreck Chords is linked once in the lead, once in the infobox, once in the "Background" section, and once in the "2005 reissue" section. I'd unlink the last one. I don't see a lot of overlinking, but I see four links of Tim McIlrath, for another. I'd cut back to two, probably. If you look for more examples of overlinking, you'll probably find them. Most terms that are linked don't need to be linked more than once in the lead and perhaps once again on first use in the main text sections.  Done Sweet, I didn't think of that at all. Thanks!

• Should the article include anything about lyrics or lyrical themes? McIlrath wrote them, but what else? I can certainly look for more.

Lead

• "It was produced by Mass Giorgini at Sonic Iguana Studios in Lafayette, Indiana, in December 2000." - Switch to active voice? Suggestion: Mass Giorgini produced the album at Sonic Iguana Studios in Lafayette, Indiana, in December 2000.  Done Changed.

• "It received generally favorable reviews from critics." - Switch to active? Suggestion: Critics generally praised the album. Not sure. I've seen the structure in a lot of other album reviews. I guess it's good to be consistent.

• "it led to Rise Against's re-signing on Fat Wreck Chords" - Should that be "re-signing with" rather than "re-signing on"?  Done Yep, good call.

• "album on which frontman Tim McIlrath does not play guitar" - Since not all readers will know what "frontman" means, would it be more clear to say "lead vocalist"?  Done

Background

• Link Kanye West and Kelly Slater?  Done

Style and composition

• "The Unraveling combined fast, customary hardcore punk rifts with slower melodic sounds... " - The word is "riff" rather than "rift". I'd consider linking it to Ostinato#Riff.  Done Agh, I feel stupid for missing that!

• The Principe quotation might work better as a blockquote since it's at least four lines long. WP:MOSQUOTE explains blockquotes.  Done I think it looks better.

• ""friendships and relationships [to] religion and memories"[15]," - The punctuation should precede the in-line citation. I fixed one that was backwards, but here's another, and citation 18 is another.  Done

• "was considered by Bill Adams of Ground Control Magazine" - Use italics for the magazine name here and in the "Professional ratings" chart and elsewhere in the article. Be consistent with the name, not cap "M" on Magazine in one place and little "m" in another. Use whichever is the correct formal name.  Done Sounds good.

Track listing

• "All music was written by Rise Against; all lyrics were written by Tim McIlrath." - Active voice rather than passive? Suggestion: Rise Against wrote the music for every song, and McIlrath wrote the lyrics. I'll leave it as is to be consistent, as almost all other album articles are written that way. Thanks, though.

• I would not make the bonus tracks table collapsible. I don't see what purpose it serves, and it may give screen readers trouble.  Done True, it really should only be collapsible if there are multiple additional track listings. Thanks!

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Fezmar9 comments: I was just skimming through Rise Against articles when I noticed this was up for peer review. I have never actually PRed an article before, so I hope you find my comments constructive! Most of my comments are pretty minor though as Finetooth seems to have found a good chunk of the grammatical errors. Woo! Yay for fellow fans!

Infobox

• The size limit for the cover art has recently been updated from 200x200 to 220x220. It's not really necessary, but you could take advantage of extra space and upload a larger image for aesthetic purposes if you wanted to. I'll definitely keep that in mind later on.

• Per WP:ALBUM#Released, only the original release date belongs in the infobox. The 2005 reissue is mentioned several other places throughout the article.  Done

• The "length" field should be using the {{Duration}} template.

• I notice there is a "format" field floating in the infobox code that's not really serving a purpose. The album infobox does not support this field.  Done Strange, it seems to have been removed from the template. Thanks for pointing that out.

• It's not really necessary to mention what type of release Transistor Revolt is in the "last album" field.  Done

Style and composition

• Link Black Flag (band) and Punknews.org.  Done

• Use the {{sic}} template in the quote.  Done

• "In The Age interview" should be "In an interview with The Age". And The Age should also be linked. I'm referencing a previously stated interview though, so it'll be a redundant antecedent if I change it.

Release and reception

• A sentence from this section reads, "The CD version is currently out of print." However, their album is still available from Fat Wreck.[3] Should this maybe read: "The original pressing from 2001 went out of print, but was later reissued through Fat Wreck Chords in 2005." Or something along those lines. The way it currently reads makes it seem like it's impossible to get a copy of The Unraveling on CD, when I think you were trying to say only the original pressing. I was a little confused when I read this.  Done

• The ratings template should be placed at the top of the critical reception section.  Done

2005 reissue

• A sentence from this section reads, "Critics of the first album praised the updated sound quality." I found this a little confusing as well, as The Unraveling is indeed the band's first album. I think you mean to say the original pressing of the album.  Done Good call.

• Even though Altsounds and Punkbands.com don't capitalize their names, Wikipedia should. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks).  Done Again, good call.

• Online retailers fail WP:RS, you should use their respective allmusic entries[4][5] instead for the compilation sources.  Done Thrice for a good call.

Track listing

• Writing credits need a source.  Done

• Remove the "Tracks" header. It seems really random. Meh, that's how the template is. If it's a problem in Good Article review, I'll definitely change it.
  • Actually, what I am talking about isn't part of the template. Unlike how "Bonus tracks on the 2005 reissue" is taking advantage of the 'headline' field, "Tracks" is floating outside of the template.  Done OH! Again, went completely over my head. Thanks.

• The floating sentence at the end of the section seems random as well. Maybe move it to the "2005 reissue" section?  Done Thought about that for a while but wasn't quite sure how to fix it. I'll do that.

Personnel

• Personnel section needs a source. There is no official documentation on personnel sections requiring sources, but newer articles seem to be adding a brief statement where the information was found with a citation. See My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy#Personnel. It never hurts to add a source!  Done Like you said, it doesn't hurt.

• Needs consistent use of the en dash. It's currently only used in the Rise Against subsection.  Done Completely went over my head.

• It's a little overlinked. Remove wikilinks for backing vocals by Russ Rankin, guitar by Todd Mohney, and mixing and mastering for Bill Stevenson.  Done I'll leave the one on Bill Stevenson though, since he is a rather big name.
  • I should have been more specific on this one. Because this section is dedicated to the personnel, each person should be wikiliked. I was saying that their roles on this album should not be. So Russ Rankin should be linked, but his backing vocals role should not be because it's linked previously in the same section for Joe Principe. Does that make better sense?  Done Ahh, got it. Thanks again.

• Lowercase 'm' in "Additional musicians"  Done

• Is "credited 'Philip Hill'" really worth mentioning? Seems just like a minor typo me.  Done *shrug* I guess you're right.

References

• Publications should be linked, and authors should be added where applicable.

• You may want to use {{Cite album-notes}} when citing the liner notes.

All in all, it seems well on it's way to reaching GA status. If you were looking to expand the article at all, I would recommend writing a section on recording and production. This is a pretty common section in most album articles, and I know The Blasting Room is pretty legendary in the punk rock world. Maybe if you do some good digging you can find something on this ;) Thanks! I didn't think of that. I tried to find some stuff directly relating to the album, but I didn't think to check out The Blasting Room itself. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

---

R.V. College of Engineering

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have rearranged the sections quite a lot in this article RVCE, and I feel it looks a lot better now. I want someone else to review the article, and then maybe I will submit it for a reassessment.

Thanks, MikeLynch (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I always like seeing articles about schools. I'm not sure what level of reassessment you are thinking of, though PR is meant for articles nearing GA or FA. The existing article is not nearly ready for GA, but here are a few suggestions for improvement.

• The lede should be an inviting summary of the whole article rather than simply an introductory paragraph. My rule of thumb is to try to include in the lede at least a mention of each of the main text sections. WP:LEAD has a complete general explanation.

• The section heads and subheads use a capital letter on the first word and on any proper nouns; otherwise, they should be lower-case. For example, "Environmental Initiatives" should be "Environmental initiatives".

• Many parts of the article lack citations to reliable sources. For example, the "Facilities" section is completely unsourced even though it includes information that is not common knowledge. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every claim that is unusual, and every paragraph. If one source supports an entire paragraph, the citation should be placed at the very end of the paragraph.

• Images should be positioned wholly within the sections they illustrate. They should not overlap two sections or displace edit buttons or create text sandwiches. MOS:IMAGES has details.

• Abbreviations like MoUs need to be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use rather than on a later use.

• The Manual of Style frowns on extremely short sections and extremely short paragraphs because they create a choppy look and feel. Two ways to avoid these are to expand or to merge. You could, for example, expand the "Environmental initiatives" section by adding details about the rainwater system. What are its major components? How does it work? How effective is it?

• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests turning lists into straight prose paragraphs when feasible. I think you could do this with "Departments and courses" and "Notable alumni". For example, one sublist could become a single sentence: "Allied departments specialize in physics, chemistry, mathematics, humanities, and in placement and training.

• Newspaper names in the citations should be in italics.

• The date formatting in the citations should be consistent.

• Citation 23 lacks an author name and date of most recent access. Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all of these are known or can be found.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Why Does It Hurt So Bad

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve this article. I feel that it can improve a lot more. Maybe, someday the article can become a FA.

Thanks, Novice7 | Talk 15:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks good, well-written, broad in coverage, well-sourced, and well-illustrated. I have a very small list of suggestions for further improvement.

• "Babyface and Houston recorded songs for the album along with many other African-American female singers." - Slightly smoother might be: "Babyface, Houston, and many other African-American female singers recorded songs for the album."

Done

• "Now, I'm ready to sing not only the joys of things, but the pains of things, also," Houston added. - I'd recommend "explained" instead of added because "added" suggests that she was responding to Willman.

Done

• The last paragraph of the "Reception" section mentions different issues on different dates. That made me wonder just what an "issue" is and why there would be more than one. Should "issue" be linked to something or briefly explained?

Issue is the magazine's copy, for a particular date. I linked it to Wikitionary.

• The dab tool at the top of this review page finds three links in the main text that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended target.

Done! All fixed.

• I'd suggest moving inline citation 21 up to just after the two column titles instead of putting it in its own line on the lower left in the "Credits and personnel" section. I'm assuming that the citation applies to both columns.

I moved the citation to the top (above the two columns).

• Since you are thinking of nominating at FAC at some point, be sure to look at some of the single-song FAs listed at WP:FA#Music. You probably have already done that, but I thought I should mention it, just in case.

I will. And thank you for such a wonderful review. Novice7 | Talk 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Juha Vainio

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Translation of a Finnish-language featured article. Comments would be welcome on what to do to improve it to GA/FA level. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is quite interesting, broad in coverage, and generally well-written. It's not yet ready for WP:GAN, but it is not far from being ready. Here are suggestions for further improvement:

Infobox

• The "age 72" after his birth date seems strange. He was 0 when born, although that was indeed 72 years ago. Perhaps just using the birth date would be more clear.

  Removed. Jafeluv (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• Since this is the English Wikipedia, it would be nice to have all of the song titles translated into English and placed in parentheses after the Finnish titles. Ditto for book titles, album titles, or anything else in Finnish throughout the article.

  All done, I think. Let me know if I missed something. Jafeluv (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• The nickname was never used by itself, but always as "Juha Watt Vainio". - Suggestion: "The nickname was never used by itself but always as part of "Juha Watt Vainio".

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

School

• "In the end, the only subjects Vainio thrived in school were singing and sport." - Slightly smoother might be "In the end, the only school subjects in which Vainio thrived were singing and sport."

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Juha Vainio practiced sport since childhood, even though he suffered from heart problems before the surgery." - Slightly smoother might be "Beginning in childhood, Juha Vainio practiced sport even though he suffered from heart problems before the surgery".

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

First contact with music

• "started hanging around in musician circles" - Since "hanging around in" is slang that might not be clear to everyone, perhaps "began socializing with musicians" would be better.

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "while Vainio liked schlager music" - Link to Schlager and maybe add (hit) after schlager in the text?

  Added a link, but I don't think adding "(hit)" would clarify the type of music enough. Maybe it's better that the reader follow the link for clarification. Jafeluv (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Many of Vainio's friends eventually ended up in his song lyrics." - Since they didn't physically enter his lyrics, maybe "Many of Vainio's friends eventually were described in his song lyrics"? Even better would be active voice: "Vanio's song lyrics eventually included descriptions of many of his friends". Or something like that. I'm not sure what sorts of things he included.

  Changed to "Vainio later described and named many of his friends in his song lyrics." Jafeluv (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "In autumn 1957 Vainio was called up into the army." - I'd suggest adding his age here too, which I calculate to be 19. The next sentence mentions seventh grade, the meaning of which differs from country to country. In the U.S., for example, someone in the seventh grade would likely be closer to 12 or 13 years old than 19 and much too young for the army.

  Added age. Removed the seventh grade since it can be confusing and it's already specified that he was on the second to last year of gymnasium. Jafeluv (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• "In autumn 1957 Vainio was called up into the army." - Could it be explained what "called up" means. He does not seem to report for duties until 1964.

  Clarified, I hope. Jafeluv (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fatherhood, work as a teacher, and military service

• This section head could be tightened to "Fatherhood, teaching, and military service".

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "when Juha started his studies there" - Could you add the name of the school he attended?

  Added. Jafeluv (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Breakthrough

• "As a young man he trained to play music wanting to become a professional musician." - The music didn't want to become a musician. Smoother would be "As a young man he trained to play music because he wanted to become a professional musician."

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• The last part of the first paragraph of this section lacks a source or sources even though it includes statistics and other information that is not common knowledge. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every unusual claim, every direct quotation, and every paragraph (except, usually, the lead paragraphs). It's OK to source things in the lead, as you have with the 2,400 songs, but the usual pattern is to source them in the main text and then not source them in the lead since they are sourced in the main text.

  Referenced. Jafeluv (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, the lead says "over 2,400 songs" but in this section the text says, "approximately 2,500 published songs". Even though the words "over" and "approximately" allow some leeway, would it be better to use the same number in both places?

  Added a ref and changed to "over 2,400", which is what the source says. Jafeluv (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• "which became the breakthrough recording of The First." - Should "The First" be linked or briefly explained?

  Added "pop group" for clarification. We have a dab page for The First, but unfortunately no article for the band. Jafeluv (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "However, Vainio was often late from arranged studio sessions" - I think you mean "was often late for" rather than "was often late from".

  Changed. Jafeluv (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to teaching

• "He had a habit of coming up with very unorthodox methods of punishment. In general he got on very well with his pupils." - Examples would be helpful, and what is the source for these claims?

  Could not find sourced examples, but added a reference. Jafeluv (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol use

• "Vainio's deteriorating family relations are considered to be one reason for his drinking." - Needs a source since it could easily be the other way round; that is, his drinking caused family problems.

  Referenced. Jafeluv (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes

• "The B side of the single was "Pokkana ja paikallaan" - Hyphenate "B-side" and link to A-side and B-side?

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Death

• "mixed with his pastilles" - Link pastille?

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "He died of a heart attack in his home in Gryon, Switzerland, on 29 October 1990, in the hands of his wife." - It would be hard for him to die literally in her hands. Perhaps "in the arms of his wife"?

  Fixed. The Finnish idiom uses "hand" -- that's what I get for translating word by word :) Jafeluv (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "One day before he died, Vainio had become friends with ice hockey coach Juhani Tamminen... " - Unclear. Did he become friends with Tamminen only one day before he died, or does the "one day" only refer to the dinner?

  Changed to "The day before he died". Jafeluv (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• "The following week Tamminen found out that Vainio had died from a friend of his who had read about it in a newspaper in Finland." - Smoother would be "The following week Tamminen learned of Vainio's death from a friend who had read about it in a Finnish newspaper."

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

• Some of the whole paragraphs and later parts of paragraphs in this section need citations to reliable sources.

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

References

• The article depends heavily on the two books. This may not be a problem at the GA level, but it probably will be if you intend to take this to WP:FAC eventually. To meet the requirement there that the article be comprehensive, you'll need to make sure that the research is comprehensive, that nothing important has been ignored, and that the views presented are balanced.

Further reading

• If these works are important, should they be cited in the text?

  At some point perhaps, and taking into consideration your comment above they're probably good candidates for additional source material if we ever get to FA level. For GAN we'll probably want to focus on improving the existing text first, though. Jafeluv (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• English translations of the titles would be helpful.

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Layout

• File:Juha Vainio ja Keijo Laitinen 1960-luvulla.jpg overlaps two sections, which is a layout no-no. Would it work better in one of the big sections higher up in the article?

  Moved it into the breakthrough section, which mentions the same song as the caption. Moved Eino Grön down to the alcohol use section as he's mentioned there. Jafeluv (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Other

• The article ends with a lot of very short sections. I think it would be good to merge some of this material with earlier sections and to avoid repetition. For example, "Many of the characters in Vainio's songs were based on his real friends." This is in the "People and places" section but simply repeats something said earlier in the article and could be deleted from "People and places". It would not be hard to move the rest of "People and places" into other sections and eliminate it altogether.

  Merged the "People and places" section elsewhere. Also, I'm not sure whether a separate section is needed for the nicknames and pseudonyms. They're already pretty well covered in the lead and in the biography section. Jafeluv (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review. Jafeluv (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Double Arches Pit

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get some detailed feedback from an uninvolved editor. The article is currently around a Start/C class grade, maybe one day this could make GA, with substantial improvements/additions of course. All feedback welcome :)

Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Since I do not know the area I am not much help in suggesting ways to expand the article much beyond more detail on what is already in the article and following the example of other articles.
• That said, I would start the History section with the Romans, since there is archological evidence they lived there.
• I would also give some brief history of the area in the intervening centuries up to the founding of the sand quarry. Something on the history of Heath and Reach and / or Leighton Buzzard - this could be quite brief.
• I would also give more history of the rail line - currently this is mentioned out of chronological order in just one sentence, but there is quite a bit of information at Leighton Buzzard Light Railway that could be included here (may need more / better sources)
• This should be refrenced directly to the magazine "The pit was mentioned in an article in the Cement, Lime & Gravel magazine..." - might also be worth seeing that has more info on the pit. In any case the date of the article should be mentioned.
• Any information on the uses of the sand mined there would be helpful too
• Make sure to distinguish between the historic pit and the current SSI (the original pit seems as if it covered a much larger area - 19 vs 4 acres)
• The article should have a Geology section, describing how the underlying rock and sand formed.
• If possible, there should also be a section about the plants and animals that live in and around the pit.
• Once it is expanded, 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.
• 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 - however the alternate name is only in the lead and should be in the body too (as should an explanation of each name). Please see WP:LEAD
• The map in the railroad article, File:LBLR Map.png, seems to show that Double Arches and New Trees were different quarries.
• Article needs some free images - the above map would work in a pinch, but images of the former quarry would be great
• 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 make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Heimler method of Human Social Functioning

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it is the first article that I have submitted.

Thanks, Cannygirl49 (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've edited and Wikified the article, but here are some further improvements that could be made:

• Use more inline citations, rather than just an end of article bibliography.
• Discuss the historical use and relevance of Heimler's methods.
• Don't link common terms like unique, subjectively, healing or society, unless linking to a more specific article, like "subjectivity (psychology)" or something. Some of these links may be useful, but go to disambiguation pages, like mirroring.
• Maybe add a history section to discuss the creation of the method.
• Add information about the method and the criticism to the lead.
• More summary would be useful; I find the prose unclear. For example: "Heimler’s approach engages with the need to clarify the crux of the problem so as to facilitate a remedy". It might help to use less quotations.
• It might help organizationally to create a section about use of the method distinct from the section describing the method itself.

~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 19:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: The tools at the top of this review page are quite useful in evaluating every article. The "disambig links" tool, for example, identifies eight links in this article that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets. You can use the tool yourself to see which ones they are. Finetooth (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Sheridan, Oregon

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to move this to GA status. Although I was not a major contributor to this, it appears to be very comprehensive and a good read. Need another set of eyes to ensure that the overall style and flow are up to standard.

Thanks, Neonblak ^talk - 19:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a generally well-done article. It's broad in coverage, nicely illustrated, nicely laid out, and generally well-sourced (with a few relatively minor exceptions). It needs more copyediting to polish the prose, but I think that otherwise it's ready for GAN. It has FA possibilities too, and with that in mind I have some suggestions for possible expansion.

Lead

• "This highway, along with Oregon Route 18 Business that connects west to neighboring Willamina, both run east–west through Sheridan along with the river, with Sheridan Bridge the only bridge crossing the river in town." - Faulty grammar. Suggestion: "This highway and Oregon Route 18 Business run east–west through Sheridan and nearby Willamina parallel to the river. Sheridan Bridge is the only river crossing within Sheridan."

• FCI, Sheridan should be spelled out as Federal Correctional Institution, Sheridan on first use.

History

• Who lived here and what happened in this region before 1850?

• "Absolem B. Faulconer laid out the plat for what became the city of Sheridan in the mid-1860s and recorded with the county on December 13, 1866." - Strange unparallel sentence structure. Maybe the second part should be split off as "The county recorded the plat on December 13, 1866".

• "On April 4, 1866, Sheridan received a post office... " - This is hard to picture. Perhaps something like "The Sheridan post office was established on April 4, 1866... "?

• Link "narrow gauge" to Narrow gauge railway?

• "The city was incorporated in 1880, and was a timber and farming community at a location southwest of Portland and northwest of Salem." - Tighten to "The city, a timber and farming community southwest of Portland and northwest of Salem, was incorporated in 1880"?

• "who was posted to Yamhill County and Fort Yamhill in the latter half of the 1850s to watch the Native Americans" - Would "guard" be more accurate than "watch"?

• Link hops?

• "St. Francis Xavier's opened in 1931 using a new building and several of the farm buildings, with additional buildings added over the next several decades" - "With" doesn't make a good conjunction. Suggestion: "Opening in a new building and several existing farm buildings in 1931, St. Francis Xavier's added more buildings over the next several decades."

• "The current steel bridge across the South Yamhill River was built as part of the Works Progress Administration and opened in 1939" - Needs a rewrite. A bridge is not part of an administration.

• "By 1940, agriculture was still a major industry, with the timber industry also growing in importance to the local economy." - Another ungrammatical "with" plus "-ing" construction.

• "The Jesuits sold off their training school in 1974... " - Tighten by deleting "off"?

• I'll stop at this point with the line-by-line commentary. Suffice to say that the article needs copyediting to identify small glitches and fix them.

Geography

• "According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 1.9 square miles (4.9 km2), of which 1.9 square miles (4.9 km2) is land and 0.1 square miles (0.3 km2) (2.6%) is water." - This claim is impossible. If it's all land, then none is water. The bots need help here.

Transportation

• The first paragraph of this section needs a source. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every unusual claim, and every paragraph. If one source supports a whole paragraph, the inline citation should go at the very end of the paragraph. Maps can be reliable sources for claims like the ones in this particular paragraph.

Government

• "Val Adamson is the mayor... " - I think I would qualify this by giving a date or dates. Something like "Elected in X, Val Adamson is the mayor; his term runs through Y."

Demographics

• I'd recommend rounding some of the numbers in this section.

• The standard demographics sections of U.S. city articles can lead to confusion during reviews. For example, it's not clear to everyone in the world how a U.S. "family" differs from a U.S. "household". One solution to this problem is to add a note quoting the Census Bureau's definitions, as in Glossary F. Here's my stab at it: "The Census Bureau distinguishes between "family" and "household". It says, "A family includes a householder and one or more people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption... [However,] [n]ot all households contain families since a household may consist of a group of unrelated people or one person living alone." This question might not arise in a GA review but might at FAC.

• Another kind of problem arises from using the {{GR}} template, which inserts a date in yyyy-mm-dd format in the reference section. When that format is out-of-sync with the other citation formatting, a fix involves creating a {{cite web}} (or similar) citation linked to the exact page in American Factfinder. In this case, that would be Sheridan city, Oregon. Once created, this citation can usually be added to the end of each paragraph in the demographics section; thus each paragraph meets WP:V. Sorry if this seems unbearably nit-picky.

References

• Nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com (citation 43) may not be reliable per WP:RS. Better would be the Oregon National Register List published by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department.

• Citation 4 needs a publisher and date of publication.

• Citation 25 needs an url and a date of most recent access.

• Citation 8 seems to need a place of publication. Is Oregon-Jesuit a publisher?

• What makes High-Schools.com (citation 40) a reliable source?

• Citation 49 needs a date of publication.

Other

• To improve this to FA level, you might consider adding something about county, state, and Congressional representatives to the "Government" section.

• It would probably also help to add something to the "Geography" section about geology and the origin of the good agricultural land.

• Should there be something more about timber in the article? The lead mentions it, and it is mentioned again in the "History" section, but the thought is not developed.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Tucker Middle School

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to level up my article level. Please help!

Thanks, -PsiΨ (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Peer review is meant for articles that are nearly ready for WP:GAN or WP:FAC rather than brand-new ones like this. Looking briefly at the article's talk page, I see that others have mentioned things that I might have mentioned, chiefly the article's dependence on a single source. Unless you can find other sources like newspaper articles that meet the guidelines at WP:RS, it will be hard to keep the article from being deleted. I think you would be wise to keep talking to other editors on the article's talk page to figure out how best to proceed. Finetooth (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's pretty tough to find much about middle schools except in the schools' own publications. It might be helpful to look at other articles about schools to see what other editors have done. WP:FA#Education has a list of featured articles about education, and the list includes some high schools (although no middle schools). Finetooth (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  

---

When Love Takes Over

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

It is nearing the standards (I believe) that are required for WP:FA. However rather than jumping straight into an FA review I thought it would be good to get a wider view on what people think about the state of the article. I've tried to use a wide variety or reliable sources and search long and hard to create an informed article about each aspect of the song.

Thanks, -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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

---

X-Men: First Class (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because per WP:GT requirements, this has to be peer reviewed per bla bla bla. Read it here at criterion 3.c. This coincides with an upcoming X-Men films Good topic candidacy. I have recently improved the articles, with X-Men: First Class written in collaboration with Jhenderson777. There will definitely be more content as the film's release gets closer. Wildroot (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

For right now this is just a start class. I corrected myself on changing it to B class so quickly although so far the article is doing pretty good so far for reaching it's potential for B-Class. I am up for any opinions on how to make this start class article to at least a B class in the future. Although it's definitely not ready for good article or featured article status yet since it's not released I am willing to try to make it stay to that potential. ;) − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: PR is meant for articles approaching GA or FA rather than start-class articles. However, here are a few comments and suggestions:

• The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. The existing lead is only three sentences long and is not a true summary. It says nothing about the "Premise", and "Casting" sections, for example. I imagine you are planning to rewrite the lead when the other substantive additions are completed, but I don't know this for sure. My rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that is not developed in the main text.

• "Penn compared the idea to the comic book series X-Men: First Class,[30] and Josh Schwartz was writing the screenplay in May 2008." - Are the two independent clauses that form this sentence logically connected?

• "Schwartz's writing assignment also included the possibility of directing of X-Men: First Class,[32] but Fox approached Bryan Singer... ". - Should this be 20th Century Fox on first use in the main text?

• My impression is that a reader unfamiliar with the many other films mentioned in the text will be lost. There are a lot of vague references such as "spin-off", "pretty interesting idea", "not what you'd expect", "elements", "a new direction with a fresh, young cast", and so on, but nothing specific. The unexplained allusions to other films and to comic books will mean nothing to readers who haven't seen those films and read the comic books. Specific examples of what the generalizations allude to are essential to improving the article.

• What makes Bleeding Cool a reliable source per WP:RS? It's a blog.

• What makes Ain't It Cool reliable?

• Do all of the other cited sources meet the WP:RS guidelines?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

---

M-6 (Michigan highway)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has just passed its ACR under the US Roads project. It could use some non-project feedback before it goes to FAC. On a side note, I'm in discussions with the Michigan Department of Transportation on releasing some aerial photos of the freeway for use in the article. They have given me the photos via e-mail with a non-free license, and I'm awaiting word to see if they'll allow them to be uploaded without the "no derivatives" restriction. I'm also waiting on a research request with the AAA of Michigan for some maps. (They were originally promised "within a few weeks" at the beginning of November, a time table that has been pushed back to January.) These maps would support a paragraph in the history that is currently commented out, awaiting non-SPS verification.

Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 23:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

MDOT released the photos into the public domain, so they've been uploaded and added. Imzadi 1979 → 20:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article is generally well presented, with good images. The two problem areas that I identify concern prose and sources.

Prose

There are a number of issues with the prose. I have only had time to go through the lead in any detail, and I found numerous things needing attention there – I've listed these below. I imagine there will be other issues in the remainder of the text, and it would be a good idea to get the whole thing copyedited, preferably by someone who has worked on road articles before.

• Although "Ottawa" is linked to the county article, my first impression was of a highway beginning in Canada, and although this is easily corrected by a glance at the map,I was momentarily disconcerted. I suggest that you make it Ottawa County.
• I don't like the second sentence beginning "Even after..." - it sounds slightly querulous. Suggest: "Although the freeway is named for the late congressman, local residents and the press continue to use the original name, South Beltline".
• "The freeway connects Interstate 196 (I-196) on the west with I-96 on the east and U.S. Highway 131 (US 131) in the middle while running through the south side of the Grand Rapids metropolitan area in Western Michigan." Not at all easy to understand. With the aid of the map I worked it out, and I think the sentence should run something like this: "The freeway runs through the south side of the Grand Rapids metropolitan area in Western Michigan. Its west and east ends join Interstates 196 and 96 (I-196 and I-96) respectively, and it intersects with U.S. Highway 131 (US 131) midway through its course".
• "Each end is in a more rural area..." would read better as "Each end is in a relatively rural area..." (avoiding the "more than what?" question). And, later in the same sentence, I'd replace "middle" with "central section".
• "From the time that the state authorized funding with the goal of construction to the time of the ribbon cutting that opened the South Beltline to traffic, it took 32 years to approve, plan, finance and build the freeway." This is far too wordy. The vital information is all contained in the last few words, leaving most of the sentence redundant. I suggest you incorporate the important details into the opening sentence, thus: "The freeway was original conceived in the 1960s and its initial funding approved in 1975, although it took a further 32 years to complete it." I'm not sure, incidentally, how the 32 years is worked out. If as you say, funding was approved in 1975 and he freeway was fully open in 2004, that's 29 years.
• "The project cost around $700 million (equivalent to $814 million in 2010) or around $35 million/mi (approximately $22 million/km, equivalent to $41 million/mi or $26 million/km in 2010)." Don't abbreviate to "$35 million/mi", say "$35 million per mile". It is also unnecessary to include present-day values for such a recent project. I strongly advise you to drop these comparisons.
• "The project was built with the first single-point urban interchange in Michigan and a new technique was used to apply the pavement markings, embedding them into the concrete to reduce the chance a snowplow would scrape them off". The "and" connector should not be used to combine unrelated facts into a single sentence.

Sources

• The main issue here is that a majority of the citations (29 in all) are from a single source, Grand Rapids Press. If we exclude the 13 map citations, that's 29 out of 38 - and 6 of these other are to the Consumer Price Index. That does seem rather like over-reliance on a particular source. I realise that a local newspaper will be an inportant source in an article like this, but this extent of near-exclusivity is a bit bothersome. Are there any other possible sources that could be drawn on?
• Ref 29 is missing publisher details. What makes this a reliable source?

I am sorry I don't have more time to work on the prose, but I hope these few comments prove useful. If you want to raise anything with me arising from this review, or would like me to look at it again, please contact me via my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for prose polishing, so while your comments are helpful in that regard, the utility is limited. I've set up a GoCE request, and I'll work with your comments above on the lead. We'll see what happens with the GoCE. As for your sourcing concerns, I completely disagree on the first point. What other sources do you want me to use? Would it matter if I had pulled the same articles from the Press's sister publications like the Holland Sentinel? I just don't see the problem since these articles span from 1982 through 2009 (27 years) and multiple reporters, and presumably different editors and publishers on the staff of the paper. As for reference 29, it is a photo from a personal website. Photos are an exemption to the OR policy, and really reference what is a minor detail in the overall story of the freeway. (It was a catchy detail for a DYK hook and could be removed now.) Imzadi 1979 → 21:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

---

Cliburn

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

• There is a lot more still to be said about this village, like the school
• Cliburn Moss and St. Cuthberts church, Cliburn should definatelly be split into separate articles and Cliburn Hall may warrant being split into a separate article
• The sections on Cliburn Bridge and Cliburn Mill Bridge could be expanded

Sources

Cliburn Moss

• Google book results
• Google search
  • Note there are related searches like Cliburn moss national nature reserve, Cliburn moss nnr etc

St. Cuthberts church, Cliburn

• Google search
• Google Books

Cliburn Hall

• Google search
• Google books

Cliburn Bridge

• Google search
• Google books

Cliburn Mill Bridge

• Google search
• Google books

Cliburn School

• Google search
• Google books

Other

• http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=43520

Thanks, Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 14:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I don't understand the purpose of listing all these google links. A quick glance at the article leads me to think that it is not yet ready for the peer review process, a sentiment clearly shared by others on the article's talk page. It has less than 400 words of text and is very much a stub/start-class at present. Peer review is for quality articles that have already undergone extensive development; this clearly does not qualify. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I'm also a little confused; the nominator seems to be putting forward suggestions on how to improve the article. Wouldn't it be better to follow your own suggestions and come back here when you've exhausted them? --BelovedFreak 18:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Odd request - note on further information

I expanded the article ~4 months ago using web resources - I don't think there is much more significant information online about the civil parish. If someone wants to expand the article further I think they will need to go to a local history library somewhere in Cumbria to get more information.

The exception is cliburn school which I assumed wasn't notable - it may be - note [6] gives a interesting piece of trivia regarding the school.

Agree with above - purpose of peer review seems to be have misunderstood - if editor sees room for further expansion they should really do that themselves first. The list at Category:Geography and places peer reviews shows that this request is rather atypical - usually articles have become substantial first before peer review.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There are other civil parishes in Cumbria see Category:Civil parishes in Cumbria - many of the articles have not been expanded, and are unreferenced (eg Bolton, Cumbria - I'd recommend avoiding giving this article undue weight and expanding the others.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Also articles such as Clifton, Cumbria of similar size, lack an infobox - which would be something an editor who knows about those could do. I've got to say that this emphasis on cliburn isn't really helpful when other articles could be so much easily expanded, and the current article contains a good summary of the civil parish.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

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

---

The Gaslight Anthem discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This one should be pretty easy. I just need some looking-over of this discography list to see what else I need to nominate it for Featured List.

Thanks, --Silverskylines (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Per the Discographies Project I have assessed the article with a "B" grade (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment), which is the highest it can get without going through the whole peer review process. The article deserves this grade so far but getting to FL status will probably require a fair amount of work. That's beyond my expertise for the time being, but I suspect that the "Music videos" and "Other appearances" sections are going to need some serious expansion, and the list of references may have to be diversified. But I'll leave that to the FL peer review experts. Good luck! --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• GreatOrangePumpkin comments:

• EPs, Music Videos and Other appearances should be referenced (only reliable sources)
• Use this certification for UK, instead of yours.
• Why there are no more charts in the singles paragraph?
• Why there are no charts in the Live albums paragraph?
• Only 10 out of 12 currently available charts should be used (per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style)
• Please see this here
• Publisher for the charts are false:
  • AUT, FIN, IRE, NOR, SWE, SWI -> Hung Medien
  • BEL -> Ultratop & Hung Medien / hitparade.ch
  • NLD -> Hung Medien / hitparade.ch
• No external links? See here for example.

Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Marouane Chamakh

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is capable of becoming a good article despite repeat vandalism. Whoever reviews the article, please be aware that the article was in perfect condition upon its listing. Any vandalizing that occurs after hopefully can be removed immediately.

Thanks, Joao10Siamun (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Hugo Lloris

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is of significant importance to French football with the article being about one of the most identifiable players in the current and, more than likely, future France national team setup.

Thanks, Joao10Siamun (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Lew Carpenter

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

I worked on this article and had some one check it and he did a review on the talk page. I have made many corrections and fixes as requested. Now after a week or so of waiting for the person to re-review to remove the Cleanup-rewrite|article|date=November 2010 maintence tag, I need a good review to move forward to at least a B class rating.

And I am having the darnest time with the infobox. If anyone can help there, I would appreciate it. I must be missing something simple on it ...

Thanks, Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Surena

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it deserves much more than "Start Class".

Thanks, *** in fact *** (contact) 13:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, but providing more context for the reader would make the article more accessible to a wide audience. Here is a list of comments and suggestions:

• The Manual of Style advises against extremely short paragraph and extremely short sections. Two possible solutions are to expand the shorties or to merge them. Examples of extremely short paragraphs are the one-sentence paragraphs that begin the lede and the "House of Suren" section, and the first and last paragraphs of the "General Surena" section. The article also has a few two-sentence paragraphs. The result is a choppy look and feel.

Lede

• "From Ammianus Marcellinus (24.2.4)" - What does "(24.2.4)" refer to?

• The lede should be an inviting summary of the whole article rather than an introduction. My rule of thumb is to try to at least mention each of the main text sections and to include nothing important in the lede that is not developed in the main text. For example, the existing lede mentions Ammianus Marcellinus, but he is not mentioned in the main text. Information about the name origin appears in the lede but not in the main text. Perhaps the first section of the article could become "Name origin". WP:LEAD has other suggestions.

• 'Surena' remains to be popular in Iran. - Wikipedia prefers double quotation marks except in case of nested quotations (single inside of double) as in the preceding sentence of the lede. Most (but not all) of the single quotation marks in the article should be changed to double quotation marks.

• Why does note d appear as a note instead of an inline citation?

House of Suren

• "... in sources dateable to the Arsacid period." - I'd suggest moving the period dates up to this first mention rather than waiting until the second mention in the next sentence.

• "Following the 3rd century AD defeat of the Arsacids and the subsequent rise of the Sassanids, the Surenas then switched sides and began to serve the Persians... ". - Would it be helpful here to make clear that the Sassanids were Persians?

• "The last attested scion of the family" - Would "descendant" be more clear to the average reader than "scion"?

• "active in northern Chine" - Can "Chine" be linked to something that would explain it, or can its location be briefly described?

• "was once a much larger region than the present day province" - In which country is the present-day province?

General Surena

• ""Ernst Herzfeld maintained that the dynasty of [the Indo-Parthian emperor] Gondophares represented the House of Suren." - When quoting an entire sentence like this, it's often good to include some sort of attribution; e.g., "According to A.D.H. Bivar, "Ernst Herzfeld... ". I wonder, though, why Herzfeld is not cited directly. Why quote Biver quoting Herzfeld instead of quoting Herzfeld?

• "Other notable members of the family include the 1st century BC cavalry commander General Surena (see below)... ". - Instead of telling the readers directly to do something, in this case to "see below", I'd just delete "(see below)". It doesn't seem necessary.

• "during the reign of the Arsacid dynast Orodes II (r. 57–38 BC)" - What does "r." stand for? Should it be spelled out rather than abbreviated to make it more accessible to the readers?

• "written c. 225 years after the commander's time" - Here "about" would be more familiar than "c.".

• "on the western Arsacid vassalaries" - Is "vassalaries" the right word? I don't find it in my dictionary, and I'm unsure of its meaning. "Vassal" means "servant".

• WP:MOSQUOTE advises against linking any words inside direct quotations. If you want to link "Rustam" and "Shahnameh", you should paraphrase the quoted material rather than quoting directly. Alternatively (and perhaps better in this case), you could expand the article by explaining these terms.

• "In some ways, the position of [Surena] in the historical tradition is curiously parallel to that of Rustam in the [Shahnameh]." "Yet despite the predominance of Rustam in the epic tradition, it has never been possible to find him a convincingly historical niche." - These sentences should be attributed within the text. More context would also be helpful for readers who have never heard of Rustam or Shahnameh.

• The last sentence of this section needs a source.

Images

• File:Crest (Black Back).jpg overlaps two sections. MOS:IMAGES suggests placing an image entirely within the section it illustrates. Also, the license page should say where this image comes from. What source supports the idea that it is the crest of the House of Suren?

• File:SurenaImage.jpg. What source supports the claim that this image is "believed to represent General Surena"?

Other

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds two dead urls in the citations.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 04:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed an FAC earlier this year due to prose issues. I think the article meets the other FA criteria (eg is a comprehensive review of the sources) but it needs a good prose review from a second pair of eyes before another submission at FAC. I would be very grateful for that, whether or not it passes FA.

Thanks, Mkativerata (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is an interesting article, not far from FA quality in my view. My main concern is that in some areas depth may be lacking, as with the very short Commentary section. In some cases I found the terminology obscure, not easy to fathom, and in other cases specific information, e.g. the referendum results, is not given. Here are a few detailed comments and suggestions:-

Lead

• What does this mean: "the court has looked to the law's purpose rather than its effect"?
• "...the provision has played a minor role in Australian Constitutional history". Reads as though it needs an "only" before "a minor role". Also, "constitutional" should not be capitalised.

• Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• The word "resoundingly" reads a little like opinion, and would be better withdrawn, or replaced with something factual like "by large margins" (though you don't indicate the margin for the first referendum).

• Done. As some would dispute whether the 1944 margin was wide, I've removed the adverb without replacement. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Text of the provision and location in the Constitution

• Second paragraph: should this read "...any Commonwealth office of public trust , per the resolution's wording?

• I've made an error in transcribing the section. It must be a typo: f and r being close on the keyboard. I've checked the rest of the section and it is transcribed correctly. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• "This location is incongruous". Again, this reads like editorial opinion. If it comes from the source, this should be clarified.

• The gist is adequately conveyed by a later statement. "Incongruous" is supported by the source but as it's a bold word it's probably better to leave it out and rely on the later "erroneous". --Mkativerata (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The Australian Constitution does not include a Bill of rights, while the limited protections that the Constitution confers have been circumscribed by their drafting and judicial interpretation." I am not sure that the purpose or significance of this sentence will be apparent to the general reader. It sounds like a general comment on the nature of the Australian constitution, and I'm not clear about its precise relevance to the matter in hand.

  Removed. I only added this sentence very recently to try to contextualise the US/Australia differences, but you're right, reading the paragraph with a bit of distance it probably confuses rather than contextualises. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of "religion"

• "...the definition of religion needed to be flexible but recognise the need to be sceptical of disingenous claims of religious practice". Needs a "should" before "recognise"

• Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the wish to improve the presentation via images, a picture of the Scientology building in Los Angeles does seem to be stretching the concept of relevancy.

• Removed. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Prohibiting the free exercise of any religion

• Bearing in mind the opening to the preceding section, I think the first sentence here needs to be redrafted along the lines: "The protection of the free exercise of religion was also interpreted narrowly in early High Court judgments".

• Done.

"Commentary"

• This section seems very brief, given the 110-year history of this provision and the controversy it has engendered.

• I've expanded it by adding some new commentators and expanding some of the existing ones (especially Williams).

Referendums

• Should we not have some indication of the margin of failure in the 1944 referendum? In more general terms, results of referenda are often affected by irrelevent factors, such as the overall popularity of the incumbent government. The late 1980s were the latter years of the Hawke administration - is it possible that the 1988 result was skewed by this factor? Again, we are not told the margin of the defeat.

• I've added the 1944 results, and reasons for the 1988 outcome. Williams, writing 20 years later, (Williams is in my view the most reliable source) attributes the 1988 outcome on Section 116 to the Coalition's campaign against it rather than any external political factors. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. As I do not watch peer reviews, if you wish to raise any point with me please contact me via my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Grand Coulee Dam

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I plan on getting this article up to featured status and would like comments, insight or any contributions from the community. Any help is much appreciated. Thank you.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

General

• Some overlinking, for example "U.S. state" and common words such as "irrigation" and "concrete". This can be frowned upon in FA-land.
• Sometimes when you give measurements, you have periods afterward (ex "he supported a 290 ft (88 m). dam"). Those all need to be removed per WP:MOSNUM.

Lead

• Parallel structure needed: "one of which wanted to irrigate" and "the other side who supported"
• "In 1933, the dam was selected" Why passive voice and no subject? After that, a comma is needed to separate "but for fiscal reasons", but I suspect the whole sentence should be re-written in active voice.
• "After visiting the construction site in August 1934, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt changed his mind" Does this mean it was he who selected the dam?
• Whereas you linked unneeded terms earlier, things like "spillway" bear explanation or linking.
• "Between 1967 and 1974, the third powerplant was constructed in conjunction with the dam." You never mentioned there were previously two. Why "power plant" earlier, and now "powerplant"?

Background

• "Clapp was joined with another attorney" Joined by, surely?
• O Sullivan or O'Sullivan? You have both.
• Not sure why you're using past perfect in some cases, for example "The idea had gained popularity with the public"? Why not just "idea gained"? This needs attention throughout.
• "The ditchers took a number of steps to assure support for their proposals." The "a number of" construction is rarely needed. "The ditchers took steps" is just as effective.
• President Harding was normally known as "Warren G. Harding" and your wikilink is a redirect to that name.
• "The Bureau of Reclamation also completed a similar report in 1932 that also supported a dam." Redundant also.. remove one.

Interesting read so far! I will return to leave more comments. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy, thanks for reviewing and providing comments on the article! I am busy with the holidays and will make more changes here soon. Just in regards to the "Third Powerplant"; that is what the Bureau of Reclamation officially calls it. It is different than the other two at the base of the dam which are usually referred to as "power house(s)". It is a little confusing but I just wanted to be consistent with their naming conventions.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Construction

• "It would still, although at a reduced capacity, help control floods, provide for irrigation and hydroelectricity." Seems like a conjunction or something is missing in here.
• "However, the dam's design gave it the ability to be raised and upgraded in the future." This could be stated more elegantly. Perhaps: "However, the dam's design provided for future raising and upgrading."
• "Contracts for companies to construct the various parts dam were hard to award because of how large they were compared to companies available, forcing companies to consolidate." This is a bit muddy. I understand what you're saying, but it needs rewriting. Suggest: "The construction contracts were difficult to award, as few available companies were sizable enough to fulfill them. As a result, companies were forced to consolidate."
• "The consortium was known as MWAK and their bid was $29,339,301.10" Why give the precise figure for this one but round off Six Companies' bid? They should be consistent, I think.
• I would move the wikilink for cofferdam to the first mention.
• Need consistency in writing about companies as singular or plural entities. For example, you have "Six Companies ... was" in one place, and "Six Companies ... were" in another.
• "A total of 77 men died." This seems a bit out of place in the narrative.
• "Mason city contained a hospital, post office, electricity, and other amenities" Here you use the serial comma—in many other places, you do not. Should be consistent.
• In "Irrigation pumps", not sure why "irrigation" is linked but not earlier.

Later expansions

• The heading itself could be changed to "Later expansion"
• "This included 6 pumps and 6 pump-generators." WP:MOSNUM
• Overhauls: Why are some of the generators hyphenated and some not?

Operation and benefits

• Again, please look at linking. Some terms are linked that have been linked before (irrigation)
• "Pump Generating Plant" sometimes hyphenated, sometimes not. Should be consistent.

It's looking very good. Most of the issues are not substantive and just involve consistency, application of MoS, etc. Would be happy to glance over it again after you make edits and before you bring it to FAC. Thanks for the interesting read! --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy, thanks again for the comments. Most of all, I am glad you enjoyed reading it! I made a bunch of changes and will look over it more, especially for English errors that may be systematic. I have a reference problem that I may have to work out and then it'd be great if you could look it over one more time before FAC.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Remember Paul?

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it will eventually meet the criteria for "good article" status.

Thanks, Akcvtt (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems broad in coverage and well-organized. I note a few sentences that seem confusing or overly complex, and I have a few other suggestions for improvement.

Lead

• "... and continued the ongoing storyline of Susan (Teri Hatcher) and Mike's (James Denton) financial problems." - Slightly smoother because of the split possessive might be "and continued the ongoing storyline of the financial problems of Susan (Teri Hatcher) and Mike (James Denton)."

• "and continued the ongoing storyline" - Since it was "continued", there's no reason to say it was "ongoing". I'd just delete "ongoing".

Background

• "Ten years later, Paul was released from jail and began renting Susan and Mike's home." - Should this be in present tense? I ask because two sentences later a sentence says, "Paul's return to Wisteria Lane jolts the neighborhood... ". Does he return in this episode? If so, the "began renting" sentence should probably be "is released from jail and begins renting".

Episode

• "on which she would viewed via web-cam doing housework in lingerie" - Word or words missing?

• "Lynette threatens to kick her out until Renee reveals that Doug has left her for another woman." - Does this mean that Lynette changes her mind after Renee reveals that Doug has left her, or does it mean that Lynette bullies Renee until she confesses?

Production

• "The character's name was originally reported as Renee Filmore-Jones and was conceived as a trouble-making vixen, similar to the deceased Edie Britt character, portrayed by Nicollette Sheridan until the fifth season." - I see several problems with this sentence. First, the name wasn't conceived as a trouble-making vixen. Second, it's not clear who "reported" the name as Filmore-Jones and whether this happened in the fiction or in the real-life advertising for the episode. Third, there is no obvious connection between her name and her character. Fourth, it's not clear from this whether the Britt character was portrayed by someone other than Sheridan after the fifth season, or whether the Britt character disappeared from the fiction after the fifth season.

• "Following the casting announcement, Williams admitted to having been a fan for the series during its first year, but stopped watching because of the second season mystery storyline, which focused on Betty Applewhite (Alfre Woodard), the series' first black main character." - This is a bit too complex. It might be better to recast it as two separate sentences. Suggestion: "Following the casting announcement, Williams said she had been a fan of the series during its first year but stopped watching because of the second-season storyline. It focused on Betty Applewhite (Alfre Woodard), the series' first black main character."

• "Harriet Samson Harris also returned to reprise her role as Felicia.[11][12] while Steven... " - Comma after Felicia rather than terminal period?

Reception

• WP:MOSQUOTE advises against fancy quotation marks. I'd recommend a {{quote box}}.

• Rather than making a separate and extremely short section for the international versions, I'd recommend merging them with the "Reception" section by saying something like, "The episode appeared in X other languages in Y countries. The languages were A, B, C, ... ". On the other hand, if the three-item list is incomplete, it might be better to complete it or delete it rather than just naming three. Did it have a Swedish title, for example? A Japanese title? A Spanish title?

References

• The first three citations are to other Wikipedia articles, which is a no-no. Wikipedia can't be a reliable source for itself.

• Citation 4 should not be bolded.

Images

• File:Vanessa Williams homezfoo.jpg would probably be better on the left so that Williams looks into the page instead of out.

• The caption doesn't need to say "pictured".

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Shakespeare authorship question

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been almost totally rewritten from a neutral POV using scholarly reliable sources only. In the past it has been a very contentious page and a POV battleground, and I want to try to take it to FA status, which I think would help stabilise it to keep its neutral POV.

Thanks, Tom Reedy (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

---

The Room (video game)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to prepare my new article for a Good Article nomination. I know this can be done with articles on flash games because one such article exists with GA status. I have took this article to WP:FEEDBACK and the one person that replied said the article was well made unlike most new articles. FYI, this isn't an official game based on The Room just in case you were wondering because I doubt that Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft would dare place this on their list of console games.

Thanks, SixthAtom (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: PR is meant for articles nearing GA or FA quality rather than undeveloped articles like this one. Still, here are a few tips.

• The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. It should not include important information that is not developed in the main text sections. The existing lead discusses the game's development, but the article doesn't have a development section. Perhaps it should.

• The article needs copyediting. For example, this sentence makes no sense as written: "The game follows almost the same exact plot as that of the movie, in which that Johnny's fiance is in a love triangle with Mark and Johnny." Neither does this one: "Unlike in the movie, the game starts off with Lisa and Denny at Johnny's tombstone (which has been portrayed as a tall 16-bit representation of Tommy Wiseau, then the game goes back two weeks ago to Johnny coming back from the Bank of San Francisco with an earthquake suddenly starts up (most likely a reference to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake)." You might find copyediting help via WP:GOCE/REQ.

• Make sure that the sources you cite meet the WP:RS guidelines. Blogs, fan sites, and many dot-coms do not meet the guidelines.

• Should the article have a "Gameplay" section?

• It's often helpful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar topics. WP:FA#Video gaming lists featured articles about video games.

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find three links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Hey Sixth, coming at it from the standpoint of a frequent video game article writer:

• Copyediting as Finetooth says is important! Also, take a look at the Manual of Style; there are stylistic elements that are handled either in violation of the MoS or else inconsistently (for example with the sentence "The game has also had positive reviews from press..." commas and punctuation go before references, not after.)
• Expansion! A general video game article needs four sections: gameplay, explaining how players go about playin' the thing; a plot section; a development section that explains some of the background info; and the reception section that summarizes critical reaction. This article has the beginnings of two but really needs the others. Also, the plot section does a bad job introducing people to the game, especially as it presumes readers know about The Room (the movie.) You can't expect foreknowledge with Wiki articles, so introduce the movie and don't go into too much detail about the movie details. A good benchmark I use is cutting most of the plot details if they cannot be sourced reliably.
  • You have a bunch of reviews linked in the reception section, but there's little in the way of actual prose. Depending on the game, you may only have enough reception to explain "good" things and "bad things", or you might be able to break critical reaction down by features or elements (see for example Halo Wars, where multiplayer, plot, overall impressions and gameplay are broken into separate paragraphs.)
  • Interviews with developers on the technical aspects of the game or how they decided to create the game are good things to start looking for to create a development section.
  • The gameplay section explains how the game is played (its genre, etc.) and some of the content you have in the lead (but not in the body) would be what you could start the section with.
  • Current reference #1 (http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1196209/2) is not a reliable source as its using a pseudonymous user as an authority on what a real person said (I've removed the line as a WP:BLP issue.) A couple of the other references are blogs and may or may not be appropriate.
• For more guidance, I recommend Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines as a good place to start if you're looking for advice on layout and structuring. For exemplar articles to use as examples, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Featured content.

I don't watchlist old reviews, but you can drop me a note on my talk page if you have further questions. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

---

London Underground A60 and A62 stock

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to make it a Featured Article. I need to know how much more I need to do with this article.

Thanks, Marianian^(talk) 05:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a train guy, but I guess I'll give it a shot.

• Intro seems to swing around - is this a particular design? Or a particular manufactured group? Reading further it seems to be both?
• 'however, the stock provides more seats than the S Stock, which began replacing the A Stock from 31 July 2010' <-- a number of lines like this could be worded better; for example, I would have written this as something like 'however, the A Stock still provided more seating than its successor (the S Stock in 31 July 2010)'.
• The Design section is a little disjointed like that. For example, the width factoid gets an entire line while it would have been natural to mention that its 'transverse' seating design made it the widest.
• How did they come to be replaced? When was the decision made, who made it? That's interesting.
• Were they all scrapped? That seems to be implied in the final section, but maybe some were sold off and turned into homes or artworks or something. (If any were turned into art, that would be very worth mentioning.)

--Gwern (contribs) 18:37 24 December 2010 (GMT)

Note on title: I believe that "Stock" should be "stock" per MOS. Brianboulton (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I love riding trains, visiting train stations, and looking at train maps. However, I know little about the trains themselves and how they work. I find this article interesting, yet for a variety of reasons it is not yet ready for WP:GAN let alone WP:FAC. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.

• I agree with Brian that "stock" should be lower-case in the article title.

• I agree with Gwern that the writing is uneven in places. When you finish making substantive changes to the article, you might seek copyediting help via WP:GOCE/REQ.

• Quite a few paragraphs in the article lack sources and therefore do not meet the WP:V guidelines. For example, the first and third paragraphs of the "Design" section are without sources as are the first and third paragraphs of the "Operation" section. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every unusual claim, every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every paragraph (except usually in the lead). If a single source covers an entire paragraph, the citation goes at the very end of the paragraph. If a paragraph has a citation or citations but they are in the middle of the paragraph, the final sentences of the paragraph are not covered by them and may need their own citation(s). For example, the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the "Operation" section makes an unusual claim (last stock on the London Underground without an automated public address system) but provides no source for it. And surely a pointed claim like "thus being dubbed as the only proper train on the system" needs a source.

• The lede should be a summary of the whole article rather than an essay-type introduction. My rule of thumb is to try to include in the lede at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything in the lede that is not developed in the main text. WP:LEAD has details.

• The Manual of Style frowns on extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sections because they create a choppy look and feel. Two ways to cure the problem are to merge shorties or to expand them. For example, the third and fourth paragraph of the "Operation" section could be merged.

• The red and green check boxes in the "Other areas of operation" table are apt to pose problems for visually impaired readers using screen-reading devices. Better would be to use text, "yes" and "no", than the colored images.

• The colour coding in the A60 stock table poses the same problem. People who are colour blind or visually impaired in other ways may not be able to access the coloured part of the information in the table. One solution to this problem would be to use a text code as well as a colour code and a key explaining the codes in text as well as colour. An example of how this works can be seen in quite a few featured lists, List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations, for example, where a key above the main table uses simple symbols as well as colours.

• I'm not sure what is going on with the two-column section immediately below the biggest table. For example, one subhead says, "Renumberings (in italics):", but nothing appears in italics. Also, the two columns bump into one another on my computer screen.

• The 737 line of the two-column section has an embedded external link to WorldCat. No embedded links to external sites should appear in the main text of a Wikipedia article. Instead, create inline citations to external sources that support claims in the text.

• WP:MOSBOLD suggests limiting bolding to a few special cases. The bolding of the stock names in the "Development and intoduction" section would be better in italics. Ditto the A in Amersham.

• Use p. as the abbreviation for single pages and pp. for multiple pages. For example, citation 3 should list p. 36.

• Link "destination blind" to Rollsign on first use in the main text (but not in the head)?

• Wikipedia articles use double quotation marks rather than single. Thus, throughout the article, items like 'outer suburban' should be changed to "outer suburban".

Images

• The category-check tag on the description page of the lead image should be addressed.

• File:A60 interior Baker Street 2010 2.JPG overlaps two sections, which is a Manual of Style no-no. Perhaps it would be better in the "Operation" section.

• The London Transport Portal belongs in 'External links" if used at all.

• You might find it helpful to look at Featured List articles about trains and at train articles listed at WP:FA#Transport.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the feedback so far. The changes implemented so far are as follows:

• Page notations have been revised and as per WP:MOS, the bold in-line text are now in italics instead.

• Along with quote improvements, the unverifiable claim of it being the "proper train" has been removed, it now refers to similarities with National Rail stock instead. Also, Destination Sign is now wikilinked to Rollsign.

• The footnotes system of the roster table has been revised with symbols supplementing colours, and re-numberings also made part of the revised scheme. The key to legend is now above the detailed table. In addition the WorldCat link has been removed, having been mentioned many times. The two column footnote table has been reverted to one column only.

• Ticks and crosses have been replaced by wordings only.

• Finally, and most importantly, as per WP:MOS the page has been moved to London Underground A60 and A62 stock

The London Transport Portal link appears to be hooked to a template which is used in many LT-related pages. Removal may upset some users but I may try. Also, the lead picture is apparently too dark so it may have to be reverted to the one at Pinner, which had better lighting. I don't know why one editor chose the dark Chesham version. I'll keep you up to date as the edits continue.--Marianian^(talk) 17:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Final Fantasy XIII

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it just passed GA status and also to get suggestions from outsiders before I take this to Featured Article status. This article looks perfect for a GA, and any comments that would help improve this page for FA status should be very much appreciated.

Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't see anything majorly wrong, but I question the current 'See also' section. I mean, Wikibooks is as much of an external link as Commons is, isn't it? --Gwern (contribs) 23:06 7 January 2011 (GMT)

You know... I don't actually know what the rule is for Book links. I just always see them in a SeeAlso. But I like what you're saying, and the box nestles in nicely down there. Moved. --PresN 23:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This sounds like an interesting game. The article appears to be comprehensive or nearly so, though I am not the best judge of this kind of content. I have reservations about some of the prose and some of the images; I make quite a few specific suggestions below, mostly about prose and Manual of Style issues.

• The collapsible list in the infobox causes a jumbling of letters on my computer screen. Specifically, it overlaps and distorts the "Release date" line.

• Huh. I'm not sure what to do about this- I've never seen that problem anywhere. I'm going to leave it for now, and see if anyone at FAC hits it as well- it's easy to remove, but it's a fairly wide-spread template. --PresN 20:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Combinations like "1.7 million" should be held together by no-break codes to keep the parts from being awkwardly separated on computer screens by line-break. WP:NBSP is the guideline. These combinations appear here and there throughout the article.

• Done. --PresN 20:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• "a fast-paced combat mechanic" - Should this phrase be linked or briefly explained?

• Turns out there really isn't a good link for video game combat mechanics, but I went with Gameplay of Final Fantasy#Parties and battles. --PresN 20:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• "while also trying to discover their Focus—the tasks they must complete as l'Cie before they are turned either into monsters or crystal—or if they can avoid their fate." - Tighten by deleting "or if they can avoid their fate"? Or recast as "... tasks they must complete as l'Cie to avoid being turned into monsters or crystal"?

• I think what's worse is that you misread the meaning of the sentence, since they get turned into crystal if they're successful and monsters if they're not- which means that the sentence is a failure as-is. Re-did it, hopefully tighter. --PresN 20:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Write out as well as abbreviated E3 as Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) on first use?

• Done. --PresN 20:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Reviewers were more mixed in their opinion on the game's story and linearity compared to previous games in the series." - Maybe "opinions about" rather than "opinion on"?

• Done. --PresN 20:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Gameplay

• "The player can also control the camera with the right analog stick... " - Would it be good idea to include a brief description of the game-playing apparatus in this section? Many readers will be unfamiliar with game consoles.

• Reworded- we probably shouldn't mention specific buttons at all, since no one cares who wouldn't also have the game/manual. --PresN 20:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Combat

• "while the remaining two characters are controlled by the game's AI." - Spell out as well as abbreviate AI on first use?

• Done. --PresN 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Each of the characters can initially take on only three roles, but they may assume any of them later in the game." - "Each" is singular; "they" is plural. Also, does this mean that a character can assume all of the roles simultaneously? Or does it mean that a character can switch roles?

• Reworded; they is now inferred. --PresN 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Setting

• "Several hundred years before the events of the game, a battle between Pulse and Cocoon took place known as the War of Transgression." - Slightly smoother might be "Several hundred years before the events of the game, a battle known as the War of Transgression took place between Pulse and Cocoon."

• Done. --PresN 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Development

• "and to run on the White Engine" - Maybe linking to "game engine" here or working "game engine" into this sentence would be good. Otherwise, the explanation of "White Engine" doesn't occur until a couple of sentences later.

• Eh, rather just remove it- who cares what the original engine was called; if they "moved to" the Crystal Tools engine there was obviously one beforehand. --PresN 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• "It was believed by Square Enix that development of its own engine, though it would cause a delay initially the release of the game, would speed up development time later on." - Doesn't make sense as written.

• Whoa, what happened to that sentence? Fixed, and also made active voice. --PresN 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The trailer shown was an artistic concept" - Link "trailer" or briefly explain it?

• Done. --PresN 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The development team's internal goal was to sell five million copies of the game, and to have the same "gameplay and craftmanship" impact that Final Fantasy VII and X had as the first Final Fantasy games on their respective consoles, as XIII was the first on the PlayStation 3." - Too complex. I'm not sure what this sentence means.

• Yeah, there was too much going on in that sentence. Split and reworked. --PresN 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Toriyama tried to make the game so that "it would be the ultimate single player RPG." - The quote includes an abbreviation that I think is not used earlier or explained. Would it be helpful to add a parenthetical explanation in brackets; i.e., "... RPG [role-playing game]"?

• Huh, yeah, we somehow never used that term anywhere before. Done. --PresN 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• "someone like a female version of Cloud from FFVII". - Nothing should be linked inside a direct quotation. See WP:MOS#Linking. You might use a paraphrase or indirect quote if you want to keep the links.

• Ugh, MOS. Done. --PresN 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Music

• "The score features some orchestral recordings by the Warsaw Philharmonic Orchestra, orchestrated by Yoshihisa Hirano, Toshiyuki Oomori and Kunihito Shiina." - Move modifier sung against thing modified? Suggestion: "The score features recordings, orchestrated by Yoshihisa Hirano, Toshiyuki Oomori and Kunihito Shiina, by the Warsaw Philharmonic Orchestra." Also, link the orchestra?

• Linked, modified. --PresN 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Most of the sentences in the last paragraph of this section use passive voice when active voice would be easy to use. Active voice is usually better. Example: "The main soundtrack album, Final Fantasy XIII Original Soundtrack, was released on four Compact Discs in 2010 by Square Enix." This could become "Square Enix released the main soundtrack album, Final Fantasy XIII Original Soundtrack, on four compact discs in 2010."

• Done. --PresN 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Release and post-release

• "available for free in the Japan Home" - Does "Japan Home" need a link or a brief explanation?

• Done. --PresN 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• "It comes with a bonus booklet titled Final Fantasy XIII　- Corridor of Memory - that contains content that was previously left out of the original version of the game and an epilogue chapter titled Final Fantasy XIII　- Episode I -." - The punctuation here looks very strange.

• Yeah, SE does that all the time, I think it's a Japanese thing. I'm... just going to change it here. We regularly do it for article titles, so the same principle applies. --PresN 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reception

• "Final Fantasy XIII was rated at 39/40 from the Japanese gaming magazine Famitsu" - It's generally better to use a specific word than an ambiguous front slash. I think "39 to 40" might be what this means, or it might mean "39 out of a possible 40". It's hard to tell partly because the reviewers seem to be using varied scoring systems.

• Yeah, slashes shouldn't be used in prose. --PresN 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Further praise was given to the CGI animation sequences" - Spell out and link computer-generated imagery (CGI)?

• Changed to pre-rendered animation sequences. --PresN 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reception

• "combined with its linear nature, some reviews went as far as to describe these chapters" - Recast? The reviews weren't combined with its linear nature.

• Done. --PresN 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"After release, director Motomu Toriyama felt that the lower-than-expected review scores for a main Final Fantasy series game were as a result of reviewers approaching the game with a Western point-of-view, and that these reviewers were more used to games in which the player was given an open world in which to explore; he noted that this expectation contrasted with the vision the team set out to create, in that it "becomes very difficult to tell a compelling story when you're given that much freedom". - Too complex. Also, "resulted from" rather than "were as a result of"? Suggestion: "After release, director Motomu Toriyama felt that the lower-than-expected review scores for a main Final Fantasy series game came from reviewers who approached the game from a Western point-of-view. These reviewers were used to games in which the player was given an open world to explore, he said, noting that this expectation contrasted with the vision the team set out to create. It "becomes very difficult to tell a compelling story when you're given that much freedom", he said.

• Done, played with your wording a bit. --PresN 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Images

• Three images with fair-use rationales are too many. Perhaps the lead image can be justified, but I don't think the others meet WP:NFCC 3a. I see nothing especially illuminating about them; the text adequately covers the topic.

• I'm going to flat-out disagree. Infobox images are clear- there's even an RfC up to confirm it right now. After that, we have one gameplay image that is referencing specific points raised in gameplay, and a cast image showing all of the characters. I'm willing to take my chances with them at FAC. --PresN 22:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• File:Suntory FF XIII Elixir - Lightning game cover version 1.JPG is licensed strangely. It's an own-photo with a CC-by-SA 3.0 license but includes unusual caveats in the permission box, especially "If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the file, please contact me to negotiate licensing terms." - This statement is unnecessary and contradicts the terms of the license. No one's permission is needed to use the image, and no one needs to negotiate with BrokenSphere or to pay a fee. You might want to discuss this with BrokenSphere and ask him or her to revise the permission section of the license page.

• That is quite odd. Actually... I'm going to drop the image. I don't like that it doesn't show Lightning- right now it's just a can. It may be free, but it doesn't illustrate anything. --PresN 22:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• File:Final Fantasy XIII Cast.png overlaps two sections and displaces an edit button.

• Well, it makes more sense in Characters but moved it to story. --PresN 22:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

References

• A few of the citations like citation 79 repeat the ALL-CAPS titles of the source. In such cases, Wikipedia house style takes precedence; e.g., "FINAL FANTASY XIII ELIXER" should be re-written as "Final Fantasy XIII Elixer".

• Got them. --PresN 22:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Other

• The link checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one dead url in the citations.

• Oh right, I forgot to fix that. Done. --PresN 22:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! This is super-helpful. I'm going to reply in-line for the benefit of SJones/anyone else working on this; I'll go to your talkpage as requested if I have any follow-up questions. --PresN 20:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

All done! --PresN 22:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Leopard gecko

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm listing this article for Peer Review because I'd like to bring it to GA or FA status eventually, and I'm wondering whether it will need only a few modifications or rather far-reaching changes. Any ideas to improve the article as much as possible?

Thanks, Leptictidium (mt) 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Good start, but still a bit more work needed. Lists are normally a bad way to write prose, so I suggest nixing that from the Diseases section. Element names normally should not be capitalized, but you may check to see if "calcium" as a nutrient should be capitalized. Some of the sentences seem a bit oddly constructed, so I think it would be a good idea to have a copyeditor take a closer look. --mav (reviews needed) 01:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Here are a few more tips. This is not a complete review, but the article is "start" class and not yet the best of candidates for a thorough peer review.

• The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to try to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that is not mentioned in the main text. WP:LEAD has details.

• A sentence in the lead says, "It has become a well-established and popular pet in captivity but should only be purchased by an owner with the proper tank and equipment." - This sentence expresses an opinion and tells the reader what to do. Encyclopedias aren't "how-to" guides and steer clear of advising.

• The first sentence of the "Taxonomy" section is sourced, but the second and third sentences are not, even though they include information that is not common knowledge and must have come from a source. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every claim that is unusual, every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and at least one source for every paragraph. If one source supports all of the claims in a paragraph, the inline citation should go at the very end of the paragraph.

• Well-known words like "eyelid" do not need to be linked, but uncommon words like insectivore, dorsal (linked to "Dorsum (biology)", and ventral probably should be. Likewise "caudal" and "autotomy", and so on. Each decision to link or not to link requires thought.

• Section heads generally start with a capital letter, but the other words in the head are lower-case unless they are proper nouns. Thus "Defense Mechanisms" should be "Defense mechanisms".

• What makes "LeopardGeckos.co.za." a reliable source?

• Avoid creating text sandwiches between images on opposite sides of the page. MOS:IMAGES has details.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• The subheadings Defense Mechanisms and Sexual Dimorphism have capital letters.

• As Finetooth, said, there's a text sandwhich.

• Let me just fix what I think is wrong. Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 10:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  

---

Little tunny

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because our class has worked to improve this small stub on the little tunny into a credible and correct article. We are submitting the article so it can be reviewed by fellow editors in the Wikipedia community and to have flaws pointed out so they can be properly fixed. This is one of the most important steps towards the article hopefully reaching GA or even FA, because we need the experience and knowledge of scholars and other veteran Wikipedia editor. My class and I are ready to have our errors pointed out and are prepared for the criticism that will come, because we are ready to make this article a much higher quality one, worthy of recognition as a GA or FA. We would love to know what vital information is not present, or if there is flawed information in the article. If there are grammar mistakes or missed references, we would also appreciate it if they were pointed out. Any and all words of advice and critiques are welcome. Thank you, M rickabaugh (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Some more images would be nice, is this our little guy File:XRF-Euthynnus alletteratus.png?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly him, perfect for the Physical Description. Thanks, I have already added.--M rickabaugh (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Images look good, now there should probably be alt text. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images for more information on how to include it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added alt text to the to pictures, but I didn't know what to add for the range map.--M rickabaugh (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Something about evolution is needed, me thinks. 1591 words is a wee short for FA given this is such a common fish, but everything looks good for GA. --mav (reviews needed) 00:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In what sense do you mean evolution? By possible ancestors, or traits attributed to evolution, or something else entirely?--M rickabaugh (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Cladistics mostly. A paragraph in the taxonomy section would work. See Ocean_sunfish#Naming_and_taxonomy for a good example. Just enough info for the reader to get an idea of how this species fits into its genus and family should be enough. Also, if there are any unique adaptations, such as, for example, the lack of swim bladder, then try to find out what researchers think why that trait evolved. Same for other unique traits; just try to see if there is info on why those traits may have evolved. --mav (reviews needed) 01:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

1. The article is short, is there things missing? References are few, in part because it's short. Typically GA articles(I guess this is where it's heading) has about 50 references. Having fewer is not a problem, just making an observation that may suggest an incomplete article.
2. Is anything known about how long it has existed. The genus Euthynnus possibly has fossil records.
3. Typos in first reference depaartment, typo throught. What is clupeid, interpelvic, stomatopods, tunicates, vomer, finlets, isopods, corselet, atlantic bonito - these words are not obvious to me and suggest the could do with a wiki-link (even if a not found 'red link').
4. Cited Texts (unusual section heading), capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case per MOS:HEAD. Put list in alphabetic order i.e. of main author lastname.
   • I think I have done what you suggested.--M rickabaugh (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
5. There are some anchors after the categories and other language links, they won't work down there, suggest keep all the anchors together.
   • Taken care of.--M rickabaugh (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
6. For the alt on the map see Loggerhead sea turtle or http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/altviewer.py?page=Loggerhead_sea_turtle
   • I think I might have taken care of it, but when I looked at the alt text it looked like it applied well already.--M rickabaugh (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
7. References. Least Concern in the taxobox does not appear to be referenced in the main text. What reference covers the second paragraph in 'Distribution and habitat'? Add some more references to cover these. Last sentence of Feeding habits also.
8. Cathleen Bester explains about common names of 'Atlantic little tuna' - Google loves this, suggesting it really is a common name, add to the text.
9. Also loads of synonyms from Bester (Euthinnus alleteratus, Scomber alleteratus, Pelamys alleterata, Gymnosarda alletterata, Euthynnus alleteratus alleteratus, Gymnosarda alleterata, Euthynnus alliteratus, and Euthynnus allitteratus) for taxobox. So these must have a history.
10. What makes Bester a reliable source, does that source have any editorial oversight? I ask because you talk of even reaching FA with this article. Because it relies heavily on that source it may become an issue. See if you can find the same information in other reliable sources.
11. When you start out using Wikipedia creating neat citations is difficult but see if you can clean some up. reference #3 especially. Try this.
12. http://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/SCRS/SCRS-08-189_Macias_et_alf.pdf and http://www.iccat.int/documents/cvsp/cv062_2008/no_5/CV062051638.pdf have information about this tuna, use them if you can!
13. Hunting for pictures http://www.flickr.com/photos/jedstr/361589619/ could crop it.

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I have some concerns about the legitimacy of current ref #3 (gofishn.come, is there really nothing better?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick Comment: Nice little article. I would have liked more wikilinks, eg. to some of the fish body parts in the Physical Description section.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Another Quick Comment:I noticed the image captions have different bolding schemes for "little tunny," these should ideally be consistent. I think un-bolded is fine.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment:I would stay clear of this source (GoFishn), seems to be a mirror site of wiki (even if it's not I still don't think it's reliable).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Mi Plan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a B-Class article and I'm not completely sure what all it needs to be done to become GA status. Mostly, I would like to know what sections of information need to be added to the article and what sections need to be expanded on; What information I'm missing pretty much. But I'm also open for suggestions as well. Thanks, Gariseiro (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start. I have quite a few suggestions for improvement, many related to prose, grammar, and Manual of Style guidelines.

Production

• "suggested that they try writing the lyrics in Spanish and then he would go on to write the lyrics" - Confusing. If they wrote the lyrics, how could he go on to write the lyrics? Would "... he would improve them" be more clear?

• Cuba would then help the two pen more songs for the album, including the title track, "Mi Plan" which features himself on vocals and "Manos al Aire". - Doesn't quite make sense as written. Suggestion: "Cuba then helped them pen more songs for the album, including the title track, "Mi Plan", and "Manos al Aire". "Mi Plan" featured Cuba on vocals.

• "the three got together five times through September 2008 and February 2009: - Should this say "between" rather than "through"?

Content

• Furtado explained that the decision to perform in Spanish for her album was that she does not follow commercial or sales trends and Mi Plan is "the next phase". - Grammar. Suggestion: "Furtado explained that she decided to perform in Spanish because she did not follow commercial or sales trends and that "Mi Plan" was "the next phase".

• "Venegas also took part in another song called "Vacación", which was produced by Lester Mendez, playing the accordion." - The sentence suggests that Mendez played the accordion, but I think you mean Venegas.

• "She also collaborated with Josh Groban on a song entitled, "Silencio" and called the collaboration a "huge blessing" and felt it was important to feature "an artist that people know more for their English recordings" because she wanted to demonstrate that "language isn't a barrier when it comes to music." - Too complex. I'd recommend breaking this into two separate sentences.

Critical reception

• "BBC gave the album a mixed review and said the music is "equally inoffensive" but compared it to her previous release, Loose and claimed that "Timbaland’s inventive approach to dance motion is much missed". - Run-on sentence, too complex. I'd suggest splitting into two sentences.

• The Manual of Style frowns on fancy quotes. The {{quote box}} might be a good alternative here.

• "On October 26, 2010, a 12-track remix album entitled, Mi Plan Remixes was released, featuring remixed versions of the singles released from Mi Plan." - Since the album is called "Mi Plan Remixes", it is not necessary to repeat that it is a remix album featuring remixed versions of the songs from Mi Plan.

• "Before she began touring, Furtado performed at various award shows and small venues, performing in places such as the 2009 ALMA Awards." - I'd suggest rewriting this sentence to avoid repeating "performed ... performing".

Charts

• The sorting of the last column of the "Sales and certifications" chart causes strange things to happen.

• The "Sales and Certifications" head displaces an edit button. Could the table be moved down a bit?

References

• The date formatting should be consistent throughout the citations. The existing formatting is a mixture of dates taking the form August 10, 2000 or 2000-08-10. Either one is OK, but you need to choose the one you like best and stick with it.

• Newspaper and magazine titles like Los Angeles Times should be in italics.

• In citation 5, Los Angeles Times (rather than latimes.com) is the work as well as the publisher. The publisher's name typically appears in the copyright line at the bottoms of web pages.

• Citation 40: Gulf News is the work; Al Nisr Publishing LLC is the publisher.

• It would be best to check all of the citations for problems like those I have noted in citation 5 and citation 40. You can usually find the name of the work on the "home" page. The .com is rarely part of the formal publication name (work).

• Citation 38 is malformed.

• The all-caps parts of citation 37 should be changed to Wikipedia house style; i.e., Nelly Furtado Celebrates...

Other

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this page find three dead urls in the citations.

• I would not recommend linking words more than once in the lead and once in the main text. For example, "Manos al Aire" is linked once in the lead and once in the "Content" section, and these are fine. However, it is also linked in the "Singles" section and again in "Track listing".

• It's often helpful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have successfully handled similar topics. The couple I've checked just now, Body Count (album) and You'll find a list of FA articles about music at WP:FA#Music.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Your instructions are very clear and precise, thank you for the peer review. I'm working on it now, I'll let you know if I got any other questions :). Thank you, Gariseiro (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Moon Museum

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i feel it fully covers the topic and would like some input on how to improve the article so that it will be hopefully soon be ready to go up for GA review.

Thanks, Found5dollar (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I did a bit of touchup, let me know how it looks. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is my first time doing a peer review, so let's see how I do :) This was really cool and fun to read. Andy Warhol is one of my favorite artists, so I can't believe I didn't here about this before!

• This quote: "...He claims the agency gave him the runaround and, Myers states, "They never said no, I just could not get them to say anything."[1] Instead of going through the official channels he was forced to take the back route..." reads rather awkwardly. The phrases "gave him the runaround" and "forced to take the back route" sound like slang, and I really don't understand what you mean by this. Perhaps reword it. Also, elaborate on what is meant by "taking the back route" and the process of smuggling onboard.
• I like the artwork section a lot. Is it possible to expand it by talking of the symbolism behind the pieces? These are some of the questions/comments I thought up while reading:
  • What is the meaning behind Rauschenberg's single line?
  • The geometric variation of Mickey Mouse is said to be a "popular motif" for the time. By whom? And what form of art is this?
  • What's Myers' about? This one left me the most puzzled.
  • Chamberlain and Novros' pieces both resemble circuitry. Is there any difference between them or reason why they are similar? If so, maybe use a different word rather than "circuitry" for both to avoid confusion.
• The lead states that "many other personal effects were smuggled onto the Apollo 12." Like what? And how would they be stored without damaging the craft?
• What artistic legacy behind the six artists (sorry to sound redundant) led them to do this? Or, how has this affected other works?
• Any public opinion about it? You said that the NY Times found out, but that's all.

--Silverskylines (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts and input. all of them make sense. I'll be working on them when i find time.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Galápagos tortoise

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

Have worked it up to GA standard. This is the first article I've considered to nominate for FAC, but I'm unfamiliar with the standards required. Would especially like opinion on prose style and whether any sections are inappropriately long.

Thanks, Minglex (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A briefly note before Xmas.

• I'm not great at prose, so perhaps someone else will give more comments on that.
• I notice quite a few styling issues, not cheeking the prose, but the layout. The headings start at = one level = or H1 where it would be normal to start at H2 or == two level ==. See MOS:HEAD. Take a look at the heading of Loggerhead sea turtle. If you get to 4 deep consider starting with a semi-colon heading style.
• sections are NOT inappropriately long, if anything they are inappropriately short. While a sea of text is not welcoming to the reader, to many headings break the flow up.
• Lots of sections in TOC, not a problem as such but rather unusual.
• References section is not neat, on my screen a blank area is off to the right, perhaps the George image can be moved a little higher or the {{clear}} be used prior to the references.
• Reading the text the first thing that arises is why is it called the 'Geochelone nigra' rather then the recent 'Chelonoidis nigra'. Maybe there is good reason for using the old naming, but I'm not sure what it is. Perhaps both names could be used in the introduction? One issue is the line 'Geochelone nigra is listed on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora', yet what is listed here in the reference is the 'Chelonoidis nigra'.
• lead has 'expl orers' - space here seems an error/typo.
• Conversions. The lead has some conversions, kg to lb, m to ft, but in the main text this is not followed. 'weights of over 400 kg', 'lengths of 1.87 m', 'less than 500 m' and others.
• First image i.e. Rollo Beck wants to be on the left. This will help the initial render of the screen, and the layout of images.
• American spelling and British spelling is being used in the article, Consistency is required. See WP:ENGVAR, Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Internal_consistency
• Some parts seem unreferenced. Last sentence in Taxonomy, Recognition of subpopulations, Evolutionary history and Floreana Island. In practice last paragraph of each section requires a cite at the end for FA.

Merry Xmas! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from a layreader

• The picures are lovely :)
• Evolutionary history section was fascinating.
• The prose style is often very engaging, but at other points is confusing for a layperson.
  • I'm going to point out the terms I didn't immediately understand, that could be rephrased, explained, or at least wikilinked:
    • In lead: endemic (the lead needs to be as accessible as possible: could this term be paraphrased instead of just wikilinked?)
    • In taxonomy: what's a senior synonym?
    • The whole first two paragraphs of taxonomy are pretty difficult to read.
    • In section 1.2: molecular phylogenetic analyses of testudinids
    • In subspecies: In the map caption, what does extant mean? Also, carapace, and subadult courtship.
    • In subspecies: This sentence doesn't seem to make sense: The taxonomic status of the various races is not fully resolved[53], and the valid scientific names of each the individual populations[11][54][55][56], whilst some researchers consider the subspecies to be full species[57][58].
    • In evolutionary history: "radiation into the divergent forms". Also, phylogeny and paleogeography.
    • In phylogenetics:
      • Pinta Island: Could the start of this paragraph quickly recap the fact that abingdoni are extinct in the wild- if you'd skimmed the earlier sections, this reminder would be very helpful.
      • Santa Cruz Island: Are Cerro Monturra, Cerro Fatal and La Caseta towns on Santa Cruz? Could they be marked on a map?
      • Isabella Island: putatively
      • Floreana Island: "...Floreana specimens from museum collections..." I was a bit confused by this, does this just mean there are museum collections of the subfossil remains of Floreana specimens?
      • Subspecies of doubtful existence: corralled

That'll do for now, I'll try to come back and read the rest of the article later.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your both your comments, it is much appreciated! Will be taking a long look at the article with your advice side by side in the next fortnight, time-permitting. Thanks again! Minglex (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Mantra-Rock Dance

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to have it ruthlessly scrutinized by experienced fellow editors on its way to GA. I am sure there are many ways to improve the article that I, being its creator, cannot possibly detect – and will be grateful if you tell me what they are.

Thanks and regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is quite interesting and generally well-done. I have a few suggestions for improvement; most of them are related to Manual of Style issues.

Overlinking

• In general, it's enough to link a word or term once in the lead and once in the main text. More than that is usually unnecessary and a bit distracting. For example, "The Grateful Dead" is linked once in the lead, twice in "Preparation and promotion", and once in the "Event" section. I'd remove the last two. Ditto for other terms that are linked multiple times.

•  Done

Lead

• Should the swami's full name, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, appear here on first use? Should he be referred to as Prabhupada on subsequent references? Or "the swami" from time to time to avoid repetition?

•  Done

Background

• "ISKCON center on the West Coast" - ISKCON should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use.

•  Done

• On my computer screen, File:Haight-ashbury modern.jpg displaces the "Preparation and promotion" head. The image size could be set slightly smaller, or the "Background" section might be expanded slightly (if you can find anything else relevant). Other fixes may be possible.

•  Done Please see if the new layout is better.

• The caption, "Haight-Ashbury (modern view)" would be better if "modern" were replaced by a specific year, 2001. "Modern" is too vague.

•  Done

Preparation and promotion

• "designed a "Stanley Mouse-inspired" promotional poster" - Nothing inside a direct quote should be linked. WP:MOSQUOTE includes the guideline. You could add a note explaining and linking Stanley Mouse or perhaps paraphrase in such a way that you could link Stanley Mouse.

• Not sure I wonder if we can link the whole quote, which is very small in this case. Is this also in violation of WP:MOSQUOTE?

•  Done Removed the quotation marks to keep the link.

• The Mukunda quotation should not appear in italics. The normal typeface is preferred.

•  Done

• Nothing inside the blockquote should be linked.

•  Done

Event

• "Despite apprehensions, by the beginning of the concert at 8 PM nearly a three-thousand-people audience gathered in the hall... ". - Smoother might be: "Despite apprehensions, by the beginning of the concert at 8 PM an audience of nearly 3,000 had gathered in the hall... ".

•  Done Excellent

• "so much that latecomers had to wait outside for vacancies in the hall in order to enter" - Make this a separate sentence and tighten? Suggestion: "Latecomers had to wait outside for vacancies in order to enter."

•  Done

• "The audience eagerly responded, playing their own instrument... " - Should that be plural, "instruments"?

•  Done Typo fixed.

Reactions and effect

• "regardless of their attitudes towards his philosophy or the life-restrictions that he taught" - Would it be helpful to list some of those life-restrictions here or elsewhere in the article?

•  Done Added a short descriptor of the restrictions in a passage about Allen Ginsberg, which comes before in the article and already has a link to the restrictions: "Despite disagreeing with many of Prabhupada's required prohibitions, especially on drugs and promiscuity, Ginsburg..."

Layout

• Where feasible, directional images should be positioned facing into the page. File:The New Science article by Mukunda Das in the San Francisco Oracle, january 1967.jpg faces left and would look better if placed on the right-hand side of the page.

•  Done I swapped the images throughout the article, but now the arrival photo is facing left, even though it is not as conspicuous. Is it better now?

References

• The Manual of Style recommends "and" instead of an ampersand (&) except in formal names that include an ampersand. Thus, combinations like Bromley & Shinn in the footnotes should be changed to Bromley and Shinn.

•  Not done The ampersand is built into {{harv}} by design. I guess it is allowable then – or is it?

• The information about books should include the place of publication as well as the publisher. If you don't have this information in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat.

•  Done Thank you, Finetooth, for this very useful tool.

Other

• The dab tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

•  Done Mea culpa.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. Since I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments, if my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Finetooth, for your detailed and thorough review – exactly what I have been looking forward to. Much obliged. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

---

List of Oxford United F.C. records and statistics

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to hear any opinions or observations, no matter how small, which would help the article reach Featured List. I have based the page on List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics and List of Gillingham F.C. records and statistics.

Thanks, Eddie6705 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks very good in most respects. Although I'm no expert on football, the list appears comprehensive and well-organized. I have a few suggestions about prose and style.

Caption

• "Ron Atkinson is the clubs record appearance holder, having made 560 appearances between 1959 and 1971." - Rather than repeating "appearance", I'd tighten this to "Ron Atkinson holds the club record for appearances, having made 560 between 1959 and 1971."

Lead

• "At the end of the 2005–2006 season, United were relegated to the Football Conference after 44 years as a league club, becoming the first team that won a major trophy to be relegated into the Conference." - To avoid repeating "relegated" and "Conference", I'd consider something like "At the end of the 2005–2006 season, after 44 years in the League, United became the first major-trophy winner to be relegated to the Football Conference." I'd link "relegated" in this sentence to Promotion and relegation for the benefit of foreign readers who might not recognize the jargon.

• "The highest transfer fee ever paid by the club... " - Link "transfer" to Transfer (association football)?

• Would it be a good idea to include a line (below the lead and above the table of contents) in italics saying something like "All statistics accurate as of match played (some number) December 2010"? The Gillingham and Manchester articles that you mention both do this. I see you have lines like this above the individual tables. That does the job too, but it means that each of those lines will have to be updated each time the article is updated. I can see advantages either way, and you've probably considered this already. Just a thought.

Top goalscorers

• WP:MOSBOLD suggests limiting bolding to a few special uses and recommends italics for emphasis except in those special cases. I'd be inclined to change bold to italics in the intro to this table and to list the active players in italics rather than double bolding. I see that the Manchester article uses quite a bit of bolding. My feeling is that bolding a lot of things dilutes the effect of the bolding, so I'd be choosy about what to bold. I think the totals work fine in bold, for example.

• Would it be helpful to non-fans if the article included a note explaining the meaning of "Progressive transfer fee"? You can't link from the head, "Progressive transfer fee received", but you could add a note.

General

• The book data should include the place of publication, if you can find it. WorldCat usually has this information.

• The entries should appear in alphabetical order by author's last name.

Specific

• I ran a script to convert most of the hyphens in date ranges and page ranges to en dash, per MOS:DASH. However, the script didn't "see" the hyphens in some of the page ranges. They will have to be changed one-by-one by hand. They include citations 15, 17, 20, 22, and any others citing multiple pages.

• While you are adding the en dashes, you should also change "p." to "pp." for these multiple pages. The abbreviation for single pages is "p." but for multiple pages it's "pp.".

Images

• File:RonAtkinson.JPG has a couple of clean-up tags on its description page that should be addressed before the article goes to FLC. I think some minor housekeeping is all that's needed.

• File:Saunders, Dean.jpg is licensed as "own work" but may not be an "own photo". It's hard to tell from the information provided. When faced with this sort of problem, I usually try to find an equally good image with a definitely OK license; alternatively, I have occasionally sought more information from the uploader (if possible). Other reviewers may not be troubled by the existing license, but it's good to anticipate these sorts of questions when going to FLC or FAC.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes have been made, thank you for the comments. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

---

17 August 2010 Baghdad bombings

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I am uncertain to rate the article either a "Stub" or "Start". Would like feedback on which one would be suited best and any other feedback concerning the article. Thanks, Adamdaley (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please someone read the article and determine whether it should be a "Stub" or "Start" article. It would be appreciated and one less article unassessed. Adamdaley (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

PR is not the place for questions like this. PR is meant for reviews of well-developed articles that are nearing GA or FA in quality. Questions about stubs and starts are best addressed on the individual talk pages of the articles in question. Finetooth (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You might also try asking on the talk page of one of the WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iraq. -Pete (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I am archiving this PR and moving the discussion to the article's talk page.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've returned to this article after a break, and would like to try to bring it to GA status. Reviews from uninvolved editors would be very helpful. Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: It's unlikely that the article can advance to GA any time soon because of its inherent instability as a developing news story. Deciding what to include, how much to say, and how to support it also appears to me to be especially daunting. WikiLeaks is a hot-button issue, and many of the individual leaks touch upon other hot-button issues; those issues tend to be complex rather than simple and may be difficult to describe succinctly and fairly. I, personally, would not attempt it. Here are a few other thoughts:

• The first sentence of the lead says, "This is a list... ". Indeed, the article is very list-y. It is broken into many small sections, lists, and lists of links. It might be possible to re-create it as a list instead of an article, but that would not be easy. Perhaps if the article were mainly a set of lists without interpretation, it could be managed. A set of tables would likely look better and be more readable than the existing article.

• Each of the claims in the article needs to be checked for accuracy and balance. Supporting a claim with a single reliable source may not be sufficient even if the source actually supports the claim; other reliable sources might refute the claim. As an example of the kind and degree of the sourcing problems, I would point to the short subsection called "Copenhagen Accord on climate change". It consists of two sentences.

The first sentence says, "Diplomatic cables show how the U.S. 'used spying, threats and promises of aid' to gain support for the Copenhagen Accord, under which commitments are made to reduce emissions". This sentence is sourced to an article in The Guardian, but neglects to mention that the commitments are not legally binding. Because of this omission, the sentence may be misleading. As The Guardian article makes clear, the accord's main purpose may be to shield emitters from expense rather than to reduce emissions. It will be quite difficult to summarize hot-topic claims like this one clearly and fairly.

The second sentence in this subsection says, "The emergent U.S. emissions pledge was the lowest by any leading nation." The cited source for this claim is "staff writer" for the USCAN Climate Action Network, an advocacy group. Even if this particular advocacy group is accepted as reliable per WP:RS, its material does not seem to support the claim that the "emergent U.S. emissions pledge was the lowest by any leading nation". What in the USCAN tables supports that claim?

The impression an otherwise uninformed reader might get from reading these two sentences combined is that the U.S. forcefully pressed for the accord in order to reduce emissions and that it led the way by making the best pledge of all. This impression would be naive; the reality is much more complicated.

• Some of the citations, like citation 1, are incomplete or, like citation 18, are malformed.

• The dab tool at the top of this review page finds one link, Craig Stapleton, that goes to a disambiguation page rather than its intended target.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Palm Island, Queensland

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to start the process towards bringing it to up to Feature Article status. I am seeking some guidance on areas that will need significant attention for this to happen.

Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 04:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch, btw already very well aware that the history needs to be re-structured moved to it's own article and summarised. WikiTownsvillian 05:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thank you for your work on this interesting article, which has a long way to go before it is ready for WP:FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The Toolbox in the upper right corner allows one to check the article for disambiguation links - the tool finds five such links, which will need to be fixed.
• The External links checker in the toolbox also finds many dead links that will need to be repaired or perhaps replaced.
• The biggest issue I see with this article before it would stand a chance of passing FAC (or GAN) is a lack of references. There are 10 citation needed tags, and there are also many places that need refs. One example is the 1930 Palm Island Tragedy section, which has zero refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Not all refs contain the needed information. FOr example, current ref 80 is just a bare url. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The MOS says not to use all capital letters in references, even if the original used them (in a title or headline)
• The History section and the Notable events sections need to be merged (as almost everything in the latter is really history). I know you said this was something you were aware of - in general it is better to fix all known problems before PR so that reviewers can focus on other issues.
• 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. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but much of the history and notable events isn ot even mentioned in the lead now. Please see WP:LEAD
• Per the MOS all metric units need ENglish equivalents too - the {{convert}} template does a good job of this
• In a Geography article it is usual to include a Geology section - how did the island form?
• In addition to History, I would look carefully at the organization of the article overall - there are multiple sections on crime that should probably all be combined into one to avoid needless repetition, for example.
• Another area that will need work before FAC is prose - one FA criterion that is difficult for most articles to meet is a professional level of English. One thing I noticed is a large number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which break up the flow of the article and make it choppy. These should be combined with others in most cases or perhaps expanded.
• Please also make sure that the section headers meet WP:HEAD
• There are aother issues, but these need to be dealt with first. A model article is good for ideas and examples to follow - there are many Geography articles that are FA level that might be useful models. Please see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Bedsitcom

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to see if I can get this article up to GA status, but I wanted a fresh pair of eyes to look over it and offer any criticism first. My main concern is that the article may not be broad enough, but I think I'm close to exhausting all I can find on this subject. Also, are the episode summaries too long? The one for "P.I.G" is about twice the length of others, but then much more happens in that one. I welcome any other advice and feedback. Thanks very much. A Thousand Doors (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I found this interesting, though it needs a bit more work to reach GA. I don't think the plot summaries are too long, but I had trouble following them because I kept confusing the actors with the non-actors. However, I think this could be easily remedied, as noted below. Here are some other thoughts:

Possibilities for expansion

• Have any cultural critics, television critics, psychologists, lawyers, or others commented on the effects of prank shows in general? There have been quite a few similar shows such as Candid Camera and Beadle's About. Has any critic commented on how this show is like or unlike other prank shows?

• Aside from a chance at fame, what were the non-actors promised? Did they get paid to be in the show? Did they sign contracts?

• Were the writers in the separate room part of the television show? How did the television audience know about the writers and the room? Did the show cut away to the separate room from time-to-time? It's not clear to me how the writers controlled the actors or why the writers would be on the premises at all. Were the writers controlling the actors in real-time by talking to them somehow? I don't think the existing article makes these technical aspects of the show quite clear.

Images

• I wonder if it might not be better to merge the casting and filming subsections of the article to make more space for the image of the cast. As it is, File:Bedsitcomcast1.jpg overlaps two sections and displaces an edit button, at least on my computer screen. MOS:IMAGES suggests keeping images entirely within the sections they illustrate. The merged subsection could be named "Casting and filming".

 Done

Identification

• In reading the plot summaries, I found it difficult to remember who was acting and who was "real" and had to keep referring to the list of actors in the first paragraph of "Episodes". I wonder if it would be helpful to include (actor) in parentheses after the first use of an actor's name in each of the plot summaries. In "Worst Case Scenario", this would appear as "Mel (actor) leaves the flat for a while... " None of the non-actors in the remaining parts of this particular plot description would need to be labeled, and Mel wouldn't need to be labeled except on that first instance. In the plot summary for "A Mother's Love", two actors, Paul and Rufus, would need parenthetical labels on first use, and the first sentence might be better recast as "The group are visited by Mrs. Gibbon, the mother of Paul (actor), who develops a romantic interest in Rufus (actor)... " to avoid awkwardness caused by the possessive combined with the label.

 Done

Lead

• "Its hook was that three of the participants... ". - Link "hook" to Narrative hook? The use of "hook" in this sense means that the TV audience was made aware of the trickery at the outset. Is this accurate? Should something about that be added to the article?

 Done Yes, the TV audience were aware of this from the start. I have hopefully tried to make this clearer in the article.

• "who criticised the show's storylines and its "deeply offensive" premise." - Is "premise" the right word? Would "trickery", "manipulation", or something else be more accurate? Did Palmer (the cited critic) actually use the word "premise" to describe what offended him?

 Done Palmer used "idea", rather than "premise", so I have changed the sentence to reflect this.

Concept

• "The show that was conceived, Bedsitcom, combined these two elements by featuring three members of the public being placed in extraordinary situations by three actors who were being directed by a team of writers in a separate room." - Slightly ungrammatical and a bit too wordy. Suggestions: "Bedsitcom, combined these two elements in a show featuring three members of the public placed in extraordinary situations by three actors directed by writers in a separate room."

 Done

Filming

• "After selecting the six members of the public to feature in Bedsitcom, filming began in May 2003[11] and lasted for approximately seven weeks." - Tighten to "Filming began in May 2003 and lasted for about seven weeks"?

 Done

Episodes

• "After Bob, Dave and Shirine had discovered the true nature of the show at the end of episode four... " - Maybe "learn" or "are told" would be more accurate than "discovered".

 Done

A Mother's Love

• "The writers' initial idea is to make Bob so uncomfortable that he would leave... " - "Will leave" instead of "would leave"?

 Done Whoops. Should've caught that myself.

The Third Degree

• "the interviewer receives a phone call from Rufus's father, who asks to speak with him son." - "His" rather than "him"?

 Done Another silly mistake.

Scrotal Support

• "During this episode, the group discover a pair of women's underwear in Rufus's laundry, who confesses to occasionally wearing them and wonders how he can broach this to everyone else." - The laundry isn't a "who". "Broach" isn't the right word since everyone already knows. Suggestion: "During this episode, the group discover a pair of women's underwear in Rufus's laundry. He confesses to occasionally wearing them and wonders how he can explain this to everyone."

 Done

• "Rufus intends to confess his secret over dinner... " - This is confusing since he has already confessed, according to the second sentence of this plot summary.

 Done The plot summary was wrong; I have rewritten it.

See also

• Is such a broad portal of any use here?

 Done Deleted it.

Other

• The dab tool at the top of this review page finds one link (Andrew O'Connor), that does to a disambiguation page instead of its intended target.

 Done Really should've found that myself...

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments - I scanned this as I was intrigued by the title. I agree with all of the above comments, and have a few of my own.

• I would define what a bedsit is - most American readers will not get the reference

 Done

• I think the lead needs to make it clearer that there were four episodes with each of the three "real" participants and that the actors were in all eight episodes.

 Done

• I was not clear if Paul's mother was portrayed by an actress or was his real mother. Also was she in on the joke or not (was she playing a role - sounds like she was)?

 Done

• Or was the chancellor in on the joke (or played by an actor)?

 Done

• Did the audience see the writers? If so, were they the real writers or actors playing the writers?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for reviewing this article; your feedback has been very helpful. A Thousand Doors (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of this, two oppose for an external issue and for not add my self-thoughts. Also, was pretty clear that prose was a problem. Any comment is welcome. Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 05:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I peer-reviewed this article in November, and I find it much improved. However, I'm not sure what fresh ideas I can add. I've read the FAC comments, and it seems that the biggest remaining issues involve the fair-use rationale for the lead image and the depth of the musical analysis. I don't see how a peer review can resolve either of these issues directly. Here, however, are a couple of thoughts.

• FAC can be a difficult process, and issues unanticipated by the nominator often arise. In my experience, when a reviewer raises an unexpected issue, it's best to consider the reviewer's suggestions with an open mind and not to rush to defend or rebut. It seems possible to me that the fair-use rationale issue might be resolved by giving a more complete answer to the reviewer's questions about the rationale. If I understand the situation correctly, the reviewer wants to know why you think the image is necessary for an understanding of the article and why you think the fair-use rationale is precisely right. To say that all similar articles have such images and that the rationale is generated by a template may be perfectly true, but it is also evasive. If you re-nominate, you will be faced with these questions again. My advice would be to try to answer these questions more directly, without reference to other articles, template authors, or projects. Do you think the image is necessary? Why? Do you think the template language is exactly right? If so, why? If not, why not change it? (You are not obliged to use the template, and some of its parameters allow its language to be altered.) Please understand that I am not taking sides in the debate; I'm suggesting a way to negotiate toward consensus.

• To address the questions raised about the depth of the musical analysis, you need to be reasonably sure that your research on this question is complete. If the article is comprehensive, then it's comprehensive. However, it's risky to say that no more relevant analysis has been published unless you are reasonably certain that you are correct. My advice is to try to make certain that you have not missed any important criticism of the song's music and lyrics, in The New York Times or Rolling Stone or The New Yorker, for example, or in published books (if any) about B.K. If no such sources exist, then you can say so in a calm voice at FAC, and an oppose based on non-existent sources will not be actionable. Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  

---

Jerusalem Biblical Zoo

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has the potential for FA. I expanded the information nearly fivefold using a broad selection of sources, and tried to write a tight, organized and informative presentation. I also added appropriate photos. Did I succeed? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: You succeeded in creating an interesting, enjoyable, well-illustrated, well-sourced article. However, it's not yet ready for FAC. I have concerns mainly about the lead, the layout, and other Manual of Style issues, as noted below, but none should prove too difficult to address.

Heads and subheads

• Wikipedia heads should be telegraphic. They normally do not use words like "the", for example. Thus "Complaints from the neighbors" would be better as "Complaints from neighbors" and perhaps even better as "Neighbors' complaints". WP:MOS#Article titles, headings, and sections has details.

Lead

• The lead is to be an inviting summary of the whole article rather than an introductory paragraph. My rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that is not developed in the main text. The existing lead says nothing about history, expansion plans, conservation, and so on. WP:LEAD has details.

Layout

• File:Teddy Jerusalem Zoo.jpg would look better if positioned on the right side of the page so that the elephant looks into the page instead of out. On the other hand, the zoo train and the oryx are positioned correctly, facing in. Some of the others, like the zebras, are directional too and might look better if shifted to the opposite side.

• Images should fit inside the sections they illustrate and not overlap two sections or displace heads or edit buttons. On my screen, the elephant displaces the "Zoo today" head, and File:Jerusalem Zoo petting.jpg displaces the "Special events" head. MOS:IMAGES has details.

• Another thing to look out for are text sandwiches between images on opposite sides of the article. On my screen, the zoo train and the artificial lake create a partial text sandwich of about three lines. This and the problems layout problems mentioned above can usually be fixed by moving images around. The zoo train could come down a few lines, for example.

Food sources

• "The massive amount of fruits and vegetables consumed daily by the zoo's animals... " - Would it be possible to quantify this? How massive?

References

• Newspaper names like The Jerusalem Post should appear in italics.

Image licenses

• Most are "own photo" and look fine. The one that worries me is the wonderful photo of the Shulovs with the python, File:Shulov2.jpg. It would be helpful to the image reviewers if you could translate the non-English parts of the description into English and, if possible, add the date. Otherwise, the reviewers might be unable to say whether the license is valid or not. I would also recommend changing the caption slightly to "Shulov and his wife, Jochebed, holding a python" so that she is not just reduced to nameless "wife".

Other

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this page find one dead link in the citations and seven links in the text that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.

• Captions that consist solely of sentence fragments do not take terminal periods. "Shulov and wife holding a python" is an example. On the other hand, the following caption is fine with a period because it is a complete sentence: "Arabian oryx roam in an open reserve."

• Extremely short sections and extremely short paragraphs give the article a choppy look and feel. Two possible solutions are to expand or merge. For example, the orphan paragraph at the end of the "Food sources" section could be merged with the larger paragraph above it, and "Animal species" could be merged with "Animal exhibits". I think some of the other subsections could be eliminated; for example, I'm not sure "Complaints from the neighbors" should remain. It's not needed to break up the "History" section, and it doesn't seem to describe much of the material below it. I'd be inclined to delete the "Special events" subhead and simply let its material be a paragraph in the overall section, "Visitors and volunteers".

• "The center was named in memory of Dr. Gabi Eshkar, deputy director-general and chief veterinarian of the zoo... " - Wikipedia articles usually avoid academic titles like "Dr." and instead rely on descriptions like "deputy director-general and chief veterinarian of the zoo". I'd recommend deleting "Dr.".

• It's generally better to avoid words like "today", "current", and "now" to describe events since what is current in 2010 may not be by, say, 2012. The subhead, "The zoo today" is an example. Better might be "Description".

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---

The Fountain

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare it for FA status. Right now, it is GA on two WikiProjects and A-Class on another. I feel like it would require altogether minimal effort for it to pass FA (it's probably more-or-less ready right now) and I would be willing to do the work to get it there. I have spoken with the main contributor to this article--User:Erik--who is not available to work on it at the moment, but who gave me his blessing to go ahead and some further bibliographical sources to use in expanding and sourcing the article.

Thanks, —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Here are some thoughts I have to make the article more complete.

• There should be critical analysis of the film; American Beauty (film) is a good example to follow. The references sub-page lists available references, including a linked PDF that can be incorporated right away. For the Pisters reference, I was actually able to get in touch with the author and get a PDF copy of the chapter. Email me, and I can send it to you. It's pretty cerebral, though! Be prepared for the challenge of simplifying it into layman's terms. (Also, I would move the Positive Psychology section to the new critical analysis section; it does not quite qualify as reception.)

• Aronofsky recorded a commentary track that I believe is supposed to explain how he believes the film should be interpreted. While not actually published elsewhere, I'm sure it can be found somewhere online... since it comes straight from the director, I think it qualifies as a reliable source. It may help expand the "Narrative" section especially. The article used to have a "Plot" section, but I removed it due to the complexity of the overlaps. It required too much commentary on transitions between storylines, which led to interpretation. (Not a problem seen with most conventional films.)

• One feature I've wanted to add to the article is a short video clip illustrating the film's visual effects. The Cinefex reference (listed in the sub-page) should add even more contextual significance to whatever clip we use. The best one may be a shot of the glass sphere traveling through outer space. It's good to use free images, but I think it would be a strong characteristic of the article to utilize a video clip. American Beauty uses one, so do some of the Star Trek film articles. WP:FILMCLIP has some guidance on this matter.

• Good luck! Erik (talk | contribs) 17:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Para 3 of Production history section has the word "project" repeated a bit much. Reduce if possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Not thrilled about "visually strong" as a descriptor. Can be reworded better - "impressive cinematography"? - or something?

• When he looked over the books he used to research for The Fountain, he decided to return to The Fountain, feeling closer to it creatively more than the other possible projects. - two "fountain"s - be nice to not use one. ALso " closer to it creatively" is off-puttingly general and non-informative sounding.

• Additional comments:
  • I find the use of only "level 2" headings makes the article look disorganized and also makes it harder to find where things are.
  • The article looks over-illustrated to me. I just have a continuous rows of infobox, images and videos on the right hand side of the page. This is of course due to me using a high resolution monitor and won't happen to the majority of readers but still stack-ups will happen for some readers. Try aligning some of the files on the left hand side of the page and maybe consider losing one of the special effects files.
  • Justin, I think the {{Film ratings}} template you created is a bad idea. 1) It further clutters up the article 2) It is redundant to the stating of the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic ratings in the prose and we already link to those two websites which link to a lot more critics' reviews than the template supports 3) The {{Album ratings}} template was created by WikiProject Albums as a sort of intermediate template for moving from a list of reviews in the infobox to full-on prose. (this may have changed, they seem to accept {{Album ratings}} with prose) Basically, they were trying to kill just listing reviews instead of prose. 4) WikiProject Film has a good thing going. Right now, reviews are either in prose or not included at all. The creation of {{Film ratings}} will probably see simply listing reviews instead of prose creep in.
  • One of the categories is a redlink.
  • I highly recommend adding archive URLs to the citations. It ensures the articles will be accessible "forever".

- Kollision (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• New comments:

• I am concerned about the overemphasis of the term "Last Man" in the article. This was indeed the working title for the film, but it was not used to identify the space traveler in most of the references that covered the film upon its release. It seems to constitute original research, especially when used in the plot summary. It's not as common-sense to use this term as opposed to conquistador or neuroscientist.
• The addition of the video clip showing the special effects looks great! However, we do not need the second video clip. Wikipedia is supposed to be about free content, so it needs to be conservative about using non-free content. Descriptive text can be used to cover any information shared in the making-of clip; one can cite a DVD featurette.
• There are an awful lot of images and figures down the right side of the article. Some suggestions:

• I recommend removing the Hugh Jackman image because he is shown in the video clip, and you can put the Rachel Weisz image in the "Casting" section instead.
• I like the collage of art from the graphic novel, I think it would be more appropriate at the graphic novel's article. As a non-free image, it should relate pretty strongly to the topic at hand, and the image does not represent the film.
• The Aronofsky-Weisz image is particularly lacking in value and possibly misleading because what they're attending is not related to The Fountain. As an image of their backsides, it's not very illustrative of anyone or a relevant time frame.
• I consider the film ratings template to be reductionist in nature, and I've seen requests for Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic parameters shot down for this reason. With these two main aggregate scores, I think that prose is acceptable; the approach is to give an idea of how the film was received, not to give a rundown of all existing aggregate websites' scores for a given film.
• Aronofsky has a good picture on his Wikipedia article, and it could be used in the "Reception" section instead of the festival image or the film ratings template. For what it's worth, if you want to break up a so-called "wall" of text, you can use quote boxes. They're easier to implement in staggered forms.

• You still need to email me back so I can send you the PDF! :) The Wikipedia email system doesn't allow attachments. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed the article doesn't cover any of the awards the film won or was nominated for. This should be covered to pass the Featured Articles "comprehensive" criteria. - Kollision (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I had added the initial awards that had to do with the original score, but these are on the soundtrack article now. I would advocate a table outlining the awards, using the awards page at IMDb as a starting point but referring to more direct sources as citations in the article itself. I think that the original score nominations should be mentioned in both the film and soundtrack articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Overall, there's not too much to say that hasn't already. I agree with Erik about the second video clip, as that's the content the article should be explaining rather than linking to a non-free video. Use it as a source! The "Themes" section feels like it needs more third-party sources; what the filmmaker says is fine, but is there no scholarly comment on the work? The last paragraph of the reception section, for instance, seems like it's better added to the themes and elaborated on if at all possible.

• Also on the theme on non-free content, "File:Clint Mansell, Kronos Quartet, and Mogwai - Death Is the Road to Awe.ogg" doesn't seem to have much justification per WP:NFCC. The caption doesn't seem to be supported by references and the sound itself is not specifically addressed, nor is the music in any great depth given that there is a subpage—that would be the place to put it if it was justified.
• I see that you ripped off {{Video game reviews}} with {{Film ratings}}, but I don't think you really need to. Film ratings are even more subjective than video game ones and far less often given comparable scores or any metrics altogether. The text is what's important, so just axe the template.
• This is partly cosmetic, but it might help manage the table of contents if you shunted "Production history", "Writing", "Casting", "Design", "Cinematography", "Effects" and "Score" under a "Production" heading, as well as placing release content under a similar level-two header, just to keep things neater and more hierarchical.
• Some of the introduction to the "Narrative" section is redundant with what is described in the subheads below. You might just want to harmonize them a bit more and axe the subsections altogether, streamlining the separate plots somewhat.
  • All of the above, by the way, would help alleviate some of the issues throughout the article of image stacking. Most don't actually violate the MoS, but on larger displays it starts looking cluttered and not very aesthetically pleasing :)
• The prose could use a workover, mostly in deleting redundant words and phrases and streamlining the flow. Things like "Newsweek reported how people received the film, "Its supporters admire the film's beauty and daring; its detractors find it overblown and hokey."[60]" could be slimmed to "Newsweek reported the film's supporters appreciated the film's "daring" and aesthetics, while critics considered it "overblown and "hokey"." I suggest looking over Tony1's grammar exercises as they are a lot of help.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

David, regarding scholarly comment, the references sub-page lists some candidates (see Lord, Pisters, and Tseng items). One is available online, and for the Pisters one, I already sent the chapter PDF to Justin. The Tseng one will require more effort. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by VisionHolder
What can I say? It's my favorite movie, so I have to review this. Here we go.

• First off, I agree with nearly every point made in the reviews above, and many of these points have not yet been addressed: too much non-free content, need for archived web citations, the need to cover awards, etc.
• The "Narrative" section is unreferenced. See an example given earlier in the review for a sample of how to do this: American Beauty (film)
• With the narrative section being written as an interpretation by the article's author, I don't know how to handle multiple interpretations, especially if the only citation is the film itself (see previous point). However, here are my disagreements. Please don't take any of it personally.
  • Since I don't have access to the source, does it actually say that the future narrative is set in 2500? I know there's no date given in the movie itself. Just wondering where that number came from.
  • "It is unclear what actually occurs within the reality of The Fountain..." — Actually, I beg to differ. Having discussed this film with many friends, family, and philosophers, I think the movie is very confusing for most people, but if you pay attention to the details, it's quite clear what supposed to be reality and what isn't. It's all made clear at the very end of the film.
  • "..the Conquistador may be only a character in the wife's unfinished novel" — I think it is quite clear that the Conquistador is only a character in the wife's unfinished novel. The only way I can even imagine people getting the idea that this element of the story is supposed to be a true event is if you make the unfortunate mistake of watching the trailer. I can't think of a single event in the movie itself that suggest the 16th century narrative was real. It was clearly from the wife's book.
  • "Once he arrives at the ziggurat, he is stabbed in the stomach, but the priest narrowly avoids killing him when he notices that Tomas is carrying a ceremonial dagger that fulfills a Mayan prophecy. The priest has a vision of the space traveler floating before him and asks Tomas to slit his throat." — This is not true. I just popped in the DVD and re-watched the scene to double-check myself. Not once did the priest even look at the ceremonial dagger. Instead, he held back when he saw the Conquistador for what he would become (the future Tom)—an enlightened being, which is represented by his Buddhist pose. I interpret this to mean that Izzi (unintentially?) left the story at a seemingly impossible point. If Tom couldn't see her point, then he would die in darkness. If he did see her point, the flaming sword could be stopped, although the Conquistador stumbled blindly forth, the Mayan priest (and Izzi) had faith that Tom would awaken to enlightenment in the end. The dagger had absolutely nothing to do with it. ... Now, my DVD does not have the director's commentary. If the director himself says otherwise, then so be it (...and I'll be very disappointed).
  • "He is motivated by his wife Izzi's brain tumor, which has caused a rapid decline in her health." — I don't think Izzi's health was declining rapidly. Near the end (the last day or so), she had admitted to losing sensitivity to hot & cold, but she wasn't bed-ridden or wasting away. She was in the hospital for maybe a day. Brain tumors kill you quickly. I know. There was a guy I knew at a former job of mine who was almost 50 years old, lively as could be, and was excitedly talking about his upcoming retirement every time I spoke with him. I went for a 4-week trip to Australia, and by the time I got back, he was dead and the funeral was past. Between the time of his first symptoms to his death, only a week went by. Although Izzi seems to have lived for longer than that, she seemed to be in the same boat: full of life and health, but only having a very short amount of time left when the disease did turn up (in the form of seizures).
  • "She has written a book which apparently tells the story of Tomas..." — please strike "apparently" per my comments above.
  • "...but when she collapses at a museum, she becomes convinced that she won't live long enough to finish the book..." — Referring to the DVD, I don't get this impression. I think by the time she gives Tommy the gift of pen and ink to finish the book, she either knows that he needs to finish the book or that the two of them need to finish the book together (as a lesson for Tommy). We don't know enough about the history of the book. It sounds like she's had quite a bit of time to research it, traveling to Mayan ruins and so forth. But at some point, the story became a parallel to her life: a struggle to survive with her Conquistador fighting tirelessly to help her. Later, she came to terms with her own mortality, and I think it's quite clear that she was using the story as a way to help Tom come to terms with mortality, too. She may have originally planned to write the book entirely, telling him the answer to the riddle. But by the end, she was clearly wants Tommy involved in the writing of the last chapter, either with her, or more likely, alone (after she's gone). When she gives Tommy the gift, the dialog goes:

“ Izzi: "Pen and ink. For writing. It's all done except the last chapter. I want you to help me."

Tommy: "How?"
Izzi: "Finish it. ... Finish it."
Tommy: "But I don't know how it ends."
Izzi: "You do. You will."

”

Therefore, I don't think she's handing the task over to Tommy because she knows she doesn't have time. Instead, I'm pretty sure she's doing it because he needs to come to the realization on his own.

• • At the end of the "Tommy the neuroscientist" section, there should probably be a short sentence saying that following the funeral, Tommy uses the pen to tattoo a ring back onto his finger. In fact, the ring is an important element of the story, but does not seem to get any mention in the article. If you want to discuss it, particularly the role it plays at the very end, I'm open for that.
  • In the "Tom the space traveler" section, you forgot to mention his ritual of "communion".
  • If anything, it's the "Tom the space traveler" narrative that sits as a questionable "real event" in this movie. Here's how I see it: The true present tense in this story is sometime after Izzi's death... possibly days, weeks, or even a year or more. You only see Tommy in the true present tense at the very end of the film when he plants the seed on his wife's grave. The future Tommy is how he envisions himself going on with life after his wife dies. He sees himself beating death and clinging to the hope that somehow his wife's fictional "tree of life" can be be restored by reaching the "Xibalba nebula", thus restoring her. He sees himself blinding performing symbolic rituals to keep himself tied to the memory of his wife. He meditates to find peace. But in the back of his mind (both in his envisioned future self and his real present self), he knows that he has to do what his wife asked him to do: finish the book. At the start of the movie, he gives in and and asks her to show him. Consequently, he flashes back to the "Tommy the neuroscientist" narrative and sees the past for what it was, as a way to glean whatever clues he can find. When his wife dies in his memories, his fantasy of taking the tree to Xibalba dies as well, leaving him at a loss. But having reflected on the events of her last few days, and finally seeing the connection between the fictional queen and Izzi (as well as the Conquistador and himself), he finally understands what his wife wanted him to see: This his fear of death was holding him back, and that accepting the certainty of his own mortality was the key to finishing his wife's book.. as well as coming to terms with her death. I recommend re-watching the climax where it goes:

“ Izzi: "Finish it." (in Tommy's head)

Tommy: "Stop! STOP IT!! WHAT DO YOU WANT?! LEAVE ME, LEAVE ME ALONE!! Please, please, I'm afraid." <crying>
Queen Isabel: "Will you deliver Spain from bondage?"
Tommy: "I don't know. I'm trying, but I don't know how."
Queen Isabel: "You do. You will."
Izzi: "You do. You will."
<Tommy sees flashes of Izzi, young and full of life, and then dead in the hospital>
Izzi: "I'm not afraid any more, Tommy." (from Tommy's memories)
<Tommy looks into Izzi's eyes.>
Tommy: "I'm going to die." <Tommy and Izzi smile together>
Izzi: "Together we will live forever."
Tommy: "Forever."
Queen Isabel: "Forever."
<Tommy then goes on to write the end of the book.>

”

As Tommy finishes the book, he merges his wife's story (of him as the Conquistador) with his own story of himself, as the newly enlightened man. And, most importantly (IMO), he goes on to regret not spending more time with Izzi during her final days. (Hence he sees himself running off to follow her in the snow rather than staying to do research like he had done in real life.) The point being that he should have savored very moment of life and not have feared her death. To conclude, he comes back to his own (real) life and goes to Izzi's grave to plant a seed over it to show that he has come to terms with her death and her rebirth (in a Buddhist sense). ... Again, this is my opinion. I'm used to writing articles with hard, reliable sources, such as academic journal articles. If we have a difference in opinion on how to interpret the movie, then I'm not sure how to resolve it. Personally, I would love to explore the rich symbolism in this movie and examine every detail. Although the director said that the movie can be "solved it in several different ways", I feel the director wrote a specific story (which can be seen by careful scrutiny of the symbolism and other details), but he felt that if people interpreted certain elements differently, then it didn't matter... as long as you come to the same conclusion.

• Material from "Cinematography" is duplicated in "Visual effects".

Otherwise, the article looks pretty good to my untrained, "entertainment Wiki" eye. It's well referenced (but didn't have time to check the references, and pretty thorough, minus the points mentioned above. I would love to see it pass FA sometime soon. If you need help developing it, just let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Visionholder, we have some guidelines about writing plot summaries for films; see WP:FILMPLOT. I wrote a lot of the article, and Justin wants to take it all the way. However, before he started working on it, I had removed the actual plot summary (like the kind you would see at American Beauty) because it was subject to too much interpretation. In the current "Narrative" section, I only had the first paragraph. Justin added the other paragraphs in their subsections, and like you pointed out, there are interpretations of the primary source. per WP:PSTS, we should stick to basic descriptions, and this is possible for most films. With this film, though, I don't think it is as possible and would prefer that there was merely a synopsis and not the full summary we currently have. What do you think? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree up to a point. The problem is that I suspect that most visitors to this page are coming her to figure out "what the hell the movie was about." (I have yet to meet a person who understood the film the first time through. Most people I talk to don't even know where to start in terms of explaining what they got out of it.) We need to keep it short and to the point, but we also need to give some direction (which will be an interpretation, of course). I think if we can agree on the main points, we could write something that is very succinct, but very straight-forward for our visitors. If you want, I can list a set of key points, and if we all agree, then I could write or modify the existing synopsis based on those points. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We would not be able to provide the direction if it is our own interpretation. We would need to depend on secondary sources, possibly the academic ones that studied it closely. Justin, did the director's commentary include a full explanation of the film? If so, that would be worth citing, and we can save the academic coverage for an analytical section. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Commentary Embarrassing admission: I never listened to it. As I explained to Visionholder, I just moved and I don't have reliable Internet access, so this will have to be a back-burner thing for me, but I am willing to work on it and take the advisement of the peer review. Whenever the comments close and the direction this should take is clear, I'd be happy to work on it with or without further input from Erik or Visionholder. I don't own the article and I'm happy to see anyone else increase its quality. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• The Atlantic covered The Fountain in retrospect today; see article. Might be good fodder for the reception section. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good one to use. However, were there any good review of this movie? I find it hard to believe that every critic hated it. (And, honestly, I'm not sure they all hated it as much as they failed to understand it.. and therefore lashed out at it. Critics have very large, fragile egos, typically, and are very sensitive about their superiority in interpreting and evaluating films.) I remember after the film came out, people were giving it a 9.x on the IMDB ratings, so although it was a flop, there were quite a few people who enjoyed the film. I'd be completely shocked if there were no positive reviews at all. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that in general, it was perceived as a flop. Metacritic does show positive (green) reviews. The Premiere one is already used in the article. I think it's more accurate to say that it was a divided reaction, where Aronofsky's subsequent films have been more praised in general. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

---

C. R. M. F. Cruttwell

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is a spin-off from the recent Evelyn Waugh biography, the story of Waugh's unfortunate Oxford tutor Mr Cruttwell. He fell afoul of his feisty pupil, and suffered 15 years of sly mockery through Waugh's fiction. Eventually it drove the poor fellow mad. I'd particularly value reviewers' thoughts on the use of a non-free image in the infobox. Personally, I think it is important that readers should be aware of what Cruttwell looked like, but I know that the conditions for acceptance of non-free content are arduous. Please let me know your thoughts on this, and on any other aspect of this sad but nebertheless funny tale. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• "A mental collapse led to his death in an institution two years later."

  Prone to misunderstanding: that the collapse led to his death. Later text does not state this. It would be more appropriate to say "A mental collapse led to his committance to a mental institute, where he died two years later."

• "On the outbreak of war in August 1914, ..."

  Seems like the war was not identified, perhaps "On the outbreak of the First World War in August 1914,", or "Great War" (to be in line with his work, although it might be overly romantic to use this term).

• "Apart from its physical effects, Cruttwell's experiences ..."

  Should it not be "their physical effects" (experiences)?

  Or "experience" can be single, which is what I have done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "removing the general good manners of his youth and substituting a short-tempered, impatient and bullying character."

  "Substituting" seems to be used wrongly here; "substituting the general good manners of his youth with a short-tempered, impatient and bullying character."?

• "... by an Independent, ..."

  Should Independent be capitalised?

  It is usual, in the UK, to capitalise "Independent" when the word is used as a political label in an election. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The final Cruttwell appearance ..."

  Appearance or reference, since Waugh was mocking but not directly identifying him as such?

• "Waugh told a survey asking modern novelists to nominate their best work that his choice was as yet unwritten:"

  Noun plus -ing construct that could be ambiguous (Waugh tells the survey to ask modern novelists); suggest "Waugh told a survey, which asked modern novelists to nominate their best work, that his choice was as yet unwritten:"

• File:Cruttwell.jpg: Generally, it is acceptable to use a copyrighted photograph for dead figures with no known "free" images (although that might change with an ongoing RFC), so one identifying shot should be okay. One possible query to make before asserting this claim should be to check that no photographs of Cruttwell was published before 1923 (since this shot was published in 1924 and he had published books in 1922 and earlier, that might be the chance a photograph of him was published). Otherwise, it would seem fair to use this image (which has the additional benefit of actual critical commentary on it in the article).

  Cruttwell's only publication before 1923 appears to be his history of the Royal Berkshire Regiment, first published in 1922 and reissued in 2007 by Bibliobazaar (I missed this in the list of works by Cruttwell). There is no indication in the reprint that the book included a picture of Cruttwell - see here. Although information on the provenance of the Isis photograph is elusive, from my reading of the various accounts I suspect that the photo was provided to Isis in the expectation that a normal profile article was being prepared, rather than Waugh's satirical contribution. I am fairly sure that if other photographs of Cruttwell had been published, they would have found their way into one or more of the many Waugh biographies and critical studies.

A nice short article about this man. It makes Waugh seem like a ... jerk, but there is no defence for that sort of attitude. Jappalang (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. Except where indicated, I have followed your suggestions. I have to agree with your assessment of Waugh, but great writers and artists are often not nice people. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Jappalang's comments and was going to make some of them myself. This is a very nice article, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

• The other thought I had about the File:Cruttwell.jpg image was that, from its description, the image is the very one that Waugh used in the 1924 satirical newpaper article about Cruttwell. Thus it seems, since there is some discussion of Waugh's newspaper piece about Crutwell, that the Wikipedia article should make clearer that this is the very image discussed, probably in a caption and in the article text itself.

  I have added an informative caption to the infobox. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the Lead should say something like "commonly known as C. R. M. F. Cruttwell" since this is the article's title
• The lead makes it clear that Queen's and Hertford are part of Oxford University, but I think that either the lead or first mention in the body should make it clearer that All Souls is also at Oxford. Many American (and I suspect other) readers will not know this without following the link.
• Did he have any siblings or was he an only child? If this is known, could it be included in the Background, childhood and early career section?
• In War service, there seems to be a bit of a contradiction - first his wound "ended his active military service" in 1916, but then he kept serving in Military Intelligence until apparently about 1919, which sounds like continued active military service. Perhaps something like "ended his frontline military service" would be clearer?
• In the Feud with Evelyn Waugh section, I would link the books or stories that have articles here (like A Handful of Dust)
• Is the year of Crutwell's one marriage proposal known? Even the decade would help add context

  Unfortunately, no mention is given of a year in either of the Waugh biogs that report this information. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Would it also help to mention his age at early retirement?

  Well, his age at death, a couple of years later, is given a line or two further on, so maybe this isn't necessary? Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  Good point, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• If the Bibliography is a complete list of all his books, should it say so?

  I have added one, previously missed. I can't be 100% sure that there are no others, though none appear on Amazon or Abebooks searches. I'd rather call it a "list" than a "complete list", just in case I'm wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details (I say this in every one)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for this review and these suggestions. Except where I have responded with a comment, I have adopted your suggestions. Just as a footnote, in the Brit idiom "active service" generally means "frontline service"; a desk job with the Ministry wouldn't be considered as "active". However, to save any possible confusion I've adopted your alternative. Brianboulton (talk)#

You are very welcome - as Churchill said the British and Americans are two people separated by a common language. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

One more The link to Isis (journal) seems to link to the wrong publication - it is an American journal on the history of science, not the Oxford publication. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted! Now fixed Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt: A few comments. Short but sweet, very nice article.

• Lede:

The statement that Waugh's persecution of Cruttwell caused me to immediately advance into the text looking for the reason why it ended, my impression of Waugh from your article was that Waugh was a man who did not give up his grudges lightly. I find nothing. Surely something should be said?

There is nothing in the sources that says specifically why Waugh stopped, but perhaps the facts speak for themselves. Scoop was the last novel Waugh finished before Cruttwell's death, and "An Englishman's Home" virtually Waugh's last prewar short story. By 1940 Waugh was in the army, and by the time he resumed writing fiction, Cruttwell was no more. Perhaps even Waugh wasn't quite such a jerk as to continue the feud after his enemy's demise. But this is theory - no sources back it up. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Early life:

Does a two-paragraph section really need to be subdivided?

Probably not. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"commissioned as a second lieutenant" I've also heard similar phrases without the "a". You will no doubt be better at me at determining which works better in Britlish.

Your version probably works better. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hertford College

"and as one of the group of academics nominated by the vice-chancellor as a delegate to the Oxford University Press." This may be technically correct, but it reads oddly. Did the group together constitute a delegate, or where they individually delegates? If the second, I would change "a delegate" to "delegates". If the first, the sentence might be worth a rephrase.

Clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Note, please, that Oxford University was a two-seat consitutency. If you would like the complete results, I can give them to you sourced to Craig's very comprehensive book of election returns from 1918-1949 (left over from my Chamberlain days). Basically, he finished third out of four in what was a two-seat constituency decided by preference balloting. It was not particularly close. It is perhaps not surprising he did not stand in the 1937 by-election.

I do have the results. The multi-member university parliamentary seats were an odd anomaly, abolished in 1950, whereby graduates at Oxford, Cambridge and some other universities could vote for a universiity member as well as casting a vote in their home constituency. Elections in these university seats were by the STV (single transferable vote) method. I don't think, however, that these details, interesting though they are, are relevant to this article.

• Feud

"Jowett". I think that would be a useful link. I imagine Benjamin Jowett is meant?

We don't normally link within quotes, but I don't think the rule is absolute, so linked. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"The basis for the rift ..." I think this sentence needs to be split. I was at sea about what was intended by "this", I assume Waugh's scholarship, but am not prepared to bet the house limit on it.

"He did this in Isis, in unsigned contributions," Ambiguous, I'm afraid. Were what Waugh did in Isis and the unsigned contributions two separate things, or one?

"he continued the vendetta against his former tutor" Perhaps, better "resumed".

Above three prose fixes done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

" embezzling Wolf Cub master." We would say "Cub Scout leader". I don't know what the terminology for such things is in the UK, Just for your reference.

We call them Cub Scouts here, now, but fidelity to Waugh's prose requires use of the older name. The link is there to resolve any uncertainty. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Reputation

I would put his professional reputation first, then the controversy about how he was viewed by Waugh. Even though without Waugh, he'd be forgotten. It will require a little shifting around of sentences, but it looks doable to me.

I've done as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice little piece. Looking forward to seeing it advance. Regarding the image, even given the inevitable wrath of Fasach Nua, I think you'll be upheld. An image for purpose of identification of the article subject is acceptable.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and advice, largely taken. I'll let it fester awhile before sending it on - always the chance of more comments. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Genelia D'Souza

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to raise this article to FA status. Thanks, Xavier449 (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I reviewed this about a year ago. I am glad to see it is GA, but think it still needs a lot of work before it would pass at FAC; here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The most difficult of the FA criteria for most articles to meet is 1a, a professional level of English, and I think this needs a a very thorough copyedit before it would meet 1a.
• As one example of a place where the text could be made much more concise, the caption D'Souza with her family at the CNBC Awaaz consumer awards in 2010. Seen here from left to right is her father Neil D'Souza, her mother Jeanette D'Souza, herself, and at the extreme right, her brother Nigel D'Souza. could just be The D'Souza family at the CNBC Awaaz consumer awards in 2010. Left to right: her father Neil, her mother Jeanette, Genelia, and her brother Nigel. Conciseness is also strongly encouraged by WP:CAPTION
• I checked one source because I was looking for the name of the pharmaceutical firm her mother worked for. The source [7] says "... her mother Jeanette, who gave up her job as a managing director with a pharma MNC in 2004 to help Genelia with her career..." but the article says "Her mother Jeanette D'Souza was formerly a secretary to managing director with a Pharma Multinational corporation (MNC), who left her job in 2004 to help Genelia with her career." So the osurce says her mother was a director, but the article says she was a secretary to a director (which the source does not support). I also think this sentence could be rewritten as something like this

Her mother Jeanette D'Souza left her job as a managing director with a multinational pharmaceutical corporation in 2004 "to help Genelia with her career".

• • Note that I made the last part a quotation (as I could not think of a good paraphrase).
• Another problem sentence After appearing in her first Telugu movie in 2005, Naa Alludu, she starred in the Tamil romantic entertainer Sachein.[33] When I read this I thought it meant Naa Alludu was her very first movie in the Telegu language, but knew she had already made several such films.
• So this needs a copyedit - there are people at WP:GOCE as well as at the bottom of WP:PR/V that may be able to help.
• The article contradicts itself in places. For example this sentence In 2010, D'Souza appeared in Chance Pe Dance, Uthama Puthiran, and Orange, all three receiving poor reviews from critics.[64][65][66][67][68][69][70] is contradicted by the table at the end, which says Orange was a 2010 film, but the toher two were 2009 films.
• The forthcoming films section should also give dates for the expected release of the films and probably should say when they were filmed.
• I also wondered why, when I looked at the articles on two of the upcoming films, they had not been released yet (when they were supposed to be 2010 films). SInce her three 2010 films received poor reviews and two of her three upcoming films have been unexpectedly delayed in their releases, is her career in decline? This is probably a NPOV issue.
• The lead seems a bit short to me - at the same time it seems odd for the lead to list all her sponsorships in the lead (for comparison, all of her films are not listed there)
• Looking at the talk page there is a lot of controversy as to what year she was born in. My guess is that if you went back to print sources from early in her career, they might list a different age / birth date (since it is not unheard of for actresses to make themselves younger). In any case, since this is so controversial, the two possible birth years should probably be mentioned. The two possible birth places could also be mentioned if there are reliable sources for both.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

PS It looks like the article has all the basic subject matter for comprehensiveness (another FAC criterion), although there are places where some context could be provided for the reader. Examples would be brief descriptions of her films - this is done in some cases, but in others it is not done and just the linked title is given. See WP:PCR. Unfortunatley I do not have time to do a copyedit myself, and I also do not have time to point out every place where the language needs to be improved - sorry. If it would help, I can go through one section and try to point things out - just let me know on my talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Japan Airlines

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be upgraded to FA status. At the moment there are no airline articles listed under Featured Article. If this article gets promoted, it can be used as a model for other airline articles.

Thanks, Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 02:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: As I noted when I reviewed Emirates (airline), which you also submitted for review, you are not among the main contributors to the article. That's OK, but I'm loathe to spend a lot of time reviewing unless I feel fairly certain that someone will make use of my comments. Quite a few of the things I said about the Emirates article also apply to this one, though this one is considerably more advanced. If you have to choose one or the other to push toward FA, this would be the one.

• The lead and first several sections of the article seem highly polished and well-organized. The middle sections devolve into lists in several places and need work. Further down, the "Services" section might have unnecessary detail. Reader fatigue is a factor in articles this long, and I'm not sure all of the details about the fly-on program and its many levels and points is worth including. I think the article could be improved by finding places to trim and tighten.

• The list in the "Organization" section would be better as a straight prose paragraph. I would also merge some of the short paragraphs in this section.

• The Wikinews link in the "Bankruptcy" section probably belongs in "External links".

• I think the Wikinews template was devised to be placed in the article, not "External link".

Alliance, restructure and bankruptcy protection

• The link-checker tool at the top of this review page finds 11 dead urls in the citations. An article with dead links in its citations is not ready for FAC since some of its claims cannot be verified.

• Several of the last images displace edit buttons or overlap sections. MOS:IMAGES has advice about image placement.

• It depends on how wide your screeen is. Those with narrow monitors I think, will have no problems. Just change your the placement of your "Edit" button on your preferences page.

• Are the portal links in the "See also" section really relevant? Portals tend to be extremely broad.

• I don't think they're broad at all, except for the Tokyo portal.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for keeping everyone waiting. I was working on South African Airways, but I do keep an eye out for Emirates and Japan Airlines. Please don't worry about your comments falling on deaf ears, because they're not. Once again, I'm sorry – I'll start waorking on JAL now. Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 02:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Done

• YCheck the "References" to find and fix the incomplete ones like citations 83 and 96.

• YFile:JAL 737-800 JA302J.jpg displaces the "Restructuring plans" head and should be moved.

• YFile:JAL Toy.jpg displaces a subhead and creates a text sandwich.

It's removed because it doesn't help with anything.

• YIn places, the images create text sandwiches between them. They should be repositioned to avoid this.

• Y"It was claimed that its membership would be in the best interests of the airline's plans to further develop the airline and its strong commitment to provide the very best to its customers." - Who made this claim? If it was the airline, then active voice would be better. Suggestion: "Japan Airlines claimed that its membership in Oneworld would help it grow and to provide good service." Maybe it's not even worth using this sentence; it's the sort of thing you'd expect any service business to say.

• YI'd suggest making the lists in the "Codeshare" section into prose paragraphs.

• It's common practice to list it.
  

---

Kathy Dunderdale

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has yet to be assessed but seems to be very well written as is, but it will obviously need some tweeking and I would like to know what else could be done.

Thanks, Jordo72 (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start. The article is interesting and fairly broad. The lower sections run the danger of becoming dated rather quickly, but this is not an insurmountable problem. Here are my suggestions for further improvement:

• Would it be possible to find a public-domain image of her and add it to the infobox?

• Could the persondata include something in the "description" line? "Politician" might be all that's needed or maybe "Politician, 10th premier of Newfoundland and Labrador".

Lead

• I would lowercase words like "premier" except when it is being used as part of someone's title as in Premier Danny Williams. For example, "She was sworn in as Premier... " should, I think, use a small "p" on "premier".

• "at various times holding the portfolios" - Link "portfolio" to Ministry (government department)#Canada?

Background

• "Her late husband, Captain Peter Dunderdale, was a master mariner... " - Link master mariner?

• "When her children grew older she decided to get involved outside the home where she worked and volunteered in many different roles." - Possibly unclear since it might seem to suggest that she volunteered and worked from home. Suggestion: "When her children grew older, she worked away from home in many different volunteer roles."

• "accepted an offer to be part of an appeals board for inshore fishers after the cod moratorium" - It might be helpful here to explain "inshore fishers" and to provide a little more background on the cod moratorium. What is an "inshore fisher", and what was the moratorium about? When did the moratorium occur, and how long did it last?

• Could "Status of Women" be briefly explained or linked to something, perhaps Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Canada)?

• "where she lives today within her district" - Rather than using words like "today", "now", and "current", it's often better to specify the year by saying something like "as of 2011". Words like "today" may quickly lose their original meaning as time passes.

• "Her husband passed away in 2006" - Replace "passed away" with "died"?

Politics

• "Although Dunderdale said she knew she would not win the seat still felt she had to send Liberal Premier Clyde Wells a message about the way he was treating municipalities." - Not a complete sentence as written.

Minister of Natural Resources

• Extremely short paragraphs give articles a choppy look. It's usually best to expand them or to merge them with other paragraphs. I'd probably merge these four to make two.

Minister of Natural Resources

• Link "hydro development" to Hydroelectricity?

Premier

• "Child, Youth and Family Services Minister Joan Burke took on Sullivan's former portfolios on a temporary basis until a larger cabinet shuffle is held after Christmas to replace those ministers who decide to seek the party leadership." - This will soon need to be updated, I assume.

Party leadership

• This section is mainly a breaking news story that will need frequent updating to make sense. As time passes, the section may come to have unnecessary detail and will need to be trimmed. Political maneuvering often seems more important for a brief time than it does in retrospect only a few months later.

• "Dunderdale announced her candidacy for the Tory leadership" - Does Tory need to be linked or explained? Are the Progressive Conservative Party and the Tory Party the same?

• "While she originally stated she would step down as Premier if she decided to run for the leadership she now has said... " - Here's an example of a "now" that is problematic. Does that mean December 31? What will it mean by March 1?

References

• Many of the citations are incomplete. Citations to Internet source should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all of these are known or can be found. For example, citation 1 should include the author's name, Sue Bailey, and the date of publication, March 12, 2010.

• Newspaper and magazine titles, like The Globe and Mail in citation 3, should appear in italics.

Other

• I found and fixed quite a few minor errors, but I doubt that I caught them all. Another proofing would be a good idea.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---

MV Aurora (2000)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has undergone a significant re-write, expansion and tidy. Looking for comments regarding suitability for GA — what issues might need to addressed to get to that stage.

Thanks, Wexcan  Talk  02:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start. It is not yet ready for a run at GA, but it has potential. Here are suggestions for further improvement.

• The lead is to be an inviting summary of the whole article rather than an introductory paragraph. My rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything important that is not developed in the main text. The existing lead does not summarize the whole article. WP:LEAD has details.

• I think you need to make clear in the first couple of sentences that P&O Cruises is a British-American cruise line and that HRH, the Princess Royal, refers to Princess Anne. Otherwise, foreign readers may at first assume that P&O is a German company and the Princess Royal a German. Also, it would be helpful to those readers if Her Royal Highness (HRH) were spelled out on first use; otherwise they will not know what HRH stands for.

• Extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sections and subsections give articles a choppy look and feel. Two possible solutions are to expand or merge. For example, I see no reason for the many subheads in the "Specifications" section. They could all be eliminated; every existing subsection would simply be a paragraph of the section. In addition, the short paragraphs within those existing subsections could be merged to make slightly larger paragraphs. The "Specifications" section would then consist of five paragraphs of moderate size.

• The primary units of measurement in Wikipedia articles are usually spelled out, while the secondary units are abbreviated. Thus, something like "270.0 m (885 ft 10 in)" would appear as "270 metres (885 ft 10 in)". However, it might also be better to express all the quantities in decimal fractions. I like to use the {{convert}}} template for doing the conversions because it gets the spelling and punctuation right as well as the math. Here's an example that you can inspect in edit mode: 270.0 metres (885.8 ft).

• Abbreviations should generally be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use in an article. I mentioned HRS above, but this would also apply to abbreviations like "V" and "kW" in "Power and propulsion".

• I'd recommend converting knots to miles-per-hour, like this: 24 knots (28 mph). Most readers are unlikely to have a good sense of how fast a knot is.

• "The champagne bottle did not shatter when it hit the ship's side... " - Readers unfamiliar with the ceremony may not know what champagne bottle this refers to. Would it be helpful to add a bit of background? Why champagne? Why a princess?

• "The ship was christened on 27 April 2000, by HRH Princess Anne." - A sentence in the lead suggests that the princess chose the name. Did she? Citation 17 suggests that P&O chose the name.

• "worth about GBP£6 million" - What does GBP stand for? Is it an official abbreviation?

• "A crewmember described the sea state as "very rough, with waves of about 5 m (16 ft)". - Inline citations for direct quotations should appear immediately after the final punctuation of the quotation. In this particular case, two citations appear at the end of the paragraph in which the quote appears, and it is not possible to tell at a glance which source supports the quote.

• Make sure that the sources meet the WP:RS guidelines. For example, is "beyondships.com" reliable? It seems to be a personal web site.

• Nice lead image. Licenses look fine. MOS:IMAGES suggests placing images entirely within the section they illustrate, not overlapping two sections, creating text sandwiches between them, or displacing edit buttons. Eliminating the subsections in the "Specifications" section will help solve the layout problems with the two images in the main text.

• It's often useful to look at similar articles that have advanced to featured status. A list of these appears at WP:FA#Transport and includes items like SS Christopher Columbus.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Emilie Autumn

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there is definite room for improvement before it can be nominated at GAN and beyond. The style and public image sections probably need the most looking at. Thanks, Kaguya-chan (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: What an interesting musician. This article is broad in coverage, generally well-written, well-organized, and nicely illustrated. I have a few suggestions for further improvement, mostly related to prose and the Manual of Style.

Infobox

• "1997–present" - Since "present" is non-specific, I think the date range is more meaningful as 1997–, with just a blank after the en dash.

Heads and subheads

• It's usually good to make these telegraphic rather than extended. For example, "1979–2001: Early life and beginnings" could become "1979–2001: Beginnings" without losing its essential meaning. "2010–present: Fight Like A Girl" could become "2010– : Fight Like A Girl

Lead

• "Currently she is working on an upcoming album entitled Fight Like a Girl." - Words like "currently", "now", and "today" quickly age and become inaccurate. It's generally better to be specific; i.e., "In 2011, she is working on an album entitled Fight Like a Girl." (I'd just delete "upcoming" since that's implied by the rest of the sentence.)

• "Autumn draws influence for her music—the style of which she has alternatively labeled as "Victoriandustrial" and glam rock—from plays, novels, and history, particularly the Victorian era, with her only musical influence being the English violinist Nigel Kennedy." - This doesn't make sense. How can Nigel Kennedy be her only musical influence? Does she perhaps make the claim that Kennedy is her main musical influence or her most recent musical influence, or something like that?

1979–2001: Early life and beginnings

• "At the age of nine,[note 1][9][7]" - Anywhere in the article where a string of ref numbers appear in a series, the custom is to arrange them in ascending order; i.e., [note 1][7][9].

• "She began writing her own music and poetry at age thirteen/fourteen," - Instead of the often-ambiguous front slash, it's better to use a specific word; i.e., "age thirteen or fourteen".

• "After two years at the university, she left because she disagreed with their views on individuality and classical music." - "University" is singular, but "their" is plural. You could use "it", but a thing doesn't have views. Maybe "the faculty's views"? Or "her professors' views"? Or "the prevailing views"?

2002–2005

• "Convent, for which she recorded all four voices" - Is Convent the name of a song that should appear in quotation marks?

• "sushi-styled soap" - Link sushi?

Influences and musical style

• "While a young Autumn cited Itzhak Perlman as an influence because of the happiness she believed he felt when he played, her only musical influence is Nigel Kennedy." - This seems internally contradictory as well as unlikely in other ways. Could this be rephrased somehow? Maybe "she claims Nigel Kennedy as her primary musical influence"? Or something like that?

• "2002's Enchant drew... " - This should be recast to avoid starting the sentence with digits.

Institutionalization...

• "The release was delayed because some did not want it published." - Would it be possible to be more specific? Who did not want it published?

EPs and singles

• 4 O'Clock appears with a big O here but a little o in the 2006–2009 section.

Bibliography

• Should the publisher, place of publication, and ISBN be included for each entry?

References

• Should Shred News be in italics in citation 9?

• Rather than "official site", I think the publisher should be "Emilie Autumn Ent. LLC". Ditto for some of the other refs to this site.

Images

• File:Alexandre Cabanel, Ophelia.JPG is tagged with a "source" question. If you know the source, it would be good to add it to the image's license page. It may be OK without this bit of data, but it's best to flesh out the data if you possibly can.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Californium

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I plan to submit this to FAC, but first wanted to see if anybody had some ideas for improvement. The article is already A-class but that does not mean it is ready for FAC copyedit and MOS-wise. Suggestions for improvement are most welcome. Thanks, mav (reviews needed) 05:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

RJHall comments—Overall it looks pretty good. There are a few sentences of the form "...this and this and this and this...", which could be improved. Also there is some unexplained/unlinked jargon in places.

I looked for each use of "this" and copyedited those sentences as needed. I'll keep general thought in mind as I ce more. --mav (reviews needed) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• In "a double-hexagonal close-packed α form" and "a face-centered cubic β form", do the α and β have some significance? Or are they just naming conventions?

  They are nominative. Clarified. --mav (reviews needed) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• "orthorhombic, alpha-uranium structure", "atom's 5 f electrons", "3+ actinide elements" seem like jargon and may need clarification.

  "alpha-uranium structure" is a bit too technical, so removed and sentence generalized. Links made as needed to help explain the rest. --mav (reviews needed) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Only californium-249 is suitable for chemical study." Why? Why not californium-251?

  The source does not say. Commented out until the reason can be found. --mav (reviews needed) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I'll do a de-jargoning copyedit. --mav (reviews needed) 14:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've added a fair-use image. This might be worth some consideration also. Nergaal (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I get a a 404 error for that website. --mav (reviews needed) 19:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems excellent. I don't know enough to comment much on the science, but I know the Manual of Style pretty well. Here are some suggestions:

• The dab tool at the top of this review page finds one dab, Dmitrovgrad. It's the one in the "Production" section.

  fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Physical properties

• "At 48 GPa of pressure the β form transitions into" - Would "change" be better than "transition"? "Transition" is a noun, but I'm not sure it should be used as a verb. Ditto for its use in "... the amount of heat required to transition a substance".

  "Transition" can act as a verb when talking about a change in state, so I linked the second sentence to phase transition. You are correct about the first use, so changed as you suggested. --mav (reviews needed) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Compounds

• Link "lattice parameter" to Lattice constant?

  Done. --mav (reviews needed) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Californium(III) oxyfluoride (CfOCl) - Wrong formula. Fluoride, not chloride.

  Whoops! Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Occurrence

• "Therefore, concentrations of it in the soil can be 500 times higher than in interstitial water." - Link "interstitial water" to Interstitial fluid?

  Those two concepts are not related; one refers to hydrology and the other to cellular biology. Interstitial water is much closer in meaning to ground water but the term is more inclusive. Replaced jargon with "in the water surrounding the soil particles". --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• "are observed in the spectra of some supernovas.[46][47][9]" - The citations are usually arranged in ascending order; i.e., [9][46][47].

  3 cites was overkill anyway, so [9] removed. --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Production

• I see a bit of overlinking. "Curium" does not need to be linked twice in this section; "neutron" probably does not need to be linked again in this section.

  Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Applications

• I don't think you need to link "petroleum", "oil well", "gold", or "silver" since they are commonly understood.

  De-linked. --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The problem, then and now, is the exceeding rarity of the element and the need for it to be very fresh and pure for such a use." - Some would see that as a lucky thing rather than a problem. Maybe something like "The exceeding rarity of the element and the need for it to be very fresh and pure inhibits such a use"?

  It looks like somebody else fixed that. --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• "if they were continuously exposed to soil" - Can "continuously" be further quantified? For how long, in other words?
• "continuously" is the word used in the source and no elaboration is given. --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is a quibble, but I think the direct link in note 3 to an external site should be turned into an inline citation so that the link appears in the "Reference" section rather than in what is really an extension of the main text.

  I'm not sure it that is technically possible. Hm - the #tag:ref hack seems to work. --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• File:CfShield.JPG overlaps two sections. MOS#IMAGES suggests keeping images entirely within the section they illustrate. When faced with this layout problem in my own articles, I try moving images, shrinking them, and sometimes deleting them. However, some images may be too important to delete, so another solution is better.

  Image above it removed. Now it fits. --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Fair-use rationales get intense scrutiny as an article moves forward. You might beef up "To depict the subject of the article" as the purpose of use for File:Cf bromid.jpg. The problem with that boilerplate explanation is that it is too broad; it might be said of any image.

  Image removed. One non-free image is enough for the article. --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I'll address each point. --mav (reviews needed) 21:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments: The German article (which is a FA) is longer and have more sources. Are there any important information there, that are missing from enwiki? 85.11.25.101 (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the first things I did was Google translate that article to see what info could be moved. All the interesting bits that could be verified via RSs have been ported over. --mav (reviews needed) 03:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Fraizer Campbell

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Gave this article a bit of a going over, looking for any improvements to be had. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• Opening sentance reads a bit awkward at the end, "...who plays for Sunderland as a Forward and also as a winger occasionally". Suggest rewording to something like; "who plays for Sunderland as a forward, but can play as a winger". - Done.
• Comma needed in; "Campbell progressed to their first-team in the 2006–07 season, making two appearances without..". - Done.
• And again in the next sentence after Royal Antwerp - Done.
• Missing the word scored out in the sentence; "Hull City and Tottenham Hotspur, where he 15 goals in 34 matches...". - Done.
• In the last sentance it may be better to replace in the with at the beginning of. - Done.

Background

• First sentence is missing the words in a before Manchester. - Done.

Royal Antwerp

• "He made his senior debut for United on 19 August 2007 in the Manchester derby against Manchester City after coming on in the 73rd minute for Michael Carrick". Don't really need to mention Manchester City as the derby is linked, so anyone who doesnt know who plays in the derby will be able to find out. Also a comma is needed before "after coming on". - Done.

Hull City

• "Boxing Day 2007", don't need to mention 2007. - Done.
• Citation 14 links to a page saying story cannot be found. May need to find an archive of this page. - Removed, don't know what happened to that Sky source, I've removed that section.
• "with the Hull chairman", don't need the the. - Done.
• "He added saying “I’m going..", don't need to use saying, it's used before the previous quote. - Done.

Manchester United

• "In July 2008, Campbell was selected to the pre-season tour of..". For not to. - Done.

Sunderland

• "He went on to score a brace against non-league.." Change a brace to twice as non-football fans may not be aware of what this means. - Done.
• "Campbell began the 2010–11 season with promising form in pre-season". Promising form is a bit POV. - Changed to 'goalscoring form' - as that can't be argued against.

International

• Citation 42 is a dead-link. - Replaced.
• "He also scored in the second group game of the 2009 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship against Spain in a 2–0 win on 18 June 2009." Needs at least one comma in there. - Done.
• "sent-off for a wild lunge". Again wild lunge is POV and isn't used in the reference. - Removed.

Misc

• Alt links are needed to be used for the images. Information on them can be found here - Done.

Hope this helps you improve the article. Eddie6705 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, very helpful. :) Sunderland06 (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Mario Domm

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it, at least, to Good Article status. Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.

• In the infobox, "1993– " might be better than "1993–present". Words like "today", "current", and "now" will mean something different in a couple of years than they do in January 2011. When Domm retires, the second part of the date can be filled in.

• Would it be possible to add an image of Domm?

• Would it be possible to include a fair-use sample (.ogg file) of a song?

Lead

• "Born and raised in Torreón, Coahuila," - Would it be useful to work "Mexico" into this description? Maybe Torreón, in the Mexican state of Coahuila?

• "Born and raised in Torreón, Coahuila, he enrolled in various performing arts schools and was first exposed to singing and performing on stage." - This sentence seems a little odd as well as doubtful. He must have heard singing before he went to these schools. Suggestion: "Born and raised in Torreón, Coahuila, he enrolled in various performing arts schools, where he studied singing on stage." Or something like that.

Early life and career beginnings

• "Unfortunately was not as successful as expected." - This sentence is incomplete. It lacks a subject.

Forming Camila

• "Domm declared about the album: "we... " - Maybe "Domm said, "We... "?

• "Domm said: "we wanted people... " - Capital W if the quoted sentence starts with a big W.

Personal life

• "Domm recognized through a publication in Twitter and without using names, that he was still in love with Yuridia and that he hurt his ex-girlfriends, Belinda and Irán Castillo." - Is the source for this reliable? Is a Twitter message reliable? Does gossip belong in a Wikipedia article? Is Latin Gossip a reliable source?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Ontario v. Quon

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it epitomizes what I think a U.S. Supreme Court case article should be (not in the least because it's a very recent case and all the sources are online and still there). And I think this could be an FA eventually.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this. I found it very interesting and have reviewed it as if it were at WP:FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Have you thought of using WebCite to archive some of the references?

Not yet, because I don't know how to use it. I'll look into it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• There are several places where the article seems to need a ref. The last sentence of the second paragraph and the whole last (third) paragraph of the "Underlying dispute" section (especially the direct quote "tired of being a bill collector") needs refs. The first and last paragraphs of the "Existing law" section need refs too (though the first paragraph might not need one as a summary). The first paragraph of Litigation, and much of the Trial section also need refs.
• There are also some block quotes that seem to be from the opinion, but I think would still need inline refs for FAC. For example, the block quote in the Majority section has no inline cite, and the block quote in Concurrences also needs a ref.

A large part of the issue here is that the decision is still unpublished (details below). Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• The language is overall decvent but there are some places that need attention:
• In the lead sentence, what does the undelined blank after U.S. mean? Ontario v. Quon, sometimes cited as City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. ___ (2010),...

OK. That means the decision has not yet been published, meaning that volume 560 of the United States Reports isn't out yet. Until it is, no page numbers are available (the numbers that usually go after the "U.S."), and using the underscore in their place is a legal convention. I imagine the decision will be published sometime in the next couple of months. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Since his name is in the case title, I would mention who Quon is in the lead, so It was brought in federal district court by an Ontario, California, police officer who had been disciplined by his superiors for sending personal, sometimes sexually explicit, text messages with pagers they had been provided by the department for use on duty. could instead be something like Jeff Quon, an Ontario, California, police officer, brought the case in federal district court after his superiors disciplined him for sending personal, sometimes sexually explicit, text messages with a pager the department provided for his use on duty. (DId QUon have more than one pager??)
• Note in the preceding example I also made passive constuctions into active ones, which tightened the sentence a little
• I know Fourth Amendment is linked, but would it help to briefly identify what these rights are? I am guessing many Americans and most of the world would not know this without the link.
• Article needs to be consistent on "the Court" or "the court" (both are used)
• I also think the direct quotes in the lead probably need a ref.
• Unclear - Scalia is one of the justices, so this seems contradictory (from the lead again) Outside commentators mostly praised the justices for this display of restraint, but it came in for harsh criticism from Scalia, who called it opaque. could it be something like ''Outside commentators mostly praised the justices for this display of restraint, but the majority opinion came in for harsh criticism from Scalia in his concurrence, who called it vague.
• The third paragraph of the lead is a bit vague to my eye. "It" is used several places where the antecedent is murky and "the opinion" or something similar might be better.
• "those activities" is not super clear in In 2001 the Ontario Police Department (OPD) acquired 20 alphanumeric pagers to distribute to officers in its SWAT unit so they could better coordinate those activities.[3] Would ending it with "their activities" be clearer?
• Probably better to split this sentence He was allowed to reimburse the city for the fee and told by Lt. James Duke, head of the department's Administrative Bureau, that his communications wouldn't be monitored if he did so,[6] but was also told to stop using the pager so much. so something like ''He was allowed to reimburse the city for the fee. Lt. James Duke, head of the department's Administrative Bureau, told Quon that his communications wouldn't be monitored if he paid the fee,[6] but Quon was also told to stop using the pager so much.
• Another awkward sentence A transcript from which messages sent when Quon and the other officer were off-duty had been redacted was sent to the OPD's internal affairs sergeant, and after an investigation Quon and the other officer were allegedly disciplined. I also wondered why "allegedly" is used here (it is not allegedly in the lead)? Perhaps something like After messages which Quon and the other officer sent when they were off-duty had been redacted, a transcript was sent to the OPD's internal affairs sergeant; after an investigation, Quon and the other officer were [allegedly?] disciplined. If it is known who did the redaction and sending, passive could be avoided here too (assume it was the wireless company)
• Another awkward sentence In 1986, as more and more companies stored records with highly personal data about individual consumers in off-site databases operated by third parties, Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act could be something like ''Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in 1986, which addressed issues raised as more and more companies stored records with highly personal data about individual consumers in off-site databases operated by third parties.
• First paragraph in Litigation needs some years / dates for context. When did the case start?
• In litigation I am not clear if this is two courts or three After a district court found in favor of the defendants, a three-judge appellate panel reversed the decision. The circuit court denied a petition for an en banc rehearing... Is the circuit court the same as the appellate panel?
• In Litigation, the plight of Quon's co-defendants is desribed before they are named themselves, which is confusing. Also, is the woman his ex-wife or his estranged wife?
• It took me a while to realize that Litigation began with a summary and then discussed each part in detail. I would either make it clearer that it is a summary, or else get rid of it.
• Really awkward sentence In 2003 Quon, his ex-wife, girlfriend[6][note 1] and another officer, Steve Trujillo, sued the city, the department, the police chief and Arch in Central California U.S. district court, Eastern Division, in Riverside.[note 2] perhaps something like In 2003 the trial began with Quon, his ex-wife, girlfriend[6][note 1] and another OPD officer, Steve Trujillo as plaitiffs; they sued the city, the police department and its chief, and Arch Wireless, in Central California U.S. district court, Eastern Division, in Riverside.[note 2] Is there any reason not to name QUon's ex and girlfriend?
• I am not 100% sure what this means When the jury found in favor of the OPD, judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. The Appeals section should also start by clearly stating who made the appeal (Quon et al.)
• Watch overlinking - for example, Certiorari is linked twice in one section
• Missing verb / fragment On appeal in 2008, a panel of two Ninth Circuit judges, Kim McLane Wardlaw and Harry Pregerson, along with Western Washington district judge Ronald B. Leighton[, heard the arguments?].
• I am not a legal expert and I had a little trouble following what was going on - there are many places that use what I am sure is correct legal terminology, but which is not super clear to the uninitiated. I think it would help to make several of these clearer with brief explanatory phrases. For example, what exactly does it mean that "they reversed" in But they reversed since they found the search unreasonable as a matter of law.?

• I am also confused by this Judge Wardlaw wrote a rare concurrence with the order, criticzing the dissent for ignoring the facts of the case. It is not clear to me what the order is, and since Wardlaw wrote the original appeal ruling, it seems that she could not concur with herself. Since she disagrees with the dissenters, I am not sure how she can concur with them.
• Or in Briefs, I am not sure which side is " the respondents" (I think it is the city, but I am not sure why)
• Orin Kerr is introduced with his full name and linked once - per the MOS he should be referred to as just Kerr (unless there is another person with the same last name) and per WP:OVERLINK he does not need to be linked again in the arguments section.

Well, it's a long section and I've seen reviewers get on editors' cases for not linking subjects again when they're mentioned for the first time in a few grafs ... you have to remember that sometimes people just skim an article till they get to the section they're interested in, and start reading there. I hate having to accomodate that, but it's a reality.

• Petitioners - again adding a few words would help the reader by providing context During Richland's argument [for the city], ... - see WP:PCR
• Watch contactions like "hadn't" (spell it out) and also watch for verb plus -ing constructions, which many reviewers at FAC really dislike. Not many of either that I noted, but a few. One place where verb + ing could just be past tense is Unanimously, the justices ruled for the city that the review of the texts had been a reasonable work-related search, discussing [discussed] the difficulties raised by the broader issues involved and ultimately declining [declined] to rule on them. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion...
• In Majority, I would probably start each paragraph by making it clear that Kennedy is the author (and avoid he as the subject of the first sentence in a paragraph)
• The Scalia image is in two sections and would look better if it were moved up so it was completely in the Concurrences section

I put it there so it sits opposite the grafs with his opinion. But OK. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• The captions are not very descriptive - I think many readers look at the images first and captions can help pique their interest. Even something as simple as "Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the Court." would be better.
• Since almost all of the justices are mentioned by name in the article, I would use a SCOTUS image, probably in the arguments section
• Wehwalt seems to have some legal knowledge and might be a good person to look this over
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details

Opinions of federal courts don't incur a copyright problem since they're PD. They can be quoted to the extent that is editorially desirable. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

---

When You Reach Me

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has just passed GA and I hope to take it up to FA.

Thanks, Derild4921Review Me! 22:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is broad in coverage and well-organized. However, it will need more work to have at chance at FA. Here are my suggestions for further improvement:

• Professional prose is often the most difficult of the FA requirements to satisfy. I note quite a few prose problems below. However, I'm sure I didn't catch them all, and it would be a good idea to ask someone to copyedit this once again. You might find a copyeditor via WP:GOCE#REQ. The more eyes, the better.

Image

• The source link on the image-description page is dead. It should be fixed or replaced. Otherwise, fact checkers will not be able to verify the license.

• It's not clear to me that the fair-use image of the book cover is needed for a reader to understand the subject. Would it be possible to replace the fair-use image with a free image of something relevant? An image of the writer or an image of a scene from the Upper West Side might do, for example.

Lead

• "She receives a strange note asking her to record down future events that follow and the location of her spare key." - Tighten to "She receives a strange note asking her to record future events and the location of her spare key"?

• "The novel contains three storylines—the appearance of Miranda's mom on The $20,000 Pyramid, Miranda's best friend Sal suddenly not talking with Miranda, and the appearance of a laughing man." - The construction is not parallel. The middle item should be something like "the sudden refusal of Miranda's best friend, Sal, to talk to her".

• "Stead wanted to impart how she viewed time travel to the past is not an action of changing the past, but rather fulfilling it." - Grammar. Maybe "Stead depicted travel to the past as a way to make it be true rather than change it."

• "Critics gave positive reviews praising the realistic setting and the incorporation of small details to form an important plot." - Do they say specifically that the plot is important? Perhaps: "Critics generally praised the book, its realistic setting and the author's deft handling of small details."

Concept and development

• The quote box should be moved up five or six lines to keep it from overlapping a section boundary and displacing an edit button.

Plot summary

• "Miranda reminisces about a conversation with Marcus about how no one would recognize one if one traveled back in time 50 years later." - Too many "one"s? Suggestion: "Miranda reminisces about a conversation with Marcus about how no one would recognize a time-traveler from a different age." Or something like that.

Genres

• Both Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly found that in spite of the science fiction genre, the setting is still "firmly rooted in reality". - Suggestion: "Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly found that despite the book's science-fiction devices, the setting was still "firmly rooted in reality".

Themes

• The many short subsections give the article a choppy look in this section. I think it would be better with no subheads.

Friendship

• "Julie Long from Reading Time noted how the incident forces Miranda to find new friends and become more active in school where she learns the dynamics of school." - To avoid repeating "friendship", maybe: "Julie Long from Reading Time noted that the incident forces Miranda to find new friends, become more active in school, and to learn its dynamics."

Independence

• "Stead finds that kids today are much less independent since her childhood." - Words like "today", "now", and "current" may quickly change meaning as time passes. It's often better to use a specific date or date range. Something like "Stead finds that kids in the early 21st century are much less independent than in her childhood."

Independence

• "Throughout the novel, Miranda and her friends often walk around town without any adults even working in a sandwich store at lunch and walking home from school trying to avoid the laughing man." - Logic? They kids weren't walking when they were working in a sandwich store. Maybe: "In the novel, Miranda and her friends often walk around town without any adults, and some of them work without adult supervision at a sandwich store." Or something like that.

Time travel

• "Helt found that time travel forms a central theme... " - Helt should be identified more fully here on first use.

Audiobook adaptation

• The audiobook is four discs long and Holloway's performance was praised by M.V.P from Horn Book Magazine, feeling that her tone "emphasized the novel's interpersonal aspects. - Are the two halves of this sentence logically connected? Is M.V.P.'s praise related to the number of discs? If not, the disparate thoughts belong in separate sentences.

• "The reviewer found it better that the chapter titles were added, since they add more detail into the book, but can be easily skipped over when reading the novel." - Unclear. Is "added" the right word? Does "book" mean "audiobook"? Does the reviewer attach great importance to the titles, or is this a minor part of the review?

Critical reception

• "Reception of When You Reach Me was positive with reviewers praising the details and characters." - "With" doesn't make a good conjunction. Suggestion: "Reviewers generally praised the book's details and its development of characters."

2010 Newbery Award

• "However, a worker at Random House had tweeted the this 17 minutes prior the official announcement." - Doesn't make sense as written.

• "tweeted" - Link to Twitter?

• After realizing the mistake, the tweet has taken down for the official announcement by the ALA at 8:38 saying "#alayma Newbery 2010: “When You Reach Me” by Rebecca Stead". - Doesn't make sense as written. Probably "has" should be "was", but beyond that, what does "#alayma" mean? Also, is this bit of trivia worth mentioning in the article?

• Chairwoman of the Newbery committee Katie O’Dell felt that "Every scene, every nuance, every word is vital both to character development and the progression of the mystery that really is going to engage readers and satisfy them" and was "very excited about this book because it is exceptionally conceived, finely crafted and highly original". - This doesn't make sense as written because the second independent clause has no subject. Who was very excited? Maybe two sentences would work better than one.

Awards and nominations

• The newspaper and magazine names should appear in italics.

References

• The date formatting in the citations should be consistent. Citation 8, for example, uses two different formats. Since the article is U.S.-centric, July 15, 2009, is the correct format. All the others should conform to this pattern: month-day-year.

• The New Yorker needs italics in citation 16.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll start on your suggestions soon. Derild4921Review Me! 22:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Somerset Levels

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a Good Article for years and I've always intended it to get to FA. I've run checklinks, dablinks etc & can cope with most of the technical requirements, but would appreciate advice primarily on the text.

Thanks, — Rod ^talk 19:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is quite interesting, nicely illustrated, probably comprehensive, and well-sourced. It falls somewhat short of meeting the FA requirements on two counts, I would say. The lead is not a true summary and needs to be re-written, and I noticed so many small errors of prose, syntax, and grammar that I think the article could use another copyedit. I fixed quite a few small things (hyphens, en dashes, caption glitches, and so on) as I went, but I'm sure I did not catch everything. You might find another willing set of eyes via WP:PRV or WP:GOCE#REQ. I also think the article would be more inviting to a wide audience if it included a map of the region.

Lead

• The existing lead is more like an introduction that a true summary of the whole article. For example, it does not summarize the "Human habitation" or "Tourism" sections, and it seems to include information (percentage of grassland, for example) that does not appear in the main text. My rule of thumb is to try to include in the lead at least a mention of the main text sections and not to include anything important that does not appear in the main text. WP:LEAD has the guidelines.

• "but also includes the south east of Mendip district. Approximately 70% of the area is grassland and 30% is arable." - Hyphen in "south-east" and "percent" (with a no-break code between the digits and the word) instead of "%"?

• "only if wetland fens were created again" - Link fen?

• The lead image might look better at 300px.

• Would it be helpful to say where in England this is; that is, south-west, and what large body of water the rivers empty into; that is Bristol Channel, Celtic Sea, Atlantic Ocean?

• A map of the region would be helpful. File:Somerset UK locator map 2010.svg is a possibility. Or maybe File:Bristol channel detailed map.png, though there may be even better illustrations of the area.

• Could coordinates be added for a central point or, essentially, the midpoint of the region?

Geography

• "The Levels are a coastal sand and clay barrier about 6 metres (20 ft) above mean sea level (roughly west of the M5 motorway) whereas the inland Moors can be 6 metres (20 ft) below peak tides and have large areas of peat, which was laid down during the Quaternary period since the melting of the last ice sheets, in these inland basins particularly in the Brue Valley." - This sentence is too complex. Suggestion: "The Levels are a coastal sand and clay barrier about 6 metres (20 ft) above mean sea level (roughly west of the M5 motorway). The inland Moors can be 6 metres (20 ft) below peak tides and, particularly in the Brue Valley, have large areas of peat laid down during the Quaternary period after the ice sheets melted."

• "The geology of the area is that of two basins mainly surrounded by hills... " - The description in the rest of this sentence seems to be of the area's topography rather than its geology. Maybe "The area's topography consists of two basins mainly surrounded by hills... "?

• "The area is prone to winter floods of fresh water and occasional salt water inundations which have occurred, the worst of which in recorded history was the Bristol Channel floods of 1607, which resulted in the drowning of an estimated 2,000 or more people, with houses and villages swept away, an estimated 200 square miles (518 km2) of farmland inundated and livestock destroyed." - Too complex. Delete "which have occurred"? Break long sentence into two sentences?

Drainage

• Groups of words like "8th century" or "7th millennium" should be held together by no-break codes to keep them from being awkwardly separated by line-break on computer screens. WP:NBSP has details.

• "In 1632 Charles I sold the crown's interest in the scheme, and it was taken over by a consortium including Sir Cornelius Vermuyden, a Dutch drainage engineer, but the start of the work was delayed by the English Civil War, and later defeated in parliament due to local opposition." - I might break this one into two sentences also.

• Internal Drainage Boards doesn't need to be linked again in the last paragraph and could be replaced by IDBs.

Human habitation

• "In prehistory it is thought that, due to winter flooding, humans restricted their use of the levels to the summer... " - More logical would be "It is thought that, due to winter flooding, humans in prehistory restricted their use of the levels to the summer... "

• "started to construct wooden track ways" - Link trackways as a single word rather than two words?

Willow

• "It has become in 30 years the first artists' charcoal manufacturer in Europe." - Would "leading" be better than "first" since "first" might be taken to mean the earliest.

Biodiversity and conservation

• "282 mink (Mustela vison) have been captured... " - Wikipedia avoids starting sentences with digits. I usually re-organize the sentence rather than spelling out large numbers, though that is another possible solution.

• "The proposed line will carry 400,000 KV of electricity " - Spell out, abbreviate as kV, and link to something like Electric power transmission?

Somerset Levels Project

• "when they won the ICI Award" - What does ICI stand for?

Tourism

• "Visitors' centres that aim to convey various aspects of the Levels." - Not a complete sentence.

• The last parts of the "mud horse fishing" paragraph need a source or sources.

• I see some overlinking here and elsewhere. I don't think you need to link common words like "sheep", "poultry", or "orchard" or to link words like "peat" more than once in the article.

See also

• Since North Somerset Levels is linked in the main text, I don't think you need to list it in the "See also" section. Ditto for The Fens and anything else that is already linked in the main text.

• I'd move the portal and the Commons link to an "External links" section.

References

• Citations 56 and 57 have nonconforming date formats. There may be others in other citations; I didn't check them all closely. The date formatting in the Ref section should be consistent throughout.

Images and licenses

• The images look good, and all of the image licenses look fine to me. I checked them all.

• File:Glastonbury (part of) from the tor arp.jpg overlaps two sections and displaces an edit button. I would simply move it up into the "Human habitations" section.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the really helpful comments. I've dealt with some of them & will return to others - particularly the lead. I have also asked for help in creating a suitable map.— Rod ^talk 22:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all comments. Lead has been expanded & the whole article has been copyedited by User:Malleus Fatuorum. I shall close this PR & hope to nominate it at FAC in a few days.— Rod ^talk 20:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Pitt County Memorial Hospital

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've created and added a lot to this article. I would love for someone to read over it to introduce any ideas on how to improve this article to GA/FA. I think everything is there, but someone could always find something else.

Thanks, PGPirate 21:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, fairly broad in coverage. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement:

Heads and subheads

• It's generally a good idea to make the heads and subheads telegraphic and to avoid repeating the main words of the title. For example, "East Carolina Heart Institute at PCMH" could become "Heart Institute". The three variations on "Hospital" in the first main section are a bit tougher, but they might become two sections called "Origins" and "Expansions".

Lead

• The lead is to be an inviting summary of the whole article rather than an introductory section. My rule of thumb is to try to include in the lead at least a mention of the main text sections. The existing lead does not mention the Children's Hospital or the Heart Institute. Also, the lead, a summary, should not include important information that is not mentioned in the main text. I would suggest creating a new section perhaps with a title like "Overview" that would include the hospital size, shape, number of beds, and other statistics. The lead could, among other things, briefly summarize this section. WP:LEAD has more details about leads in general.

• "... 26 rooms are Shared Inpatient/Ambulatory Surgery; 4 rooms are C-Section; 3 rooms are Other Inpatient; 2 rooms are Endoscopy." - Some of these need to be linked or briefly explained on first use. For example, I would link C-section to Caesarean section.

Pitt Community Hospital

• "was the vision of Greenville physician, Dr. Charles Laughinghouse" - Wikipedia generally avoids professional and academic titles and instead relies on descriptions like "physician". In this case, I'd simply delete "Dr.". Ditto for T.M. Watson further down, and Dr. Chitwood even further down.

• "The public reception came on September 7, 1923 and more than 800 people attended." - Slightly smoother might be: "On September 7, 1923, more than 800 people attended a reception honoring the hospital."

• "The first night, Pitt County had its first surgical operation, an appendicitis operation." - To avoid the repetition of "operation", how about "The first night, Pitt County had its first surgical operation, an appendectomy"?

• "In September 1935, the hospital split into two divisions to qualify for the Duke Endowment." - Would it be useful to more fully explain how this worked?

• " Pitt Community Hospital was the professional division and Pitt General Hospital, was a non-profit organization." - "Became" instead of "was" in both instances?

• "By 1939, it was obvious that a new hospital would need to be built." - What made it obvious? Were the old buildings in disrepair? Was the hospital too small to serve all of its patients?

Pitt General Hospital

• Link X-ray?

Pitt County Memorial Hospital

• "A neonatal intensive care unit was established and ECU opened the... " - I think this is the first use of ECU, which I think must be an abbreviation for East Carolina University. If so, it should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use in the article.

• "Level II trauma designation... " - Link to Trauma center?

• "The hospital went from a public, not-for-profit to private not-for-profit in 1998." - Would it be helpful to explain this further? What's the difference? Why would the hospital administration want to make this change?

• "It was the second procedure in the world." - "Second such procedure" rather than "second procedure"?

Children's Hospital

• The second use of the logo here does not meet WP:NFCC 3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."

• "It sees over 42,000 pediatric patients a year." - Needs a source as does paragraph 3 of this section. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every unusual claim, every direct quotation, and every paragraph.

• "The hospital contains a 122 bed." - Missing word or words. I'll stop making line-by-line commentaries at this point but suggest that you enlist the help of a copyeditor to find and fix small errors like this. You may be able to find one via WP:GOCE#REQ.

Rankings

• "PCMH was awarded with the Get With The Guidelines Stroke Gold-Plus Performance Achievement Award... " - Who gave this award?

• "PCMH and UHS has been... " - UHS should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk)

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has just finally passed GAN and became a Good Article, I would like to know what I can do to make it worthy of Featured Article or Featured List Status.

Thanks, Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 22:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I think a featured article about professional wrestling could be quite interesting, but it would have to include much more information from reliable sources than this one does. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

• Parts of the article lack sources, for example the entire "Brand and pay-per-view designation" section and the entire "Match history" section. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every unusual claim.

• Would it be possible to find any critical reviews of these productions that come from outside the world of professional wrestling? The article depends almost entirely on sources with a self-interest in the productions. Why should readers necessarily believe what WWE says about itself?

• More background should be provided for readers unfamiliar with professional wrestling. It should be explained that it is a form of sports theater that is scripted to some extent. It includes fancy costumes, special effects, and make-up, for example, as well as some aspects of unscripted sports like amateur wrestling.

• When writing about fiction, it's important to make a distinction between the world of the fiction and the real world. I think you should always make clear in an article about professional wrestling that the matches are fictions. If you don't make this clear, then some readers might think that real people are being paid to try to maim and kill each other for the enjoyment of a live audience. It should be made clear that they are pretending. That their work is dangerous and that they often get hurt does not mean that the fictions are real.

• I think the article would be much more interesting and closer to comprehensive if it included details about the lighting, sound effects, costumes, audience, and the characters in these fictions.

• The audience does not know who is going to win, but do the actors know? Has anyone outside WWE written about this question and others like it?

Brand and pay-per-view designation

• In the "Brand and pay-per-view designation" section, you should make clear that these matches are meant primarily for a television audience. A link to pay-per-view would also be helpful.

• "Beginning in 2008, the match became an exclusive to the No Way Out pay-per-view and two were featured annually for two years among the three brands... " - It's not clear what the first "two" refers in this sentence refers to. Grammatically, it seems to refer to "the match", but that is only one thing, not two.

Rules

• The first two sentences of this section essentially repeat the information contained in the first two sentences of the "Origin" section. Is the repetition necessary?

• "Disqualifications do not apply in the process of elimination." - Should "disqualification" be linked or briefly explained? If a participant is disqualified, does that mean that he or she is thrown out of the match? What happens if all six are disqualified?

Tables

• Is sorting on the month of the year helpful in the "Date" column? Wouldn't it be better to sort on the year?

• Row XI lacks a source.

Footnotes

• Citation 19 is incomplete.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have just completed significant expansions of this article and I want to improve it for future promotion as a Good Article. I want to pre-emptively thank the peer reviewer for taking the time to go over the article for things to change/add/remove, etc.

Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Thanks very much for this article. I found it quite interesting.

In my view, the article gets all the big picture things right, certainly for GA level. It is comprehensive, covering all the areas that a case law article should, subject to a few areas where I think there could be a bit more detail (outlined below). The article uses high quality reliable sources, and avoids over-use of opinions as primary sources. I've only been able to check the couple of sources that are online. They seem to fully support the material for which they're cited.

The comments below are mainly nitpicky prose issues, although there are some more substantive comments. It's usually prose issues that make the difference between a B, a GA, and an FA. I have quite a few comments. That's no reflection on the quality of the article -- I'm trying to find as many areas of improvement as possible so that it can be as valuable a PR as I can manage. For example, some of the comments are about picky Manual of Style issues that aren't mandatory for GA.

Lead

• Isn't it a "decision" rather than an "opinion"? Admittedly I'm not a US lawyer, so terminology might be different, but see for example US law's only case law FA, Roe v. Wade.
• "At issue were restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation, a private, non-profit corporation established by Congress, that prohibited its attorneys from representing clients attempting to amend or challenge existing welfare law." The comma placement here leaves the reader wondering whether it was the restrictions, or the LSC itself, that prohibited the attorneys. I'd suggest splitting it into two sentences -- leads in particular can be excused for having short and snappy sentences.
• The abbreviation of LSC should come at its first mention in the lead, not in the second section of the article. "LSC" is used in the lead but the definition doesn't follow until later.
• As the lead should summarise most of the important points of the article (WP:LEAD), I'd suggest adding a further paragraph or two briefly summarising the reactions, subsequent developments, and academic commentary. A three-four paragraph lead for an article like this would be about right.

Background of the case

• I think this heading can just be "Background" for simplicity and compliance with point 4 of WP:MOSHEAD.
• "It aimed at issuing government-funded legal aid to indigent defendants". "The purpose of the act was to issue…" might be a better way of saying this. "It aimed at" is a bit ugly.
• It would be good to mention that the 1974 act established the LSC (assuming this to be true). Without this mention, the reader wonders how an amendment to the act in 1996 could affect the LSC. A brief mention of what the LSC does would also be helpful. The reader probably won't care to follow the blue link.
• As it is a fairly technical term, appropriation bill can be wikilinked.
• "to make a list of limitations on the activity of". This is a bit wordy and "activity" should be plural. How about "to impose restrictions on the activities of". The word "restriction" will then nicely match the next sentence so there's no possible disjunct between "limitation" and "restriction".
• "Notwithstanding the long list of prohibitions now applied to the LSC". I think just "However" would do the job here -- it's clear from the previous sentence that there is a long list of prohibitions.
• "Specifically, the restriction prevented usage of LSC funds for actions which:" "Relevantly" might serve the purpose better than "Specifically". Also there's a plural issue: actions versus initiates.

Lower court proceedings

• Who was Carmen Velasquez? A brief half-sentence would be helpful: many readers will be interested in at least the basic details of the plaintiff.
• Why was Velasquez aggrieved. Wasn't her claim just a claim for lost benefits, which wouldn't have been prohibited from LSC funding? Why was she trying to get legal assistance to reform welfare laws?
• "provision" - to remind the reader, it would be helpful to say "provision of the LSC Act".
• The last two sentences of the section split awkwardly. It might read better if the comma after injunction was replaced with a period, and the period replaced with a semi-colon. That would clearly separate different proceedings into different sentences and remove ambiguities caused by the use of "it".
• A sentence at the end of the section saying that the LSC appealed to SCOTUS would be useful, to segue into the next section.
• Why is the LSC the Applicant to the Supreme Court? In other words, what was their interest in having the LSC Act amendments declared constitutional?

Opinion of the Court

• As it is a full sentence, the caption to the Kennedy picture should have a period (WP:CAP). Sorry, that's probably the most nitpicky point possible!
• For the heading, I'd go with "Supreme Court decision". It's more than an opinion, and the heading should make it clear which court the section is talking about. Roe v. Wade which, as far as I can tell, is the only American case law FA, does it that way.
• "Court" can be decapitalised.
• The first sentence of the section jumps to the point a little quickly. Some other information would be useful, such as (a) the dates of hearing and delivery of judgment; and (b) the firms/lawyers who appeared for each party.
• "5-4" hyphen should be an en dash.
• "lower court's ruling" which lower court?
• "the restriction". A brief reminder of which restriction we're talking about would be good, eg "the restriction on pursuing welfare reform".
• "Justice Kennedy delivered the Court's opinion". Didn't he deliver the majority's opinion?
• It might be good to say Rust was a SCOTUS case.
• "In Rust, the government" The introduction to the sentence reads as if it is a statement of fact, when it is Kennedy's reasoning. It might be good to introduce the sentence with "Kennedy reasoned that…" or something similar.
• "upheld a prohibition on doctors". According to our article on Rust, it wasn't really a prohibition on doctors, it was a prohibition on the use of funds.
• "in the present matter, the government was trying to promote a diversity of private views with its funding". "the government" is a little misleading here because the relevant government (the Bush I) government was trying to stop that diversity. I think "the purpose of the LSC Act was to promote..." or something like that might be more accurate.
• "Under this line of discussion, the restriction had to fall." This seems to be WP's own view here. I'm not sure whether we need the sentence.
• The Court also attacked the fact that the restriction barred participation of attorneys in the Courts." I think this sentence needs to be more specific as the restriction was more specific. Also "Courts" isn't a proper noun.

Dissent

• This section mentions Scalia's dissent. I think it should mention that he was writing on behalf of the four dissenters (ie the three other dissenters didn't write separate opinions).
• "Scalia also took concern with the dicta within the decision that seemed to indicate a "fondness" for the concept of reform through the courts". "the decision" is vague - perhaps "the majority's opinion"? Also, "that seemed" needs to be attributed to Scalia, ie "that seemed to him to indicate".

Reaction

• "Specifically, Representative Steve Largent". "Specifically" isn't serving any useful purpose here.

Subsequent developments

• "LSC" doesn't need to be wikilinked anywhere in this section, having been wikilinked and discussed before.
• "doesn't raise a speech": "doesn't" is too informal.
• "the restriction on collecting attorney's fees": a bit more explanation on what this restriction means would be useful here, now that the article is specifically discussing it. For example, who is stopped from collecting attorney's fees, and from which attorneys?
• "new 'conditions' principle in Velazquez - a distortion of speech test - which they argued": hyphens should be em dashes. And "conditions" should also be in double quotate marks (for consistency through the article). There are a couple of other examples through the article as well.
• "Both courts of appeal" Which courts? The earlier sentences don't mention that there were only two cases.
• "other restrictions are not based" I think "are" should be "were" for tense consistency.
• "Firstly, restrictions may be imposed..." I think the sentences from here to "...it is funding a private entity" would read better in the past tense.
• "the government cannot discriminate against viewpoints in any instance where it is funding a private entity" Isn't this qualified by the distinction with Rust. In other words, isn't it the case that there can be discrimination so long as the government isn't funding a private entity to promote multiple viewpoints?

Analysis and commentary

• Did any academic commentators give favourable commentary of the decision? This section discusses three critics.
• Rust doesn't need to be wikilinked anywhere in this section, having been wikilinked and discussed before.
• "Commentary on the Court's decision dealt with issues of distinction between the restriction in Rust and the LSC restriction and questions of clarity in Justice Kennedy's analysis." I'm not sure you need this lead-style sentence, which is our own synthesis of the commentary. The commentary can speak for itself.
• "attacking the Court's claimed distinction". what was the basis for the attack?
• "The article notes" conflicts with the tense in the opening sentence.
• "Because a factor in the Court's reasoning..." If this sentence is the view of the journal article, it needs a footnote.
• "analysis, renders" this comma seems out of place.
• "Government speech" decapitalise?
• "in this area of law" these words complicate the sentence: are they needed?
• "designed to private speech": seems to be some words missing from this Gozdor quote?
• "The critical question the Court faced then, was what the actual speech was being promoted". This is a rather awkward sentence. How about: "The critical question for the court was the characterisation of the speech that the law promoted".
• "Using part of his dissent". I'd say "Scalia" instead of "his" to avoid any confusion between Scalia and Gozdor. "Adopting" or "incorporating" might be more precise verbs than "using".
• "Gozdor argues" a tense conflict (eg earlier, it is "Gozdor asserted"). There are a few more, eg "He writes".
• "He writes..." There seem to be quotation mark conflicts in this sentence. For example, the single quote starting at "'in ways" never closes.
• "subsidy"/"hypothetical example"/"attorney"/"abortion"/"First Amendment": I don't think these need bluelinking: the first four are common terms. The fifth is bluelinked earlier.
• "With this understanding in mind, he concluded with a process by which the Court should have decided the case; a process leading to the upholding of the restriction and reversal of the Second Circuit." This sentence begs questions: what process did Gozdor propose? I'd suggest either removing the sentence or adding to it by explaining the process he proposed.
• "decision that the role of the attorney is as an advocate and that therefore, a restriction on the attorney served". The comma here causes some confusion. How about "decision that the role of the attorney is that of an advocate such that a restriction on the attorney serves".
• I'm not sure what relationship the quote from Sharpe about the interpretation of welfare laws has to the material that precedes the quote.

Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you soo much for doing this, I really appreciate it. I will get started right away. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done I have gone through each suggestion above and made the appropriate change/addition. Again, thank you for taking your time to help out. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Good luck if you take it to GA! I'll archive the PR now. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Common Eland

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have tried my best to bring this article from the start status. But no one has rated this again. I think this article requires the attention of other editors. I hope it will be peer reviewed soon.

Thanks, Sainsf<^> (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a fair start, but it does not yet completely satisfy WP:V. I'd suggest working on the sourcing issues first, then making other changes, then rewriting the lead to summarize the revised article. Here are further comments and suggestions:

• Parts of the article lack sources for claims that need support. Examples include whole paragraphs in some cases and large parts of paragraphs in others. For example, what reliable source or sources support the claims in the "Etymology" section beyond the first sentence? My rule of thumb for sourcing is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every unusual claim, and every paragraph. An inline citation early in a paragraph can't be assumed to apply to claims that occur later in the paragraph.

• I would not mix citation styles. Since you are using the "cite" family of citation templates for most of the citations, they should be used for all. For example, in the "Physical description" section, the two references to "Pappas 2002" are out-of-sync. Furthermore, no reference to Pappas seems to appear in the "Reference" or "Bilbiliography" sections. It is not possible from the information given to verify the claims. The same can be said for the "Bergstrom and Skarpe" reference in the "Feeding" section. Who are Bergstrom and Skarpe, and what does this refer to?

• The material in the "Uses" section is confusing. What is meant by the African Elands of Israel? What are they?

• "A coat of arms is, strictly speaking, a distinctive heraldic design on a cloak used to cover and protect armour, but the term is more broadly applied to mean a full heraldic achievement which consists of a shield and certain accessories." - What is the source for this? Please make sure that editors have not paraphrased sources too closely or violated copyright by copying. This particular sentence looks suspicious to me. There may be others.

• Some of the citations are incomplete or malformed, citation 24, for example. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access, if all of those are known or can be found.

• Check to be sure that the citations are to sources that meet the WP:RS guidelines. For example, what makes "Bio.davidson.edu" reliable? By the way, an url is not a publisher. The author seems to be someone named Will Rivers, who is perhaps a student at Davidson College, and the site appears to be self-published.

• Some measurements have been appropriately expressed in both imperial and metric units, but others have not. See the "Physical description" section, for example.

• The dab tool at the top of this review page finds seven links that go to disambiguation pages rather than the intended targets.

• If the materials listed in "Further reading and bibliography" are important, why not include references to them in the main text?

• The links to the portal, the Commons, and Wikispecies belong in an "External links" section.

• The lead is to be an inviting summary of the entire article rather than an introductory paragraph. My rule of thumb is to try to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections. WP:LEAD has details.

• It's often helpful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar topics. You'll find a list at WP:FA#Biology that include featured articles like Guinea pig.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Del City, Oklahoma

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has had more work done on it in the last few months, and I would like to began to get it ready for Good Article status. Anything that can be pointed out would be greatly welcomed.

Thanks, SteamIron 20:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but needs lots of work before it'll be ready for WP:GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb for leads is to try to include at least a mention of each main text section and not to include anything in the lead that is not covered in the main text. The existing lead briefly covers demographics, geography, and the name origin but does not summarize any of the other sections such as climate, the big tornado, history, or culture.

• Telegraphic heads are the norm for Wikipedia articles. I would shorten "May 3, 1999, Tornado" to "Tornado".
  •  Fixed--SteamIron 05:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests writing in regular prose paragraphs rather than making lists, whenever feasible. The list in the "Education" section could be transformed into a single sentence that names the college, the academy, and the high schools and combines the other as "two middle schools and three elementary schools". Alternatively, you could name them all in a single sentence. Just merge this sentence with the rest of the prose paragraph. Likewise, the list of notables would be easy to render in straight prose.
  •  Fixed--SteamIron 05:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Some of the paragraphs in the article lack sources. The second and third paragraphs of the "Tornado" section are examples. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every unusual claim, and every direct quotation.

• Some paragraphs in the article have sources somewhere in the middle, but the later sentences are not sourced. The second and third sentences of the first paragraph of the "Education" section are examples. They include information that is not common knowledge, yet they are not supported by a citation to a reliable source or sources. They thus appear to be based on personal research, a no-no. WP:NOR has details.
  •  Fixed--SteamIron 05:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• The citations in the article are generally incomplete or malformed. Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access, if all of those are known or can be found. You can enter all of these without using templates, and some editors prefer to do it that way. I find it easier to use the "cite" family of citation templates found at WP:CIT. If you use these, don't mix them with other citation styles such as the "Citation" family of templates also found at WP:CIT. You can practice with templates in your sandbox, and you can see how they work by looking at other articles in edit mode. See Davenport, Iowa, for example.

• It's often helpful to look at featured articles about similar topics to see what other editors have done. You can find a list of featured articles about cities at WP:FA#Geography and places.

• The "See also" section should not include anything that is already linked in the main text.
  •  Fixed--SteamIron 05:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Make sure that your sources meet the guidelines of WP:RS. What makes the Star Spangled Salute website (citation 6) reliable, for example?

• What happened in the Del City region before 1946? Who lived there before non-indigenous people arrived? When did the first non-indigenous people arrive?

• What about sports and recreation in Del City? Parks? Museums? Music halls? Theatres? Transportation? Utilities?

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline has a lot of good tips about U.S. city articles.

• The article could use proofing to find and fix things like missing italics for newspaper names.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--SteamIron 21:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Devil sticks

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this needs a slash-and-burn style edit. Many problems exist with this article, but I think people closer to the subject need to carry it out compared to my efforts, which would reduce the page to a definition of the item as a stub article. Not because the subject deserves it, but the disorganization is so blatant the only way I could see it being made worthy of inclusion is starting over.

While it's a niche-form of juggling (not a fad... not widespread, but not a fad), the people involved with editing the page in the past are experts on the subject even if they haven't adhered to Wikipedia's rules in editing the page. This needs serious TLC if the changes are to keep.

Thanks, Pepper2k3 (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer review (PR) is generally meant for well-developed and relatively polished articles being prepared for WP:GAN, WP:FAC, or WP:FLC. The first problem that I see with this article is that it lacks sources. The entire article violates WP:V. Until the claims in the article are properly sourced, other concerns are at best secondary. My rule of thumb for meeting WP:V is to provide a reliable source (explained at WP:RS) for every set of statistics, every unusual claim, every direct quotation, and every paragraph. I see that the article has been tagged for lack of sources since 2006 and that the tag says, "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." If you care about the article, make a good-faith effort to find sources; discuss your plans on the article's talk page; then, if no one cares to discuss the matter, remove the material for which you can find no sources, and re-do the article according to your best judgment. Finetooth (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Milkshake (song)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA.

Thanks, Pancake (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is broad in coverage, and the charts and references look fine to me. However, the prose needs further work, and I don't think the second image meets WP:NFCC guideline 3a. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Lead

• "It was written and produced by The Neptunes, a production duo that had produced the majority of Kelis' songs in the past." - Rewrite to avoid repeating "produce" three times.

• "Lyrically, the song speaks of a milkshake, which describes what makes a woman special." - How does a milkshake describe anything? This needs to be made much more clear. What connection does the song make between a woman and a milkshake? Or is something else the milkshake?

• "low beat R&B sound" - Link to Rhythm and blues?

• Link "certified gold" to Music recording sales certification?

• Link "download" to Downloadable content?

Background

• "The song came out when Tasty was chosen as the album's title." - An explanation of what Tasty is needs to be included in this section. Also, what else is on the album? Is "Milkshake" related to any of the other songs?

• "When making the song, Kelis "knew right away that it was a really good song", and she wanted it to be the first single." Add "on the album" to the end of the sentence?

• "The recordings were mixed by Phil Tan at Right Track Studios in New York City." - Active is usually better than passive. This one is easy to flip: "Phil Tan mixed the recordings at Right Track Studios in New York City." You should be able to find others like this in the article and flip them to active.

Composition

• Would it helpful to include a brief written sample of the lyrics?

Chart performance

• "Milkshake" debuted at number seventy-three on the September 6, 2003 - Numbers bigger than nine are usually written as digits rather than words. Quite a few large numbers in the article are written as words. WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words is the relevant guideline.

• "The song charted well internationally, charting inside the top ten on many charts." - Rewrite to avoid repetition of "chart" three times.

• "Due to the chart success, it was listed at number four on the year-end chart of 2004 by the Irish Recorded Music Association." - Avoid repetition of "chart" here too. Also, it seems pointless to say that its chart success was due to its chart success.

• "The song performed well in the United Kingdom, as it was certified... " - Here, too, the logic is fuzzy. The song didn't perform well because it was certified; it was certified because it sold well (although the certification may have led to even more sales).

Music video

• "The music video for "Milkshake" was directed by Jake Nava." - This one would be easy to flip to active voice.

Cultural impact

• "dances around on the streets wearing a fat suit" - One word, fatsuit, linked to fatsuit?

Images

• I'm not sure the fair-use rationale for the second image is convincing. The lead image already shows the reader what Kelis in an erotic pose related to the song. The second image in that sense duplicates the first, and the text about the video seems to cover its content adequately without the image.

Other

• The link checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one dead url in the citations.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

---

review/Sanctuary (season 1)/archive1|Sanctuary (season 1)]]===

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate for FAC. I'd like a peer review first because I feel I have done all I can, and now need fresh eyes to point out any prose issues.

Thanks, Matthew RD 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Some initial remarks:

• The date format in the references is inconsistent, the first couple refs use day month year, the rest uses month day, year. Ref 19 uses ISO YYYY-MM-DD format for retrieved date.
• Rename "DVD and Blu-ray Disc release", "Home video releases"" per WP:MOSTV.
• Add Variety after "Brian Lowry" in the quote, the {{Rquote}} template is setup for this (para 4).
• I don't believe the "(currently "Syfy")" is necessary in the broadcast section.
• There is an inconsistency with American and British spelling. Used in article: favourite (B) (American: favorite), realize (A) (British: realise), realise (B) (American: realize), ization (A) (British: isation), installment (A) (British: instalment), aging (A) (British: ageing), program (A) (British: programme).

Very nice work in such a short time. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those notes. I have decided to use American English, so changed all the Brit English. -- Matthew RD 00:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Part 1 of a more in-dept and on prose based review:

• Use non breaking spaces (&nbsp;) between values and their unit. Example "$21 million" → "$21&nbsp;million" See WP:NBSP for more info.
• check for WP:LQ, such as "hit and miss," → "hit and mis",
• "where a team track down" seems rather vague, a team of what? or could simply be changed to "the Sanctuary team".
• "against the Cabal, their nemesis who" I believe nemesis refers to a person rather than an organization, also not really clear the Cabal is an organization rather than a single person. Also can we call them a nemesis? they only became aware of there existence in episode 3, nemesis more implies long time enemy
• "commission a first season", maybe change to "commission a television show" or "commission a television season"
• "together written all" change to "together wrote all"
• "The first season cost an estimated $21 million." either "costs" or "costed"
• "Critical reactions behind the season were mixed" behind? "of", "for"?
• "In total, five awards were, including one Gemini and four Leos." were what? also 4+1=5, so five awards including 5?
• "caputured" (ep4) typo (captured)
• "colour" is still British spelling (tool didn't catch that earlier)
• "Christopher Heyerdahl plays two characters, as Bigfoot" remove "as", perhaps use a colon, and a semicolon between different part ("Sanctuary; and John Druitt") for clearer separation
• Why is the regular cast section split in two paragraphs? There doesn't seem to be a apparent difference that would serve as a logical split point
• "humour" is still British spelling (tool didn't catch that earlier)
• "The producers cast Robbins, and was receptive towards his performance." "casted" and "were"
• "his scenes in the season premiere" change to "his scenes for the season premiere"
• "Young had to also appear in one of those plays" sentence makes little sense to me
• "the grandaughter of Nigel Griffin" typo ("granddaughter")
• "after she was recommeded by Robin Dunne" drop the "Robin", also "recommeded" typo ("recommended")
• "Kindler did not like his performance, but Wood liked it" double "like[d]", maybe change to "but Wood did"
• "Also in the episode, Sarah Strange and Thai-Hoa Lee" "Also" isn't that great of a sentence start, also, shouldn't it be "for the episode"?

Ok, I made it till the end of the cast section, but it's 4 am so I'm going to sleep, I'll pick this back up at a later time. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 02:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Part 2 of a more in-dept and on prose based review:

• "A Stargate SG-1 writer at the time, he asked series director Martin Wood if there was a potential to a series" weird structure, maybe change to "he asked director Martin Wood, a Stargate SG-1 writer at the time, if there was potential for a series"
• "According to actress and executive producer, the season" which? Tapping I assume
• "All episodes of the first season were written by Sam Egan and Damian Kindler." drop the "Damien"
• "The season was given a budget of an estimated $21 million." structure weird, maybe change to "The season was given a an estimated budget of $21 million
• "Director Martin Wood contributed to the story of", drop the "Martin" and delink his name
• "incorporarting" typo (incorporating)
• ""The Five" become a significant part of the series mythology" change to "became"
• "inadverdantly" typo (inadvertently)
• Red One cameras shoot in 4K resolution, maybe add this link to the article, also, "resolutions up to 4096 horizontal by 2048 vertical pixels" just sounds weird
• "Martin Wood directed eight of the thirteen episodes" drop the "Martin"
• "elaborate sets are not built for the scenes to be filmed" change to "were not built"
• "reorganising" still British spelling (tool didn't catch that)
• "preffered" typo (preferred)
• (image) "decomissioned" typo (decommissioned)
• "Intead" typo (Instead)
• "Robin Dunne wore a muscle suit that was previously" drop the "Robin"
• "were produced by Sanctuary's art depart" use {{'s}} and de-italicize the 's
• "mannaquins" typo (mannequins)
• "The first season, was broadcast" why is there a comma here?
• "originaly" typo (originally)
• "Tapping believed plz show me a sentence
  

---

Johnstown Inclined Plane

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a fairly unique bit of technology and interesting enough to warrant substantial expansion. The goal is FA, although there are some concerns I have that should addressed before taking it to FAC, primarily "Is it comprehensive enough?" and "Should the "History" section broken up into subsections?".

Thanks, ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 04:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is almost comprehensive enough, and yes, the History section should have subsections, which make both reading and editing easier. I made one very minor edit, but perhaps I will return for more minor edits. Question: Westmont bought it? Make the Westmont the political subdivision, with a link, and provide an inline citation documenting when they did that. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, for looking at it. I added a ref. I'm not sure I understand; do you want me to link "Westmont" to Westmont, Pennsylvania (which I've done twice, once in the lead and again in the "Design" section)? Also, any suggestions on the best way to separate the "History" section? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I did not read carefully enough. I was looking at the mention of Westmont in the lede, and not where you are more specific, where you added an inline citation. --DThomsen8 (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for all of your hard work on this - I have watched this since removing some copyvio from it several years ago and am really glad to see it so much improved. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC. I also made some minor copyedits as I read.

• Should the lead make it clearer that Johnstown is in the valley and Westmont is on the hill? Should the lead name the valley and hill? So It connects the city of Johnstown [in the Stoneycreek River valley] to the borough of Westmont [on Yoder Hill].
  • Added, but slightly modified as there are two rivers. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Two quibbles - since the article later says each car can carry only one automobile, should it be plural here? Also the word "across" seems odd in this context - would "up or down" work better? Capable of carrying automobiles, in addition to passengers, across a slope with a grade of 70.9 percent, the Johnstown Inclined Plane is the "world's steepest vehicular inclined plane".[3][4]
  • Changed the word. The incline can carry two autos, one on each car. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• I think I would mention the major repairs / overhauls in the lead too, even if it is just something like "the incline had major renovations in YEAR, YEAR , YEAR and YEAR."
  • Added. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Design section - first two sentence start with "The Johnstown Inclined Plane..." - I'd change the second one for variety
  • Replaced with "funicular" ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Reading the newspaper article, the steps between the tracks were being removed in 1963, so I would add that year to the sentence to make it something like There used to be a stairway between the two tracks with a total of 966 steps, however these were removed circa 1963.[7]
  • Added. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• There are several reviewers at FAC who really dislike verb + ing constructions, so Two cars traverse the slope, one descending as the other is ascending to act as a counterweight. might read better as something like Two cars traverse the slope, as one descends, the other ascends and acts as a counterweight.
  • Changed ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Is "While open to the elements..." clear enough or should it be something like "While the cars are open to the elements..." in While open to the elements, an enclosed seating area containing a bench is situated along one of the sides of the cars.[4] (if you add cars to the first part, can probably take it out of the second part)
  • Moved, also specified which side. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Problem sentence The cables connecting the cars [are?] 2-inch (51 mm) diameter, steel, 6×36 right regular lay wire rope. Not sure about the "..., steel,..." part - are both commas needed?
  • Tough one, I was taught to separate multiple adjectives with commas. Would moving "steel" to the end and saying "steel wire rope" be any better? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I think that reads better - less choppy somehow, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Missing word? They are wound around a 3-short-ton (2.7 t), 16-foot (4.9 m) diameter drum [that?] connects the cars together.
  • Added ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Would ", while" be better than "and" here? The cable on the north track is 1,075 feet (328 m) long and the south cable is 7 feet (2.1 m) shorter.
  • Added ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Does not make sense to me Each car, and consequently the cables, can carry 15 short tons (14 t). Assume the 15 short tons is the load bearing capacity of the cars, but the cars themselves must weigh something in addition to their loads, so don't the cables need to carry more weight than the cars?
  • Clarified (or attempted to) ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Much clearer. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Should the fact that there are two stations be mentioned prior to this sentence? Operation of the incline is controlled via a foot pedal located in a booth in the upper station.[10]
  • I suppose I should, the question is where to put it and how to not make it overly obvious. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Perhaps in the lead - It connects the city of Johnstown to the borough of Westmont, with a station in each. ? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• As far as subsections go, the first two paragraphs of History could be something like "Background and construction" and the last two paragraphs could be "Use"
  • Added subsections ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Problem sentence Common in Europe, the concept of the inclines was brought to the United States by immigrants who remembered them from their native lands, like the German, Slavic, and Welsh who settled near Johnstown.[5] The phrase "like the German, Slavic, and Welsh who settled near Johnstown." seems almost like it is referring to the native lands and not the immigrants themselves. I also think the adjective form is odd (so Germans, Slavs, and Welsh... would read better, or German, Slavic, and Welsh people if the adjective forms are what you want). I think making this active voice would solve many of these issues. So Inclines are common in Europe, and immigrants, like the Germans, Slavs, and Welsh who settled near Johnstown, remembered them from their native lands and brought the concept to the United States.[5]
  • Thanks, I wasn't happy with that sentence but couldn't think of a suitable alternative. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• End of the first paragraph of History needs a ref or two.
  • Added ref ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• General comment - might want to use "funicular" once in a while instead of inclines.
  • Used once more, looking for more oppurtunities ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Also might want to check for passive voice that can be easily made active voice.
• The 2011 New York Times article says over 2,200 were killed in the Johnstown flood (and I have seen this figure elsewhere - not just over 2,000).
  • Changed...both the Baltimore Sun article and the ASME document are more specific with 2,209 causalities. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• I'd use "up and down" instead of "across" in To provide easy transportation across the steep slope for the residents of the new community of Westmont, ...
  • Replaced ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Would just "opened" be OK (not "was opened") Also was the original name really "Cambria Incline Plane" and not "Cambria Inclined Plane"? See The Johnstown Inclined Plane was opened on June 1, 1891, then named the Cambria Incline Plane. if you get rid of the was, might be better as The Johnstown Inclined Plane opened on June 1, 1891, and was orginally named the Cambria Incline[d?] Plane.
  • Fixed typo; rephrased sentence ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• I really liked both interior car shots, so I tried the double image template (and like the result). Hope you also like it.
  • Wow, I like it; I tweaked the caption to try and be more relevant ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• I assume the stations also had to be modified when the change from double decker to single decker was made - if there is material to back this up, probably should be mentioned for comprehensiveness
  • I would assume so, but I have no sources that give specifics (and I don't even know how passengers boarded the in first place [maybe stairs from the upper deck or a separate boarding platform, who knows]) ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Could be clearer On March 17, 1936, nearly 4,000 people crowded on to the approach, the bridge, and numerous boats to escape to higher ground via the incline as the Stoneycreek and Conemaugh Rivers overflowed their banks.[10] perhaps something like As the Stoneycreek and Conemaugh Rivers overflowed their banks on March 17, 1936, nearly 4,000 people crowded on to the bridge, its approach, and numerous boats to wait and eventually escape to higher ground via the incline.[10] The problem is it is not super clear from the sentence as currently written what role the bridge, approach nad boats plat in relation to the incline.
  • Removed the bit about "boats" and "crowding", should read better now. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Did the buses ride on the incline, or did the passengers get off the bus, ride the incline up or down, then get on another bus to complete their journey? From February 1938 to July 1953, the Johnstown Traction Company operated transit buses from Johnstown to Westmont via the incline.[16]
  • The buses were placed on the incline. I have another newspaper source that also confirms that saying: "In the 1930's, fully loaded public buses were carried up and down the 14-ton capacity incline." ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I would make that clearer in this article. Perhaps use the quotation in something like From February 1938 to July 1953, the Johnstown Traction Company operated transit buses from Johnstown to Westmont; the "fully loaded public buses were carried up and down the 14-ton capacity incline."​[16] Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Current operation section could use some sort of "as of 2011" statement somewhere
  • Added "As of 2011" to the fare data, seems most likely to change without notice. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Problem sentenced - "fares" is plural, but "is" is singular: The cost for a ride on the incline is $2.25 or $4 for a roundtrip; fares for automobiles to be transported by the incline is $6 one way.[24]
  • Fixed ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• I would rewrite Two hiking trails allow visitors to walk the slope; one of trails is a sculpture trail. The sculptures were created in 1989 by local artist James Wolfe from remnants of the Bethlehem Steel factory in Johnstown.[26] as something like Two hiking trails allow visitors to walk the slope. One is a sculpture trail, with works created in 1989 by local artist James Wolfe, who used remnants of the Bethlehem Steel factory in Johnstown.[26]
  • Replaced sentence. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• I read a few of the refs - only thing I saw not mentioned was the one fatality which is referred to in the NRHP form.
  • Any suggestion on where to place that; I also have a source that mentions some equine fataliites as well.
    • I would mention the human and equine fatalities together. The only place in the whole article that now mentions horses is one sentence in History The cars used on the incline were originally double-deckers with horses and wagons riding on the main, upper deck and passengers riding in a compartment below; the cars were reconfigured into a single-decker design in 1921.[14] I would rewrite that to something like The cars used on the incline were originally double-deckers, but were reconfigured into a single-decker design in 1921. The double-decker cars had horses and wagons riding on the main, upper deck and passengers riding in a compartment below.[14] Followed by a sentence on fatalities like Accidents on the inclined plane have led to one human and several equine fatalities. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Added with a little more detail. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 20:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
• Please let me know when this is at 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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did review one from the backlog the other day, so...there ;-) Thanks, as always, for the thorough commentary. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I reread the NRHP form just now and it mentions the original cost to build it ($133,296) and the fact that over 40 million passengers rode it in its first 80 years or so. Both of those should be added. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Added both facts ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 20:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Last comments

• Any idea how long the trip takes (if this is know from a RS, should probably be added to the article)
  • Added, 90 seconds. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 20:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• "is viewable" seems a bit awkward in The mechanical room housing the incline's electric motor and hoisting mechanism is viewable from windows in the gift shop, the restaurant and the lobby of the visitor center.[25] maybe "can be viewed" instead? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Reworded ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 20:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    

---

Coromantee people

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know what improvements can be made to the article and how it compares to other historical ethnic group articles.

If you need help reviewing other articles, please let me know.

Thanks, Yellowfiver (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Peer review is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." This article is far from that. A significant problem here is that at least part of the article has been copied from elsewhere. "Fictional accounts", for example, is merely a copy-paste from Oroonoko. Here are a few other comments:

• You asked how this article compares to other articles. It's often useful to look at featured articles to make this kind of comparison. You'll find a list of such articles at WP:FA#Culture and society. See Azerbaijani people, for example.

• Parts of the article lack sources, the "Slavery in Africa" section, for example. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every unusual claim, every direct quotation, and every paragraph. All parts of an article should meet WP:V and WP:RS.

• The lead is to be a summary of the whole article rather than an introductory paragraph. My rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that is not mentioned in the main text. WP:LEAD has details.

• The first word of the heads and subheads in Wikipedia articles are normally capitalized, but the other words are lower-case unless they are proper nouns (formal names). For example, "Historical Culture" should be "Historical culture". MOS:HEAD has details.

• "the designation for recent Caribbean and South American slaves brought from the Gold Coast or modern day Ghana." - "Recent" should be made specific. I'm sure it doesn't mean "last week" but, rather, the 17th and 18th centuries. You also need to say in the first sentence where the slaves were being taken.

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this page find two dead urls in citations and one link in the main text that goes to a disambiguation page instead of its intended target.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Liber Eliensis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC, but want to make sure the prose is good, as well as it being comprehensible to the non-specialist. Does it give enough context to make it understandable? Does it lack something to make it comprehensive?

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Rod's comments You asked for the views of a non-specialist & as far as this topic goes I know very little, so in that spirit a few comments:

Infobox

• In the infobox the picture caption says "early 19th century print of Ely Cathedral, which produced the Liber Eliensis" - how can a building produce a document?
• Date says "early through second quarter 12th century" which doesn't make sense to me
• Manuscripts - what do the letters in brackets (EFGBE) signify? They are used in the manuscripts section, but there is no explanation of why these letters were used for the different copies. Should the letters in the infobox be linked to that section in some way or have explanatory notes?

Background and authorship

• Should Old English be wikilinked for those not familiar with Old English? I note this is linked later in the Sources section.
• I found the sentence about Gesta Herewardi confusing. NB this link seems to be a redirect (as is the link to Hereward the Wake) but there may be a reason for the different spellings I'm not aware of.

Contents

• Should "Danish invasions" be wikilinked to Danelaw or similar - or at least give some dates for context?
• King Edgar is mentioned - presumably this is Edgar the Peaceful rather than Edgar, King of Scotland perhaps a wikilink would help? I note this is done later in the influence section.
• Should 20 or 30 miles have km conversions?
• Should Bushel be wikilinked for those unfamiliar with this measure. Any way of indicating the significance that it "rose to 200 pence" - what was it before?
• The use of Monastery twice close together in the sentence "A frequent stress in the miracle stories is that those who wished cures or miracles similar to those in the Liber would need to come to the monastery, where they could donate to the monastery" could be reworded.
• The paragraph about the division of lands etc between the monks & bishop seems to include some repetition - but I'm not sure of the best way to revise this.
• Similar repetition occurs in the next para on burials

Influence

• Should Benedictine be wikilinked?
• In the section discussing possible forgery is "doctored" an encyclopedic term?

Manuscripts

• I found this section very confusing - which may represent the limited understanding of their provenance, or my own ignorance.

Printing History

• I try to avoid "recent" as this is a relative term and the date 2005 is given anyway.
• Would this section be better chronologically?

I hope these comments are helpful & please excuse my ignorance of some of the technical aspects.— Rod ^talk 10:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments, I'll try to get to most of these over the next few days or week. I'm not surprised that the manuscript section would be confusing, and honestly, that's like dealing with graduate level physics in historian terms, so there's a limiit to how much I can dumb it down. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

---

2010 Hopman Cup

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've added 31 references and think that it maybe worthy for good article status or featured list status I'm not sure which, as the article in my opinion is ambigious as in whether it is a list or not, so please can some one clarify. So I want general feedback on what else if anything improves the article

Thanks, KnowIG (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The article does appear to be a cross between an article and a list. My inclination would be to develop it as an article by adding a good deal more text. Here are some suggestions (mostly in the form of questions) about text expansion and also about prose and Manual of style issues.

• 2009 Sony Ericsson Open, a GA-level article about tennis, might be a useful model to look at for possible kinds of text expansion.

• I would consider creating a more elaborate infobox that includes more information and possibly an image.

• The caption on the one existing image is misleading since Robredo did not win the cup by himself.

• Would it be worthwhile to add some background information about the players who took part in the tournament?

• The existing text needs copyediting. For example, the word "they" in the second sentence of the second paragraph seems to refer to "nations" in the first sentence of the second paragraph, when it actually refers to "teams". Further down, "Whilst Kazakhstan qualified for the event by winning the Asian Hopman Cup" is not a complete sentence, and "whilst" is archaic. After making other changes, especially adding more text, you might seek copyediting help via WP:GOCE#REQ.

• Could the lead include details about Perth, the venue for the matches, the courts, the referees, the audience? Should it include the span of the tournament rather than just the starting date? Should the names of the winning pair be included? Why was Slovakia not invited? How did teams other than Kazakhstan qualify? Can you provide background on the Hopman Cup? How did it get started? Is it always held in Perth? Where did the "Hopman" part of the name come from? Are the players professionals or amateurs? If professional, how are they rewarded for playing or for winning? Were the matches televised? How many people attended, and how many (if any) watched on TV? In the world of tennis, how important is the Hopman Cup? What kind of tournament is this, singles, doubles, or what?

• Should the "Asian Hopman Cup" be briefly explained? Who plays in it?

• Should "Seeds" be briefly explained? Why were there only four and not eight, for example?

• In the "Australia vs. Romania" table, it appears that two women play a singles match, two men play a singles match, and then two couples play a doubles match. Should text be added to make this more clear? The columns need labels. What do 1, 2, and 3 in the first row of this table stand for? What is the meaning of numbers like 6²? How is it possible to tell which team, Australia or Romania, won by looking at the table?

• What does "retired" mean in the "Spain vs. Romania" table?

• Make sure that all of the sources meet the WP:RS guidelines. For example, what makes tennisphilia.com a reliable source? It appears to be a personal blog, labeled a "tennis blog from a long-time tennis-philiac".

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

---

2009 Hopman Cup

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what improvements need to be made in order for it to be of Featured List or Good Article standard (which ever is most appropriate).

Thanks, 03md 00:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I reviewed 2010 Hopman Cup a day or two ago, and many of the comments I made about that article apply to this one as well. This article does appear to be a cross between an article and a list. My inclination would be to develop it as an article by adding a good deal more text. Here are some suggestions (mostly in the form of questions) about text expansion and also about prose and Manual of style issues.

• 2009 Sony Ericsson Open, a GA-level article about tennis, might be a useful model to look at for possible kinds of text expansion.

• I would consider creating a more elaborate infobox that includes more information and possibly an image.

• Would it be worthwhile to add some background information about the players who took part in the tournament?

• The word "they" in the second sentence of the second paragraph seems to refer to "nations" in the first sentence of the second paragraph, when it actually refers to "teams".

• The image caption does not quite make sense to me. It says, "Dominika Cibulkova won the Slovakia's third Hopman Cup for Slovakia for the third time. She was partnered by Dominik Hrbaty, who won the competition for the second time." Cibulkova didn't win all three cups by herself; she and Hrbaty won this one together, if I'm understanding correctly. Did he win another cup with someone else in another year? Did she win her other two with one or two different people in other years? If she won three times, and he won twice, and they only shared one of these, doesn't that still add up to four cups for Slovakia?

• Could the lead include details about Perth, the venue for the matches, the courts, the referees, the audience? Should it include the span of the tournament rather than just the starting date? Should the names of the winning pair be included? How did teams other than Chinese Taipai qualify? Can you provide background on the Hopman Cup? How did it get started? Is it always held in Perth? Where did the "Hopman" part of the name come from? Are the players professionals or amateurs? If professional, how are they rewarded for playing or for winning? Were the matches televised? How many people attended, and how many (if any) watched on TV? In the world of tennis, how important is the Hopman Cup? What kind of tournament is this, singles, doubles, or what?

• Should the "Asian Hopman Cup" be briefly explained? Who plays in it besides Chinese Taipai?

• In the "Australia vs. Germany" table, it appears that two women play a singles match, two men play a singles match, and then two couples play a doubles match. Should text be added to make this more clear? The columns need labels. What do 1, 2, and 3 in the first row of this table stand for? What is the meaning of numbers like 6²? How is it possible to tell which team, Australia or Germany, won by looking at the table?

• What does "retired" mean in the "Germany vs. Slovakia" table?

• The names of newspapers and magazines in the Reference section should appear in italics.

• The last-name first arrangement of "Quartermaine, Braden" in citation 32 looks correct, but shouldn't the Barry Wood citations be Wood, Barry?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

---

2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has just passed WP:GA review and I am seeking feedback on the prose in preparation for WP:FAC review.

Thanks, SkotyWA^T_C 07:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks very good. I have just a few suggestions for improvement.

• Words like "club" and "Columbus" are singular and, I think, should be matched with singular verbs like "is" and singular pronouns like "it". I changed a few of these in the lead but thought I should not make too many similar changes further down in the article. Instead, I'm just making a suggestion that the others be changed too.
  • I searched for all instances of "club" "Columbus" and "Seattle" throughout the article, found two more mismatches for "Seattle" in the match summary, and fixed those. Let me know if you see any more of these. I think instances of the "Crew" or "Sounders FC" should be matches with verbs that match "they", so I left those alone. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Road to the final" repeats the word "final" from the article title. Better would be something like "Early rounds".
  • Is it bad to repeat the word "final"? This is what a similar section in 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final was called and it's already passed FA review. I'm happy to change it if this violates proper section naming practices, but if this is just a personal preference, I'd like to leave it as-is. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the guidelines are flexible. The relevant guidelines are found in MOS:HEAD. Since in this case only that single repetition of "final" is involved, it may be OK to leave it as is. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The tournament has been played for 97 years and is the oldest team sport tournament in the United States." - The source supports this claim, but I found it quite surprising. Were there no U.S. baseball tournaments in the 19th century, for example?
  • Good question. It appears the World Series first occured in it's current format in 1903. The USOC started in 1914. I've changed "team sport" to "soccer" in this sentence. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "While D.C. United had been able to draw an attendance of 17,329 in 2009 through extensive marketing efforts, the visiting Seattle team won the 2009 cup." - I don't see a logical connection between the two halves of this sentence in the "Venue selection" subsection. The attendance figure has nothing to do with the tournament outcome. Or does it?
  • Yeah, that sentence reads funny and connects two unrelated facts. The fact that Sounders FC won the 2009 final is only tangentially relevant in this section, so I'll remove it. I shortened the sentence to "D.C. United was able to draw an attendance of 17,329 through extensive marketing efforts." and I think that works in the full context of the paragraph. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "For the 2010 final in Seattle, tickets went on sale Tuesday, September 7." - Delete "Tuesday" as irrelevant?
  • Agreed. Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• In the "Second half" section, link "yellow card" to Penalty card#Yellow card? Maybe link "red card" on first use as well; I think that's in the first "Statistics" table.
  • Hmm, I agree on the one in the prose and have made the change. If I link the one in the table, I think I should link red card as well. What do you think? --SkotyWA^T_C 06:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd link the first instance of "red card", yes. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Post-match

• He also became the first player in the same time period to score multiple championship game goals over their career." Awkward because "player" is singular, but "their" is plural. Also, should this be qualified in some way? Does it mean only soccer? Does it mean only the Lamar Hunt tournament?
  • Updated to: "He also became the first player in the same time period to score multiple goals in the U.S. Open Cup final over his career." --SkotyWA^T_C 06:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The U.S. Open Cup tournament had suffered previously from low attendance numbers and a lack of emphasis from MLS clubs and from U.S. Soccer." - Should that be "by MLS clubs and by U.S. Soccer" rather than "from" and "from"?
  • I really don't know. You're probably right, so I changed them both to "by". --SkotyWA^T_C 06:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• The last paragraph seems pointy enough to make me think of WP:NPOV. It might be best to delete it. The earlier sections already make clear how well-attended the game was.
  • This one's hard. It's basically trying to convey the facts shared in this source, even though much of it (the source) borders on editorial. Please take a look at the source and if you still think there's no way I can convey the imact the events discussed in this article had on the overall importance/significance of the tournament in a neutral manner, I'll remove it. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a third opinion would be a good idea. What do other editors think? Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A near 50% improvement on an 81-year-old record is not to be sniffed at, so I definitely see a case for a paragraph. But it needs a big rewrite for neutrality, and to justify its inclusion.

In relative terms Seattle's attendances dwarved those of most if not all other teams in this competition. Obviously that is a peacock expression, but if it can be backed up by hard statistics then with toned down wording it would be valid to communicate this. However, it would be misleading to do so without pointing out that Seattle's league attendances were higher than anyone else as well, and that the attendance for the final was lower than that for any MLS game at Qwest. —WFC— 03:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I took a stab at reworking this. I'm glad you pointed to the peacock terms guidance as that gave me some direction for improvement. Here's what I've changed the last paragraph to: The U.S. Open Cup tournament had suffered in prior years from low attendance numbers and a lack of emphasis by MLS clubs and by U.S. Soccer.[23] The record-setting attendance at this final and the consecutive wins by Seattle were indicators of how "meaningful" the U.S. Open Cup tournament had become. The lone remaining peacock term is the word meaningful which I have put in quotes because its specifically used in the source referenced. The term back-to-back was also something I felt detracted from the WP:NPOV, so I replaced it with consecutive. Hopefully this improves it enough. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review/feedback. I will follow up on each of these later this week. --SkotyWA^T_C 16:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from WFC

• The OTRS picture at the top is beautiful. Well done for getting permission!
  • Agreed, it helps the article a lot. I had it bigger, but an editor has shrunk it to 250px. There's a lot of detail in this picture, so I figured it was okay to make it bigger. Is there any policy on image sizes. 310px was the size I settled on that seemed to fit best in the infobox and showed enough detail. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• "The tournament has been played for 97 years"; the way this is phrased, it would require updating once a year. Perhaps something along the lines of "The tournament has been contested annually since (1913/1914?)." or "The 2010 tournament was the 97th..." (not sure how to finish the latter sentence, but you get the idea).
  • Good catch. Never thought of that. I've changed it to this: "The 2010 tournament was the 97th edition of the oldest soccer tournament in the United States." --SkotyWA^T_C 03:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Is "the Charleston Battery" grammatically correct? N.B. I'm not sure either way.
  • The source refers to them as "the Charleston Battery", so I think that's correct. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Seattle won the 2009 U.S. Open Cup; they became the second MLS expansion club to accomplish this in their inaugural season— the Chicago Fire were the first." Semicolon and emdash in the same sentence seems wrong to me. Semicolons are for following on in a subtle, partially related way, while emdashes are for dramatic change mid sentence, or to emphasize a specific factoid. Perhaps "Seattle won the 2009 U.S. Open Cup—the second MLS expansion club to do so in its inaugural season after Chicago Fire in 1998."
  • This used to be devided into to sentences like this: "Seattle Sounders FC won the 2009 U.S. Open Cup. They were the second MLS expansion club to accomplish this in their inaugural season (Chicago Fire was the first)." The GA reviewer decided to join them adding the emdash and the semi-colon. I think your suggestion is the best way to present these facts, so I've changed it to that.
• "Prior to the final, Sounders FC played U.S. Open Cup home games..." I know it was held at Qwest Field, but would the final count as a home game?
  • Yes it would, that's why I clarified that Starfire was used "prior to the final". Maybe this should be reworded though. How about we change "Prior to the final" to "Excluding the final". --SkotyWA^T_C 03:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Perrenial cautionary note about singular vs plural. I haven't seen anything wrong, and Finetooth has mentioned it above, but for football club FACs I think singular vs plural is something that is worth being paranoid about beforehand, hence another mention.
  • I've done my best with this, but I won't go so far as to say it's all correct. Finetooth definitely pointed out some places that needed to be fixed. If you see anything wrong, point it out. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Why is attendance information given for Seattle, but not the Crew?
  • That seems like a reasonable question, but answering it was a lot harder than I expected. I never noticed that I was only including attendance numbers for Sounders FC. I was only half-conciously including them because the articles always called them out. Not so in Columbus' case. Attendance numbers were only available for one of the 3 match reports I had originally referenced. It turns out that both the Crew and D.C. are less than proud of their USOC attendance numbers. I dug up 2 additional sources that had the numbers and both are editorials berating the clubs for their lack of marketing for these events. Regardless, the attendance numbers are there now, whew. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• MoS sticklers would probably bring up "U.S. Open Cup" vs "US Soccer", or "D.C. United" vs "Seattle Sounders FC". I don't know if there is a solution that would please everyone, but better to raise this before an FAC than during.
  • Good question. I fixed all instances of "US Soccer". Sounders FC should not have periods in it. This has been discussed at length on Talk:Seattle Sounders FC and even verified with the club. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• May be worth briefly discussing the "controversy" in the 2009 bidding process. Also, chronologically the section isn't quite right. McCullers is complaining in the second paragraph, and in the third we are being told that there was controversy in 2009, and that Seattle was successful in 2010.
  • I've tried to clean up the whole paragraph and elaborate a bit on the controversy. I added a wikilink for readers who want to learn more about it. Hopefully the new wording is better and clarifies the chronology. This may still need work though. Let me know what you think. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• "The second meeting between the two teams was played on September 18, just 17 days before the Open Cup final, at Crew Stadium. Seattle won this meeting convincingly, 4–0. Regarding the score of the later meeting, Sounders FC coach Sigi Schmid(t) stated, "I don't think the difference between the two teams is four goals even though that was the score." Although I would regard 4-0 as convincing, Schmid seems to contradict this straight after. Perhaps "by a convincing scoreline of 4–0"?
  • Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Is "at midfield" a common phrase Stateside? It's just that I've never heard it on this side of the pond.
  • Now that you mention it, it does seem rare, though I wasn't confused by it. The source used that exact wording, so I think this is fine. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed from "first half" onwards yet, but hope that helps for the time being! —WFC— 07:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the review so far. I've gone through and addressed your comments so far. Some still need follow up and please take a look at Finetooth's last comment and give us a third opinion if you've got a moment. Thanks again. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by George

• Should we link to the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup somewhere? Maybe with a Main article link at the top, or wikilinking "the oldest competition in United States soccer"? Just a thought.
  • Added. Good point. Don't know why I overlooked such an obvious wikilink. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• "This was the 97th edition... The match was won... The match was played..." Maybe mix it up a bit so it's less repetitive.
  • Adjusted the latter two. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• I don't know the answer to this, but I notice that we often use "the Columbus Crew" but not "the Seattle Sounders FC". Is there any reason we should be consistent on this? I think the way it's written is actually more readable colloquially; I'm just not sure if there's a grammatical rule about this.
  • I'm pretty sure the way the team names are treated in the article are in line with who they are treated in the sources. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• "by virtue of finishing"... would "by finishing" be more readable?
  • Done. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Will try to add more if I have time. The article looks really good, and most of my commentary is stylistic, so feel free to ignore any of it. ← George ^talk 23:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You brought up good points and I've followed up on all of the points. Thanks for the review. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Eden Hazard

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is of importance towards the current state of association football with the player being one of the most sought-after footballers in the world.

Thanks, Joao10Siamun (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is broad in coverage, well-organized, and seems well-sourced. It has some prose problems, particularly a tendency to add modifying clauses to the ends of sentences instead of next to the nouns they are meant to modify. I note several examples of this pattern below, but I did not attempt to make a complete list or to suggest other options for all of them. I think you can probably find and improve them, but the assistance of a copyeditor might also be helpful. You might be able to find one via WP:GOCE#REQ.

• Abbreviations like FIFA and UNFP should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use for readers who might not otherwise know what they stand for.

• Some word and number combinations look awkward if separated by line-break on computer screens. Examples are things like "number 26" and "88th minute". These awkward breaks can be prevented by adding a no-break code between items that you want to keep together. WP:NBSP has details.

Lead

• "Hazard is also a member of the Belgium national team making his debut at 17 years and 316 days in a friendly match against Luxembourg." - Rather than tacking the "making" clause to the end of the sentence, where it seems to modify "team", would this be better: "Hazard, who made his debut at 17 years and 316 days in a friendly match against Luxembourg, is also a member of the Belgium national team"?

Personal life

• It's usually better to expand or merge one-sentence orphan paragraphs like the last one in this section. I think expansion would be the better option in this case. Would it be possible to add a sentence or two about Hazard's immediate family? What is his wife's name? When did she and he get married and where? What is the baby's name? Can anything interesting be added about his wife? Is she a footballer too, for example?

2008–09 season

• "With Lille trailing 2–1 in the waning minutes of the match, Hazard, after Lille took a corner kick, quickly scooped up a short clearance from Auxerre and took a right-footed shot just outside of the box that beat the keeper drawing the match 2–2 in the 88th minute." - A bit too complex. The last clause, for example, seems to modify "keeper", but it does not. Suggestion: "With Lille trailing 2–1 in the waning minutes of the match, Hazard, after Lille took a corner kick, quickly scooped up a short clearance from Auxerre and took a right-footed shot just outside the box. It beat the keeper and tied the score 2–2 in the 88th minute."

2009–10 season

• "Notable clubs included English clubs Arsenal and Manchester United, Italian club Internazionale, and Spanish clubs Barcelona and Real Madrid with French football legend Zinedine Zidane personally recommending the player to the latter club." - "With" doesn't make a good conjunction with which to tack on clauses at the ends of sentences. Suggestion: "They included English clubs Arsenal and Manchester United, Italian club Internazionale, and Spanish clubs Barcelona and Real Madrid. French football legend Zinedine Zidane personally recommended Hazard to Real Madrid."

• "Hazard began the 2009–10 season on a quick note scoring in the Lille's first competitive match of the season against Serbian club FK Sevojno in the first leg of the club's third qualifying round match in the UEFA Europa League contributing to Lille's 2–0 victory." - The note was not scoring, and the League wasn't contributing. It's better to recast sentences like this to place modifying clauses snug against the things they modify. Suggestion: "Hazard began the 2009–10 season on a quick note by scoring in Lille's first competitive match. The goal, contributing to the team's 2–0 victory, came against Serbian club FK Sevojno in the first leg of Lille's third qualifying-round match."

2010–11 season

• "On 7 October, Belgium national team manager Georges Leekens stated that Hazard needed to work harder, both physically and mentally, to regain his form of last year citing his recent spell on the bench at Lille." - Here's another sentence that depends on tacking a modifying clause to the end of a sentence instead of placing it next to the thing it modifies. Suggestion: ""On 7 October, Belgium national team manager Georges Leekens, citing Hazard's recent spell on the bench at Lille, said that the player needed to work harder, both physically and mentally, to regain his past year's form."

Tables

• I would remove the double-bolding of Lille, Belgium, and Europe from the tables by unlinking those three terms. They are already linked in the text, and WP:MOSBOLD advises generally against double-bolding.

References

• Citation 13 links to The National, but it should link to the supporting news story. Use the url for the supporting document (news story in this case) rather than a general url. I noticed this on a spot check of the citations. Be sure to check the others for this sort of thing.

• Citation 74 lacks the publisher's name, Transfermarkt. Generally, citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access, if all of these are known or can be found. The publisher's name can often be found at the bottom of a web page next to the copyright information even if it does not appear earlier on the page.

Other

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find three dead links in the citations and one main-text link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.

• It would be good to add a free-use image of Hazard if you can find one.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Great Americans

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm not certain that my review of this site is complete, clear, and unbiased. Any feedback would be very helpful.

Thanks, Marc

Finetooth comments: Peer review "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." The existing article is a stub created on January 9 and does not qualify for peer review. Nonetheless, here are a few pointers to get you started.

• The dab-checker tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds three text links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

• To meet WP:V, my rule of thumb is to provide a source for every unusual claim, every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every paragraph.

• Make sure that your sources are reliable per WP:RS. For example, pr-inside.com appears to be a personal web site. What makes it reliable? Please check the others to make sure that they meet the WP:RS guidelines.

• Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access, if all of those are known or can be found. You might want to use the {{cite}} family of templates to help you organize your citations. You can find them at WP:CIT and try them out in your sandbox. If you use them, don't mix them with other families of citation templates like the "Citation" family, also found at WP:CIT.

• WP:MOSBOLD advises against bolding except in a few special cases. For the bolded items in the "Website features" section, use italics for emphasis and quotation marks for titles.

• I made the heads more telegraphic and used lower-case letters to start most of the words. WP:MOSHEAD explains the guidelines.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Sharing the Secret

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want the opinions of more experienced article authors. This article is about a 10 year old made-for-tv movie. There isn't much information about the movie. In fact, I watched it in 9 minute segments on youtube. Any comments or criticisms would be appreciated.

Thanks, Brendanmccabe (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This sounds like an interesting and worthwhile documentary. However, if little has been written about it by reliable sources, it will be hard to greatly improve the article. Blogs generally do not meet the WP:RS guidelines. All I can suggest is that you keep looking for reliable sources for more information. It might help to discuss the sourcing problems on the article's talk page and to ask there if anyone has ideas for expansion. Here are a few suggestions related to prose issues and the Manual of Style guidelines.

• Inline citations go after the punctuation, not before; e.g., "in the United States[1]," should be "in the United States,[1]" and so on throughout the article.

Plot

• "Adjusting to her parents' divorce and trying to live up to their opposing compliments... ". - Is "compliments" the right word? It usually means something like "terms of praise". Do you mean "expectations", perhaps?

• Where do the direct quotations in the plot come from? Direct quotations generally require a citation to a source. If the source is the film, it should be cited right after the end of the quoted material or, if punctuation follows the quote, right after that punctuation. Since you are using the "cite" family of templates, the one to use would be {{cite video}}, a filled-in example of which can be found at WP:CIT.

• "When the doctor asks if she has been eating, she says that she hasn't recently... " - They are not always easy to spot, but contractions like "hasn't" are generally spelled out in Wikipedia articles; e.g., "has not". Direct quotations containing contractions are an exception to this style guideline.

• "She then hides her scarred knuckles, called Russell's signs." - Slightly more smooth might be "She then hides her knuckles, scarred by Russell's signs from self-induced vomiting."

• "This sets off a major conflict between the mother and daughter, and Dr. Moss decides Beth must enter counseling." - It's not clear at first who "Dr. Moss" is since this is the first mention of a "Dr. Moss". I think it must mean Beth's mother. Are you sure that she's an M.D.? Even if she is, Wikipedia's style is to use descriptions rather than academic titles. Psychologists are not typically MDs; if you know the psychologist's first name, you could identify her in that way or simply as "Beth's mother".

• "This conflict is paralleled in the film as Beth's grandmother (Diane Ladd) tries to console her daughter without really understanding her situation." - Is she trying to console her daughter or do you mean her "granddaughter"?

• referring to her as a "trophy wife" - Nothing inside a direct quotation should be linked. See WP:MOSQUOTE. I don't think you need the quotation marks here in any case.

Release

• "and by Infinity Media from 2006 to present" - Words like "present", "now", and "currently" are tricky because they change in meaning as time passes; that is, what is "present" in 2011 may not be present in 2012 because circumstances have changed. It's generally better to give a specific year or date range or to rewrite to avoid the ambiguity. You might say, for example, "and by Infinity Media in 2006".

• "The film has not been released on DVD in the US." - Better would be "As of early 2011, the film has not been released on DVD in the US."

• "Rotten Tomatoes lists an audience ranking of 54 percent and the eating-disorder blog Disordered Times ranked the movie at five out of five, calling it "one of the best-made films on eating disorders ever," and saying that it "does not exaggerate for 'shock value,' nor does it portray eating disorders in a glamorous light..." - Too complex. Suggestion: "Rotten Tomatoes lists an audience ranking of 54 percent. The eating-disorder blog Disordered Times ranked the movie at five out of five, calling it "one of the best-made films on eating disorders ever" and saying that it "does not exaggerate for 'shock value,' nor does it portray eating disorders in a glamorous light... ".

• Would it be helpful to explain what the Rotten Tomatoes ranking means? Does it mean that 54 percent of the audience viewed the film favorably? Were respondents answering a simple "yes-or-no" question?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

---

The Wall

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to seek the input of an uninvolved editor.

Thanks, — GabeMc (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

 Doing... Daniel Case (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: I'm going to make a light copy edit first, then go into my critique. Stay tuned. Daniel Case (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I am done. I will leave it to the requestor to look at the diffs and see what changes I made in copy editing. Basically, a lot of redundant phrasing was condensed (it's not necessary to say things like "Financial advisers X, Pink Floyd's financial planners") and some run-on sentences broken up. I also brought it to conformity with the MOS (use the percent symbol, and "million" as a stand-alone word rather than suffixed "-M") and consistency (per WP:MOSNUM, figures are used for most larger numbers ... the article had not always done so). I did my best to be mindful of style and usages unique to British English where I'm aware of them, but I still had to change some things for clarity's sake—I presume by Ezrin's "poor timekeeping skills", we mean what I wrote, that he often showed up late, and not that he couldn't help the musicians keep time? I also added the {{inflation}} template in two places (my first use of it in a British context), so we can better appreciate the scale of their financial loss.

When done, the copy edit has shaved about 800 bytes off the length of the article. About good enough, and not indicative of serious problems (a long time ago, I wound up taking 5K off Spyware during its FAR ... my record). Back in a bit ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: One thing does remain as a copy problem that I was unsure how to tag. Who is the person being quoted in this sentence, at the end of the third graf of the "Background" section: "Because the project's 26 tracks presented a challenge greater than the band's previous albums, 'Waters decided to bring in an outside producer and collaborator'"? Is it really necessary that this be in quotes? It sounds stylistically consistent with the rest of the sentence, and if it's from a source I don't really see why a direct quote is needed for something purely informative. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: Just butting in with a nit-picky side comment. My understanding of WP:MOS#Percentages is that "percent" is preferred to the symbol in most simple cases. I rely heavily on the first sentence of the guidelines: "Generally, use either percent (American English) or per cent (British English) to indicate percentages in the body of an article." I think most exceptions to this are found in scientific articles, complex tables, and the demographics sections of articles about cities, but in this article, I'd go with "percent" rather than "%". Finetooth (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough ... it was just that when I started editing six years ago, we seemed to prefer the symbol. I much rather prefer the words because it's consistent with AP and Chicago styles, which I'm used to. I will edit appropriately. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, now the larger issues ...

Images

First, the album cover may be a free image. It certainly qualifies as such under US law since, as a collection of common geometric shapes, it is ineligible for copyright. However, it was produced under British law, which has a lower threshold of originality, and as such I defer and note that there is apparently an active OTRS request at Commons. So I will let that process play out rather than changing the licensing myself.

Second, that's the only image in the article. We could use more to help its readability. Well-chosen and placed images break up the monontony of text and make it more likely readers will read the entire article. I see there are quote boxes and sound files already, but we could also at least have pictures of the band members, which we have on Commons (Not contemporary to this period, but it's better than nothing). And there are some pictures from later concert performances, as well (this one from Berlin would support the discussion of that performance in the article). Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness

This article is very informative about the circumstances of The Wall's creation—I hadn't known about the financial difficulties the band was in, and given how much I know about this album, the first one I ever got when I was 12, the album that has become a cultural totem for my generation (those of us who are white, at least), that is saying a lot. The section on the recording, and in particular the disputed circumstances of Wright's departure, are also comprehensive.

However, that does leave me wanting to know more about some other things. And there are other sources that I'm aware of that could add much to the article.

• In a Musician interview sometime in the early 1990s, David Gilmour revealed what is now widely known and reported in the article, but was something of a shock when he shared it: that there had been a lot more outside musicians involved in the album than the backup singers credited. We learned only then that Nick Mason hadn't been able to come up with a drum part that worked for "Mother", so Jeff Porcaro was brought in; that Gilmour himself, having written the classical guitar interlude in "Is There Anybody Out There?", couldn't find the right way to play it so he got di Blasi to do it; and that he had played the fretless bass part in the break of "Hey You" because, as he put it, "Roger on a fretless? Oh please ..." If we can find this it would be great (But not easy as Musician folded more than a decade ago).

• The audio commentary for the movie is an excellent source that should be tapped, because Waters and Gerald Scarfe go into a lot of things related to the album as well. For starters, we learn more about the lingering Syd Barrett influence: that some of Bob Geldof's actions in the movie—the "wild staring eyes" watching TV while the cigarette burns down to his fingers, and the eyebrow and chest hair chaving—are also things Barrett did (the latter prior to his unexpected return to the studio while they were recording "Shine on You Crazy Diamond"). The lingering effect of Barrett's unfortunate departure from the band on Floyd and Waters in particular is a major aspect of the band's history, and it has occurred to me that Waters is lamenting that loss in the album as much as his father's. But someone else has to say that ...

  The most blatant memento of Syd Barrett, however, should be in the article in its own right: the secret backward message right before the vocals in "Empty Spaces". Barry Miles' Pink Floyd: A Visual Documentary would be a good source for the possible Syd Barrett connection, and how the message was discovered, if another one doesn't say it.

• In the film's commentary track, Waters cites "When the Tigers Broke Free", as a specific example of one of his original songs for the album removed after the early discussion mentioned in the article. The other band members (and, presumably, Ezrin as well) thought it was far too autobiographical and made the album entirely too much about Waters personally rather than the Pink character. I think he also discusses the removal of "What Shall We do Now?", since that song's in the movie as well.

• And speaking of that, the film's treatment of the music should be discussed in at least a separate subsection with a hatnote referring to the main article. The two tracks mentioned above were restored to the soundtrack, but "Hey You" was dropped (the scene filmed to it is one of the deleted scenes) because they couldn't find a way to make it add anything to the movie (and, I suppose, that's why the song plays such a large part in The Whale and the Squid years later (not just because The Who wouldn't let them use "Behind Blue Eyes"). "In the Flesh (reprise)" is also performed with a diegetic orchestra, and I think "Mother" was also staged differently as well.

• I also heard a radio interview with Waters once where he gives a fuller account of the phone call at the end of "Young Lust". He had arranged with a friend of his in England that at a particular time he would place a collect call as "Mr. Floyd" to "Mrs. Floyd" from LA to the friend, who would answer "Hello" and then hang up. The first call didn't work because the operator didn't seem to realize the situation apparently unfolding. The second operator did respond to the awkwardness of the situation, believing she'd inadvertently helped the caller catch his wife having an affair, and that was the one he used.

  This seems a much more credible version, to me, than that he called Mason. The call is clearly placed to the UK from the US ... when you hear the tones, it's one tone, then two tones repeated twice, corresponding to 011 (the US international access code) and 44 (the international code for the UK), followed by seven or eight tones corresponding to the British phone number. So if the call was placed to England, it couldn't be to Mason since he was a tax exile at the time too. If we found this it would make a livelier sentence about that. This is mentioned in the song article but tagged as needing a cite.

• We might also find where we can say how the album was a sticking point between Waters and Gilmour and Mason when he sued to get out of the partnership. Waters was very insistent on retaining the right to stage concert performances of The Wall, and gave up a lot for that.

• Might we have more discussion of the album musically? In particular its use of a motif: the melody line from "Another Brick in the Wall"

• We might also discuss its cultural impact. In addition to its status as a GenX icon, I think it might also be somewhere that this was the last critically and commercially successful rock opera/concept album (I don't really count Styx's Kilroy Was Here, because I don't think Styx wants to, either). It sort of brought to a close an era that Tommy had started (with some similar plot elements, interestingly enough). Hopefully a reliable source can be found to say these things ... we'll have to sweep Google Scholar.

• I think we could credibly have a subsection on its political impact. First, within a couple of months of its release, South Africa banned not just "Another Brick in the Wall" but the album as a whole because Colored schoolchildren in Elsie's River adopted the song as a protest against their substandard education. Given that we mentioned it was a hit single there we cannot not mention this. There's no source at the song article other than a New York Times article we can't get to without paying, but others mention this as well ... I know William Finnegan reports it in Crossing the Line; it's been mentioned in other histories of apartheid South Africa as well.

  Later, the Berlin concerts were an outgrowth of the fall of the Wall. I did see the Wall when it was up, and I remember just about every other English-speaking youth who visited West Berlin seemed to have succumbed to the desire to put some cute graffitti related to the album on the Wall. I might have a picture of some that I could scan.

  More recently, the Israel-West Bank barrier has inspired some similar activity ... including from Waters himself, who spray painted "Tear down the Wall!" on it, prompting an Israeli government spokesman to say something like "We don't need no education to know that it keeps out terrorists".

• Lastly, I think the bit about The Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking should go into a note like the stuff about Warburg's later travails since it really impedes the narrative flow at that point.

That's all. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel for the comprehensive and insightful review. I will be too busy to address your comments until this coming saturday, the 15th, but I am excited to do so. — GabeMc (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I wrote most of this article but my prose has, since then, improved markedly. I'll have a read of this peer review and will reply in a day or so. I'm sure there's enough to get it to FA. Parrot of Doom 21:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Adelaide leak

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to take it to FAC soon. It is already a GA and got good feedback there. As ever, I'd like to know how it reads to the non-cricketer, although this one is quite light on cricket terminology and is more about the people. Also, is it all clear enough about what was going on and why it is significant. And although it needs quite a lot of background to give the events some context, is that section an appropriate length?

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Hi, Sarastro, I'll try and get to reviewing this in couple of days. One thing that struck me is that, though I've read (and played) a lot of cricket in the past 30-odd years, and know all about the Adelaide shenanigans to which you refer, I've never heard the term "Adelaide leak" applied to this incident before. I had no idea this was a cricket article until I looked it up. Did you invent the title, or has it been used by others? Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, as ever. Yes, it has been called "Adelaide leak", but not sure how official that is. I think Fingleton refers to it as such, but I've heard it elsewhere. David Frith, in his book, says the event "has become known as the Adelaide Leak." (And I just realised he capitalises it as well) --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough. If Frith's comment is not already in your text, it might be as well to include it as a cast iron justification for your choice of title. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• I suggest adding a "See also" section, along with a portal or two, such as Portal:Cricket.

• Besides that, I can't see any areas for improvement except changing the reference formatting using the Harvard style using templates, because they're neater (I think). If you can't do it, just tell me. Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!)} 06:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I will have to review in instalments, so here are some comments on the lead and first main section.

Lead

• The opening sentence needs to be more specific about the nature of this leak; it could on swift reading refer to, say, a water leak from a hosepipe (this happened at Melbourne in 1954–55, so it's not a far-fetched misunderstanding). I suggest you begin "The Adelaide leak was the revelation of a dressing-room incident which occurred during the third Test match...." I would delete the words "played at the Adelaide Oval" from the end of the sentence, as unnecessary
  • Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• I would begin the second sentence: "During the course of play..."
  • Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Is it customary to say "Test match" or "Test Match"? I would have thought the latter was more usual.
  • My preference would be Test match, and I believe that is what WP:CRIC goes for.

Background

• Avoid close repeat of "series" in opening sentence. Perhaps "a highly acrimonious contest"?
  • Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Again, "controversial" appears twice in quick succession. One could be "contentious"
  • Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Was it just the commentators who feared that Bradman would be unstoppable an looked for weaknesses? If my memory serves me correctly, this was a concern of several active in the game. I would also elaborate slightly: "looked for weaknesses in his batting technique".
  • Done: made it into cricketers and administrators.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• "...in the press, Warner was highly critical of the Yorkshire bowlers..." Perhaps explain this is Warner in his capacity as cricket correspondent of the Morning Post.
  • Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Third paragraph, suggest begin "In Australia, while Jardine's..." etc
  • Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• "an Australian XI" sounds a mite informal to the uninitiated, rather like some scratch XI. I would expand: "This changed in the match against a representative "Australian XI" at near full strength, in which..." etc
  • Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Former players joined the criticism..." - "Some former Australian players..."?
  • Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Warner shouldn't suddenly become "Plum Warner". I would prefer just "Warner".
  • Done: it was overlinked to a dab page too.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• The suggestion that the Fingelton-Bradman hostility arose partly from their religious differences needs to be very specifically cited, and also to reflect the source exactly. What Frith says is "Bradman then ["then" being in 1992] confirmed the causes of Fingleton's animosity towards him, citing the problem of the opposing religions..." Bradman is evidently being quoted by Gilbert Mant, some 60 years after the event. I don't think the sources support the bald, apparently factual statement in the article that "Some of the differences stemmed from differences in religion; Fingleton was a Roman Catholic, Bradman an Anglican." The next sentence refers to "later" hostility arising from Bradman/s preference for Brown, but it seems this is still Mant reporting on his 1992 correspondence with Bradman.
  • Tried to clear this up. Moved the religious part to the end of the section and attributed it to Bradman's view. Added more from Fingo biography about their first meetings (as this is directly relevant to the article as it concerns their early relationship) and found some better material in the Growden book to cover Bill Brown. Hopefully this reflects the sources better. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, it certainly does. No quarrel with this. Brianboulton (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Final paragraph: clarify that the "ongoing argument" was with the Board of Control.
  • Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Continuing:

Woodfull's injury

• Clarify that the Australian innings began mid-afternoon on the second day.
  • Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Woodfull and Fingleton opened the innings. In the third over the injury to Woodfull occurs, and we are told that Bradman was batting at the time. A brief reference to Finglton's dismissal (c. Ames b. Allen 0) is necessary.
  • Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Also it is relevant that in this over, Larwood was not bowling to his "bodyline" field.
  • Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Some extraneous information, e.g. "Vic Richardson replaced him at the crease" is distracting. The following sentence, about the doctor being called for Voce, makes more sense without this intervention
  • Removed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Warner's visit

• I think it should be explained in the text that Ryder and Jones were former players, rather than relying on the links.
  • Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Leak

• "No play took place on the next day, Sunday being a rest day." A bit clumsy; perhaps "Sunday being a rest day, no play took place". and perhaps just "On Monday" rather than "On the following Monday"
  • Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• "prised" → "prized"
  • Oops, not sure how that slipped through! --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Inconsistencies between "press" and "Press" need to be sorted out
  • Done, I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Suspects

• This sentence needs some attention: "Fingleton's executor, Malcolm Gemmell, replied in a magazine article providing some circumstantial evidence to support Fingleton's accusation: that Bradman wrote for the Sun, was the prime target of Bodyline, and had previously urged the Australian Board of Control to object to the tactic." This is not "providing evidence", it is summarising certain facts which, I would have thought, were reasonably well-established.
  • Done, I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Fingleton's brother supported this claim..." Not clear what "claim" this refers to.
• Clarified. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Gilbert Mant, a journalist who covered the tour, investigated the leak and arranged for a summary of his findings to be sent to David Frith after his death in 1997". This sounds as though Mant knew he would die in 1997 - or that "his death" refers to Frith. Suggest reword.
  • Reworded, although Mant knew he was dying when he sent the summary, according to Frith. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• "While Mant believed that Corbett may have played a joke on Fingleton in naming the culprit, he would not have done so with his wife." This opinion needs specific attribution to Frith, not just citation
  • The opinion is actually Mant's, reported by Frith. I've cleared this up in the text. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath

• There are some long strings of blue in the text, which could perhaps be reduced by some textual rearrangement. Also, Thomas was known as "J.H. Thomas" rather than John Henry Thomas.
  • Done the best I can here without just unlinking some of the obscure government positions. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see "J.H." rather than "John Henry"; It's a bit like "T.S. Eliot" rather than "Thomas Stearns".
• "The final sentence "Fingleton was dropped..." etc is extraneous.
  • I'll take it out. I quite liked it as it finished Fingleton's role nicely, but I take your point as it doesn't mention the "fate" of the other players. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

General point

In the text you mention information in Fingleton's 1978 biography of Trumper (the worst book Fingleton ever wrote, incidentally), yet it does not appear in the bibliography.

It's not directly quoted in the text, only a mention of it in another book. That's why it isn't there. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an engrossing account of a curious incident which somehow seems to show almost everyone involved in a poor light. The points I have raised are mainly cosmetic and should be quite easily dealt with. Please let me know when the fixes are done and I'll give it a final readthrough. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and helpful comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

All review points answered (except for my preference over Thomas's name). I think this is an excellent article; please let me know when you nominate it at FAC. By the way, I don't agree with the suggestion of a "See also" section, and the ref formats are fine. Brianboulton (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Danny Williams (politician)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to see where the page is going wrong and why it's only a B.

Thanks, Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start. Parts are quite well-written, but others are less so. The coverage is broad; the image licenses look fine, but two of the images (the charts) need explanatory keys. Here are suggestions for further improvement:

Lead

• "a by-election for the riding" - Link riding to Electoral district (Canada)?

• "as ordering all Canadian flags to be removed from provincial government buildings over offshore oil revenues" - Puzzling if taken literally. Maybe deleting "over offshore oil revenues" would help. Otherwise it seems to suggest that some government buildings were suspended in the air offshore.

• The "Canadian flags" sentence is also awkward because it starts with "event such as" and ends with the redundant "among other events".

Early life and education

• Could the names of his parents and siblings, if any, be added? Could anything else about his early interests (music, sports, hobbies) be added?

Leader of the Opposition

• "Support for the Tories saw a big bounce... " - Are the Progressive Conservatives the same as the Tories? If so, should the article make this more clear for non-Canadian readers?

• "Four by-elections were held during the two years he was the Official Opposition Leader with each seat being won by a Progressive Conservative candidate, as well in September 2001, Liberal MHA, Ross Wiseman crossed the floor of the house to join the Progressive Conservative caucus." - Doesn't make sense as written.

2003 election

• The maps here and in the "2007 election" section will make no sense to most readers unless the color-coding is explained. A further difficulty is that the colors do not seem to match the colors in the tables. Even if you create keys for the two maps, the colors in the maps will not match the colors in the tables. I would consider reworking one set of colors to match the other set and then providing a key that explains them all. Examples of keys can be found in many of the featured lists at WP:FL.

• "Since 2001 when Williams took over the leadership of the Progressive Conservatives the party's popularity rose, polls leading up to and during the election showed that his party had a substantial lead over the Liberals and New Democrats." - This is an example of what is called a "comma-spliced sentence". I fixed one of these earlier in the article, and I see other problems with grammar and syntax. I'll stop at this point with a line-by-line commentary about things like that, except to say that enlisting the aid of a copyeditor would be a good idea. You can probably find one via WP:GOCE/REQ.

• The last two sections may include unnecessary detail. For example, the "Controversies" section includes the equalization controversy, but it was already covered in the "First term" section. Also, couldn't the many poll numbers in the "Public opinion" section be summarized more succintly?

References

• The publisher for citations 1–5 and others with cbc.ca (the web site) as publisher should be changed to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

• Citation 42 needs a date of publication. Citation 43 is incomplete, as is citation 48 and many others in various ways. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all of those are know or can be found.

• The date formatting in the citations should be consistent throughout. For example, citations 11 and 12 use formats that are not identical. Pick one and stick with it throughout the reference section.

Other

• The link-checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds one dead link in the citations.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

---

De Havilland Comet

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article has been improved to the level where indepth criticism from other editors is now worthwhile, the subject has already been successfully and extensively overhauled a few months ago and passed a GA Review, and I am encouraged by the comments of others that this now shows potential to become a Featured Article; this round of criticism is a step towards that goal. And, being the first passenger jet aircraft in the world, isn't it worthwhile making sure its quality is up to scratch?

Thanks, Kyteto (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is generally very good, though I have doubts about some of the citations. It's well-written, well-organized, and seems comprehensive to an outsider like me. Most of my comments are related to prose and style issues. A bit of fatigue set in when I got to the lists and tables, and I did not read those as closely as the upper text sections.

• Repetition in the heads and subheads is best avoided. I can't think of a good substitute for "Comet" in every head and subhead, but "DH 111 Comet Bomber" could become "DH 111 Bomber", and "Civilian operators" and "Military operators" could simply become "Civilian" and "Military". WP:MOSHEAD has the guidelines.

• WP:MOSBOLD suggests limiting bolding to a few exceptional uses. I would not bold things like Type 106, Comet 1, or Type HS 801 in the main text. You can use ordinary text in some cases and italics for emphasis where needed. Double-bolding in the lower sections does not look good to me, and I don't think it's helpful.

• A couple of the images overlap sections and displace edit buttons. It's better to rearrange things, if possible, to avoid either of these two layout problems. You might consider merging the "Comet 5 design" subsection with "Comet 4" to create more space for File:Gatwick1976-mrh.jpg. Perhaps File:DH Comet 1 BOAC Heathrow 1953.jpg could be moved up into the bigger "India Court of Inquiry" section.

• The caption for File:Comet Prototype at Hatfield.jpg gives credit to the Imperial War Museum. Wikipedia image captions do not normally include the credits, although they should be given on the image description page. Ditto for other credit lines in other captions in the article.

• I think "about" is better than "c." before dates. All readers know the meaning of "about", but not all will recognize "c." I see one of these in the caption for File:Gatwick1976-mrh.jpg and a couple more in captions much further down.

• A lot of word combinations like DH 106 or Comet 4 that occur throughout the article might get awkwardly separated on computer screens by line-break. The cure is to add a no-break code to hold the parts together. WP:NBSP has details.

Lead

• I think it would be good to mention in the first sentence or at least early in the lead where the plane was built. There is no hint of the "where" until the RAF is mentioned in the last sentence.

• "It featured an extremely aerodynamically clean design with its four de Havilland Ghost turbojet engines buried into the wings, a low-noise pressurised cabin, and large windows; for the era, it was an exceptionally comfortable design for passengers and showed signs of being a major success in the first year upon launching." - I'd go a bit easier on the superlatives. Delete "extremely", "exceptionally", and "major"?

• "However, a few short years after introduction into commercial service" - Delete "short"?

• "The Comet was extensively redesigned to eliminate this design flaw." - Delete "extensively"?

• Spell out, link, and abbreviate RAF as Royal Air Force (RAF) on first use?

Development

• "payload at a cruising speed of 400 mph" - Convert this and other measurements to metric; i.e., 400 miles per hour (640 km/h)?

• "Out of all the Brabazon designs, the DH 106 was seen as the riskiest." - I'm not sure if this means riskiest financially or riskiest structurally (most subject to mechanical failure).

• "Bishop opted for a more conventional 20˚swept-wing design" - Change to 20-degree? I can't seem to find the relevant guideline, but I think 20˚ will be confusing.

• "large main wheel units that were replaced by four-wheeled bogies" - Link bogie?

Design

• "reduced the risk of ingestion damage" - Should "ingestion damage" be briefly explained?

• "had previously collaborated with on earlier licenced designs" - Is licensed misspelled here, or is licenced correct British English?

Introduction

• "The passenger experience was relatively unique compared... " - "Unique" can't be relative. Delete "relatively"?

Early accidents and incidents

• "The crash was attributed to structural failure of the airframe with witnesses observing the wingless Comet on fire plunging into the Indian Ocean." - "With" doesn't make a good conjunction. I usually find a way to rephrase these constructions. Suggestion: "The crash was attributed to structural failure of the airframe. Witnesses reported seeing the wingless, burning Comet plunge into the Indian Ocean."

India Court of Inquiry

• "a left hand elevator spar failure" - Perhaps more clear as: "a failure of a left-hand elevator spar"? Or do I misunderstand the meaning?

Abell Committee Court of Inquiry

• "and 50% of the aircraft systems/equipment had been recovered" - It's generally better to replace the ambiguous front slash with a specific word. I assume "and" would be the word in this case.

D111 Comet Bomber'

• "Additional fuel tanks carrying 2,400 gallons were built into the fuselage to attain a range of 3,350 miles." - Metric conversions?

Comet 3

• "engines developing 10,000 lb/st with greater capacity and range" - Could lb/st be made more clear? I'm not sure what the "st" stands for.

References

• Citation 62 lists geocities.com as the publisher, but the source seems to be a self-published article. What makes this source reliable per WP:RS? Same question for citation 73.

• The source for citation 132 also appears to be a self-published web site. What makes it reliable?

• What makes Flikr reliable for supporting the claim that "Lyneham was previously the operational base for all RAF operated Comets"? See citation 110.

• What make youtube.com a reliable source? See citation 118. How does it support the claim that "The last Comet to fly was Comet 4C Canopus (Serial XS235)... "?

• I only did a spot-check of the citations. Please be sure that these and all others meet WP:RS and actually support the claims they are attached to.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page.Finetooth (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Newfoundland and Labrador

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some tips on what to do. I tried rewriting the history section with information from other wikipedia pages but it was delted by a moderator because of copyrighting and I don't know what else should be done.

Thanks, Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article has a major cleanup banner relating to a lack of citations in the History section. A quick glance through iidicates inconsistent referencing in other sections, e.g. no citations in the short Etymology section, uncited material at the end of the Geography section and similarly in other sections. The presence of the cleanup banner makes the article, strictly speaking, ineligible for peer review, but I will add a few comments which I hope will help:-

• The first sentence is unnecessarily complicated, with too much information contained in a parenthetical insert. Personally, I don't think there is a need for a pronunciation guide. The French and Irish names, and the reason for including them, should be given in a separate sentence.
• There is evidence of overlinking in the lead and early sections. Terms like "North America", "English", "French", "Canada" etc do not need linking. Other terms seem to be linked repetitively (e.g. "Portuguese" linked twice in the same sentence).
• Another problem related to linking is evident in the Geography section, with the use of the piped link 7,000 tiny islands. The link goes to a list of about 40 islands with no reference to these thousands of small islands. This is an example of what is known as a "garden path" link, and should be avoided.
• There needs to be consistency in the formatting of references. Sometimes cite templates are used, sometimes not; Ref 25 is a bare unformatted link; no consistency in the provision of retrieval dates; publisher information frequently lacking, etc. Incidentally, ref 27 has a "dead link" tag, though it works OK for me.
• So far as I can see, all the sources used are online, yet there is a long list of recommended "further reading". Why were none of these books used as sources?

I hope these few comments help. There's a fair amount of work ahead. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

---

2008 Hungarian Grand Prix

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article failed its second FA nomination last month. As you can see, it suffered from a lack of comments and was not promoted even though nobody formally opposed it. Any comments on how I can further improve to FA standard are welcomed.

Thanks, --Midgrid(talk) 15:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Right I know quiet a bit about F1 and am a bit of an expert but I don't contribute on here. So I will do my best to look at it from a numpty point of view.

Comments Remove "Robert Kubica, another championship contender, finished eighth after finding his BMW Sauber car to be uncompetitive at the Hungaroring." from lead as it does not add anything to the article and it feels like it was thrown in as it has nothing to do with the race or what was forementioned.

At the moment the lead fails as Wikipedia likes 3 paragraphs so perhaps you could add an extra paragraph in the lead about the points situation at the end of the race, considering how exciting the championship was in 2008.

Done. I've incorporated Kubica's race result into the new third paragraph.--Midgrid(talk) 16:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove words and phrases such as comfortable lead and just have lead. Perhaps the majority of the race focused on a duel instead of the race was dominated by a duel. Perhaps instead of allowing how about handing Kovi the win. That's just on the lead removing POV words etc lets see how we can get on with the rest...

Done. Changed to "a lead of over 20 seconds" and "consisted of".--Midgrid(talk) 16:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Background switch the constructer and driver standings so that the constructors is ahead of the drivers in the prose as you have just listed the teams, so it would make sense to have their standings, which then links into the drivers as you state what team the drivers drive for, instead of flipping between the two championships.

Done.--Midgrid(talk) 16:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The test can you explain that this was a one off test in the middle of the season or something due to the testing rules limiting the amount of testing time. Can't quiet remember but am sure that there were restrictions on testing, so please state this. Prose seams to hint this with teams testing bits for 09 so can you specifically state the restrictions.

Done. The restrictions on testing were not particularly severe in 2008 (the complete ban on in-season testing began in 2009). Each team was restricted to 30,000 km of testing during the year.

Vitantonio Liuzzi, tested the team's new "seamless-shift" gearbox. Remove seamless shift as it means nothing to the non techie F1 follower or casual reader, plus it is not explained what it is.

I've linked "seamless-shift" to Zeroshift.--Midgrid(talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"Several teams made technical changes to their cars for the Grand Prix. Ferrari increased the size of the F2008 chassis's brake cooling ducts, following high brake wear at the German Grand Prix, and also introduced a high, "shark-fin" engine cover, and louvres in the bodywork to improve the car's cooling around its radiators. McLaren introduced a revised aerodynamic package for the MP4-23, which comprised a five-piece front wing, winglets atop the nose cone and redesigned bargeboards; all aimed at increasing the amount of downforce and therefore grip, produced by the chassis. Force India introduced revised turning vanes to improve airflow over the VJM01 chassis, and brought their seamless-shift gearbox to the event.[11] Honda and Toyota also debuted shark-fin engine covers, and Honda introduced a new rear suspension package.[10][12]"

Comment Feel that this section goes over the top in terms of techincal detail. Could easily be summerised as Honda Toyota and Ferrari introduced shark fin engine covers, where the top of the engine cover streaches back in a line to the rear wing sculptured like a shark fin. Whilst Ferrari also made changes to the car's cooling system following high break wear at the German GP. McLaren introduced a new aerodynamic system and Force India also made some minor changes. Still gets the point across and doesn't stump average joe.

I've shortened the paragraph to "Several teams made technical changes to their cars for the Grand Prix. Ferrari made changes to the F2008 chassis's cooling system and bodywork following high brake wear and engine water temperatures at the German Grand Prix. McLaren and Force India introduced revised aerodynamic packages for their MP4-23 and VJM01 chassis, aimed at increasing the amount of downforce and therefore grip, produced by the bodywork. Force India also brought its seamless-shift gearbox to the event.[12] Ferrari, Honda and Toyota also debuted raised engine covers, nicknamed "shark-fin" for they way in which they stretched back towards the rear wing, and Honda introduced a new rear suspension package."--Midgrid(talk) 16:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Maybe where you first mention temperature you need to state the significance of temp. E.g. the hotter it is the more grip that the tyres produce so therefore the hotter the tempeture the easier the car is on its tyres. or something along that line.

I do explain this in the race section, when the change in temperatures had the greatest effect. I think it would be arbitrary to mention it earlier.--Midgrid(talk) 16:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Style Heidfeld, who was carrying a heavier fuel load than either of them. Pair would be better.

Cut to just "them".--Midgrid(talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kovalainen then took over the lead of the race for two laps. remove then

Done.--Midgrid(talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

handing Massa back his comfortable lead. Remove comfortable, unless you state in the sentences before that 24 secs is like a whole stop ahead, then I guess comfortable is ok.

Done.--Midgrid(talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

However, as Massa started lap 68 and changed up into seventh gear. Doesn't contribute to a lot remove the gear change bit and that's ok, as it's a incidental thing and did not contribiute to the engine going plus excessive detail, so I advise to remove it.

Done. I also found a previously unnoticed typo! :) --Midgrid(talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Other than that fantastic article. My comments are generally about Featured article criteria, 1a) where I feel that it can be tightened by removing a word here or there, not that it does any harm if it stays in. And also about 4) where I feel that there is too much detail for wikipedia or not enough explaination and leaves the causual reader confused. Other than that FA! Sometimes with FA and FL's your just unlucky at the wrong type of people look at the list when you nominate it. I will definatly support this next time! KnowIG (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review! I will let you know when I renominate the article for FA status.--Midgrid(talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Andy Murray

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is one of the better articles on tennis. All of the info is near enough sourced and has images. Just wondering whether the article was going in the right direction or not, so want some constructive feedback to make it a better article.

Thanks, KnowIG (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: You may be on the way to creating a model for tennis biographies on Wikipedia, but I see a lot of room for improvement. The article is certainly broad in coverage and well-organized. The lead image is a bit fuzzy; maybe one of the others would be better. More troubling are the many small prose and Manual of Style glitches. I fixed a few in the upper sections and mention a few more below, but a thorough copyedit would be a good idea. You might find a willing copyeditor via WP:GOCE#REQ. Finally, I find the amount of detail in the middle sections overwhelming. This sense of being buried by chronological game-by-game accounts occurs when I read other kinds of sports articles, basketball articles for example, so I am not picking on tennis. I'm wondering, though, if some of the detail could be compressed to cover only the highlights. Perhaps some of the featured articles about other sports could be perused for ideas about how to go about this. You'll find them listed at WP:FA#Sport and recreation biographies.

• To avoid repetition of "Grand Slam", I'd changed the subheads under "Grand Slams" to "Performance timeline" and "Finals".

• Some of the paragraphs such as the third and fourth of "Junior tennis" lack sources. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every unusual claim.

Lead

• Combinations like No. 2 need no-break codes to keep them from being awkwardly separated on computer screens by line-break. WP:NBSP has details.

• "Alex Corretja is Murray's main coach as from July 2010." - Might be better as "Alex Corretja has been Murray's main coach since July 2010."

Dunblane massacre

• "but in his autobiography Hitting Back he says that he attended a youth group run by Hamilton, and that his mother gave him rides in her car." - It's not clear whether this means that Hamilton's mother gave Murry rides or that Murry's mother gave Hamilton rides.

Junior tennis

• Would it be helpful to add a brief explanation (or a link to something) for "challenger" and "future" matches? Do the terms have a specific meaning in tennis? For example, is it somehow better to play in a futures match than a challenger match?

• Should "retired" be linked or explained?

• "Later that year, he won BBC Young Sports Personality of the Year." - To prevent a choppy look and feel, it's best to merge or expand one-sentence orphan paragraphs like this. In this case, I'd just merge it with the preceding paragraph.

2005

• "Murray began 2005 ranked 407 in the world." - Another one-sentence orphan.

• "reaching the semi finals" - Semi-finals and quarter-finals take hyphens. I added a few before this one, but you should fix them throughout the article.

• "his first ATP" - Spell out as well as abbreviate on first use. Ditto for other abbreviations in the article.

• "where he lost in 3 sets" - Numbers smaller than 10 are usually written as words. I changed a few above this, but you should check the entire article. WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words has details.

• "and local boy" - Would "local player" be better? "Boy" sounds a bit colonial.

2006

• "2006 saw Murray compete on the full circuit... " - The Manual of Style says to avoid starting sentences with digits.

• "Murray won his opening match of '06" - Write the year like this: 2006. Wikipedia doesn't use the shorthand.

Other incidents

• Should "racket abuse" be linked or explained?

References

• Some of the citations are incomplete. Citation 3, for example, lacks the author's name, the date of publication, and the date of most recent access. All are available via the given URL.

• The date formatting in the citations should be consistent.

• Newspaper and magazine names should appear in italics. Citation 41 should be fixed, for example.

Layout

• It's best to avoid creating text sandwiches between images on opposite sides of the page. MOS:IMAGES has details.

• File:Australian Open 2010 Quarterfinals Nadal Vs Murray 3.jpg looks out of the page. When feasible, it's better to position directional images so that they face into the page. File:Andy murray cincy 2008.jpg also faces out. (This one might make a good lead image.)

Other

• The link checker at the top of this review page finds two dead links in the citations.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. Since I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments, if my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Inland Customs Line

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has recently been promoted to GA and wanted to know if there were any improvements people can suggest to it. I may one day take it to FAC (I'd like to fill out some of the red links first and the, perhaps understandable, reliance on one source may be a problem) but would appreciate if someone took a look at the prose first. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a truly fascinating article about a barrier I'd never heard of. Amazing. Most of my suggestions are related to prose and the Manual of Style. Overall, the article is quite good and has FA potential, though the heavy reliance on Moxham might be an obstacle. I can't help with the content or suggest any sources; I'm sure you've been looking.

Many thanks for such a thorough review. I'll work through your comments as I can and try to solve the problems you've pointed out, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Layout

• MOS:IMAGES suggests arranging the images in such a way that they do not overlap sections, displace heads or edit buttons, or create text sandwiches between them. The "Great Hedge" section has a text sandwich of about five lines on my computer screen. I think it could be fixed by moving the Indian Plum image down about five or six lines. There's another text sandwich in the "Legacy" section, and File:Marche sel.jpg displaces an edit button and obtrudes slightly into the "Rediscovery" section.

• I'd consider moving the image of Lord Lytton to the left-hand side of the page so that he looks into the article rather than out.

No-break codes

• I added quite a few no-break codes as I worked my way through the article. The codes hold logical groups like 25 rupees together so they won't be awkwardly separated by line-break on computer screens. I probably missed some, which you can fix if you see them. WP:NBSP explains the code.

Lead

• "These customs houses were eventually formed into a contiguous barrier... " - Would "continuous" be better?

Done - Dumelow (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Origins

• "This was due to the lack of a contiguous barrier, corruption within the customs staff and the westward expansion of Bengal towards salt-rich states.[8][7][9]" - The normal order for serial citations like this one is ascending; i.e., [7][8][9]. The article has quite a few of these groups that need re-arranging in ascending order.

I fixed all I saw, thanks - Dumelow (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Would "continuous" be better than "contiguous"?

Done - Dumelow (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Would it be helpful to briefly explain why salt was taxed as opposed to some other commodity? What was special about salt? What made it attractive to the taxing authorities as opposed to, say, water or income or rice or something else?

Great Hedge

• "The decision was made to abandon the hedge in 1879 in anticipation of that all maintenance work was halted in 1878." - The sentence doesn't make sense as written since it would be impossible in 1879 to anticipate something that had already happened. Would this better: "After maintenance work was halted in 1878, the hedge was abandoned in 1879"?

I have reworded this part - Dumelow (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Staff

• "the customs men carried out 18 million miles of patrols, dug 2 million cubic feet of earth and carried over 150,000 tons of thorny material for the hedge." - At least two of these quantities also need conversion to metric. The convert template will do them all, but 18,000,000 miles (29,000,000 km) may be awkward because of all the zeros, so maybe 18 million miles (29 million km) would be better. The cubic feet conversion is 2,000,000 cubic feet (57,000 m³). The tons are either metric tons or long tons, I assume, and probably don't need to be expressed in two forms since they are so close to the same.

Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The officers undertook at least one customs excursion per day on average, weighing almost 200 pounds (91 kg) of goods, in addition to personally patrolling around 9 miles (14 km) miles of the line." - I'm not sure what "customs excursion" means. Did the officers have to carry 200 pounds from one place to another?

I have (hopefully) clarified this now. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Abandonment

• "The small difference between the tax bands... " - Maybe "zones" instead of "bands"?

Reworded to make more sense - Dumelow (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Although the trans-Indus districts of India continued to be taxed at eight annas per maund until 23 July 1896 and Burma maintained its reduced rate of just three annas." - Not a complete sentence. Maybe just substitute "However," for "Although"?

Done - Dumelow (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• "eight annas" - Would it be helpful to express eight annas also as ½ rupee?

Yep, done - Dumelow (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Impact on smuggling

• "A large incident occurred in September 1877 when two customs men attempted to apprehend 112 smugglers and were both killed." - Slightly smoother might be: "A large incident occurred in September 1877 when two customs men attempting to apprehend 112 smugglers were both killed."

• "Many of the smugglers also died, with examples including one killed by his fellow smugglers in a fight with customs men and another drowning while trying to escape by swimming an irrigation tank." - "With" doesn't make a good conjunction. I'd suggest splitting this into two sentences: "Many of the smugglers also died. Examples include one who was killed by his fellow smugglers during a fight with customs men; another drowned while trying to escape by swimming an irrigation tank."

• "swimming an irrigation tank" - This is hard to imagine. Was he trying to hide in the tank? Surely he would run around it rather than swim across it if he was trying to escape.

Legacy

• "The line has been written of as an infringement on the principles of free trade and the freedom of the people who lived within it." - "It" at the end of this sentence seems to refer to "the line". Does it actually mean "the nation" or "India"?

Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

• The place of publication is missing from a few entries. If these places are not in your notes, you can usually find them via WorldCat.

Dabs

• The dab checker at the top of this review page finds two links in the main text that go to disambiguation pages instead of the intended target.

Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Licenses

• The license page for File:1stEarlOfNorthbrooke.jpg is missing the author information, the date of publication of the original, and the clickable link to the source is circular; it pops up the image but reveals nothing about the source. It would be good to fix the link so that image reviewers can make certain that the license is valid.

• The source link for File:John and Richard Strachey.jpg seems to be broken and might be fixable.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Marouane Chamakh

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think with a proper review, it is capable of becoming a good article.

Thanks, Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This looks generally good, well-organized, well-illustrated, and broad in coverage. The prose could still use a bit of polishing here and there, and I have a few other suggestions.

Infobox

• "National team caps and goals correct as of 17:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)" - This seems unnecessarily precise. I would delete the exact hour of the update.

Overlinking

• It's generally unnecessary to link terms more than once in the lead and once in the main text. More than that is distracting. In the lead alone, for example, Morocco National football team is linked twice, as in Arsenal. Arsenal is linked at least two times in the main text. Angola is linked three times in the "International goals" table, and other terms are linked multiple times in this table.

Layout

• Three consecutive directional images beginning with File:Marouane Chamakh.jpg look out of the page rather than in. Generally, directional images look better if facing into the page. MOS:IMAGES has details.

Lead

• Since the lead is to be a summary of the main text, I think you should add something about Chamakh's captaincy of the Morocco team to the "International career" section. Or am I just not seeing it?

• "on a free transfer after agreeing to a four-year contract" - Link "free transfer" to Free transfer (football)?

Bordeaux

• "Upon his arrival to the club, Chamakh was inserted into the club's youth academy and began attending high school, with early ambitions of earning a Baccalauréat in accounting, which he later accomplished." - Slightly too complex. Suggestion: "Upon his arrival, Chamakh was inserted into the club's youth academy and began attending high school. He hoped to earn a baccalauréat in accounting, which he later accomplished."

• "The team was coached by Jean-Louis Garcia and Chamakh was involved heavily in team's campaign appearing in 17 matches and scoring six goals as the team finished first in their group, thus earning promotion to the Championnat de France amateur." - Too complex. Suggestion: "Chamakh was involved heavily in the campaign of the team, coached by Jean-Louis Garcia. He appeared in 17 matches and scored six goals as the team finished first in their group, thus earning promotion to the Championnat de France amateur." I should add that I'm not sure whether this means the whole team was promoted or that just Chamakh was promoted.

• "after incurring a second yellow" - Link "yellow" to the appropriate page?

• "Chamakh finished the campaign with 14 total appearances with all his appearances being as a substitute." - Repetition of "appearance". Suggestion: "Chamakh appeared in 14 games, always as a substitute, during the campaign." Or something like that.

• finish since ending the league campaign in 16^th - These "th" endings should be changed from superscript to regular type; i.e., 16th. I changed a few but not quite all.

• "Under manager Laurent Blanc, Chamakh struggled to earn meaningful minutes in the 2007–08 season with Blanc preferring new signing David Bellion." - "With" doesn't make a good conjunction, and I noticed these here and there in the article. It's easy to make them more clear by re-casting the sentence. Suggestion: "Under manager Laurent Blanc, Chamakh struggled to earn meaningful minutes in the 2007–08 season because Blanc preferred David Bellion, a new recruit."

• "He began the season claiming his fifth silverware" - Should "silverware" be linked or briefly explained?

• "advanced to the semi-finals on the aggregate scoreline" - Should "aggregate scoreline" be linked or explained?

Career statistics

• "As of 8 January 2011[1][52][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]" - This string of citations will not be very helpful to someone who wants to check the sources for verification of the claims or to find out more about a particular item. Which citation matches which claim? You might solve this problem by adding a "Notes" column to the table and placing the citation for each row in the Notes box at the end of the row. Just a thought. There are no doubt other solutions.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. Since I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments, if my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Lindenwood University

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there has been considerable work done to this article by myself and a few other editors over the past 6 months to a year. I think it is getting close to a GA but open to ideas to improve the article even more. Thanks, Bhockey10 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: More detailed comments will follow, but here are two areas for immediate attention:-

• Several links to disambiguation pages are revealed by the toolbox to the right of these notes.
• A number of your reference links are dead: 2, 8, 18, 41.
• Ref 7: I cannot find the reference title on the linked page.

  I still can't locate the article on the source page. How do I find it? Also, I prefer to do my own strikes. Brianboulton (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I misread that comment, the ref was an old ref not cited correctly that I fixed, But now I see after clicking the link, it might be a dead link. I could not find any reference to the fairly trivial pop culture info and since the Ref 7 was impro/a proper link to the article was never given form years ago. Since we really don't even know if it ever existe, I just trimmed the trivial info and found a new article from a major newpaper for the other important/notable info in that paragraph.

As far as strikes: My opinion, and I’ve seen done before: esp in rapidly changing collaborative work areas/to-do lists, is for editors to strike out as they go to make things easier for other editors see what has been done and what still needs to be done. However, this is my first peer review and after seeing your extensive credentials for featured articles and good article nominations you're probably the person to ask for peer review etiquette. Bhockey10 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You can write "Done" against points which you believe you have addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The above should be fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, that toolbox is a wonder! Everything on that list is has now been fixed. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

General review comments: I have not carried out a prose check, as I believe there are some basic issues with the article that need addressing first:-

References

Around two-thirds of the 90-odd citations in the article are to primary sources - sources directly connected in one way or another to Lindenwood itself. I appreciate that you have made an effort to cite local newspapers and other sources, and that some references to the college's own material is inevitable, but a two-thirds ratio is high, and leads to questions about the article's neutral POV.

Reply from Bhockey10: As I've been working on this article getting it closer to GA status I've been following the format of WP:UNI and the university related GA. It seems like most GA university articles have lots of references from the university. While those references don't establish notablity (particularly with stubs) it just depends on what the ref is, promotional info is not good but most in this article and other university GA cites info that is relevant and needs citations. This also seems to be a trend for medium, large, and small universities for example, See: East Carolina University, Syracuse University Saint Anselm College.

Also I did a quick rough count and counted 48 refs to non-university sources, 44 for university related sources so not sure where your "two-thirds" came from. That ratio should decrease when the notable alumni section is properly sourced adding more outside references. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I count 51 citations to the university's website and another 14 to related sites, mainly The Legacy. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about it as long as the information is written in neutral form, and like I pointed out a few examples of the many university related GAs that have similar ratios, some even more. As far as newspapers, there's been various discussions about student newspapers being used as sources. At least for American colleges, student newspapers are independent of the university. Most if not all are run by students and not directly connected to the university- i.e. freedom of press to publish whatever news they see fit, not forced to publish stories about the school. Essentially they are like small town papers- with a reach of populations about 10-50,000 (depending on school size). Many have a disclaimer on their webpages and in print that read something like, "Opinions and comments in this paper does not reflect ______ university." Bhockey10 (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead needs to be expanded so that it is a concise summary of the whole article, rather than a brief introduction to Lindenwood.
  • You have expanded. Now you need to organise the material a little more tidily. Six very short paragraphs is contrary to WP:LEAD. You should try to merge these into, say, three paragraphs. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Specific information like the Doctor of Education program should be in the body of the article rather than the lead.
• Information cited in the main article does not need to be cited in the lead.

Done

History

• The "Early history" subsection is inadequate. There is virtually no information given after 1827 before we are in modern times. If this is "the second oldest higher-education institution west of the Mississippi River and the fastest growing university in the Midwest since 1990", one would expect there to be some account of what happened in its firat 150 years. An article in the alumni publication cannot be the only available source of information on the college's history.

Done

• Comments such as "By 1989, Lindenwood College was in trouble" are journalistic rather than encyclopedic, as is " the school was nearly broke." In fact the style of the whole "Recent history" subsection, with its very short paragraphs, reads like journalism. Also, statements such as those in the third paragraph require citations.
• Done: reworded journalisic sounding sections, removed short third paragraph couldn't find any news on it so either trivial or possible vandalism.
  • We still have "By 1989, Lindenwood College was in trouble" and "nearly broke". Also, this section is again in a style using multiple very short paragraphs that could be merged to improve the flow.Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I did find sources on that sentense, But the lightbulb just came on, that does sound journalistic because "broke" is up for interpretation, your idea of broke might be different from mine. So I think I'll just reword it to something like "By 1989, Lindenwood College was low on monetary resources, had low enrollement, and in danger of closing." Bhockey10 (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Levels of detail

In some of the sections that follow, the level of detail is more akin to what one would expect in a brochure. For example, "The university maintains a strict policy for visitation in residence halls. In addition the university prohibits alcoholic beverages on campus" is Brochure information. Other times we have what I would describe as trivia. For example, I doubt if http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stcharles/article_4adb7cfd-bc42-504c-a465-ed3c108d69f2.html should be treated as a reliable encyclopedic source, or whether the "haunting" story is worth including.

Done: I just removed the trivial/"brochure"-type sentence. I cleaned up the wording and moved the info on alcohol to the main campus section. Personally I feel that is notable info to include rather than trivial because it is unique to Lindenwood as most mid-large American universities allow alcohol consumption on campus.

Reply from Bhockey10: In regards to the haunting, it might seem trivial to you, myself, and some others. However to Wikipedia users that have an interest in paranormal activity parts of the campus are highly active with haunting. And from skimming through the topic, one of the most haunted places in the state.

Lists

The article gets increasingly listy as we go on. In general, lists within the text are not a good idea, and sometimes the information is unnecessary - do we really need to know the individual names of the 19 halls of residence? As a general rule, short lists should be converted to prose, long lists either included in tables or included at the end of the article.

Done: turned into prose.

Student life section

• A number of statements, including whole paragraphs, are uncited.
• The use of boldface for emphasis ic contrary to WP:MOS

Done: doublechecked paragraphs/cited. removed boldface/listy section turned into prose.

Notable alumni

What criteria were used to decide if someone is "notable"? Apart from the first-nmaed I see no citations; is this your own list? If so it might be considered original research. If you have based it on reference books or someone else's listing, there should be citations to these sources.

Done: The alumni list is from WP:UNI guidelines, "Individuals who do not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline should not be included only."

External links

Cited sources, e.g. the university's website, should not be listed as External link

Done: There was too many links, and those were removed, however, the main website is perfectly fine to include in external links.

The article is, in my view, somewhat short of being a GA at the moment, but there is no reason why it should not get there. Please contact me via my talkpage when you are ready for me to take another look. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks again for the peer review, it seems like many of your comments are fairly picky which is good because they're more minor format changes (such as turning lists into prose) and other wording fixes. It's good there's not anything drastically wrong. If you have anymore comments they are welcomed, it probably the closest article I've worked on getting to GA status and I'm hopeful with some more work and TLC it will get there. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

General note: There are big improvements over what I saw a few days back; in particular I was pleased to see what you had done with the History section and with the reduction of lists. Please note the few comments I have made, above, which I ecommend you act on. I a somewhat out of date in my knowledge as to what constitutes a GA these days, but I can fairly say I've seen many worse than this sporting the GA logo. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for all your help and hardwork! I agree there's worse GAs, for example many of those listy sections are still in other university GAs, something I will look for, and fix on those articles in the future. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  

---

List of fatal bear attacks in North America

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is a solid list, and would like to know how else it can be improved. I have sourced every entry completely, found new entries, copyedited the descriptions, and expanded the lead. I've never gone for featured list before, and would like to be prepared.

Thank you, CutOffTies (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is an unusual list, interesting in a rather macabre fashion. I do however have a number of questions:-

• Why does the list begin with the 1870s? There must have been bear attacks before then. The reason for beginning the list from that point in time should be given in the lead, and reflected in the title, e.g. "List of fatal bear attacks in North America since 1870".

• • I realize the ambiguity regarding completeness it is a bit unusual for an encyclopedia article, and this is one of the reasons I'm bringing the article to Peer Review.
  • I collected all the documented instances I could find. There are a lot of different ways to modify the article to fit this. Perhaps it should start with the title. One thing I'm thinking of is limiting it to since the 20th century. The few entries in the 19th century don't have the strongest cites, and I see little potential for growth there, even though there were surely many fatal attacks before the 20th century. After I receive the journal article mentioned in the next paragraph, I will be confident that the list of documented attacks since the 20th century will be complete.

• You say this is a list of "known" fatal attacks by bears. Although you don't specifically say it, "known" implies "all known". Known by whom? Is there some central register that records these instances (I guess not, since you would have used it as a source)? So I am curious to know what was the basis of your research, how you located these press reports, and how you can substantiate the assertion that these are the "known" attacks - might there not be other press reports of other attacks that you have not located?

• • Obviously, this relates to my previous answer. I gathered most of the entries simply by doing exhaustive searching on google news archive and a library database. I also have a book by an expert in the field of bear attacks, Stephen Herrero. I've e-mailed him, and he told me that a soon to be published academic journal will have an complete list
  • "known" is most likely a bad word choice. Do you think "documented" is better?
  • Also, there's an "incomplete" list template that can appear at the top of the list, but I don't think that applies here, though I could see an argument as to why it should.

• I did some copyedits in the lead (which you have since large rewritten). Some of the prose explanations in the tables look in need of attention. For example:-
  • "pieces of a culvert" is odd terminology; "sections", perhaps?
• "The bear was trapped and tranquilized hours before, as part of a Grizzly Bear research team." Doesn't make sense.
• "After a bear got injured..." Ugly; "was injured"
• "After Lavoie didn't return to her cabin..." Don't use contractions ("failed to return")

These are a few examples. A thorough trawl through the prose is suggested.

• • Thank you, weak copy is my downfall, and I will put more work into this.

• For clarity, I would head the first two columns of each Table: "Victim's name, age, gender"; and "Date of attack". In the tables for the 1870s and 1880s "date" should read "year".

• • Good suggestions, thank you.

• The list would benefit from the use of images. Among those you could use are File:Polar Bear - Alaska.jpg, File:Canadian Rockies - the bear at Lake Louise.jpg, and File:Brown bear.jpg.

• • I don't want to use generic bear images, because this is a list about attacks. Very few bears attack humans. Murderer wouldn't use a generic image of a human being, correct? If I had an image of a bear who was involved in an attack, I would post it, but those are difficult to access.
  • I did complete work on this map, Template:Fatal Bear Attacks in Canada.. I plan on doing the same thing for the United States. Distinguishing wild/domestic attacks was important for me. I welcome your comments on images, as I realize this is another ambiguous issue with this list.

• Ref 98 ("He's bullish on bears") shows as a dead link on the checker tool, but I ws able to access it OK.
• Finally, you should ensure that your text does not represent too close a paraphrase of source texts, thus risking copyright violations. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.

As I am not able to watch peer reviews, please leave a message on my talkpage if you want to raise any issues with me arising from this review, or if you want me to look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hokeman comments: I created this article in 2006; and will try to use this space to respond to some of the questions Brianboulton has raised, as well as express some of my own thoughts. This was the second creation of five lists (Shark, Bear, Alligator, Cougar, Snake) relating to fatal animal attacks in North America or the USA. My intent in creating the first, List of fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in the United States, was to provide users a centralized, concise summary of what, when, where and how these attacks happened. This article, in particular, has benefitted from some terrific collaboration from many Wikipedians; none has contributed more than User:CutOffTies, who deserves special recognition. Well done.

The article begins around 1870 bacause that is probably the earliest attack for which information is readily available. Information on attacks that occurred in recent years in places like Yellowstone or Glacier NP's is generally readily available. Much harder to find is information on attacks in remote areas and/or that happened a long time ago.

With respect to the "known" paragraph, I don't know of any other central register. That was one of my goals in creating this article. I just started by googling phrases such as 'fatal bear attack', which led to articles. Sometimes, I would find a information about more than one attack in a source. Once I had names, dates, etc. I could find more information.

As far as putting photos in the article, I'm not sure what would be appropriate or not in poor taste. Maybe a photo of a bear in Yellowstone or Glacier NP.--Hokeman (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments:

• If as stated above, an academic journal is shortly to publish a complete list, it makes sense to defer work on this article until such a list is produced.
• While I understand your point about images, I don't think the analogy is altogether sound. We all know what humans look like, but not everybody knows exactly what bears look like, though we have some vague ideas. However, this is a point for you to decide. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  

---

Tintin in the Land of the Soviets

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's recently been revamped with new information taken from good published sources, and has had two new images included. Peer review being a necessary step before requesting featured article status, it is here that I have first turned.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments: It's very nice to see how the article has been developed recently, very well done! I hope that you will improve more articles about Tintin albums in the future! 85.11.25.101 (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to have any references in the plot summery, it is given that this section refers the work itself. You may keep the citation for the quote, but specify the exact page it is on.

Comments from Arthur Holland

Never done a peer review before, so apologies if any of the following is questionable/just plain wrong.

Looks well referenced, well balanced, covers the controversial aspects of the work, Herge's embarrasment, political background.

Criticisms I do have are fairly minor:

• Language could use polishing:

• "ran the newspaper that Le Petit Vingtième was a supplement to, the right wing Roman Catholic weekly, Le XXe Siècle." little bit awkward
• "The two would soon meet the following year" - tautological

• Some grammar issues:

• "attempts to kill Tintin by trying to slip him over a banana skin"
• "he finally allowed for an official reprint"

• Is "Tintinologist" a valid term, or at least formal enough for an encyclopedia? And if it is, I think it's overused: "Tintinologist Harry Thompson" only needs to be introduced as such the first time.
• I think the plot summary is a little too long and detailed as per WP:PLOTSUM.
• Is four columns for the refs is a bit much
• Was there any backlash from the USSR/Communist groups? Nothing is mentioned.
• Maybe put one of the images on the left for balance?

Arthur Holland (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Morgan dollar

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in feedback from more outside editors, especially those who aren't interested in coins to any special extent. Since I like to read about coins, I have to be careful to make sure that anything I write is not overly detailed. The article is currently my first and only GA, of which I am very proud, but I hope to elevate it to FA eventually. Many thanks to all prospective reviewers for your time spent looking over this article!-RHM22 (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from ​​Niagara

• "...4,500,000 ounces of silver..."
  • Is there a suitable metric unit the number can be converted to in addition to ounces? Also, I might mention which ounce specifically (I believe it should be troy ounce because it involves silver).
• Generally, you are allowed to link a word once in the lead and again in the first instance it's used in the body of the article.

Background

• "In 1873, Congress enacted the Fourth Coinage Act. The act effectively ended the bimetallic standard in the United States by demonetizing silver."
  • Combined sentences, also you may want to link "bimetallic standard" to Bimetallism: "In 1873 Congress enacted the Fourth Coinage Act, which effectively ended the bimetallic standard in the United States by demonetizing silver."
• "The act also ended the production of the standard silver dollar, though authorizing trade dollars which were officially demonitized the following year."
  • Moved phrase: "The act also ended the production of the standard silver dollar, which were officially demonitized the following year—though it authorized the use of trade dollars."
• "Protests also came from bankers, manufacturers and farmers."
  • Why?

Design history

• Is it possible to trim some of those really long quotations?

Production

• "Pressure was so great that the Philadelphia Mint halted production of all other coins and began operating overtime."
  • Reworded: "Pressure was so great at the Philadelphia Mint that it halted production of all other coins and began operating overtime."

Sherman Silver Purchase Act

• "In June of 1893, President Grover Cleveland called a special session of Congress. Cleveland, who believed that the Panic of 1893 was caused by the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, called the session in order to repeal it."
  • Redundant; mrged sentences: "In June 1893, President Grover Cleveland, who believed that the Panic of 1893 was caused by the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, called a special session of Congress in order to repeal it."

Pittman Act

• Out of curiousity, why were the silver dollars melted down and new ones minted, instead of keeping the old dollars and selling the silver that would have been used in the new ones?

Treasury release, General Services Administration sales and legacy

• While I know what "1904–S" indicates, other might not; I mention's that it was a dollar from 1904 with a mintmark of S, which indicates it was made at the San Francisco mint (or something to that effect).

Neat article! I have one of those dollars. Shouldn't be too difficult to get an FA, but if you wish, look at Shield nickel for a good model to follow. Consider reviewing an article in the backlog, which is how I found yours. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 04:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise and the excellent review! I believe I've addressed all of your concerns, except for the trade dollar suggestion. I can't add that sentence, as it's not technically correct. The trade dollars were demonetized shortly after authorization, but standard dollars never were. To answer your question about the Pittman Act, I don't actually know for sure. My guess would be that there was probably not enough bullion on hand to satisfy the demand of the British, so coins had to be melted down. It could have also had something to do with silver miners, who decided that they could get more for their silver from the Mint if they had to be coined into dollars than if they sent it to the British. This is just speculation, though. Thanks again for the great review!-RHM22 (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the provision about minting a replacement for every dollar melted was definitely a result of mining interests. The country had absolutely no need or desire for silver dollars, so no one would have noticed if the melted ones weren't replaced. The silver interests were huge back then.-RHM22 (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the trade dollars, if I'm misinterpreting what is being said then others will too. How I read the sentence is essentially "The act also ended the production of the standard silver dollar... ...which were officially demonitized the following year." and that the phrase "though authorizing trade dollars" (because it was surrounded by commas) could thus be ommitted. I'd try to make it clearer that while trade dollars were authorized, they were the ones demonitized. How about this: "The act also ended the production of the standard silver dollar, but authorized the use of trade dollars—although those were officially demonitized the following year." ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 20:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned that sentence, because I actually had the fact wrong! I don't know how I made such a huge error, but trade dollars weren't actually demonetized until 1876. I fixed it now, so it should be ok. I reworded it too. A mistake like that could have caused a lot of confusion later.-RHM22 (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help. It reads much better now. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Romania in the Middle Ages

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, upon the suggestion of User:Tim riley, I would like to try to bring it to FAC status. Reviews from other editors who are interested in the history of this part of the world would be very helpful. Moreover, I am not a native English speaker. Therefore I am sure that the article needs some improvement in this regard, too. Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley I reviewed and promoted this article at GA stage. I shall be happy to join in this peer review, but in the circumstances I think I should give other reviewers first shot at it. Tim riley (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article summarizes a huge amount of data of a certain sort and must have involved a great deal of work. I know little about the history of Romania (except a little from the 20th century), and it would be good if a content expert also commented. However, I can make suggestions about prose and style issues and give my general impressions.

• As huge as this article is, it struck me as narrow, and I wonder if it needs a different title, something like "Military and Political History of Romania in the Middle Ages". It is limited mainly to major political and military events and does not seem to me to be a comprehensive account of Romania in the Middle Ages. It may be that sources for details about other kinds of things are scarce or non-existent, but I couldn't help wondering as I read this how people lived in these times and places. Missing from this account is data about ordinary life, food, work, domestic arrangements, entertainment, customs, dress, child-rearing, shelter, transportation, and so on. What I really do not get from this article is any sense of what life was like for anybody who lived in Romania in the Middle Ages. Did it make any difference to most people who the rulers were?

First of all, thank you for your comments. Your hard work clearly contributes to the further improvement of the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Although a consensus seems to exist within WP community, that the "History of..." articles describe mainly the major political and military events of a cerain territory (e.g., History of Lithuania (1219–1295), History of Poland (1945–1989)), I agree that some more emphasize should be made on the features of social and economic development. Therefore, I will try to add some further information to the existing ones. Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• I would try to make the heads and subheads more telegraphic. For example, "From Mongol invasion to emergence of the Ottoman Empire (1242–1396)" could become "Mongols to Ottomans (1242–1396)", and "Confines Tartarorum: the westernmost borderlands of the Golden Horde" could become "Golden Horde".

 Done - alternative solution (the westernmost position of the territory within the Golden Horde is significant, Mongols to Ottomans would be misleading, taking into account the next head in the article). Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "At the end of the 8th century... ". - Addition of a no-break code prevents numbers and units from being awkwardly separated by line-break on computer screens. I added one to 8th century, but many others need to be added throughout the article. WP:NBSP has details.

 Done

• Wikipedia uses double quotation marks of the straight kind rather than single marks of the curly kind; i.e., "counties" and "seats". Ditto for other instances of single quotes in the article. Wherever they occur, the double curly quotes should also be changed to straight quotation marks. WP:MOS#Quotation marks has details.

 Done Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• The dab tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds three links in the main text that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

 Done (the Medieval Greek expression or link which is still marked as an existing link going to disambiguation pages is not included in the article, that is I have not been able to find it.) Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• "The counts in Transylvania were subordinated to a special royal official called voivode... " - I'm not sure what "count" refers to in this context. The link goes to Župa#"Ispán" in Kingdom of Hungary, but that doesn't help much. By "counts" do you mean counties or subdivisions of counties or something else? Are "counts" another kind of official, for example?

 Done (I hope) Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The first independent Romanian state, Wallachia, was created when Basarab I (c. 1310–1352) terminated the suzerainty... " - Link suzerainty on first use? I think many readers will not know what it means.

 Done Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Background

• I think it might be useful to insert a map of the region at this point in the narrative. This might not include political boundaries but would need to show the rivers and mountains named in this section. That would give the reader a grasp on the size of the region and the natural boundaries that come into play in migrations and the formation of territories.

 Done - two physical maps and a map of the historical regions of Romania have been added. Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• "A specially appointed royal official, called voivode, who were to become the principal of Transylvanian counts, was first attested in 1176." - Here again I am not sure what is meant by "counts".

 Done (see above, in the Lead) Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The number of casualties has been disputed, but even the most prudent estimates do not go below 15 or 20 percent." - Should "of the total population" be added to the end of this sentence?

 Done Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Rather than adding a "See also" link to the bottom of this section, I'd suggest linking "their invasion" in the last sentence of the section to Mongol invasion of Europe.

 Undone - the "see also" items are necessery in order to emphasize the importance of the topic. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Banat, Crişana, Maramureş and Transylvania

• I would suggesting working the "see also" items at the end of this section into the main text as wikilinks.

 Undone - as per above comment Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Establishment of Wallachia

• Same comment as above about the "see also" items.

 Undone - as per above comment Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Establishment of Moldavia

• "who crossed the Carpathians while hunting an aurochs" - Link aurochs?

 Done Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The territorial unification of Moldavia had been completed by the reign of Roman I Muşat (1391–1394)." - I would alter this to straight past tense, "was" instead of "had been" and merge this sentence (an orphan one-sentence paragraph) with the paragraph above it.

 Done Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Same comment as above about the "see also" items.

 Undone - as per above comment Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Banat, Crişana, Maramureş and Transylvania

• "thus a vast number of the dwarf-holders" - I don't think "dwarf-holders" is the actual term. Do you mean small land-holders, perhaps?

 Done Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1514 ten thousands of peasants" - It's not clear whether this means 10,000 or "tens of thousands".

 Done Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Same comment about the "see also" items.

 Undone - as per above comment Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wallachia

• Same comment about the "see also" items.

 Undone - as per above comment Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'll stop at this point with my line-by-line comments and small proofing changes. However, it would be a good idea to have a copyeditor go through the article one more time to look for small errors in grammar and syntax in the lower sections. I did not find a lot of these in the upper sections, but some were scattered here and there, and I assume there are more. I fixed the ones I noticed, including replacing many hyphens with en dashes in page ranges and date ranges.

References

• The bibliographical data should include the place of publication as well as the publisher. If you don't have this information in your notes, you can usually find it via WorldCat.

 Undone The bibliographical data always include all the relevant data that are necessery to identify the referred sources and to decide whether they are reliable (author, year of issue, title, publisher, ISBN). The place or places of publication are not necessary for these purposes, therefore including this piece of information would not add any further value. Borsoka (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Images

• File:Siège de Nicopolis.jpg should be moved up a bit to prevent it from overlapping two sections. MOS:IMAGES has details.

• If you decide to take this to FAC at some point, all of the image licenses will be examined closely. It's wise to check all of these ahead of time to make sure the image-description pages are as complete and accurate as possible. Spot-checking, I see that File:Tara Moldovei map.png does not say where the base map came from or what reliable source supports the information on the map. File:StefancelMare.jpg is tagged with a "lacks author information" note. File:Pilatusdracula.jpg looks fine, but File:Siège de Nicopolis.jpg has a "lacks author information" tag. All of the image-description pages need to be checked to make sure they are OK.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I note Finetooth's comment about copy editing. I shall be happy to do this if nobody else wishes to take it on. By all means remind me in a day or two if nobody does. Tim riley (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

---

TUGS

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article has developed well on the topic and would like a review for the possibility to nominate it for a Featured Article in future.

Thanks, Victory93 (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A lot of work has gone into this article, but it is at present some way off being of FA quality, or even GA. Here are some areas for further attention.

• Two disambiguation links revealed by toolbox (upper right on this review page)
• First impression: rather listy, not a lot of text (1070 words). The organisation looks clumsy, with for example "Airing" and "Airing History" as two separate main (level-2) sections. Some of the other sections are too brief at present to warrant a section to themselves.
• The lead is not informative enough. For example, I shouldn't have to rummage through the infobox to discover that the series was aired on ITV. I think too much emphasis has benn given to making the infobox as informative as possible, when the emphasis should be on the article; the infobox should be brief and limited to essential facts.
• Several sections appear in bullet point format. The "Airing History" section is both bullet-pointed and telegraphic, using graphic symbols instead of text. These sections should all be presented in normal prose form.
• The Synopsis looks very thin for a 13-episode series, and should be fleshed out to give a clearer picture of the stories within the series. There is no such word as "sabotagery" (just "sabotage"). The section is not actually a plot synopsis; it is mainly a series of unattributed comments. For example, whose view is it that the series "was considerably darker in tone than many other children's television programmes"? Likewise "The characters' dialogue, too, was somewhat mature for a children's series..." The information in the two short subsections within "Cast and Characters" is really synopsis information.
• Cast and characters: rather chaotic organisation here. Too many main article links (one link to each of the two lists is sufficient); the image is awkwardly positioned - it squeezes the text - and would be more effective elsewhere; the two tables do not seem connected to the rest of the section; as already stated, the text is not really appropriate to this section. I recommend replacing the whole section with a single table devoted to the main characters in the series, with columns headed: Character; Voice actor (English); Voice actor (Japanese). You can rely on the links to the main articles for all detailed information.
• There is no information in the article about how the series was received. What was the public's reaction to it? What did the critics say? What information do we have on viewer figures?
• Prose: I haven't done a full prose check, but I have noticed a few problems, e.g. "would've"; "TVS who was in charge of producing the series, went bankrupt which halted the series from being produced"; "heavily edited footage aired later as part of American children's series Salty's Lighthouse, which aired in 1997" - (awkward repetition)
• File:Tugs000111.jpg has an inadequate fair use rationale.
• I have not gone through the sources in detail, but there seem to be very few independent sources - nearly all are directly related to the programme.

I hope these comments are helpful. As I am not watching individual peer reviews, please contact me via my talkpage if you wish to discuss any points, or if you want me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Malmö FF

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how I need to improve this article so that it is ready for FAC. It wasn't too long ago that the article was peer reviewed and shortly after that the article passed GAN. The reason I'm nominating it so soon after the latest Peer Review is that I need suggestions on how to further improve the article for FAC now that it is a good article. I believe it is a great article with reliable sources and not many problems. Please help me improve this article.

Thanks, Reckless182 (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

knowIG Review

Automated review shows that captions should be consice. They look ok to me but that maybe something to look at.

MOS with dates flagged as somewhere although I can't see it you have 13th Januray etc apparently. But again i can't see it but you may want to check

Also flagged to many sections. Could you merge squad, hierachy, and tech staff into one section called, Current staff and then break down into a section?

Move notable players and managers into one section: notable people and move it up to come after the current staff.

Possibley put results, honors and seasons in to one section and have sub sections. Can I point out, what is the point of the separate honours page as it is exactly the same as the list apart from having 1 friendly tournie listed. Also do you really need to list the double. Either remove it or just write a sentence stating Malmo have done the league and cup double 7 times.

That should shrink it down

Swedish league, Allsvenskan three. Comma after league name needed.

Allsvenskan, as they have done for the majority of their seasons.. Scrub majority move the 2010 champs and write reigning champs.

Puncuation needed in captions, missing full stops at the end of sentences, some you have put in others you have missed.

Prose does need on, but will come back to that. KnowIG (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

'Note I see your having trouble with an IP. Unfortunatly you'll have to wait for the IP to stop being distruptive and for the page to settle down before going for FA, as it will fail because of the distruption. KnowIG (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Reckless 182 response

• I looked at a featured football club article: Aston Villa F.C. and took their example and merged notable players with current squad and out on loan to call it "Players". I merged notable managers with club hierarchy and technical staff to call it "Management". This has made the article more easier to read and the index more friendly to the eye.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• I fail to see how the doubles in honour section is a problem. A featured football club article, Manchester United F.C., also lists this in honours. I will look into the image captions, the date format and the individual sentences.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• I don't think the image captions will be a problem for FA, I compared to Arsenal F.C., Manchester United F.C. and Aston Villa F.C. where longer captions can be found. I also looked at the date format but couldn't find the specific problem, I did correct another one though.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Individual sentences fixed as well as image caption punctuation.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Continued

I made a small edit to the opening paragraph cause it sounded better.

were founded by nineteen young players on February 24, 1910, and initially played at Malmö IP. However, the history removed by young. Don't start with however. It should be The history of the club, however, rest of sentence

Scanian regional competitions. Think the s is not needed here.

rival Helsingborgs IF; the game was lost 3–4.[8] The club also defeated local rival IFK Malmö three times during the season and thus earned the unofficial but much desired title of Malmö's best football club. Now on tennis which is what I specialise in we've had issues with the word rival as it means anyone or any team you play. Of course IFK are alright to be referred as this but IF, don't think so unless the source states it.

The club earned a place in Division 2 Sydsvenska Serien. They won this division and were promoted to Svenska Serien Västra, the highest tier in Sweden at the time. However, they were relegated after one year in this division, and found themselves back in Sydsvenska Serien until they finally achieved promotion to the highest tier in Swedish football, Allsvenskan, in 1931 The club were awarded a sport in the second divison, syd ser. Malmo won this division on debut (is it or did they wait a few seasons, if later ignore debut) and were promoted to... In their debut in the top flight, Malmo however, were relegated to Sydsvenska serien, where they stayed until they achieved promotion to the rest of what is already written is fine.

The club achieved respectable league positions in two seasons, but in 1934 they were relegated as a penalty for breaking amateur regulations. The club had paid their players a small sum of money for each game. Although against the rules, this was common at the time; however Malmö FF were the only club to show it in their accounting records. In addition to relegation back to Division 2, the club suffered bans for the entire board and twenty-six players. The unofficial version of events suggests that local rival IFK Malmö reported the violation to the Swedish Football Association. The belief in IFK Malmös's involvement has contributed to the long-standing rivalry between the clubs

Remove respectable as that is arguable what do you call it etc. Write the Club avoided relgation for two seasons, but in 1934 were relgated for breaking league rules around amateur players. Malmo broke the rules by paying small sums of money each game to their players. the entire Malmo board and all of its squad recieved bans. Involvment in the matter. Just improves it a bit I think

After two years of positions in the lower part of the league, in 1939 the club reached their highest position yet, third place in Allsvenskan,. Subjective and a bit werid. Remove After etc and start with In 1939.

the club won 2–1 in the next to last game against AIK in front. Won their penultimate game of the season against AIK, 2-1

This resulted in Swedish Championships. The club won the....

The club started the 1960s with a young team and achieved fairly good league positions. Remove this possibley

an incredible 28 goals to win the goal scorer league. Scrap incredible, write twenty eight goals to finish as the league's top goal scorer.

After finishing as runners up for the last two years of the 1960s, Malmö FF started the most successful decade of their history with a Swedish Championship in 1970. In the 1970s the club won Allsvenskan in 1970, In addition to the 1970 triumph, the club also won Allsvenskan in...

, West Germany (present day Germany) Feel that the (present day Germany) is a bit crass and is not needed.

Trevor Francis scored the only goal of the match winning it 1–0 for Nottingham. Trevor Francis scored the only goal of the match as Forrest won the title 1-0.

Nevertheless the 1979 final is the most significant moment in the history of Malmö FF. Sounds POV and OR to me.

ordinary season. Regular season.

Nevertheless the 1980s are regarded as a very successful period for Malmö FF. Again!

confirming it as the darkest moment in the history of the club. Debatable. Being relegated for cheeting would be darker.

Malmö FF have in many ways reflected the multi-cultural nature of the city of Malmö. In 1990, defender Jean-Paul Vondenburg became the first black player playing for the Swedish national football team, in a game against the United Arab Emirates.[20] In 1998, midfielder/striker Yksel Osmanovski became the first Muslim player for Sweden, when Sweden lost 1–0 to the USA[21] POV and rather trival in a way.

The results for the next few years disappointed fans hoping to see the club finishing at the top of the table. POV.

Again records and honours do they really need a separte section.

Anyways thats my review, if the sources state the POV things then fine if not remove or reword. If I GA'd reviewd this I would be edgey to pass because of the POV, but you have a good article if you tighten it up and who knows what will happen at FAC. KnowIG (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Reckless 182 additional response
I have done some copyediting, reworded some sentences and deleted some. I agree with you for the majority of your concerns but I have decided to keep some. The article has been trough a thorough copyedit process by a member of Wikipedia:COPYEDITORS so I do believe that it is fine. Regarding the POV issues, I reworded the sentence about the darkest moment but kept the others for now. The source for these statements is the official book written for the 100 years celebration of the club and is a good reference for the clubs history. No Malmö FF would argue against the statements made about the 1979 final being the biggest moment and the 1980s being very successful (5 league wins in a row, how is that debatable?). For the sentence about multi culture, I believe the sentence should be kept, the club is very well known for this and these two players symbolize that fact. For the honours and records sections I could perhaps do another arrangement of some kind to make it look better, I will look into this.--Reckless182 (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

About the records and honours sections, I decided to merge them and to have the specific records on a seperate article as many other football club articles already have. Layoutwise I think the article looks really good as it is right now. Perhaps I will merge some minor articles into the records and statistics article but thats not discuss here right now. If you do have any additional comments please share, if not I believe we can conclude this peer review.--Reckless182 (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously I'm not Swedish nor am I a fan of Malmo, so I don't have the book sources. So for me good article since you say everything implied is from a book. I have nothing else to add good luck in the FAC KnowIG (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

---