Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other. Nominators are strongly encouraged to make use of the peer review volunteers page, which lists users who are willing to be contacted on their user talk pages for review participation. Active Wiki projects or the revision history of related articles may also be consulted to find editors to help with review. For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback. For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment. |
The path to a featured article |
Nomination procedure Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments. Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor. Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since any previous peer review or unsuccessful FAC. For more information on these limits see here. To add a nomination:
Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests. Note. You may change a topic parameter in the {{Peer review page|topic= X}} template. The possible topic parameters (X in the template) are:
|
How to remove (or close) a request In accordance with the peer review request removal policy, you may close any
as follows:
The listing will automatically be removed from this page and added to the current monthly archive within an hour. Nominators can also close/withdraw their own requests, but this is discouraged for active discussions.
|
How to respond to a request
For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here. |
Related pages |
|
Topic-specific peer reviews (full list) | Other peer reviews: |
Purge server cache |
Arts
St Chad's Church, Poulton-le-Fylde
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it at WP:GAN and this is my first attempt to get an architectural article to GA standard. I'm not an architect so any suggestions or criticism of the architecture section would be particularly appreciated.
Thanks, BelovedFreak 12:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by Llywrth
Just a few questions that I hope this article would answer:
- The opening section states that this church was "owned" by several different individuals. As someone who lives in a country where churches are legally owned by either their congregations or the denomination, what does "owned" mean? For example, did the owner receive a share of the donations or tithes? (I know that this is an issue that is tangential to the central subject of the article, but a sentence or two about this with a link to the generalized discussion of this phenomena would meet my expectations.)
- The article mentions that the graveyard was full. Since I suspect this was not a unique situation for, at least Britain, how does it compare to the same problem at other churches & their churchyards?
- A last question about the graveyard. The article notes that people who are not members of its congregation want to be buried there -- well, at least their ashes interred there. Is there a reason for this? Other than personal or familial ties?
Hope these questions help you. I'm at the first steps of writing articles about the more notable churches of Ethiopia (one example is Wukro Chirkos), & I'm still unclear what I need to include in an article about them to make it useful to the average reader. -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 May 2011, 12:17 UTC)
Modern Family (season 1)
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it can reach good article status or featured list. Please tell me which choice would be the best choice
Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts
(Peer review added on Sunday 1 May 2011, 16:03 UTC)
Born This Way (song)
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently expanded it for GA and future FA, and would like to know from a different perspective, how the article fares before I take it to the next level. Things I'm looking most to are the prose structure and the commentary. So anyone not remotely associated with the article, please join on board.
Thanks, — Legolas (talk2me) 04:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Doing... ... (would appreciate it if you could comment on my peer request at Wikipedia:Peer review/On the Floor/archive1) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 1 May 2011, 04:51 UTC)
The Hobbit (film project)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to be promoted to Good Article status. Please list any criticisms or suggestions that you may have in order for it to meet the requirements of Good Article status quality.
Thanks, TheLastAmigo (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 1 May 2011, 04:01 UTC)
United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently expanded it consistently and would like to check its status for possible good article nomination.
Thanks, Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 1 May 2011, 02:55 UTC)
Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri
Looking to take this to FAC. I brought it to GAN a few months ago, and have since copyedited the article and heavily expanded its Development section. I haven't nominated an article at FAC in two years, so I'd greatly appreciate any commentary on the sources, prose and image rationales, which may not be up to today's standards. However, if you notice problems with anything else, feel free to point those out as well. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- {{doing}} Yell at me if I don't have something by tomorrow night EST :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! I look forward to your review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okey dokey, some starter comments:
- "Terra Nova has been cited as one of the first three-dimensional (3D) games with squad-oriented gameplay;" - you should probably clarify "3D" as "3D graphics". Same thing in the gameplay section.
- In the gameplay section you use lots of grouped terms like "the latter", "the first" and "the last" where just explaining which specific nouns you're referring to would probably be simpler.
- A little more disambig for some bluelinks would be nice, for example, saying "As with (Looking Glass' previous game) System Shock", "(novels) Starship Troopers and The Forever War", "(Game designer) Paul Nuerath..., etc.
- "did not break even" --> Might be too informal for an encyclopedia article?
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for the comments; I'll get to them ASAP. As for the last point, I had considered that it might be too informal. However, I could think of no superior way of phrasing it, and the article break-even made it seem like it'd work. Do you have any ideas about what to do with it? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Took steps to address the first and third issues. I'll deal with the second one today, most likely. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments; I'll get to them ASAP. As for the last point, I had considered that it might be too informal. However, I could think of no superior way of phrasing it, and the article break-even made it seem like it'd work. Do you have any ideas about what to do with it? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
-
Some scattered comments:
- Redirect checker is telling me that you have a few- PC Gamer UK/US don't have their own articles; single-player in the infobox; computer game in the lead, Solar System is capitalized, and bipedal is redirecting to bipedalism.
- The Computer Shopper link in the references is to a disambiguation page (though the one in the article text isn't).
- The external link checker is throwing a 404 for this, which isn't true, but combined with the half-broken nature of the page is a reminder that you might want to go through and find webarchive/webcite links for everything, as links from 1996 tend to vanish without warning. --PresN 19:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Leaving comments and suggestions as I read through the article. Note that I never played the game, but if you are the primary editor of the article, there should be no problems with factual accuracy.
- "the player is often assisted by artificial intelligence-controlled teammates"
- The AI bit sounds a bit weird there, possibly rephrase
- "Computer-controlled", maybe? I'm not sure that's better. I originally settled on "artificial intelligence-controlled" after several attempts to find a good description. It isn't great, admittedly, but I don't know how I could improve it. Any suggestions? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can't think of anything better myself. "AI-controlled" would be optimal, but would have to be introduced first. With "assisted by teammates controlled by artificial intelligence", the subordinate clause looks suboptimally placed. Maybe someone else has an idea. Prime Blue (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah. If anyone can come up with a good solution, I'll implement it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can't think of anything better myself. "AI-controlled" would be optimal, but would have to be introduced first. With "assisted by teammates controlled by artificial intelligence", the subordinate clause looks suboptimally placed. Maybe someone else has an idea. Prime Blue (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Computer-controlled", maybe? I'm not sure that's better. I originally settled on "artificial intelligence-controlled" after several attempts to find a good description. It isn't great, admittedly, but I don't know how I could improve it. Any suggestions? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- The AI bit sounds a bit weird there, possibly rephrase
- "many noted the game's steep system requirements"
- "many criticized the game's steep system requirements" (to make it more apparent)
- Actually, the requirements weren't often brought up in a negative context. It was mostly neutral. They were mentioned in almost every review, though, so I thought it was important to include them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Based this on "noted the game's poor performance on lower-end computers". Would address this more directly, but just a suggestion. Prime Blue (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Made that one more neutral to match the lead. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Based this on "noted the game's poor performance on lower-end computers". Would address this more directly, but just a suggestion. Prime Blue (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the requirements weren't often brought up in a negative context. It was mostly neutral. They were mentioned in almost every review, though, so I thought it was important to include them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- "many criticized the game's steep system requirements" (to make it more apparent)
- "Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss", "MechWarrior 2: 31st Century Combat"
- Agree with David on the disambiguation, this will most likely come up if the article is nominated
- I tried to deal with David's a few days ago, but I missed these. Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Accidentally introduced a repetitive mistake with "first game". Replace "First conceived by" with something else ("Initially conceived by", "Originally conceived by"). Prime Blue (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops; changed to "initially". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Accidentally introduced a repetitive mistake with "first game". Replace "First conceived by" with something else ("Initially conceived by", "Originally conceived by"). Prime Blue (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I tried to deal with David's a few days ago, but I missed these. Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with David on the disambiguation, this will most likely come up if the article is nominated
- "can process 3D outdoor environments and a simulation of physics"
- "can process 3D outdoor environments and simulate physics"
- Fixed. That's much better. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- "can process 3D outdoor environments and simulate physics"
- "enables procedural animation and other effects"
- "enables effects such as procedural animation" (to avoid suspense until the effects are named further down)
- Good idea. Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- "enables effects such as procedural animation" (to avoid suspense until the effects are named further down)
- "from a character's eye view"
- Common phrase? Maybe something like "takes place in a three-dimensional (3D) graphical environment seen from the perspective of a playable character"
- That particular phrase is a favorite of mine. I first read it in The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (since removed, for some reason), and I later stole it for Halo: Combat Evolved. I think it's really descriptive and clear; I can't think of a better way to describe a first-person camera angle to a non-gamer. The phrase was singled-out by The New York Times, in fact, for being so clear. Your version is pretty good, but, in my opinion, the other is superior. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Common phrase? Maybe something like "takes place in a three-dimensional (3D) graphical environment seen from the perspective of a playable character"
- "three-dimensional (3D)"
- abbreviation is introduced twice in the article
- It's always been my practice to introduce abbreviations in both the lead and in the body. In the days of ye olde MOS, I think this may have been standard. Maybe I'm a little out-of-date. Any idea? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's great that you re-use wikilinks immediately after the lead, I can imagine many people skipping the first section. I guess the bigger problem I have with the double introduction is that it's such a common expression, basically everybody should know it (will definitely bring 2D/3D up at MOS to be added to the WP:ABBR list). Prime Blue (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that'd be great. I've always written it as plain-old "3D", but, over the last year or so, a lot of people have started asking for it to be clarified. David's comment above is an example. I don't have a problem with it either way, but I think it'd be a good addition to ABBR. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's great that you re-use wikilinks immediately after the lead, I can imagine many people skipping the first section. I guess the bigger problem I have with the double introduction is that it's such a common expression, basically everybody should know it (will definitely bring 2D/3D up at MOS to be added to the WP:ABBR list). Prime Blue (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's always been my practice to introduce abbreviations in both the lead and in the body. In the days of ye olde MOS, I think this may have been standard. Maybe I'm a little out-of-date. Any idea? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- abbreviation is introduced twice in the article
- "The player character wears"
- Word "character" used in the previous sentence, "player" in the next sentence; maybe use "protagonist"
- Fixed. Since that sentence was used to introduce the term "player character" into the article, removing it kind of threw off the rest of its uses. I changed them all to "protagonist" for good measure. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Word "character" used in the previous sentence, "player" in the next sentence; maybe use "protagonist"
- "features jumpjets, lock-on targeting, infrared and zoomed vision, and regenerating shields"
- Don't know what jumpjets and regenerating shields are
- Clarified regenerating shields. As for jumpjets, it's Looking Glass's term; not mine. I'd have just written "jetpacks" for clarity, but I think that'd be original research. Any suggestions? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- If they can't be replaced, I'd explain their purpose. Something like "features jumpjets for..." and "rechargeable energy shields to...". Prime Blue (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- If they can't be replaced, I'd explain their purpose. Something like "features jumpjets for..." and "rechargeable energy shields to...". Prime Blue (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Clarified regenerating shields. As for jumpjets, it's Looking Glass's term; not mine. I'd have just written "jetpacks" for clarity, but I think that'd be original research. Any suggestions? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't know what jumpjets and regenerating shields are
- "among other things"
- Rephrase like the "other effects" sentence above
- "up to three artificial intelligence-controlled squadmates"
- For AI bit see above
- "from holding a position, to taking cover, to rushing enemies"
- Should be "and rushing enemies"?
- "half of a squad may be used to distract enemies while the other attacks an objective"
- should be "one half of a squad" if used in conjunction with "the other"?
- The word "squadmate" is used often in this paragraph, any synonyms?
- "the right depicts weapons, suit status, drones and ASFs"
- Don't know what drones
and ASFsare (if important, mention in prose)
- Don't know what drones
- "that describes such things as objectives, squad size and enemies"
- Replace "things" with "details" or something?
- "Each may be equipped with such things as"
- Another word for "things" might be good here
- "Auxiliary Suit Function"
- Add "(ASF)"
- "increased jumpjet power"
- For jumpjet see above
- "assessed it as "Aliens-esque""
- add disambiguation such as ", referencing the 1986 action film"
- "In charge of the squad is commander Arlen MacPherson"
- This is a bit unclear, I thought Nikola ap Io was in charge, maybe use "overall charge" or something
- "Project Leader Dan Schmidt later described these scenes as "cheesier than most" of those in other games, and said that "I wince a lot looking back on [them]"."
- Should be "Project leader Dan Schmidt"; sentence might fit the development section (end of third paragraph) better as the cheesiness of the cutscenes is not really a part of the setting
- "A reconnaissance mission by Nikola identifies them at a heavily defended pirate base"
- "them" can refer to the pirates and the grenades
- "a minor previous information leak was in fact the work of a Hegemony spy"
- Should be explained more if it is an important plot point
- "Nikola's dropship is ambushed and shot down"
- Don't know what a dropship is
- "At his funeral, Ashford accuses Nikola of being the traitor."
- Might be a minor qualm, but how do they know that there is a traitor if Pentheus only told Nikola?
- "It soon becomes clear that MacPherson is being poisoned"
- Continuously?
- "Company co-founder Paul Neurath"
- Mentioning the developer here again would be good
- "It was originally titled Freefall, due to the way soldiers in the game enter combat by dropping from aircraft"
- "The game was originally titled Freefall, due to the way the soldiers enter combat by dropping from aircraft"
- "led the game's development"
- "led (the) development"
- "Then-Tribe members"
- "Then-Tribe band members" or "Then-members of the band Tribe"
- Disambiguation needed for some game titles in the development section
- "didn't have any it would look second-rate"
- Journalists and their missing commas...
- "So now we have this game that's already late, and half of our resources are being poured into doing the full motion video"
- Development uses many direct quotes such as that one, the less significant of which could be rephrased to normal prose
- "The game's lateness"
- Word "game" used in the previous sentence, would replace "lateness" with "delays"
- "needed to achieve break-even"
- I used "recoup development costs" in Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, I think that's what you're going for with the statement
- "that the game's already-lengthy"
- Word "game" used in the previous sentence
- "much more arcadey"
- Wikilink would be good here
- "fully 3D outdoor environments"
- Adverbs with "2D"/"3D" sound a bit weird
- "moves characters' models"
- "moves the characters' models" or "moves character models"
- "designer Richard Wyckoff later compared them to those of "a marble""
- Possibly put this at the end of the sentence, or in another
- "and did not break even"
- See above for break-even
- "Despite this, it was acclaimed by critics"
- Replace "it" with something to distinguish the game from the disaster
- "more fun than a barrelful of"
- Could not find "barrelful" in dictionaries, a [sic] might be in order here
- "and described performance issues"
- Comma before
- "He finished"
- Replace one of these with "concluded"
- "Schmidt later said that he had"
- Refresh with "Project leader Dan Schmidt"
- "While Dan Schmidt said before the game's release"
- "While Schmidt said before the game's release"
- More reception: There's a GameRankings entry for the game, and the awards in the review box can be mentioned in prose
Image review:
- File:TerraNovaLandscape.gif should use {{Non-free use rationale}}
- if 640x400 is the native resolution of the game, possibly resize the image to something smaller but still sufficient to read
- "it depicts highly detailed tactical information"
- "it depicts detailed tactical information"
Shpadoinkle. Prime Blue (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Partial source review:
- For manuals, there's {{Cite manual}}; I'm not sure if it's a deal-breaker, but I would welcome the manual source to be split into individual sections with page numbers (even if it's annoying to change this now, it's just more thorough as far as sourcing goes)
- If ref. 2 is a press release, there's {{Cite press release}}; is there a URL?
Prime Blue (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reviews! After Mr. Fuchs finishes, I should be set. I'll take care of these issues ASAP. I'm a bit on the busy side, so it could be a week before I deal with all of this. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Added a few comments. I'll get to the rest before too long. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Responded again. I'll get to the rest of your review soon; I have to rush off right now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Responded again. I'll get to the rest of your review soon; I have to rush off right now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Added a few comments. I'll get to the rest before too long. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 29 April 2011, 06:35 UTC)
Wavering Radiant
I'm hoping to push this article to Good Article status, and would be grateful for any criticism you may be able to offer. As such, please bear the GA goal in mind – what needs alteration to meet that mark? Thanks a million, Seegoon (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 28 April 2011, 23:44 UTC)
Sivaji Ganesan
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been well expanded and cleaned up before few months. Thanks, Thalapathi (Ping Back) 11:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't given the article a real review (just clicked it open basically), but I can see that the citation style isn't completely consistent. Any web citation needs the following basic information: date retrieved, author, publisher/work, url and title. The best way to consistently achieve that is by using a template such as
{{cite web}}
, which I'd recommend strongly. Thanks. Seegoon (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your valuable suggestions, will improve the citations style. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 16:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 April 2011, 11:50 UTC)
Stanley Holloway
This article about the much-loved singer and actor (Doolittle in My Fair Lady) and monologist is mostly the work of User:Cassianto, with whose approval I am putting it forward for peer review. Cassianto has researched the subject widely, and, following some recent editing and additions by me and a very thorough copy editing by User:Ssilvers, the comments of Wiki-colleagues are sought, with a view to Cassianto's putting the article forward for promotion to GA in due course. Tim riley (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: This is an interesting article. I'm a bit busy, so my detailed review will have to be in instalments. Here is he first tranche:-
- "He made early stage appearances before infantry service in the First World War, but his career took off after the war, as a member of a concert party, The Co-Optimists. The name of the concert party should be in quotes, not italicised. The sentence itself is awkwardly phrased, with a dubious "but"; "took off" is perhaps a little informal. I would suggest: "He made early stage appearances before infantry service in the First World War; after the war he joined a concert party, "The Co-Optimists", and his career began to flourish".
- "in plays and on film" → "in plays and films"
- Another sentence needing attention: "He appeared successfully in Shakespeare and in a series of films for Ealing Studios." Probaly "well-received" would be a better term than the subjective "successfully". The link t the biographical Shakespeare article is not appropriate here. I would reorder the sentence as: "He made well-received stage and film appearances in Shakespeare, and in a series of films for Ealing Studios."
- "bringing him international fame" → "...and brought him international fame".
- Early life
- As much of the content is about family background, I recommend extending the section title to "Family background and early life"
- Images should not be positioned opposite each other, thus squeezing the text. The picture of Millie is hardly relevantto this article and should be dropped. Personally, I don't think File:Stanley Holloway aged 10.JPG will be accepted ad PD in the US, unless you can show that it was first published before 1923.
- "Maria C., Charles T. and George A" is an odd format for indicating names, at least in the UK. I'd drop the initials.
- "George left Florence in 1905 and was never seen or heard of again by his family". I think "heard from" rather than "heard of". The sources give a date for his death, and I imagine family members became aware of that. Comma necessary after "1905".
- Last paragraph: four sentences begin with "He..." which does not read well. The last sentence is a puzzle: it sounds as though he left his job to join the army, yet the next section indicates otherwise. Can you clarify? If possible the two very short sentences should be combined.
- Early career & WW1
- "with whom Holloway later starred with..."? One "with" too many. Also itaicisation ("The Co-optimists" again)
- Was his stage career full time at this point? What was he "returning to the capital" for?
- No need to specify that Milan is in Italy
- "The war took him to France, where he fought in the trenches and helped bring down an enemy plane and capture the crew". This sounds a little glib, magaziney. Be a bit more precise about his role in "bringing down" an enemy aircraft, putting this incident into some sort of context, thus: "He fought in the trenches in France, on one occasion..."etc
Good! Thank you very much for these. I'll consult the editor chiefly responsible for the article and report back soonest. No rush for second tranche. Tim riley (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
More to come Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I have edited all of the points kindly raised by Brianboulton to the best of my ability and I have deleted the sentences "Dividing his time between Clacton on sea and the Capital" and "Bringing down the enemy plane and capturing the crew" as i cannot specify further. Both of these sentences are in the autobiography but SH did not elaborate further than that so I have removed them all together. Incidentally, the picture of SH aged 10 does have a line written directly underneath the photo stating "Here I am aged ten, the solemn, Eton collared Boy Soprano. The first rung..." If he was ten at this point then this would have been taken c. 1900/ 1901 well before 1923, this would be the only proof in order to date the photo. Cassianto (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 April 2011, 07:24 UTC)
Jigglypuff
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in getting this article to GA status. It is currently rated either C- or B-class by most WikiProjects, so at the very least I'd like to make it B-class on every WikiProject. The article currently has plenty of information (particularly on reception), and it'd be good to know if any of it needs more verification or whether any parts should be expanded/trimmed. It's also a fairly important Pokémon, so it'd be good to further improve the coverage of Pokémon on Wikipedia.
Thanks, Harry Blue5 (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- It could use some fluffing of the lead, video games, and manga sections. I can't wait to see this be a GA. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I see you removed some needless info. from the "Design" section and moved some of it to the "In video games" section, so thanks for doing that. What kind of fluff were you thinking of? Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just overall addition of information to help explain the character. The sections are kind of small, and I think they could be expanded. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fortunately, I think Bulbapedia has some good info on the manga, so I'll try and see if I can anything. At the very least, I should be able to expand on the Magical Pokémon Journey bit. Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I expanded the lead, and fix an "also" and a contraction. I am not sure whether this would be appropriate for the article. It helped Lucario, because it was the introduction of his character, but since Jigglypuff was already in the series, and it was just thought she "might" have been removed, this just confirmed that she was not removed. Thoughts? Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I say it should be added. It's valid history of his role in Brawl, after all, if not the most important thing in the world. Harry Blue5 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I expanded the lead, and fix an "also" and a contraction. I am not sure whether this would be appropriate for the article. It helped Lucario, because it was the introduction of his character, but since Jigglypuff was already in the series, and it was just thought she "might" have been removed, this just confirmed that she was not removed. Thoughts? Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fortunately, I think Bulbapedia has some good info on the manga, so I'll try and see if I can anything. At the very least, I should be able to expand on the Magical Pokémon Journey bit. Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just overall addition of information to help explain the character. The sections are kind of small, and I think they could be expanded. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I see you removed some needless info. from the "Design" section and moved some of it to the "In video games" section, so thanks for doing that. What kind of fluff were you thinking of? Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think the appearances in the video game section could use some more inline citation. I'm unsure if reference 12 covers both paragraphs. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Its getting close to GA in my opinion.
- References should use a common date format instead of switching between the two. Month, XX, Year looks nice.
- References should use trans_title for non-english titles.
Reference 23, in japanese ---> in Japanese
Reference 36, use a cite book template without linking to that book.
- I don't see a reference for the voice actors nor are they mentioned in the anime section of the article.
- Same for pokemon live, no source
Printed adaptions "PS288", what does this mean?
- Ref 18, is that from a book? It should have a book reference noted somewhere
- It's from an old Japanese magazine.
- Reference 26, WP:CAPS, uncapitalize them
- Not mandatory but you might want to archive some of the references in case they disappear one day. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 25 April 2011, 12:58 UTC)
On the Floor
I've listed this article for peer review because… because it has a good wealth of information. Jennifer Lopez has not had a single this successful since 2006, and she's nothad as much press attention or coverage since then either. While there is an abundance of sources, I've tried my best to use what's available to make a detailed and coherent article that reflects all aspects of the song. However, its evident that the information is perhaps a little messy and I'm aware that the prose quality is not great. I've had a go at copy ediitng the music video and chart performance sections in addition to the introduction. The other sections have been looked at but its difficult to notice errors in something you have written. Would be appreciated if people could point out suggested improvements before the article is readied for GA.
Thanks, — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Doing – I will be taking a print out of the article and go through the prose. So many erroneous stuff crop up from that. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Lead
- The song served as one of two promotional singles for Love? --> Not clear which song you are referring to.
- It also interpolates elements... --> "On the Floor" doesnot interpolate, it incorporates
- is a song by American recording artist Jennifer Lopez and Latino rapper Pitbull --> You have to make clear that Pitbull is in featured credit, otherwise it will contradict with the infobox as a duet.
- and deciding that after more than ten years, a new label was required --> Seems unnecessary fro lead
- In the second para there is quite a bit of repetition of the phrase "the/a song". Try to replace them at some places with the actual song name.
- the millennium hit --> no need for hit, POV pushing case.
- on the tenth season of hit U.S. reality show, American Idol --> again, no "hit" please
- You need some reshuffling in the second para. First talk about the release, then move on to critical and reception. At present its "fan reception - release - critical reception", which is untrue.
- Critics agreed that the song was a welcome comeback for Lopez, combining the best elements of her previous songs with exotic flavors to make a current-sounding single --> This is already mentioned in terms of "If You Had My Love" and "Waiting for Tonight"
- to make an impact on the Pop Airplay chart --> Wikilink to the correct chart (Mainstream Top 40)
- and became her first song from Love? to receive airplay recognition after neither "Fresh Out the Oven" or "Louboutins" (2009), the previous lead single, were recognized by U.S. radio --> Redundant when you say its her first single since 2007 to receive airplay love.
- As a result, Kaoma's single "Lambada" charted at number two on the Billboard World Digital Chart, over two decade after its release --> Rephrase, at present it implies as if OTF's certifications led to the Kaoma song's popularity
- final ending from a choice of three alternative endings --> Consecutive usage of ending..
- and in general commenting that the video was a homage to the earlier career of Lopez. --> Again a repetition.
- Overall, tone down the usage of words like "critical, critics" etc to eliminate the constant scrutinizing feel of the lead.
More to come...
(Peer review added on Monday 25 April 2011, 00:57 UTC)
Si Una Vez
I've listed this article for peer review because I have turned this stub article into a B-Class and would like it to be a GA article
Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Doing... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 24 April 2011, 15:50 UTC)
Ring the Alarm
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FA later. I know it is far from meeting the required criteria. That's why i am nominating it for a PR.
Thanks, Jivesh • Talk2Me 05:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments from Nikkimaria
- I've done some copy-editing on first half of the article, feel free to revert. I would suggest, however, that you also get someone from WP:GOCE to look it over
- See list of dead/broken links here
- "Ring the Alarm" or "Ring The Alarm"? Use consistent capitalization
- Be consistent in whether you refer to the artist using her first or last name. If you choose the latter, be consistent in whether you use Knowles' or Knowles's for possessives
- WP:OVERLINK - don't link very common terms and don't repeat links, particularly not in close proximity
- File:Ring_the_Alarm_low.jpg and File:Ring_the_Alarm_video.jpg - who owns copyright to these images?
- Check for consistency in MoS details - whether you use "US" or "U.S.", etc
- Is Rihanna just a pop star, or an R&B-pop star? You use both
- "while Irreplaceable (2006) was serviced internationally as the album's second single" - could you clarify this? I'm not sure what it means
- WP:W2W and WP:NPOV - be sure you're phrasing things as neutrally as possible, and avoid potentially nuanced synonyms for "said"
- The quote from Matthew Knowles doesn't really seem related to the artwork issue
- "She also stated that the album was completed in three weeks, and that was the reason most of the record's content sounds aggressive" - not sure I follow this argument. What does the time frame have to do with its emotion?
- Make sure the text is accessible to non-specialist readers. For example, what is a "neo-warm vibe"?
- "If you're in a relationship, even if the man's cheating and you end up not wanting him, the thought of another woman benefiting from the lessons you taught him" - this isn't a complete sentence, is there more to the quote?
- "threatened girlfriend" - this phrasing is a bit ambiguous, as it more often refers to a victim of domestic violence. Can it be made clearer?
- Be sure to maintain an encyclopedic tone at all times, and avoid colloquialisms
- "she honestly was not aware of the rumors that had been circulating" - what rumors? You're assuming that readers will be familiar with the Rihanna-Brown saga, which especially for non-Americans may not be the case
- The first few sentences of "Release" need to be clearer - I'm finding it hard to follow what's going on
- "including the Karmatronic Remix, Migtight Remix, Tranzformas Remix, Pha Remix and Grizz Remix" - are these all titles? If so, they should be in quotation marks
- "Sarah Rodman complimented...He also commented" - unless Sarah's male, something's missing here
- ""Ring the Alarm" was received by the public with polarized responses", "Billboard viewed "Ring The Alarm" as another female empowering track of Knowles", etc - phrasing is a bit awkward
- The part about her falling down the stairs receives a bit too much coverage here
- Citations needed tags need to be addressed
I didn't check references here, but you should make sure they are all formatted consistently and meet WP:RS. If you have any questions about any of the above, feel free to ask here - I've got this page watchlisted. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Nikki. I will fixed the things you mentioned soonest possible. Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 21 April 2011, 19:20 UTC)
Charles Alston
I've listed this article for peer review because…I've been utilizing the Archives of American Art and other resources to expand the original article. I recently completed a vast biography and detailed project the museum I work for regarding Alston's life and work. I've never had a peer review and felt like this was a great article to try it with. Images are hard to come by, that I know, except the illustrations Alston created for the military. Anyway, I'd just love some constructive criticism and thoughts on if I should continue to expand it (I feel like I've reached the limit of information that is worth exploring, honestly), what I should expand on if at all, and what steps I should take next to perhaps consider it for FA. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments from Maria
Hi, Missvain, welcome to Peer Review! This is a very interesting article, and while art isn't exactly my area of expertise (that's putting it lightly), I enjoyed reading about Alston. First, I will suggest that after the PR you perhaps set your sights a little lower than FA; WP:GAC is a great step in the right direction, and doesn't require having to reach the increasingly high demands that FAC does. After that hurdle is jumped, FAC becomes a lot less intimidating! With the GA criteria in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement:
- I wouldn't worry about the lack of numerous free images -- most articles about contemporary artists don't even have three!
- At only one sentence long, the lead does not fulfill WP:LEAD. Be sure that the first few paragraphs summarizes the article, hitting the important points of Alston's life and career. Where was he from? What is he known/remembered for? Keep in mind that many readers don't read beyond the lead/infobox, so make sure it's worth their while!
- I see several books used as sources, which is awesome, but I don't see any page numbers. Per WP:CITE (specifically WP:Page numbers), "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited". Be specific; the more specific you are, the more helpful this article is to future researchers.
- There may be some over-citing throughout the article. Are four separate citations needed to prove Alston's family moved to New York during the Great Migration, for example? Do these citations repeat themselves? If so, only one is needed. If one citation says something that the others don't, and that point is mentioned in the article, than list it as well.
- Wikipedia uses what is called logical punctuation. It's annoying, and I don't know of anyone who actually likes it, but it's something that's always nitpicked by reviewers. I see a few instances in which the article is probably not following this guideline, so you may want to check throughout:
-
- ...shows a black man standing against a red sky "looking as frustrated as any individual can look," according to Alston.
- "...where facial features were suggested rather than fully formulated in three dimensions,".
- Art critic Emily Genauer stated that Altson "refused to be pigeonholed,"
- I fixed some dashes throughout per WP:DASH, but be on the lookout for others.
- The references seem to be inconsistently formatted; are you using APA or something else? Make sure to italicize the title of the work, and decide whether to include the author's full first name, or simply the initials. Editorializing such as "Book that documents the concept of and recipients of Rosenwald Funds" is also frowned upon in high-quality articles; after all, if you include the full bibliographic info, people will be able to research the matter elsewhere.
- As for the prose, with any editor hoping to make it to GA/FA, I suggest a copy-edit or two from someone with well-trained and detail-orientated eyes. WP:GOCE may be able to help with that, otherwise don't be afraid to ask someone with GA/FA experience to look it over for you. I notice a few things just from my quick read-through:
-
- and was the youngest of five children. Only three survived past infancy: Rousmaniere, a daughter, and sons Wendell and Charles. -- This is confusing, so maybe it would help to combine these three thoughts into one cohesive sentence? He was the youngest of five children, of which only three—daughter Rousmaniere and sons Wendell and Charles—survived past infancy?
- Locals described him in admiration as the “Booker T. Washington of Charlotte”. -- You mention both Alston and his father in the previous sentence, so the "him" here is ambiguous.
- What does "Spinky" mean? Just curious.
- His mother was a gifted embroiderer and tool up painting at the age of 75. -- tool up?
- His father was gifted at drawing as well, wooing Alston's mother with small sketches in the medians of letters he wrote her. -- Because this is mentioned a paragraph after the Reverend's death, it seems very out of place.
- he decided that math, physics and chemistry “was not just my bag” -- verb-disagreement: WERE. Also, is the quote correct? Should it maybe read "just not my bag"?
- Be careful with the tone and use of slang. I know how difficult it is to keep an encyclopedic distance while writing a biography -- so often you want to depict that person's style/personality through prose! I see a few instances of "hang/hung out", and there might be others.
I believe those are the main points to consider at this stage. There aren't too many FA-art biographies, but you may want to look at those in order to get a better sense of where you'd like to go with Alston. Best of luck! I hope these comments help. María (habla conmigo) 13:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 April 2011, 21:36 UTC)
Ironic (song)
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planing to take this to GAN, but unfortunately my prose is always pretty bad. Also, the article is supposed to be in Canadian English, but I only know the American and British English. Thank you so much. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 02:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Seegoon's review
- In the lead, "Canadian American" should be hyphenated (it's a compound adjective).
- "He commented "I'm telling you," – I think you need a colon between 'commented' and 'I'm'.
- I think you can probably delink 'comedian', for concerns of overlinking.
- "Also satirists Berger and Wyse parodied the song in one segment of their cartoon strip The Pitchers." – a fairly lengthy sentence. I'd restructure this.
- "Morissette "surprising made [it] worse"." – grammatically this sense makes no. Should it be 'surprisingly'?
- "reached the number five on the Adult Top 40" – poor grammar.
- "It was last seen on the chart on July 21, 1996," – makes it sound like a fugitive. "Last appeared" instead?
- "To date, "Ironic" is her biggest hit on the country." – bizarre grammar.
- "In European countries the song was well-received." – again, weird construction. "The song was generally well-received throughout Europe", perhaps?
- "At the Norwegian Singles Charts," – in the Norwegian...
- "In Belgium, it reached the sixth place on the Ultratop 50 (Flanders region), and the ninth place on the Ultratop 40 (Wallonia zone)." – this 'the ninth place' thing is a little weird; just 'ninth place' without the article (the) will do just fine. Same applies for 'the sixth place'.
- ""Ironic" music video was directed by Stéphane Sednaoui." – strange construction. "The music video for 'Ironic'..." would work better.
- "On it, Morissette features driving a dark blue 1977 Lincoln Mark V through a winter landscape." – In it. 'Features' is a little jarring too; 'appears' might be easier to instantly parse. The same applies for the image caption – which could do with some context (i.e. make it clear that the photo isn't a screenshot from the video).
- "VH1's 100 Greatest Videos [41]" – errant space between text and ref. I'd move this to the end of the sentence anyway; mid-sentence refs are ugly and unnecessary.
- "was included on Morissette's CD/DVD" – I think you can unlink these terms. The article's already extremely blue and some may say this borders on overlinking.
- ""It's meeting the man of my dreams /And then meeting his beautiful husband".[48][49][50][51]" – do we need four references? I highly doubt it.
- "as well for the compilation album Cities 97 Sampler," – delink compilation album here.
- "Since then, "Ironic" was included in her albums MTV Unplugged (1999),[57] Feast on Scraps (2002),[58] Live in the Navajo Nation (2002),[59] and The Collection;[60] as well as 1997 Grammys and the MTV Unplugged compilation albums." – this is a giant, snakey sentence. For one, I'd change 'was' to 'has been', and for what it's worth, the semicolon doesn't really work in this context.
There you have it – my two cents. A great article, really nicely referenced. The grammar gets a bit funky from time to time, but there's nothing here which can't be rectified. Congratulations and good luck. Seegoon (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 April 2011, 02:56 UTC)
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone much editing since the previous peer review and may be eligible for FA status.
Thanks, The lorax (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments from Maria
This is such an iconic film, so I'm glad to see that the article is being actively developed. While it's definitely heading in the right direction, I would not suggest nominating for FAC anytime soon. There are issues with the prose, as well as the coverage perhaps being a little too comprehensive. In short, the article is overly long and there are parts that are not well written enough for FA-status. Here are some specific concerns/suggestions for improvement:
- I've used a bot to fix hopefully all of the dashes per WP:DASH, but be on the lookout for others.
- I suggest asking for one, if not two, highly thorough and detail-orientated copy-editors for help with the prose. Things don't flow as easily as they should for an FA. For example:
-
- The film follows high school senior Ferris Bueller (Matthew Broderick), who decides to skip school and spend the day in downtown Chicago. -- To avoid some of those pesky, parenthetical asides for the actors, how about: "Mathew Broderick stars as high school senior Ferris Bueller, who skips school to spend a day in downtown Chicago"?
- The first sentence in the plot section is a run-on and therefore difficult to follow.
- Another unwieldy sentence from the plot: Ferris even uses his ploys to pretend he is Abe Froman, the Sausage King of Chicago, to dine at an upscale restaurant, Chez Quis, while narrowly avoiding his father, who is on his way to lunch with business associates.
- Meanwhile, Mr. Rooney has gone off-campus to try to find Ferris -- "goes", not "has gone". Keep the tense active.
- At the end of the day, Ferris and his friends retrieve the Ferrari... -- another run-on sentence.
- As he was writing the film in 1985 Hughes kept progress on Ferris Bueller in spiral-bound logbook. -- Ferris Bueller the character, or Ferris Bueller the film? This sentence is also awkwardly constructed; I'm not sure what the point is.
- The plot is too detailed, and oftentimes gets caught up in the "cute" minutia of the film. Yes, it's funny when Rooney gets stuck in the mud, chased by the dog, and then kicked in the face, but these details aren't necessary to understanding the plot in a succinct, encyclopedic way. See WP:WAF and WP:PLOTSUM for more info on how to write a concise plot summary; in short, it shouldn't simply be a recap of everything the film shows.
- Because there is a separate "Cast" section, I don't believe cast-members need to be referred to in parentheses in the plot.
- Be careful about linking obvious terms: kissing really stood out to me, but there may be others.
- The "Casting section" seems strangely skewed towards Alan Ruck, with three paragraphs dedicated to him, with numerous quotes. I suggest cutting it down to one, since the other actors mentioned only get one paragraph. Can small mentions also be made of Jennifer Gray's casting? The parents?
- Another point as to the article being too long: why does Grace the secretary get her own subsection under "Production"? Shouldn't this information be under casting?
- An obvious red-flag in the FA department: the "Home media" section needs sources.
- Speaking of sources, you may run into concerns from the FA-crowd because of the reliance on non-printed material such as websites and online articles. According to WorldCat, there are numerous books and articles dedicated to Hughes' films and career, some of which will almost certainly mention Ferris. If you have access to a library, you may be able to obtain some of these works via Interlibrary Loan. Some titles that pop out at me:
-
- Don't you forget about me : contemporary writers on the films of John Hughes by Jaime Clarke (2007)
- You couldn't ignore me if you tried : the Brat Pack, John Hughes, and their impact on a generation by Susannah Gora (2010)
- John Hughes and eighties cinema : teenage hopes and American dreams by Thomas A Christie (2009)
These are mainly general comments, but like I said I believe the article is headed in the right direction -- it just isn't there yet. My main suggestions would be: obtain a few copy-edits from well-trained eyes, work on the plot section per WP:PLOTSUM, and look into better sources. Best of luck! María (habla conmigo) 13:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 18 April 2011, 18:56 UTC)
Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)
I've listed this article for peer review because… I need help working out what else needs to be done to attain FAC status. I've made some changes since its FAC nomination and will be making further improvements. What I'm asking for from the reviewer is what deficiencies might there in the current text so I can fix it.
A caveat, though, if you're thinking of reviewing this page, please elaborate on each issue. List every sentence or prose that need copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. List every structural flaw, etc. Some people who have reviewed this in the past refused to do so, as a result I had no idea what they still had a problem with.
I DO NOT want to deal with that aggravation again. I need reviewers willing to wade through the mud with me, not snipers. If you're not willing to do that, I request you pass from touching this review. If you are, I will be most grateful.
Thanks to the reviewer/s interested in being helpful, Red marquis (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I recognise your frustration, but peer reviewing is a voluntary activity carried out by editors prepared to sacrifice time and effort to helping other editors improve their articles. It is not a service that editors can take for granted, and frankly, the demanding way in which you have expressed your requirements makes it unlikely that anyone will bother to help you. The article received a lengthy review from Jappalang last December, which you do not seem to have acknowledged; have you taken action on the many points that he raised? If not I suggest you work through those points, and those raised in a sources review carried out by Ealdgyth in November before seeking further help, hopefully in a rather more agreeable manner. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I did rework the article to address all of the issues they raised because they took the time to explain to me my faults. As far as Jappalang's review, I admit that I missed that since I disappeared from Wikipedia for awhile but I have since fixed the problems he raised.-Red marquis (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment No offense, but a little patience will help - this is the third time this article has been nominated at peer review recently. There is a backlog, but we get to all articles within 2 weeks (so if you had waited the first time, this would already have received a review, though I am not sure if it would have been up to your criteria). If you want help with copyediting, have you tried asking at WP:GOCE or one of the volunteers listed as willing to do copyedits at WP:PR/V? Finally, I note that FAC and PR are much more places where problems are pointed out, but not necessarily fixed. The assumption is that if you can write an article, you can read policy and guidelines and try to fix things on your own. So this exchange from the recent FAC is a bit odd:
- MOS date violations, use 2000-12-01 or Dec 15 1999, not both, choose one; YYYY-MM-DD or the written form. (from (CK)Lakeshade)
- Please expand on where I violated MOS so I can fix each problem. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
How hard is it to pick one date format (your choice) and then go through the article and make sure that all dates follow the format you chose? Try things and if you are still not sure, ask - can someone check to make sure it is not still overlinked (or whatever). By the way, I will review this in a few days (if no one else beats me to it). I will point out what i see as problems, but will assume that you can take my examples and work from there to look for other similar problems to fix. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- "How hard is it to pick one date format (your choice) and then go through the article and make sure that all dates follow the format you chose? Try things and if you are still not sure, ask - can someone check to make sure it is not still overlinked (or whatever)." I did do my best to address that particular issue but I don't know if I missed any. I was asking Lakeshade to double check so I could fix each issue but got no response there. It's that lack of follow-up (from any reviewer) of what else I screwed up that is the source of my frustration. -Red marquis (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- While I can certainly understand your frustration, might I suggest communicating things a little more clearly? Saying something like "I did do my best to address that particular issue but I don't know if I missed any." and then asking if someone could double check your work is a lot different than what you wrote in FAC "Please expand on where I violated MOS so I can fix each problem." The first approach makes it clear that you have done much or even all of the work. The second seems almost like asking someone else to do the work for you. While reviewers are glad to point out issues, unless someone is also doing a copyedit, almost all reviews do not point out every single grammar issue or every example of any type of problem. As I said I should review this in several days. Off to review others which have been on the PR backlog much longer than this article has. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Doing... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's gone through vast changes since we last talked and it will go through further ones in the near future. -Red marquis (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, would you like me to wait until it is stable to review it?
- You can go ahead now (save for the issue on the Concept and Themes section I noted below). Thanks.
- Also, from my initial quick read I think it would help to add a bit on the band and their career before this album. Imagine a person who was not very familiar with the band - if there were a few sentences on the previous album that would help to provide context to the reader (why did people blame Columbine on Marilyn Manson?)
- Again for the completely ignorant, it would probably help to in some way differentiate between Marilyn Manson the band and Marilyn Manson the lead singer / frontman. So just adding frontman here It was written in [frontman] Marilyn Manson's former home in the Hollywood Hills and recorded in several "undisclosed" locations, including Death Valley and Laurel Canyon.
- I'll swiftly address this.
- FInally, I think WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE would be in favor citing the Kerang! (sp?) quote in the last paragraph of the lead. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Would be or wouldn't be?
- I replaced it with a more complete version. Is it passable?
- WP:LEADCITE says in part The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. so I would include an inline ref for the direct quote (although it is not an absolute requirement). My personal preference is to have the lead be less detailed (as an overview) and the body of the article have more detail, so I thought the shorter version of the quote was fine before. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confused. I was told the lede should have as little citation in it as possible because it is supposed to be a summary of the article. I took the Kerrang quote from the "Legacy" subsection of the "Reception" section (where it is properly cited). -Red marquis (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry to be unclear - as little citation as possible doesn't mean zero refs in the lead, if the lead has direct quotes or extraordinary claims. Most editors will cite a direct quote in the lead. If the lead said something like this is best selling album of all time (or even its release year) then that would likely need a cite too. Please note that there are a few editors who read WP:LEAD as allowing no cites ever in the lead, but I think most FAC reviewers prefer them for direct quotes and extraordianry claims. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confused. I was told the lede should have as little citation in it as possible because it is supposed to be a summary of the article. I took the Kerrang quote from the "Legacy" subsection of the "Reception" section (where it is properly cited). -Red marquis (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:LEADCITE says in part The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. so I would include an inline ref for the direct quote (although it is not an absolute requirement). My personal preference is to have the lead be less detailed (as an overview) and the body of the article have more detail, so I thought the shorter version of the quote was fine before. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I replaced it with a more complete version. Is it passable?
- Would be or wouldn't be?
It is stable now. However, I will still need to rewrite the Concept and Themes section which is, for want of a better word, lacking compared to the rest. What do you think? I fear, the changes I just finished making on "background and development" might be straying a bit off-topic in terms of cohesion with the rest of the article. -Red marquis (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am busy now, but should start a detailed review in the next 24 hours or so (hopefully soooner). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just so you know, the "Themes" subsection is the only section left for me to copyedit. We'll be able to really get into the Peer Review very soon. -Red marquis (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just so you know, the "Themes" subsection is the only section left for me to copyedit. We'll be able to really get into the Peer Review very soon. -Red marquis (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 17 April 2011, 22:22 UTC)
Paulo Francis
I've listed this article for peer review because…
The article deals with someone who spent much of his working life in the USA but is barely known outside his native Brazil. I feel it needs to be put into a more general perspective; also, it must some be "streamlined" to comply with usual standards as far as English grammar and vocabulary are concerned. A list of references perhaps should be provided.
Thanks, Cerme (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. Normally the disputed neutrality tag at the top of the article would disqualify it frm having a peer review (fix that first, then work on the rest of the issue). However, a quick look at the article reveals numerous other issues, so here are some suggestions for improvement.
- The current lead is only two paragraphs, each of one sentence, and needs to be expanded. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
- For expansion, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
- I would also avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they interrupt the flow of the article
- Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase - so fix things like Developing ambitions of following a career in the stage after that travel, Francis tried his hand as an actor in Rio de Janeiro during he early 1950s, but, although he received an award as a rising star in 1952, he failed to show talent enough to go on[3].
- Article needs more references, for example the paragraph starting with In 1971, Paulo Francis moved to New York City as an international correspondent, on a Ford Foundation fellowship... has no refs
- My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- Some external links in the article need to be converted to inline citations / references. See for example In the wake of the late 1968 "coup inside the coup"—the takeover of the already existing military dictatorship by diehard generals—he was arrested four times, on the slimmest of pretexts.[23]
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Make sure that all references used are from relaible sources
- I know nothing about this man, but the language is very POV and needs to be WP:NPOV. For example who says this magazine was "legendary"? one of the editors of the legendary culture magazine Senhor...? Or this whole sentence except for the direct quotations Eventually he dropped out from Columbia—or perhaps was simply unable to receive a graduate degree because he had already dropped out from his undergraduate studies in Rio, a subject about which he was always less than candid[4]—showing a trait that was to plague him to the end: the inability to perform sustained intellectual work, and a tendency to bank instead on his flashes of wit and borrowed erudition (the use of incessant quotes and bon mots), something that made him prone to "mistakes,[5][6] imprecision, garbled recollections"[7] - a trait of what was to become his personal "method": "the absence of careful research, established facts, precise information [...] becoming eventually - through excessive generalization and lack of patience [...] - downright bigotry".[8] (and why are there two footnotes / refs inside a direct quotation? - numbers 5 and 6)
- Any chance for a WP:FAIR USE image of him (hard to get a free image of him now, since he is dead).
- The article has a large number of typos and grammatical errors (perhaps because English is the second language of some of the editors ??). For example a follower of Trotsky is a Trotskyist or Trotskyite (not a "Trotskyst" as one header uses) and a critique is not the same thing as a critic (the former is what a latter produces). This needs a copyedit, but the other issues need to be addressed first.
- 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.)
- Disambiguation finder tool (on this PR page) finds two dabs - see here
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 ><>°° 23:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 16 April 2011, 20:09 UTC)
No me queda más
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to be a good article. However, since I haven't been successful in my nominations I am coming here first for comments.
Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, here are some suggestions for improvement.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are 46 WP:FA articles on songs at Category:FA-Class song articles, and several of them seem like they would be good models for this.
- The article has a large amount of coverage on its video compared to the material on the song in the article, which might be a WP:WEIGHT issue. For an example of a FA on a single with a well known video see Under the Bridge
- The biggest problem with the article is the language, which has numerous errors and problems. This is in serious need of a copyedit to have any chance of passing at GAN.
- I do not have time to do a copyedit myself, but here are a few sentences from just the lead It was released in the United States for the Tejano and rhythmic contemporary radios. The song describes an emotional destruct women who had recently fell in love with a man, and later finds out he is getting married. The women then fells like "There's nothing left" to live for, without being with him. I think this means something like It was released in the United States for Tejano and rhythmic contemporary radio stations [but wasn't it released as a single for sale too??]. The song describes an emotional distraught woman who had recently fallen in love with a man, but later finds out he is getting married. The women then feels like "There's nothing left" to live for[, without being with him - I am not sure what this means].
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but The songs, "Amor Prohibido" and "No Me Queda Más", became the most successful singles of 1994 and 1995.[1][2] seems to only be in the lead.
- As written The songs, "Amor Prohibido" and "No Me Queda Más", became the most successful singles of 1994 and 1995.[1][2] is vague and needs to be clarified - most successful in the whole world? in the US? in the Latin music markets?
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but critical reception and covers do not seem to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
- The organization of the article is odd, though it may be from the ongoing merger of the video and music articles. Again I would look at some model articles
- Most of the references are to amazon.com - not sure that is the best, mosst reliable source.
- What makes covers notable?
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 02:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note The merger between the music video and article has been complete. Adabow hasn't remove the tag ever since s/he had tag the two articles. The reason why there might be a weight issue with a more coverage on the music video then the song is because, I have found numerous articles and video specials on the music video itself rather then the song. I only found a little less then a handful of articles pertaining the song itself. I have fixed the lead and added in the music video and a little bit of everything else on the article. The reference for "No Me Queda Mas" and "Amor Prohibido" being the most successful singles of 1994 and 1995, doesn't specify the country or genre that it was most successful in. I decided to say in "United States Latino community and Mexico" as the song only charted in music charts pertaining to Latin music and not to mainstream American charts. The only references that are from Amazon.com is the covers and release dates. The covers are other Latin American artists who included the song in their albums, however, none ever peaked in a music chart that's why I used a table to add all the covers, since a lot of artists recorded the song. All other songs include covers from artists, why exclude it here? If there are any other problems please tell me so I can fix them. I'm not good with prose and all that other stuff but I did re-read the article and found minor errors, which I fixed. Also, if you can, re-name the article back to "No Me Queda Mas", some other editor decided to lower-case each other letter, however, as you can see, the cover is in upper case. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 16 April 2011, 01:22 UTC)
Warning from Space
I've listed this article for peer review because I really like this movie and I want it to be a good article. I'm sort of new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure what to do. I've tried to research it as thoroughly as possible. Thanks, --Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 22:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Ruby2010
- Since you're sort of new, I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia! Just by briefly looking at the article, I'd say it needs a reception section (what people thought of it at the time or today), and its production section could be expanded further. I recommend taking a look at other similar articles (like on Japanese films) for basic layout/content ideas. Good luck! Ruby2010 comment! 04:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! This is a really obscure film, and no matter where I looked, I couldn't really find any information on the production than what I have now. However, I will create a reception section later.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 21:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- I added a reception section!--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 23:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! This is a really obscure film, and no matter where I looked, I couldn't really find any information on the production than what I have now. However, I will create a reception section later.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 21:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments by H1nkles
I echo Ruby2010's welcome to the project.
- Watch overlinking in the article. See WP:LINK for thoughts on wikilinking. As a rule of thumb words in common English useage like rocket, Earth, lake, and human should not be linked. Also country names do not need to be linked. On the other hand linking the word "object" to UFO is fine as you are specifying what object the context is referring to.
- I made a copyedit to one of the paragraphs in the lead section. My aim was to try and fix the flow and readability of the section. Please review to see if it corretly follows the film's plot.
- Take care with using terms like "speculated". Information in a wikipedia article should not be based on speculation.
- See WP:LEAD. The lead should be a summary of the entire article and touch briefly on every subject raised in the article. Your lead nearly meets this requirement. You need something on the legacy and you would need to add something about reception when this section is written.
- Regarding references be sure you are using a consistent format throughout. Each website reference should have the title, publisher and accessdate.
- You have a nice little article here. Well done and keep up the good work. If you have specific questions about this review please contact me on my talk page as I do not watch review pages. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. I will revise it as soon as I can. Unfortunately I have finals and AP exams coming up so it will take me a while to address every issue. But I promise I will address every single error.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 23:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- I commend you for work on obscure articles and information. All corners of the project deserve the light of day. The linking has been diminished and you've beefed up the lead. I had a couple more comments:
-
- I'm not sure Legacy should be a sub-section under Reception. They seem to be mutually exclusive. I would recommend making Legacy its own section.
- "However, the film may have influenced other Japanese science fiction films, notably Gorath, Gamera vs. Guiron and Gamera: Super Monster." I don't like the wording in this sentence. The film may have influenced other Japanese science fiction films. Either it has or it hasn't. Keeping it vague like this doesn't say anything. I haven't reviewed the references for this statement so perhaps they are vague. In which case I would either find firm evidence one way or the other, or leave it out.
- Is there an article title for ref 10?
- If you use a book be sure to put the page number of where you found the information. This helps researchers quickly locate the reference within the book.
- Not to get nit picky but usually book references contain the location of the publisher. Probably not a big deal at WP:GAC but it would be noticed at WP:FAC should you wish to move the article along.
- What is important is if you're using Google Books be sure to put the URL into the reference. That way others can easily link to it.
- Those star fish costumes are classic, I'll be seeing them in my dreams tonight. :)
- That's it for me, well done and best of luck at GAC. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your help. It will take me a while to go through and find the page numbers for each book, but I think I can manage it. Also, for ref 10, that was there before I rewrote the article, and I could not find any online sources for the information. I will contact the editor who added that later to see if I can get any more information from that source.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
-
Ruhrfisch comments Looking on Google books I found a few more references to the film which might be worth including:
- Dark dreams 2.0: a psychological history of the modern horror film from the ... By Charles Derry compares it to Monster Zero
- Japan's favorite mon-star: the unauthorized biography of "The Big G" By Steve Ryfle says it was made as a response to Godzilla (no Google books preview for me)
- It gets 2 stars in A guide to apocalyptic cinema By Charles P. Mitchell
- And believe it or not in this biography of Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick: a biography By John Baxter
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- You did the same thing I did, go to Google Books. Fortunately this is an old film so it did have many references. I believe I have already mentioned the Godzilla response, however. I will be sure to add each of these others into the article as soon as I can.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 23:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- The Stanley Kubrick one is kind of useless, but I used the others.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 23:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is your call, but I was thinking of something like "In his biography of Stanley Kubrick, author John Baxter traces Kubrick's interest in science fiction films, which led to his 2001: A Space Odyssey, to the Japanese Kaiju eiga films of the 1950s, including Warning from Space, with its "nameless two-metre-tall black starfish with a single central eye, who walk en pointe like ballet dancers". Baxter notes that despite their "clumsy model sequences, the films were often well-photographed in colour ... and their dismal dialogue was delivered in well-designed and well-lit sets". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I didn't read that far back in the biography. Thanks, by the way, I used it.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 14:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I didn't read that far back in the biography. Thanks, by the way, I used it.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 14:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is your call, but I was thinking of something like "In his biography of Stanley Kubrick, author John Baxter traces Kubrick's interest in science fiction films, which led to his 2001: A Space Odyssey, to the Japanese Kaiju eiga films of the 1950s, including Warning from Space, with its "nameless two-metre-tall black starfish with a single central eye, who walk en pointe like ballet dancers". Baxter notes that despite their "clumsy model sequences, the films were often well-photographed in colour ... and their dismal dialogue was delivered in well-designed and well-lit sets". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- The Stanley Kubrick one is kind of useless, but I used the others.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 23:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- You did the same thing I did, go to Google Books. Fortunately this is an old film so it did have many references. I believe I have already mentioned the Godzilla response, however. I will be sure to add each of these others into the article as soon as I can.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 23:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 15 April 2011, 22:03 UTC)
Scream (film)
I've listed this article for peer review because…I've overhauled it from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scream_(film)&diff=423380818&oldid=423378618
I've rewritten the plot, got rid of the trivia section, styled everything, done some aesthetic stuff, added the entire development section plus some really illustrative images, added citations and mulitiple sources, corrected incorrect information and generally I believe this has gone from an overall bad article to a very good one. I'd like to think that with some small input this can be ready for a GAN soon so I appreciate any input.
Thanks for reading, Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Quick comment - this currently has 7 fair use images - how does that comply with WP:NFCC? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- I get what you are saying but I believe that the images used are important to illustrate the areas they exist in. As with previous peer review suggestiosn from you, in this case I used Alien (film) as an example, which contains 11 images and is a GA. In this article I firmly believe that the images I have included are important to the completeness of the article, the visual effect ones in particular which explain far better what is going on than prose is capable of and are not simply for decorative purposes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I looked at it, and Aliens (film) has only 7 fair use images, the same as this. In each case there, the image is near the text discussing it and is discussued in some detail in the article. In four of seven cases (all but the poster, cast photo, and model) the fair use images in Alien are from the film itself - here none of the fair use images seem to be from the film itself. Here is a review of each image in this article. One of the things to think about is this "Does the image increase the reader's understanding in a way that just the text alone does not?". You might also want to look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches on image licenses.
- I get what you are saying but I believe that the images used are important to illustrate the areas they exist in. As with previous peer review suggestiosn from you, in this case I used Alien (film) as an example, which contains 11 images and is a GA. In this article I firmly believe that the images I have included are important to the completeness of the article, the visual effect ones in particular which explain far better what is going on than prose is capable of and are not simply for decorative purposes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- File:Scream movie poster.jpg - an image of the theatrical poster for the film is pretty standard in articles on films, so this is OK.
- File:Scream-cast-at-fountain.jpg - I will note that there are free images of each actor or actress listed as starring in the infobox (and in this image) except for Skeet Ullrich. This does not appear to be a scene from the movie (it is labeled a promotional photo) and the individual images of the actors are almost all replacable with free images. In Aliens the cast photo shows them in more readily identifiable costumes with weapons, so it seems more justifiable as fair use to me.
- File:Ghostfacemaskdiscovery.jpg - how does seeing this image help the reader understand the article any better than the text (which is in the next section and is just one sentence)? While location scouting, Maddalena discovered the Ghostface mask hanging from a post inside the house previously used for the film Shadow of a Doubt (1943).[5] Please note that since the Ghostface mask is iconic and not easily described in words (and is discussed in some detail in the article) I think a fair use image of the mask is justified, but am not sure this is the best one that could be chosen.
- File:Maskmouldmsall.jpg - it is not clear to me what this is a mould for - is it for the mask used in the movie or is it for an earlier version trying to look like the one ultimatley used, but not exactly like it for copyright reasons? The caption needs to be clearer if the image is used. If it is for the mask used in the movie, wouldn't a fair use image of the mask itself be better (and if there is one image of the mask itself, two are almost certainly not justified). If it is for the mask design used before the final mask chosen, I am not sure. Does a mould for a mask not used in the film really help the reader's understanding?
- By the way, the images above and below this comment sandwich the text, which is something you are not supposed to do under WP:MOSIMAGE.
- File:Visualeffectsscream1.jpg - please note that this counts as two images (even though it is one file). I think these both have a pretty good case for fair use. The chair is probably the stronger of the two (it really increased my understanding of how the effect was done), but the Barrymore mask is also helpful (and creepy).
- File:Screamsoundtrack.jpg - while images of album cover art are standard in articles on albums, I note that this is basically just a crop of the movie poster image (so does the article need a second fair use image that is essentially a duplicate of the first?). I also note that Template:Infobox_album#Cover says in part The width of the image should ideally be no less than 220px (the default value of the "Thumbnail size" parameter), and it should be no more than 300px on at least one side (the maximum value of the "Thumbnail size" parameter) to satisfy fair use criteria. but this image is 350 px wide.
Finally, please note that the image review at GAN is generally less stringent than at FAC, so even though this may pass with 7 fair use images at GAN, I doubt it would at FAC. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Is the difference with Alien (film) that some of the images have creative commons license?
-
- File:Scream-cast-at-fountain.jpg - Well it's taken at a scene from the film (I don't know if you have seen it), but it is them out of character but in costume and position during that particular scene so I don't know if that would make a difference. Would it better if I screencap'd them IN character from that scene?
- File:Ghostfacemaskdiscovery.jpg - You make a fair point, I felt it was important because as you mention, the mask is iconic and I thought seeing the exact mask that was found (its a photo of it as it was found) that basically was the origin for the iconic image we have today would be notable. I guess that is debatable.
- File:Maskmouldmsall.jpg - Fair point, its a mold for a mask they used to copy the original design but avoid copyright, I will clarify it.
- File:Screamsoundtrack.jpg - Just to be clear I didn't crop it, that's the actual album art. I have considered breaking this section off into its own article so maybe that would deal with that particular image. I will also resize it, I was told 350 was fine for fair use purposes.
-
-
- Thanks for the feedback
- EDIT: I read the image tutorial but without more text I can't see a reasonable solution to the "sandwich" effect in the Visual Effects section that wouldn't lead to the images bleeding heavily into lower sections. Do you have any suggestions for that?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, while this may be OK at GAN with the current images (depends on who the reviewer is there), it would not be OK at FAC. I have not seen the film. To me the two weakest fair use images are File:Ghostfacemaskdiscovery.jpg and File:Maskmouldmsall.jpg. Neither is taken from the film itself, neither really helped me understand the topic better than the descriptions already in the article, and the mould is for a mask that does not appear in the film. I would suggest replacing both of these with one fair use image of the Ghostface character from the film, where the discovery image now is (which would reduce the number of fair use images to 6, and solve the sandwich problem). I know you did not crop the album cover, my point is the album cover and movie poster are basically two versions of the same fair use image. This is just my suggestion, feel free to see what the GAN reviewer says. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
-
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to GAN.
- First sentence of the lead is pretty long and comples and may be better split into two. I would also take out "created and" as a) this is not repeated in the article and b) the creator of a film is not usually a single person (the actors and writer and director and technical people all create it together). Scream is a 1996 American slasher film created and written by Kevin Williamson and directed by Wes Craven, starring Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, Drew Barrymore and David Arquette, released on December 20, 1996 as the first installment in the Scream film series.
- Direct quotes in the lead are usually cited per WP:MOSQUOTE
- MOS says to spell out 1970s and 1980s in numerous sequels to established horror franchises of the 70s and 80s which were drawing both decreasing financial and critical success
- Watch WP:OVERLINKing - usually links are only provided for things directly related to the article or for unfamiliar terms to most readers. This also makes the links provided more noticable and thus useful. So, for example, in plot does the average reader really need a link to Journalism to explain "news reporter"?
- Prose is decent but could use a copyedit in places to polish things. I think "producers" is often meant where "production" is used. One example (can also be tightened) is However, young actress Drew Barrymore read the script
for the filmand became interested in being involved, approaching the production herself to request a role. - Watch language too - dynasty? acclaimed? famous? Barrymore, a member of the Barrymore family dynasty and granddaughter of acclaimed American actor John Barrymore, had become a famous star in her own right starring in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and the production were quick to take advantage of her unexpected interest, signing her to play the lead role of Sidney Prescott.[2][3] Are there non-famous stars?
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Halloween (1978 film) is a FA and may be a good model.
- I question the current organization. Parts of the cast section are out of chronological order (we are told Craven reconsidered directing there before knowing he rejected the film). Again following Halloween (1978 film), I think I would put the Plot first, then the creative process in order (Writing, Development, Casting (current Cast section), Filming and then the same order.
- Cinematography is only one paragraph - could it be combined with Filming?
- More Overlinking - why is Marco Beltrami linked 15 times in the Score table (and once more in the section)
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 19:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- First sentence of the lead is pretty long and comples and may be better split into two. I would also take out "created and" as a) this is not repeated in the article and b) the creator of a film is not usually a single person (the actors and writer and director and technical people all create it together). Scream is a 1996 American slasher film created and written by Kevin Williamson and directed by Wes Craven, starring Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, Drew Barrymore and David Arquette, released on December 20, 1996 as the first installment in the Scream film series.
- Direct quotes in the lead are usually cited per WP:MOSQUOTE
- MOS says to spell out 1970s and 1980s in numerous sequels to established horror franchises of the 70s and 80s which were drawing both decreasing financial and critical success
*Watch WP:OVERLINKing - usually links are only provided for things directly related to the article or for unfamiliar terms to most readers. This also makes the links provided more noticable and thus useful. So, for example, in plot does the average reader really need a link to Journalism to explain "news reporter"?
- Prose is decent but could use a copyedit in places to polish things. I think "producers" is often meant where "production" is used. One example (can also be tightened) is However, young actress Drew Barrymore read the script
for the filmand became interested in being involved, approaching the production herself to request a role. - Watch language too - dynasty? acclaimed? famous? Barrymore, a member of the Barrymore family dynasty and granddaughter of acclaimed American actor John Barrymore, had become a famous star in her own right starring in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and the production were quick to take advantage of her unexpected interest, signing her to play the lead role of Sidney Prescott.[2][3] Are there non-famous stars?
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Halloween (1978 film) is a FA and may be a good model.
- *I question the current organization. Parts of the cast section are out of chronological order (we are told Craven reconsidered directing there before knowing he rejected the film). Again following Halloween (1978 film), I think I would put the Plot first, then the creative process in order (Writing, Development, Casting (current Cast section), Filming and then the same order.
- Cinematography is only one paragraph - could it be combined with Filming?
- More Overlinking - why is Marco Beltrami linked 15 times in the Score table (and once more in the section)
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please seeWikipedia: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.) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Ruhrfisch, Halloween doesn't appear to be a FAC, just so you're aware for the future.
- Ruhrfisch, Halloween doesn't appear to be a FAC, just so you're aware for the future.
(Peer review added on Thursday 14 April 2011, 22:22 UTC)
Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire
I've listed this article for peer review because I have felling that the article is well written episode and should be ready for FA.
Any comments welcome. Please comment me on my talk page for any concerns. Thanks, JJ98 (Talk) 10:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It's doable, but right now this will need a lot of work to get to FA. There a numerous sources currently not in use, the article lacks reviews from the time and also lacks analysis. The books by Ortved, Turner and Pinsky have good analysis in them but have yet to be implemented, while I've found numerous potential books on Google Books. There are also hundreds of potential press articles (via Newsbank) many from 1989, which will have some use. Gran2 11:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all the comments above. Thanks for you work on this and here are some suggestions for improvement.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many WP:FAs on episodes of the Simpsons at Category:FA-Class The Simpsons articles. The earliest (in terms of seasons of the Simpsons) episode that is a FA is Stark Raving Dad (Season 3) which seems like it would be a good model.
- There is an external link checker in the tool box on this page and it shows two dead links that will have to be fixed before this would go to FAC.
- As I read the article, it was not clear to me why they picked this particular episode to air first (since it was 8th made, why not any of the others?)
- Comparing this with Stark Raving Dad, this article has a Prose size (text only) of 8996 B (1505 words) "readable prose size" and 19 refs. Stark Raving Dad has a Prose size (text only) of 16 kB (2871 words) "readable prose size" (almost twice as big) and 43 refs (over twice as many). I think this shows the article could be expanded quite a bit.
- The FA crtieria - see WP:WIAFA include "1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" This has critical reception from only two sources (both part of IGN) and both several years after it originally aired. To be comprehensive, more reviews and reviews from the time it aired are needed.
- The other FA crterion this owuld have trouble with is "1(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" (for many articles this is the most difficult criterion to meet). One example, from the lead The title of it alludes to "The Christmas Song", also known as "Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire".[2] could be tightened to just The title alludes to "The Christmas Song", also known as "Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire".[2] and there are several other places that could be polished. I would fix everything else, then get a copyedit.
- By the 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 bit about "The CHristmas Song" is only in the lead that I can see. Please see WP:LEAD
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 04:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
PS JUst saw an article on DYK about a TV episode with a lot more critical reception - Andy and April's Fancy Party May be a model. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 13 April 2011, 10:56 UTC)
Wyntoon
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I wrote 99% of this by myself and I wish to have some objective opinions about it, with a view to going to WP:GAN.
Thanks, Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
First off thank you for undertaking the effort to bring this article to GA quality. I will review with the GA Criteria in mind.
- I would consider renaming the first four sections from the name of the owner to something a little more descriptive. It's just my opinion though. You can use other articles about architecture or building history as examples.
- There are some tense issues with this sentence, "The photos included ones of Hearst's communications office at Wyntoon, built next to Bear House to keep him abreast of current events." "Ones" and "communications office"? Can this be fixed?
- I'd remove the "pampered" from "pampered dachshunds". Unnecessary opinionated detail.
- Who is "Davies"? I don't see reference to this person until it says that W.R. Hearst and Davies stayed at Bear House during WWII.
- I'm not sure what the death of the two dogs has to do with the house. It seems ancillary to the history. My opinion again.
- Regarding References
-
- From what I can tell ref 16 refers to the Freudenheim book, while ref 17 actually gives the full reference. Shouldn't these be reversed?
- It appears as though Ref 4 and 24, the American Heritage references, are dead links. These should be fixed.
- Overall it appears as though the article is in great shape. I would beef up the lead a bit. It's supposed to be a summary of the entire article yet I don't see much about notable visitors or what its status is today. I also think a bit more could be added to the summary, especially of the Hearst ownership, the acrimonious nature of how it was acquired by W.R. Hearst etc.
- Other than that what I've said above I think you're in good shape and the article should pass GA without a problem. This concludes my review. Please consider reviewing an article here or a WP:GAC to alleviate the ever-present backlog. If you have specific questions please contact me at my talk page as I do not routinely watch review pages. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the review! Excellent points, all. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! Excellent points, all. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 11 April 2011, 17:29 UTC)
The Conduit
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that after years of editing, the page has finally reached FA standards. Unlike most video game related articles seen on the site which focus mostly in in universe aspects, The Conduit article gives a detailed account on the creation of the game, such as the technicals behind the creation of the games engine and audio creation, as well as games marketing and release. As a side bonus, it would be fun if the article was featured in time for the sequels release.
Thanks, Little Jimmy (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments from Seegoon
As someone who knows zip about this game and has never really looked at a video game article in any depth, I will make a great naive reviewer but a useless expert. What the hey.
- Per WP:LEADCITE, the only things you really need to cite in the lead are assertions which are super contentious or direct quotes. Hopefully anything mentioned in the lead is repeated later in the article, so you should really be able to remove all the references.
- "In addition, as the player explores the game more subtle clues in the environment, such as a precisely placed object in a certain historical location, can be discovered which are meant to provoke questions about elements of the story." – a big, long, snakey, ugly sentence.
- I've seen that some video game articles cite the game itself as reference material for the plot section. Yours is entirely unreferenced. I'm not entirely sure what guidelines dictate here, but it's certainly worth taking a look at some recent VG FAs and GAs to check it out.
- "In early June 2009, the developer announced that The Conduit had gone gold" – although 'gold' is linked here, this is the sort of thing a lay reader wouldn't understand. Could you clarify this, do you think?
- "supplied motion captured animation for The Conduit" – not sure 'animation' needs linking here.
- "...recordings from the Wilco album Yankee Hotel Foxtrot taken from the..." – album titles should be italicised.
- "Dolby Pro Logic II surround sound.[41]." – you have a stray full stop after the citation here.
- "file through amazon.com. [51][52]" – stray space between full stop and citation.
- "The Conduit has received mixed to positive reviews." – so many reception sections start with something like this. It's cookie cutter and unimaginative; surely an article as well-written as this one deserves something with a little more flair?
- "a metascore of 69% at Metacritic based on 79 reviews." – citation needed.
- Reference-wise, you're in very good shape. Reviewers will be quick to pick up on the paucity of print media and the two glaring deadlinks, as well as a little bit of inconsistency (i.e. ref #76 vs #66).
- Now that I've reached the end, I can see that there's a little structural deficiency. Much of the release information from the lead isn't replicated in the body, as it realistically should be. The lead is supposed to summarise the important information from the body into a couple of paragraphs, but it feels more like an excerpt from a 'Release' section. I'd say that you need a brief rundown of commercial and critical reception within the lead, and to move some of the detailed release info elsewhere.
You've done a great job here. My limited comments are a testament to that fact. I expect that once my concerns have been addressed, this'd sail through GAC; I'm not so sure about FAC. I hope my comments have been a help! Seegoon (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I'll try to incorporate you're advice into the article when I get the time. Plus GA would probably be a better start than FA. Cheers!Little Jimmy (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 8 April 2011, 08:00 UTC)
Language and literature
Holy Wood (novel)
I've listed this article for peer review because… I need some advise on what needs to be done to improve this page. This is the first time I'm handling an article for a novel.
Thanks, Red marquis (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 1 May 2011, 12:43 UTC)
Harold Pinter
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is time to move on to featured article status. The article is probably a little too long and has suffered from ownership issues by a now banned editor. Any useful criticism much appreciated.
Thanks, Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment from Tim Riley I was one of the Wiki-colleagues who spent a little time a year or so back trying to lend a hand with cleaning this article up. I'd be happy to make detailed comments here, if that is a proper course of action, but I don't want to stick my oar in if I am ineligible by reason of my earlier contributions. Advice, please! Tim riley (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Tim, no I would welcome a fresh review as I do intend to take this to FAC. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Right ho! Then here goes. The ingredients of this article are excellent, and it is much more like a top-class article than it was a year or two ago. Nevertheless, it has, I think, some way to go before it meets the FAC criterion that "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". The pseudo-academic pretensions of earlier versions have not yet all been expunged, though you have certainly done wonders. It will take me several goes to complete my comments. Here is the first batch.
- Lead: no suggestions. A good length and judicious balance.
- Early life and education
- "native-English parents of Eastern-European" – there are two more hyphens here than Fowler would have us use; a legacy of an earlier, American, editor, perhaps.
-
-
- Done
-
-
- Short quotations, such as "good cook" and "a solid, red-brick….": I think you'll come under some pressure at FAC to attribute within the text any quotations you include. Thus "described by Pinter as 'a good cook'" etc. Some cases are more intrusive than others, no doubt.
-
-
- Done
-
-
- "Pinter's official authorised biographer" – tautology? Can one be an official biographer without being authorised, or vice versa?
-
-
- Done
-
-
- "Spring 1947" – two things here. Wikipedia house style is not to capitalise the seasons; and to appease those in the Antipodes, WP recommends avoiding using, e.g., "spring" if one could as well write "April" or whatever the month was.
-
-
- Done, left it as spring, I take the point about the Antipodes but I think the issue was entitled Spring.
-
- Sport and friendship
- Gratuitous comment by TR (to be ignored) – what in God's name was a good London lad doing supporting that shower from Headingley?
-
-
- Indeed!
-
-
- "Testosterone" quote – that one really does need attributing in-line.
-
-
- Done
-
-
- "After his death, several of his school contemporaries recalled his achievements in sports, especially cricket and running" – does this sentence add anything to the six previous ones?
-
-
- Hmm, I'll think about that.
-
-
- "Platonic ideal of male friendship" – that's a lot of blue for one link; could the blue reasonably be confined to "Platonic" or some such?
-
-
- Done
-
-
- "he worked for the Donald Wolfit Company, King's Theatre, Hammersmith" – "at the" before "King's", perhaps?
-
-
- Done
-
-
- "In all, Pinter played nearly 25 roles" – a lot of "Pinter"s hereabouts; would "he" flow better here and in the next sentence?
-
-
- Changed to over 20
-
-
-
- Afterthought: Is "nearly 25" a good enough measure? I might go for 23 (or whatever it was) or else "more than 20". Just a thought.
- "as he did later as well" – stylistically a bit limp? Stronger as something like "as he continued to do throughout his career"?
-
-
-
- Done
-
- Marriages and family life
- "most notably The Homecoming" – very likely, but it's too firm an opinion to stand without a citation
-
-
- Done, notably removed
-
-
- "on-off affair" – unclear whether the quotation marks indicate an unattributed quotation or an apology for using a slangy phrase.
-
-
- Sorted
-
-
- "seeing an American socialite" – "seeing" is a bit vague in this context (possibly an American euphemism?)
-
-
- Sorted by rewrite
-
-
- "whom he nicknamed 'Cleopatra', another secret he kept" – it was presumably the seeing not the nickname that he kept secret – the text could be misunderstood by those determined to spot ambiguities
-
-
- Rewritten
-
-
- "five days after Hall's première of No Man's Land":
- this is the first mention of Hall. I don't think his name adds anything to this sentence, and I'd delete it, but if you prefer to keep it you need to blue-link it and give him his first name.
- "five days after Hall's première of No Man's Land":
-
-
- Deleted
-
-
-
- WP prefers Anglicised versions of foreign words that are in common use, so you should lose the accent on première.
-
-
-
- Him, this is the correct British English spelling.
-
-
- "For all concerned" – this orphaned quote really needs to be fostered by someone. One can often guess who said some of the other unattributed quotes, but this one defeats me.
-
-
- Removed
-
-
- "after Pinter and Lady Antonia Fraser" – at her last mention she was just "Fraser" tout court. Does it help to expand her name again this time?
-
- Done
-
- He "re-drafted" and "polished" it "off" – oh, come on! Is there a special offer on quotation marks at Ryman's this week?
-
- Done
-
- "Pinter 'did everything possible to support' her" – says who? The citation at the end of the sentence is a long way away, and your reader should not be required to go to it and thence to the notes at the end of the article. I'd paraphrase this, "Pinter believed/maintained/contended that he had done everything possible to support her…"
-
- Done
-
- "she says that she 'could'" More gratuitous quotes. No rational person could maintain that omitting the quotation marks here would be tantamount to plagiarism. The source of the statement is perfectly plain without them.
-
- Done
-
- "Did Billington really write "the break-up … and the new life … was"? If his grammar was thus faulty, so be it, but it might be worth checking.
-
-
- Yes he did, but he is only a journalist
-
-
- "the new life with Antonia" – yet another way of referring to the lady. I think you should strive for consistency throughout. (I've just been pressed into doing the same for Elizabeth David at peer review and so I'm boxing about.)
-
-
- It is a quote from Billington
-
-
- "did not 'claim' to have 'some influence over' Pinter" – more otiose quotation marks
-
-
- Done
-
That's all for now. I'll gather my strength and return with more a.s.a.p. Tim riley (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks, excellent stuff so far, i will start looking at it tonight. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I have made a first pass at these comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, excellent stuff so far, i will start looking at it tonight. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
-
Comment from Ssilvers: Congratulations on your progress with the article. My main thought is that it is over-referenced. We don't need three refs for the first sentence of the Lead, and there are often two or even three refs for simple propositions in the article. Also, the "Works cited and further reading" section seems to cite too many works that are never used in the text. We are still citing 8 pieces by Susan Hollis Merritt [. . .]. But I have no idea which ones are unnecessary. Hope this helps. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, yes I will look at this, but will try and get the prose into shape first. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Second batch of comments from Tim riley:
- Civic activities and political activism
- "essays, interviews, and public appearances" – is the Oxford comma needed before "and" here?
-
- Done
-
- Third para – begins with a pronoun, which I think FAC inquisitors will want to see rendered as a name.
-
- Done
-
- "Acceptance Speech"– why the inverted commas?
-
- Done
- As actor
- "Mike Nichols'" – American form of possessive. English usage would be Nichols's.
-
- The artcile uses British English
- As playwright
- "Pinter is the author of 29 plays" – ought this to be "was"? I'm not sure what the consensus is on referring to dead writers in the present tense.
-
- Done
-
- "a staggeringly confident debut" – this quote really needs an attribution in the text, I think, not just a citation in a footnote.
-
- Done
-
- "despite a rave review" – slightly slangy phrase for an encyclopaedia article, perhaps?
-
- Done
-
- The Hobson review of The Birthday Party could do with a citation
-
- Done
-
- "It was not produced very often thereafter" – a rather woolly phrase; could we know, e.g., how often it was produced in London?
-
- Reworded
-
- Memory plays – this section, containing some of Pinter's greatest plays, seems to me rather perfunctory in comparison with the more detailed (and most welcome) treatment of the earlier plays. Extensive discussion of the individual plays themselves is not wanted here, but a few production details or reviews would bring this sub-section up to fighting weight. I'd be happy to dig them up if you would like them.
-
- That would be a help. I will start drafting something tomorrow.
-
- The Hothouse – "it is also highly comic" – says who?
-
- Mmmm, can't find a precise source for this so have rewritten
-
- …presented "metaphors" for "power and powerlessness," the later ones present literal "realities" of power… – all these quotation marks could be lost without for a moment obscuring the fact that the words are Pinter's.
-
- Done
-
- "a gathering place for the theatre crowd" – another slightly slangy construction?
-
- Rephrased
-
- "The ritzy loudmouths in 'Celebration' ... and the quieter working-class mumblers of 'The Room' ... have everything in common beneath the surface" – as I read the MoS, you are permitted (and if so, I think ought) silently to change the single quotes into italics.
-
-
- I am not clear about what you mean here
-
-
- "harkening back" – harking back?
-
- British English verb form of hearken.
-
- Done
More anon. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll be away for a week, with little online access, so my next batch of comments probably won't be till the middle of next week. Tim riley (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- No problem, Tim, Thanks for all your help. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Back. Will resume review over the weekend. Tim riley (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, look forward to it. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Back. Will resume review over the weekend. Tim riley (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, Tim, Thanks for all your help. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Round three
- As screenwriter
- Only two comments on this section. First, a general one: there are rather a lot of actors listed against the film titles, and this somewhat clogs up the page with blue links. I wonder if you need the cast members at all? I might be inclined to give title and director and leave it at that. But if you disagree with that, you might still take the pruning shears to the cast of e.g. The Last Tycoon, where you surely don't need seven names?
-
-
- Agreed, all "stars" removed, not relevant here, the details are in the artciles on the original films. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- The other point on this section is that Pinter's screenwriting career ended with Sleuth, but it is rather tendentious (and in my view inaccurate) to say this was the culmination of that career. The OED defines "culminate" as "To reach its acme, or highest development", which if applied to Sleuth is pushing things more than somewhat and is POV in any case. And what relevance is it to this article that Olivier played Wyke in an earlier film of the play in which Pinter had no hand?
-
-
- Agreed, rephrased with culmination removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- 2001-2008
- Homage – is the link helpful?
-
-
- No, removed per WP:OVERLINKING Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- The second para of this section contains a contender for Longest Sentence in Wikipedia. I'd drop the padding "As chronicled on his official website and in the subsequent editions of the "Harold Pinter Bibliography" in volumes of The Pinter Review" and chop the remainder into two or preferably three shorter sentences.
-
-
- Done Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- "otherwise-retrospective" – otiose hyphen. Americans seem addicted to this sort of thing but I have just checked against Fowler, who will have none of it.
-
-
- Removed Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- MOS gives instructions about where to hyphenate and where not to in all WP articles (It is the same for US and UK). See WP:HYPHEN. This is not a simple series of rules to apply consistently, and I agree with Tim that the ones he has identified are unneeded. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- "over a 130" – intrusive article here
-
-
- Removed Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- "dozen … dozen" – rather a jingle, or is it deliberate for rhetorical effect?
-
-
- Removed Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- "Productions during the Festival" – lower case festival?
-
-
- Done Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- "activism" – another link of (meseems) doubtful help to the reader
-
-
- Done Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- "Some of this later poetry …." Is a reference called for at the end of this sentence? Not sure.
- "adapting such selected works by Pinter" – unclear what the "such" refers to here
- "premièred" – though I personally prefer to use the grave accent in this word, Wikipedia doesn't (see MoS)
- "In an interview of Pinter" – is "of" the natural preposition here? It reads slightly awkwardly to me. Might "with" flow better? Not certain.
- "Cultural Programme" – definitely need to blitz this link; it would be unnecessary in any case, and it links to an article about printed theatre booklets.
- "his friend, playwright David Hare" – this is one of many such instances of an American/journalese construction that I detest. The Guardian's style guide recommends the construction "his friend, the playwright David Hare". I know that others regard this view as very English and old-fashioned, however.
-
- "motorized" – the normal UK English form "—ised" is used elsewhere, and I think you might adopt it here
- "it was one of the most sought-after tickets" – confusion in construction here: a show can't be a ticket, even figuratively, can it? This sentence would be shorter and do the job perfectly well if, after the semi-colon you had " it sold out within minutes…"
- "scalpers" – ? an Americanism for "touts" I assume. Some wording in neutral English needs to be found here, though I confess nothing leaps to mind.
-
- "It featured selected productions" – Query: does this mean that the productions were selected (whose, if so?) rather than the plays?
- "2 February through 24 March 2007" – this really must be translated into English.
- Celebration – another mammoth cast list that could be pruned, and so could the one for Radio 3's Homecoming, below it.
- "40th anniverary" – typo
- "a limited engagement through 13 April 2008" – in America, undeniably, but let's have the sentence in English.
- "during the play's break" – do you think this perhaps reads a bit oddly?
- No Man's Land quote – are the three references necessary? A touch of overkill, possibly.
- Funeral
- "Pinter's tearful widow, Antonia Fraser" – I question whether the adjective is either tasteful or helpful here
- the death of Prince Hamlet – might be easier on the reader's eye if you piped this as [[Prince Hamlet|Hamlet]]
- Memorial tributes
- "to support residents' campaign" – missing an article?
- "most-accomplished " – another howler with hyphens
- "the year that he" – would "the year in which he" read more smoothly?
- Being Harold Pinter
- The paragraph fails to tell the reader the name of the country and city where this event took place. The blue links point to New York venues, but the location should be in the text too.
- "public media" – blue link of doubtful usefulness
- "due to a government crackdown" – "owing to a government crackdown" in good UK English
-
-
- Too idiomatic, IMO. How about "because of a gov..."?
-
-
- " Public Theatre" – the article to which the blue link points is entitled "Public Theater". I know not which is correct, but there is an inconsistency here.
-
-
- I think it should be "The Public Theater", since it is describing a performance at the venue of that name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
-
More to come in due season. Tim riley (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Tim, will check these out this evening. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Lead:
- individual identity oppressed by..." Is "oppressed" being used correctly? Not sure. "subjected to"? Or maybe "being oppressed"?
- mid 1980s. Here, I think a hyphen is called for by WP:HYPHEN. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- In the third paragraph, we mention his Tony Award, but not his Olivier Award. I would add Olivier. Indeed, the infobox mentions some awards not mentioned in the Lead. I think the infobox should either match, or list a subset of the awards mentioned in the Lead; please consider.
- "the title role of Samuel Beckett's one-act monologue". I think this should be "the title role in..." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 17 April 2011, 11:18 UTC)
The Sun Also Rises
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC soonish. This July is the 50th anniversary of Ernest Hemingway's suicide, and I am hoping to nominate this page for TFA if it is finished in time. Any comments are welcome. Thanks, Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I'm not able to contribute an in-depth review, but a quick glance made me wonder why the publication history section was so low in the article. It seems that a book should be published before it is analyzed, etc. See The Open Boat, for example. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- A very good point. That section has been bothering me and I didn't know why exactly but probably because it was in the wrong place. I'll work on shifting it around. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I just looked at the article briefly (try to make everything more concise):
- maybe merge Background and Publication history somehow - the article is about the book, not the person so...
- add info on how widespread the book was if that info is attainable
- integrate "8 notes" into the article - i don't think most FA have those but you should check
- "words—if only because there are so few of them—are" -- not sure what grammar rules you're using but it's pretty common to have a space after and before the "--" though i have seem them without the spaces; it's just unusual for me
- "However Frederic Svoboda writes that, although written in a journalistic style, the striking thing about the novel is "how quickly it moves away" -- ok, this is just awful, in my opinion. it's choppy, with the dependent clause breaking the flow of the sentence. im guessing the rest of the article has phrasing problems; either get rid of the dependent clause if it's trivial and isn't significant, or rework the entire article.
After that last opinionated concern, I just stopped reading.rm2dance (talk)
-
- Sorry, I just noticed this. Emdashes are not spaced; endashes are spaced. Not sure what you mean by 8 notes. Will work on the prose. Thanks for the comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I've read some Hemingway, but not this. Not sure if this makes me a better reviewer, or just a more ignorant one. Anyway, this looks overall pretty good, so here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly language related. Thanks for your work on this!
Lead
- Would the current first sentence be better as something like The Sun Also Rises, a 1926 novel written by Ernest Hemingway, is considered a treatise on the post-World War I generation, which was dubbed the Lost Generation. Still not perfect, but maybe this gives an idea? I spelled out World War I (instead of WWI). At FAC people might ask who considers it a treatise. I also wonder if "post-World War I generation" is accurate - sounds almost like the people born right after the war. What about something like The Sun Also Rises, a 1926 novel by Ernest Hemingway, is considered by many to be a treatise on the "Lost Generation", those who had lived through World War I. Ehhh - not sure if that is better or not.
- I've reworked and removed treatise for now, but will check the sources again. Might be able to cite it as it was written. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Again might need attribution for FAC Arguably the best modernist novel of the period by an American...
- I've removed this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just to note, I was / am OK with keeping it, just think it owuld be better as something like "According to noted critic X, it is arguably the best modernist novel... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I need to find the reference for it, but honestly might be better to keep a statement like that out of the lead for various reasons. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just to note, I was / am OK with keeping it, just think it owuld be better as something like "According to noted critic X, it is arguably the best modernist novel... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Smoother with "and" instead of (or just after) the second comma? The setting was considered unique and memorable, presenting the seedy café life of Paris, [and] the Pamplona festival, with a middle section devoted to fishing in the Pyrenees.
- Thanks, used your sentence. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Another one to tweak. First off can something be "equally startling" if nothing has explicitly been startling before? Equally startling was Hemingway's spare writing style, combined with his restrained use of description to convey characterizations and action, which [reflected what later] became known as the [his??] iceberg theory. Second I tried tweaking the iceber theory phrase - did he have the theory fully developed back when he wrote the novel?
- He had written about the iceberg theory in letters, etc., this early but I've tweaked to be clear, and removed the "equally startling". Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I thought at first Jonathan Cape was a pseudonym - perhaps The novel was published by Charles Scribner's Sons in the US in October 1926, and by Jonathan Cape in the UK in 1927, as Fiesta. (Perhaps the last phrase could be "in 1927 under the title Fiesta.") Plus this way it is a parallel construction.
- Thank you - used your sentence again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Lead says Jake is the hero, but plot says he is narrator (hero not mentioned there) and then in Writing style there is a paragraph which seems to say the novel has no hero, or only a weak and negative one.
- Changed to protagonist. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I had to read this several times the first time through to understand it and it still trips me up each time. Perhaps it would be best split up into two sentences on themes? The primary themes are the notion that the post-WWI generation was a 'lost generation', decadent and dissolute, irretrievably damaged by the war; death; renewal in nature; and living life purely, to the best of one's ability in an authentic manner. So split as something like The primary theme is the notion that the post-WWI generation was a 'lost generation', decadent and dissolute, irretrievably damaged by the war. Other themes include death; renewal in nature; and living life purely, to the best of one's ability in an authentic manner.
- Honestly, it tripped me up too. Split into two sentences and reworked. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- MOS says not to use 'single quotes' unless they are for a quote within a quote - use "double quotes" instead (here and elsewhere in the article).
- I think I got all of these. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Background
- I don't like pronouns as the subject of the first sentence of a paragraph - not sure if the antecedent is clear. So He first visited the Festival of San Fermín in Pamplona in 1923 where he became fascinated by bullfighting.[3] might be better starting out as Hemingway first visited...
- I've fixed this, but can you look to at. Now I have three paragraphs beginning with "Hemingway ... " Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Did Hemingway and Hadley both visit in 1923? If so, it could be "The Hemingways first visited the Festival..." The sentence "Hemingway and Hadley went to Schruns, Austria in December 1925 for the winter..." could instead be "hadley and Hemingway went to Schruns..." for variety too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, that works. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Did Hemingway and Hadley both visit in 1923? If so, it could be "The Hemingways first visited the Festival..." The sentence "Hemingway and Hadley went to Schruns, Austria in December 1925 for the winter..." could instead be "hadley and Hemingway went to Schruns..." for variety too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've fixed this, but can you look to at. Now I have three paragraphs beginning with "Hemingway ... " Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Does Donald Odgen Stewart need to be spelled out in two sentences in a row?
- Fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would clarify what / where the Irati is in Outside of Pamplona, the fishing trip to the Irati was marred by polluted water.[5]
- Fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I added River just now (I am a creek geek). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's funny about that, I always assume people know and say, without thinking, the Ohio, the Mon, the Colorado, the Salmon. But of course people don't know, so thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I added River just now (I am a creek geek). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Does this section need to give the completion date twice? Could this be trimmed A few days after the fiesta ended, on his birthday (21 July), he began writing, finishing two months later
on 21 September.[6]- Fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Last paragraph - he leaves Hadley to go to NYC, is alone in Paris afterwards, but then the last sentence says By November they had separated ... - seems like they already had?
- Clarified - hopefully. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Publication history
- Publisher (singular) instead of publishers? Hemingway likely broke the contract with his publishers for the opportunity to have The Sun Also Rises published by Scribner's.
- Fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Problem sentence A first edition of the first printing, with dust-jacket and inscription by Hemingway, now sells at auction for between $80,000 and $120,000.[19] First off the ref is from 2004, so it is 7 years ago (not now). The ref needs the year added as well. Second the source was written as a preview and says that the book is expected to sell for this amount, but does not say what it actually did sell for. Perhaps something like In 2004 a first edition of the first printing, with dust-jacket and inscription by Hemingway, was expected to sell at auction for between $80,000 and $120,000.[19] Also, should this be its own paragraph or could it be combined with the preceding paragraph?
- Rewritten. Not sure whether to keep this or not. Am thinking about it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would keep it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would keep it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Rewritten. Not sure whether to keep this or not. Am thinking about it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Plot summary
- Tighten? In the opening scenes, Jake plays tennis with his college friend Robert Cohn, picks up a prostitute
in one scene, and escapes with Brett from a gathering at a nightclub.- Done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- The MOS says to use full names at first mention, then just last names thereafter unless there are two or more persons or characters with the same last name. The plot summary does not follow this in several places - I am OK with calling Jake and Brett by their first names as this is done pretty consistently, but why are full names repeated in The jealous tension between the men builds; Mike Campbell, Jake, Robert Cohn, and Romero each love Brett. and why are just first names used in Cohn, a champion boxer in college, has fistfights with Jake, Mike, and Romero, whom he injures.? As someone who has not read the book, it is easier to keep track of characters if they are referred to by just one name. I think either first or last os OK as long as it is consistent (and perhaps if it follows the book's preference - i.e. Jake and Brett)
- Changed to last names because Robert Cohn is almost always referred to as Cohn by the critics, but causes a problem because Brett and Jake are always Brett and Jake. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think when writing about characters it is OK to use first names, as long as it is done consistently and especially if the novel refers to them by their first names most of the time. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Okay, then I'll switch back to first names except Cohn who is always Cohn or Robert Cohn, rarely Robert. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- I think when writing about characters it is OK to use first names, as long as it is done consistently and especially if the novel refers to them by their first names most of the time. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Changed to last names because Robert Cohn is almost always referred to as Cohn by the critics, but causes a problem because Brett and Jake are always Brett and Jake. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Writing style
- Will people know that "blue-ink" means to edit?
- No link for this. I have it in several articles. Will think about how to clarify.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not on Wiktionary either. I've clarified a bit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps a different order would be clearer in Hemingway admitted that he learned from the Kansas City Star style-sheet, where he worked as cub reporter, what he needed as a foundation for his writing.[note 2][36] so something like Hemingway admitted that he learned what he needed as a foundation for his writing from the style-sheet for the Kansas City Star, where he worked as cub reporter.[note 2][36]
- Used your sentence. Thank you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Assume that recibiendo is allowing the bull to impale itself - can this be made clearer? Perhaps add the name to the earlier description?
- Somewhat clarified. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would put the Masculinity paragraph and the second paragraph of Anti-semitisim and gender together as they both address similar themes. This would leave a one paragraph Anti-semitism section. If that is too short, maybe have one section for all three paragraphs called "Masculinity, gender, and anti-semitisim"? Not sure these three go together that well.
- I've switched and will play with it. I've switched the organization a few times, but this seems to work fairly well. Truthkeeper88 (talk)
Reception and Legacy
- Is dislikeable the best word choice?
- Reworded Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why is there no mention of the movie in Legacy?
- Ditto for stage adaptations
- I dislike popular culture sections, but will add these. Would like to add from the biographies, I think, so need to read a bit more. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do not think the movie or play need a section of their own, but a sentence on the movie and another on stage adpatations in Legacy would be useful. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Got completely sidetracked researching this - it's actually vaguely interesting that in those days a novel went to stage and then to Hollywood. At any rate, there never was a Broadway adaptation and I'm still struggling with the movie information, separating out what to put in this page and what in the movie page. Almost there. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Added a paragraph. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Got completely sidetracked researching this - it's actually vaguely interesting that in those days a novel went to stage and then to Hollywood. At any rate, there never was a Broadway adaptation and I'm still struggling with the movie information, separating out what to put in this page and what in the movie page. Almost there. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do not think the movie or play need a section of their own, but a sentence on the movie and another on stage adpatations in Legacy would be useful. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I dislike popular culture sections, but will add these. Would like to add from the biographies, I think, so need to read a bit more. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
General
- Note 5 seems superfluous since Background already mentions the divorce.
- Removed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Should the year of publication for Death in the Afternoon be mentioned in the textbox?
- Added Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 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.)
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 ><>°° 03:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot - I'll start working my way through these this weekend and post questions and comments here as they come up. Very thorough, very good! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed some typos and clarified a bit above. A few more thoughts.
- Does the ongoing popularity of the running of the bulls stem from this? I once was briefly in Pamplona (not during the festival) and knew of it for this reason only.
- Apparently yes, and I think I need to do something in the legacy about that, but want to think about how to do it & find sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think the order of the novels needs to be made clearer - was The Sun also Rises his first novel or was The Torrents of Spring written first?
- The Torrents of Spring is considered a novella and not at all in the Hemingway canon. I need to do something about that in the Torrents page and link there and probably add a note in the Sun page.
- Note added to clarify Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- The Torrents of Spring is considered a novella and not at all in the Hemingway canon. I need to do something about that in the Torrents page and link there and probably add a note in the Sun page.
- I keep thinking of the episode of the TV show Cheers where Sam the bartender is reading a first edition of this in the tub and comes to the part where he learns of Jake's war wond and drops the book into the tub water in shock. Nothing to do with this article, but just thought I'd mention it.
- The Cheers writers were smart and good writers; I'm not surprised they added something like that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Ping me on my talk page when you want me to look at this again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just reread this and responded to some of the comments - only repsonded where it seemed it was needed, but if you have more questions, please ask. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- PS Please let me know when it is at FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by llywrch
Some random thoughts:
- There's a redlink to "Boni & Liveright". Is this the same publishing house later known as Liveright? Odd that there is no article about this influential publisher.
- It is odd and I have redlinks all over for it, but plan to turn them blue. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- In note 1, you appear to break format by quoting sources without the year -- e.g. "See Mellow 338-340".
- There's a mention of a 1983 New York Times article which states this is one of the most translated books in publishing history. Any idea of what languages it has been translated into? (A list of selected languages would make the "Legacy & reception" section stronger.)
- Has any secondary source explored a possible relationship between the protagonist of this novel, Jake Barnes, with Nick Adams the protagonist of some of Hemingway's short stories? these studies might deepen this article's coverage.
- Nothing that I've found. But it's a good question and worth exploring. Jake seems to be very much his own character and at this stage of Hemingway's writing Nick Adams was still a boy, so my sense, and from what I've read, there isn't really a link. Will look into it though. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Under "Major themes", I notice that Max Perkins name was not linked. Since he is a notable figure for early 20th century literature, I added a link to his article.
- Yes, thanks for that. I've been moving things around and sometimes the links are lost. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- In the sub-section "The corrida, nature, and the fiesta", you indirectly quote Harold Bloom about the theme of "escaping into the wilderness". While Bloom is an influential literary critic -- far more than I ever will be -- he still represents one opinion on this work. Any chance you could express some of this in a direct quote from him?
- I will trawl through the history to see whether I had a quote at one point that I ended up paraphrasing to avoid a quote farm. That nature and wilderness presents a place of escape in Hemingway's writing is widely accepted. I simply chose Bloom to mix things up a bit. Would it be better to quote Bloom or to say "critics" and add multiple cites? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Some things I like about this include the opinions his family had about the novel, & the fact this article does draw freely on the secondary literature. I suspect that many Wikipedians don't know about such tools as the MLA International Bibiliography; did you happen to know about this reference work?
- Unfortunately I'm no longer a member of MLA and don't have access, but I do have access to other databases. Because there is simply so much written about this book I decided to lean on essays from compilations edited by well-known Hemingway scholars as well as papers from The Hemingway Review.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-- llywrch (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 5 April 2011, 01:58 UTC)
Everyday life
Boddingtons
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a fair amount of work on it and would like an external opinion.
Thanks, Farrtj (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 April 2011, 19:47 UTC)
Webster's Brewery
I've listed this article for peer review because I've rewritten the article from scratch and I'd like an external perspective
Thanks, Farrtj (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 April 2011, 08:08 UTC)
William Stones Ltd
I've listed this article for peer review because I have overhauled it completely and would like a second perspective.
Thanks, Farrtj (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Cunard on the 23:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC) revision
- "William Stones Ltd was a brewing company founded in 1865 by William Stones and was based at the Cannon Brewery in Sheffield, England. The brand is currently owned by Molson Coors..."
-
- Perhaps the following would be better: "William Stones Ltd was a brewing company founded in 1865. Originally based at the Cannon Brewery in Sheffield, England, the brand is currently owned by Molson Coors..."
- "...the brand is currently owned by Molson Coors who brew the pasteurised Stones Bitter (3.7% ABV) at their Burton upon Trent brewery and contract the production of the cask conditioned Stones Bitter (4.1% ABV) to Everards of Leicester."
-
- To "...the brand is currently owned by Molson Coors. They brew the pasteurised Stones Bitter (3.7% ABV) at their Burton upon Trent brewery and contract the production of the cask conditioned Stones Bitter (4.1% ABV) to Everards of Leicester."
- Wikilink ABV as a layperson probably wouldn't know to what it refers.
- "It is available across the United Kingdom, and it is one of the country's top twenty ale brands."
-
- To "Available across the United Kingdom, it is one of the country's top twenty ale brands."
- Bitter to Bitter (beer)
- "In the 1860s William Stones started brewing at premises in Acorn Street, off Shalesmoor, where the brewery took up all the western side of the street, except for the Shalesmoor corner where the Red Lion was situated."
-
- This sentence is very long. Perhaps you can break it up into shorter sentences for easier reading?
- "In 1865 he formed a partnership with a Mr. Watts" – omit "a Mr."
- 1954 should be delinked per WP:OVERLINK.
- "local rivals" – should it be "local rival"?
- 1999 should also be delinked.
- "The brand continues however, the keg beer being brewed by Molson Coors at their Burton upon Trent brewery, and the cask version is contract brewed by Everards."
-
- To "...the cask version being contract brewed by Everards" to maintain parallel sentence structure
- "In the early 1940s Stones first produced their famous, refreshing, golden/straw coloured beer called Stones Bitter."
-
- This sentence appears to be editorializing the quality of the beer. Perhaps you could say Author X of Book Y praised the beer for being "refreshing".
- "10 hours or so a day" to "about 10 hours"
- "At 4.1%, it was strong for a draught beer at the time, and earned the moniker of 'Jungle Juice' in the Sheffield area."
-
- To what does 4.1% refer? If it refers to ABV, maybe you can mention ABV here.
- For Jungle Juice, I think double quotes, not single quotes, should be used.
- "expanded production led to it also being produced" to "expanded production led to its also being produced"
- The quotations in the article should be enclosed by double quotes, not single quotes.
- "it won Silver" – I don't think silver needs to be capitalized
- "The cask conditioned version taste" – should there be a hyphen between "cask" and "conditioned"?
- http://www.yourround.co.uk/Brewer/Sheffield/Stones/S3.aspx (ref #16) doesn't appear to be a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
- http://www.drinksdirect.co.uk/acatalog/stones_bitter.html is not a reliable source.
- http://onestopshop.molsoncoorsdirect.com/product_listing.aspx?typeClass=3 doesn't seem to be a reliable source.
- "Since the Sheffield brewery closed the slogan has been 'Yorkshire Gold'."
-
- "Yorkshire Gold" should be enclosed in double quotes. Several other quotes in this paragraph and the preceding one should also be enclosed in double quotes, not single quotes.
- "Since 1997, the marketing budget seems to have been slashed to almost nothing." – do you have a source for this. It appears to be original research.
- "In the media" – this appears to be a trivia section, which is discouraged by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia sections).
- As movie titles, When Saturday Comes and The Full Monty should be italicized.
- The link to film is overlinking.
- See also the dablinks on the sidebar of this peer review. Four links to disambiguation pages need to be fixed.
- File:Stones.jpg – when was this logo first published? It might fall under the public domain.
- Most of the references are bare urls. An easy way to fix them would be to use Template:Cite news and Template:Cite book, though you could also manually format them.
Thank you for your hard work on this article. This was an instructive, enjoyable read. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- You're welcome. I've also run WP:REFLINKS on the article to remove the bare urls. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Can you grade the article? I'm worried I may be biased. Farrtj (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have rated the article as C class. The references are not fully formatted (i.e. with the authors, publishers, and dates) and contains some problems. For example, the sentence "Since 1997, the marketing budget would appear to have been slashed to almost nothing" is unsourced and appears to be original research. Cunard (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can you grade the article? I'm worried I may be biased. Farrtj (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
-
(Peer review added on Monday 25 April 2011, 18:52 UTC)
1980 Spanish Grand Prix
I wrote the bulk of this article some two and half years ago, and gave it a second push just over a year ago. I've had another read through it recently, and I'm a bit stuck on how to proceed, although I think it would make a nice featured article.
To me, I feel there's still a little something lacking in terms of content. I think the post-race section is probably the weakest part, so any suggestions on relevant information to go here would be especially appreciated. Even if you could just say "I'd like to know more about x" then I can do some research and flesh out that part a little.
Of course, all and any comments on prose quality, clarity/wording, things that you feel are missing, lack of (quality) citations or anything else that would improve the article (no matter how small) would be great. Thanks, AlexJ (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments from Midgrid
Well, first of all, it's nice to see an F1 race report not from the 1995 or 2008 seasons going through a peer review! ;)
The article looks good so far, but I think it has quite a long way to go to reach FA, or even GA standard.
- The information in the infobox should be cited using the "Details ref" parameter (which is a relatively recent addition to the template.
- The co-ordinates of the Jarama circuit should be added, using the relevant template.
- Team names should be linked throughout the infobox and results tables.
- The full names of FISA and FOCA should probably be spelt out when they are first introduced.
- There are only two inline citation for the entire race section, which isn't enough.
- Regarding the short post-race section, perhaps it could be filled out with quotations from Alan Jones and other leading drivers on their race? I have the Autocourse and Motor Sport reports, which should contain suitable material if needed.
- The external link to the Autosport article just redirects to the website's main page.
- A good thing for you to do would be to look at a race report article which has recently been promoted to FA status, and check it against this one in terms of formatting, as they all follow certain conventions with have been tried and tested through multiple FACs.
I hope these suggestions are useful for you!--Midgrid(talk) 18:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely, I'll try and implement your suggestions as soon as I can. On the subject of quotes (which now you mention it is blindingly obvious!), if you were able to find something appropriate in either of the sources you quote, that would be great. Otherwise I'll see what I can find, although I've yet to come across anything in the sources I'm using. Also regarding the Autosport article - is that the one which I've provided the archive link for? If so, the cite template autolinks the original URL, which is a required field for the thing to display, so I'm not sure what to do about that. AlexJ (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments from Trekphiler
This page may not be the place to address it, but one thing puzzles me: how does FISA impose a fine for drivers not doing something that isn't required in the rules? How does FIA fine drivers for legal racing? Or is there somewhere that explains? If so, I'd suggest linking it in. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is the right place, and I'll try and explain in the article a little more about why the fines happened & why the race was declared illegal. Thanks, AlexJ (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments from QueenCake
Midgrid summed it up pretty well there, more inline citations are required, especially for the race section as it is the focus of the article. Some fleshing out of each section, where possible of course, together with more references is the chief concern of this article. One thing I noticed was in the Background section. You have got these lines The Spanish Grand Prix was originally scheduled to be the seventh round of the 1980 World Championship. Disputes between motorsports' governing body, the FISA, and the body representing the chassis builders (constructors) competing in the championship, the FOCA. and apart from being grammatically incorrect, there is no explanation of the FISA-FOCA dispute. A bit more background information of the events leading up to the race, as they did directly affect it, would certainly help the reader understand why there was an argument to begin with.
Some images would also be good to have. I know it may be rather hard to find any free to use pictures of the race itself, but some images of the drivers or cars involved would do.
Also, I took the time to link teams through the article.
Hope I helped! QueenCake (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to read through and making the links. I've read through the article many times and completely missed that fragment of a sentence! I'll get that fixed and try and expand on the build-up a bit more. Regarding images, I'll have a look through the commons and see what I can come up with. AlexJ (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments from Apterygial
Midgrid essentially summarised the key points here as far as I can see it. A few things:
- The article could use a bit more background regarding the racing itself during the 1980 season. E.g., was Ferrari doing well that season, to the point that their absence significantly devalued the race? Was Jones' victory consistent with his form in the other races?
- Flags could potentially become an issue. MOS:FLAG suggests that you "[a]ccompany flags with country names", which I conformed to in 1906 French Grand Prix with the addition of the {{cc3}} template next to flags and names. This wasn't an issue at 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix, but it did become one at 2008 Monaco Grand Prix (it would be easier to solve if WPF1 got over its intransigence on following the MOS).
- "Osella believed that this would mean no penalties were issued against his constructor's licence." Awkward tense with the use of "were".
- Teams should be linked at first mention.
- "Piquet's led for seven laps until on lap 42 his Brabham's gearbox failed, and he was unable to continue." Stray possessive.
- I suppose Jones would have been pretty pissed off when the results were discounted?
Prose is awkward in places, although I appreciate this remains a work in progress. I can review again or copyedit when you feel you're closer to FAC. Apterygial talk 23:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 24 April 2011, 18:23 UTC)
Ron Hextall
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to good article, and maybe even featured article status. Although I've done a fair bit of work on sports biographies, this have previously been focussed on cricket, and given the pretty major differences, I would definitely like some North American eyes on this before I take it much further. That said, the viewpoint of someone without any hockey knowledge would also be extremely valuable.
Thanks, Harrias talk 10:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by Resolute
I have to admit, I'm curious how one moves from cricket to hockey! The article looks quite good, only a few issues jump out at me:
- As Hextall is Canadian, the article should be in Canadian English. Right now you have a mixture, i.e.: defenceman and defenseman are both used.
-
- Also, some of your terms are European in nature rather than North American. "Match" would not be ccommon terminology for North American hockey. I would probably replace most uses with "game/games", using "match" where necessary to avoid redundancy. Also "nil" is not typically used out here. The Brandon Wheat Kings would have been swept four games to none.
- "he was traded on three occasions between the off-seasons of..." - should be "during the off-seasons...", as the playing season is what would be between off-seasons.
- Avoid overlinking - you have Bryan Hextall, Jr. linked twice in close succession in the early life section.
- I'm terrible for this myself, but watch for overuse of commas. I saw several instances, including: "opposition side during a single, bench-clearing brawl." No comma is needed there.
Overall though, I think the article is very well done, and you should have relatively little difficulty reaching GA status, at least. Cheers! Resolute 01:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments: most of your comments were things I was fully expecting, but I was always going to have a problem with the terminology. With your help, that's hopefully sorted now, and similar for the spelling. Addressed your other issues too, although I didn't comb too tightly over the commas! Harrias talk 11:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by Maxim
Overall, the article's OK but I don't it's "there" just yet.
- In terms of prose quality, it's very good, but there are the occasional European terms. I've fixed the ones that jumped out at me. A few quibbles, however:
- "Calder Memorial Trophy, for the "player selected as the most proficient in his first year of competition",[21]" perhaps change to "... Calder Memorial Trophy, given to the top rookie". The latter seems to be much more succinct to me.
- "...as "probably the best goaltender I've ever played against in the N.H.L."" it's a quote, but perhaps change the N.H.L to just NHL or [NHL]? It looks so weird to me with the dots...
- The Flyers suffered a difficult start to the 1987–88 season, which Keenan put down in part to the absence of Hextall; "he's a piece of the Flyer puzzle that's been missing, and one we need."[32]; Keenan's quote is presented somewhat awkwardly. Perhaps it's the semi-colon; maybe put a colon instead?
- You're not consistent in linking the New York Times in the refs -- part of the time it's linked, part of the time it isn't.
- For the crux of my review: there's somewhat of a balance problem. Hextall, IMHO, was especially noted for three things: playoffs, fighting, and puckhandling. At least, they're the big things. You've covered the Conn Smythe et cetera well, but I don't think a paragraph each for the fighting and puckhandling does him justice. I recall reading about how his puckhandling skills were noticed when he was in junior, for example. Some of the stuff on the fighting that's outside the Playing style section might be put in the section itself. I think the concentration of New York Times articles as sources might be somewhat to blame here. I think books will cover his playing style, and if not, I think there would be a considerable amount of analysis available in articles online. I think the goal of the article should not only be to cover his career -- which is done -- but to capture the portrait of the man behind the mask, and I don't think the article is there yet, in that regard.
Hope this helps. Maxim(talk) 01:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you wholeheartedly on the final point. The problem is, it is tricky for me to find sources with a quantity of information. Being in the UK, I can't really get hold of too many written sources, and online I've found lots of sources which praise his puck-handling, and mention his fighting and aggression, but don't really go into much detail about the specifics. I'm certainly going to keep looking though! As for your other points, I'll go through and clean those up, thanks. Harrias talk 15:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 24 April 2011, 10:02 UTC)
1952 Winter Olympics
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to move this to FAC and need a fresh set of eyes to give input on content and prose. It follows the format of the 1956 Winter Olympics, which is FA. Another question I had was regarding a clean up tag on the image at the top of the article. It recommends uploading the image as an SVG file. Unfortunately image issues are not my strong suit and the image in question had to be modified to address a spelling error. I cannot find a correct alternative to upload in the smaller file format. Do you think this issue would disqualify it from FA consideration? Any thoughts on how to rectify it?
Thanks, H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 22:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by Parutakupiu
- "Discussions about Oslo hosting
athe Winter Olympic Games..." - "... were held at Norefjell; a 113 km..." – Replace the semicolon with a comma.
- There are six instances of "Oslo" in the intro's first paragraph only. Too many, in my opinion. Also, some short sentences that kind of cut the reading flow.
- The infobox shows the participation of 694 athletes yet the intro says only 693. Which is true? Also, there is no reference to source this number.
- Shouldn't it be Bislett Stadion (capital s)?
- You've linked the names of some participating countries to their performance pages (Japan, Portugal, Germany, etc.), but you forgot to do that to the host nation.
- The "Host city selection" paragraph has too many "Oslo" again. Try to take a few out.
- In this section, you don't say anything about the competing cities, apart from listing them in the bidding results table. They were mentioned in the intro, but this is THE section to talk about them.
- "London, host of the 1948 Summer Olympics..." – Add a comma after Olympics.
- "A majority of the ice hockey tournament matches took place at..."
- "... placed second to Anderson in every race." – Andersen
- Holland → Netherlands
- 4x10 → 4 × 10
- "Norwegian athletes won the aki jumping gold medal in each Olympics from 1924 to 1952" – Fix typo (in bold), and I'd replace "each" with "every".
- "The sport would leave them behind after 1952..." – Who's "them"? I don't feel it's clear.
- "The stadium was called Jordal Amfi. It was built in a residential part of eastern Oslo." – These could (and should) be clauses of the same sentence.
- "Australia, Germany, and Japan returned, after having missed the..." – Words missing at the end of this sentence.
- The medal table shows the top 10 medalist nations, but there's only three more medal-winning nations that are not listed. Perhaps you could include them (even if this means that the separate medal table page is redundant).
Concerning the image tag issue, it would be preferable that the image has the best quality. I saw that the typo is present in the image provided by the IOC itself, so the mistake is in the source. Should we be worried about fixing it? Any correction would be a unfaithful derivative work of that logo; the solution would be to put an image of the correct logo taken from official documents... even if the quality is not the best. — Parutakupiu (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Thank you my friend I'll start to work on your suggestions. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 22:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Ok all fixes have been made save the image issue. I'll see if there is an available image from the source material. If not do you think this issue would kill any FA bid? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think you can go ahead with what the image you have now. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok all fixes have been made save the image issue. I'll see if there is an available image from the source material. If not do you think this issue would kill any FA bid? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Quick comment (more to follow) - have you asked about fixing the error and coverting the image to svg at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab? I have had a few images cleaned up there and they do great work! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Huh I didn't know that existed. I've replaced it with a very crude rendering, but perhaps I should explore the image lab. Thank you for the tip! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I used to be a contributor there, I even made some SVG versions of Olympic logos (not to brag about, but they were good), but then I was told that those images wouldn't be acceptable because they'd always have some minor imperfections and wouldn't be a faithful carbon-copy reproduction of the original. Just telling... Parutakupiu (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this and your other PR contributions. It looks pretty good to me, here are some pretty nit-picky suggestions for improvement.
- In Host city selection, would it make sense to say that in 1936 the summer and winter games were in Berlin and Garmisch? Perhaps in a note, if not in the text iteself?
- Should there also be a mention or note that the tradition of having the summer and winter games in the same country ended with the 1936 games (at least as far as actual games)?
- Missing word? Support [for?] a Winter Olympics in Norway was mixed.[4]
- Since the order in the lead and previously has been Cortina d'Ampezzo, then Lake Placid, would it make sense to do that again here? Also mention that Lake Placid had previously hosted? So perhaps something like Cortina d'Ampezzo was selected as the host of the 1956 Games, and Lake Placid, which had hosted in 1932, would host the 1980 Winter Olympics.
- Combine these sentences to be less choppy? So something like The 1952 Winter Games were the first to be held in a nation's capital,[1] and Norway was the first Scandanavian country to host a Winter Olympics.[2]
- Tighten in Organisation? ...and four representatives from the municipality of Oslo, including
themayor Brynjulf Bull.[8] ? - Lead says buildings were converted to house athletes, but here it says Three new facilities (forerunners to the athlete's villages of later Games) were built... - which was it?
- Missing words? The city of Oslo undertook the construction of a new hotel, the Viking, which was used for IOC delegates, out-of-town dignitaries, [and as?] the communication hub of the Games.[12][13]
- Would "reluctant" be a better word than "reticent" in Norway was reticent to welcome German athletes and Nazi sympathizers back into the Olympic fold.[17] I think of reticent as reluctant to speak or communicate, not reluctant in general
- The preceding paragraph already described the German team, so not needed in Despite its concerns Norway agreed to allow both German
(represented only by West German athletes),and Japanese athletes to compete.[17] - Would it make sense to move the image of Bislett Stadion from Venues up to Opening ceremony? There are three sections without images here, and Venues has two images currently
- Tighten? The final torch bearer, Eigil Nansen, received the Olympic flame and skied to a set of stairs where he removed his skis, ascended
the stairs, and ignited the flame.[27] - In Ice hockey, since modern readers are used to national teams I would explain the Edmonton Mercurys in a sentence or two (I know they are mentioned in the caption, but I expected there to be some explanation in the body of the article)
- In Speed skating, the sentence Dutch skaters Wim van der Voort and Kees Broekman placed second to Andersen in every race.[37] is confusing and false (since Andersen did not place first in one race, where an American won gold). Perhaps something like Dutch skaters Kees Broekman and Wim van der Voort won two and one silver medals, respectively, behind Andersen.[37] If the silver medalists are mentioned, would it make sense to mention the other gold medalist?
- In Alpine skiing make Schneider's nationality clearer, perhaps by Austrian skiers dominated the competition winning seven out of a possible eighteen medals, including Othmar Schneider's gold and silver in the men's slalom and downhill. Norwegian Stein Eriksen won gold in the men's giant slalom and silver in the slalom.
- MOS says to give both metric and English units, so give distances in km and miles in Cross-country skiing. {{convert}} works nicely for this.
- Perhaps add to the caption Nils Karlsson skiing at the 1952 Winter Games mention something like he did not repeat his gold medal from 1948
- Avoid overlinking - Holmenkollbakken is linked twice in two consecutive section
- Did computers really "judge" or did they just do the math based on human judges' scores? This marked the first time computers were used to judge the competition and tabulate scores instantly.[1]
- Crop File:Dick Button gold medal.jpg to foucs more on the medal? Also is the medal a copyrighted work (of art)?
- Has Bandy ever been played again at the Olympics? Might be worth mentioning if it has or has not.
- Say when the last athletic event was too? They took place on Monday evening, 25 February, in Bislett Stadion.[66]
- Spelling? Enticed? Also is enticed the best word here? Perhaps "encouraged" or even just "asked"? The organising committee inticed the city of Oslo to provide a similar flag in order to establish the same tradition for the Winter Games.
- I made a few copyedits too
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 05:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 21 April 2011, 22:56 UTC)
Nintendo DSi
I'm submitting this one for prose comments, considerations, any possible issues, et al. Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 04:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. It seems to have all the information needed, but the prose could use a copyedit before FAC (assume that is the next stop as it is already a GA). Here are some suggestions for improvement.
Lead
- In the lead I would say something like "in 2008 and 2009" or perhaps "in late 2008 and late 2009" in The Nintendo DSi (ニンテンドーDSi, Nintendō DSi?)[1] is a handheld game system created by Nintendo and released between 2008 and 2009 in Japan, Australasia, Europe, North America, China and other regions through various distributors. I am also not sure that "through various distributors" is needed in the lead - seems a bit too detailed for an overview
- Whatever you do there, I would do something very similar for A larger model, entitled Nintendo DSi XL, was released between 2009 and 2010 in Japan, Europe, North America and other regions through various distributors.
- Watch WP:OVERLINKing - does it really enhance the reader's understanding to have a link to common words like Household?
- Awkward phrase ... its added functionality caused many to recommend it to non-owners of prior DS models. non-owners??
History
- Would it make sense to add a little bit of background about the two previous DS prodects here, to start? Perhaps a sentence or two on the DS and DS lite either at the beginning of the current first paragraph or as its own paragraph to provide context to the reader
- In History, "Conception" seems like the wrong word - perhaps "Development"? Conception of the Nintendo DSi began at the end of 2006, around the time of the Wii's release.[2]
- I do not understand the word "marketing" in Kuwahara reported that his team had difficulty marketing the handheld during production; he said of their goal, "We have to be able to sell the console on its own. It also has to be able to meld into the already-existing DS market."[2] How can you market something that does not yet exist? Also production to me sounds like it is being manufactured already (fake quote "Our state of the art production facility can produce N million DSi units a year.") Does it mean something like "Kuwahara reported tht his team had difficulty determining the potential market for the handheld during the design process;..."
- Also do not understand this ...as their circular perforations were redundant with the rest of the handheld's interface. By the way, mentioning the features of the original DS and DS lite in a background paragraph (does not have to be its own section) would probably help here too (since this refers to the touchscreen and microphone too)
- Really long sentence - split in two? So something like He believed that this alteration also signaled a clearer distinction between the DSi and its predecessors while keeping the unit "neat" and "simple". Ehara hoped the DSi's added features would not interfere with his desired iconic image of the Nintendo DS product line: two rectangles, one on top of the other, with each half containing another rectangle, the sceen, inside.[2]
- Awkward, suggest something like However, Kuwahara said of the console's in-company unveiling in October 2007 that "the response wasn’t that great, and, ... we’d sort of been expecting that." Consequently, the second game card slot was removed, which made the handheld approximately 3 millimetres (0.12 in) slimmer.[2] This model was publicly revealed at the October 2008 Nintendo Conference in Tokyo, along with its Japanese price and release date.[3]
- I assume this is going to be the DSi XL, but needs to be made clearer. Perhaps add something like "Devolpment of the DSi XL began" to the front of In 2007, [when] Nintendo had designed a large DS Lite model with 3.8-inch screens, compared to the standard 3-inch screens; development of this new handheld advanced far enough that it could have begun mass production. Also need metric equivalents (and units have to be consistent, assume metric fist as Japan is a SI country).
Launch
- Pounds are currency only in the UK, what was the price in Euros for European sales? Its European and United States list prices were £149.99 and US$169.99, respectively.[15]
- Could this be a bit simpler? Nintendo had shipped 200,000 units for the DSi's Japanese launch and during its first two days on sale, 170,779 units were sold according to sales tracking service Enterbrain;[17] or 171,925 units according to Media Create[18]—the remaining units were either unclaimed pre-orders or preserved for Culture Day.[17] Perhaps something like "...during its first two days on sale, over 170,000 units were sold[17][18]— ..." with the exact figures and sources in a note or in the two refs? I am also not sure what "preserved for Culture Day" means. Were they reserved for sale on Culture Day?
- watch verb tenses in the Nikkei Sangyo Shimbun reported that this model features [featured?] improved security, in order to combat piracy.[28] On April 15, 2010, the DSi was launched in South Korea in white, black, blue and pink, alongside the game MapleStory DS. MapleStory DS will also be [was also?] bundled with a red limited edition DSi, which will have [had?] characters from the game printed around its external camera.[29]
- Need to include the Japanese name of the XL at the end of the previous section where names are discussed. Can also tighten this The Nintendo DSi XL (Nintendo DSi LL in Japan) was released in Japan on November 21, 2009
with three available colors:[in] dark brown (bronze), wine red (burgundy), and natural white.[33] - Watch tense throughout the fourth paragraph - usually things are described in the past, but some are present tense. This also seems like it could be tightened more, but I do not have time to point out every place (I did make some minor copyedits in this section to correct obvious errors).
- How about for In Europe, Nintendo sells the console to retailers for a higher price than the original DSi, but lets them decide on the consumer sale price.[37] instead having something like In Europe, the wholesale price of DSi XL was higher than that of the DSi, but Nintendo allowed retailers to set their price to consumers.
Demographic and sales
- Nothing horrible here, but I think this would do better at FAC if it had a copy edit to smooth and tighten the prose here (and throughout). WP:WIAFA criterion 1a is the most difficult to achieve for the majority of articles at FAC.
'Hardware
- Need metric units here too - {{convert}} works nicely
- One example of tightening possible: The lower screen is touch sensitive: it accepts input from the included stylus. could be something like The touch sensitive lower screen accepts input from the included stylus.
- Reads oddly to talk about size then weight then size again, so how about The DSi weighs 214 grams (7.5 oz), and when closed is 74.9 mm long × 137 mm wide × 18.9-mm tall (give inches), which is approximately 12% shorter (2.6 mm or inches) than the Nintendo DS Lite, but slightly wider and lighter.[54][55][57]
- "was expanded" (not "was raised") in ...the CPU was also relocated, and the battery housing raised to fill the unused space.[2]
- I would move the Japanses version of the DSi LL name to the last paragraph of History (right before Launch) where names for this version are discussed. Avoid needless repetition, so if it is already mentioned before here it could be just The Nintendo DSi XL, (DSi LL in Japan)
- When a person's name is used the first time, spell it out in full. Afterwards just use the last name (unless there are more than one persons with the same last name). So Satoru Iwata is given three times and should be just Iwata after the first use according to the MOS.
Features and Software library and Reception and legacy
- Why is " Nintendo DSi Camera" in quotes the first time in this section, but not in the Menu description?
- I expected there to be some sort of statement as to the number of games available for the DSi as of some date in this section.
- In Reception and legacy, I would go from general comments about the DSi as a whole to more specific comments about parts of it.
- I am note sure why there are reviews of the 3DS in this article - not clear why the last paragraph is included.
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 04:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 18 April 2011, 04:14 UTC)
Lenox Square
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for other opinion as to any improves I need to make on this article. I would like to nominate it for GA status soon, and although it has some ways to go, I think I'll be able to do it.
Thanks, DAP388 (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, but the article needs a lot of work before it would have a chance at GAN. In its current state it would be a quick fail, so here are some suggestions for improvement.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are 5 good articles at Category:GA-Class Shopping center articles which would be useful models.
- There is a toolbox on this page in the upper right corner. It shows that there are three disambiguation links that need to be resolved - see here
- The toolbox also shows that there is one dead external link that needs to be fixed - see here
- The references are the biggest problem with the article as it now stands. The first problem is that the article needs more references, for example the second paragraph of Renovations has no refs, and the last sentence of the third paragraph there also needs a ref.
- My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- The current references do not provide the information needed to check the sources. For example one ref is just shown as www.time.com and is a link to the cover of an issue - which article in that issue is cited?
- 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 references cited do not back up the information provided in some cases. I checked these two sentences: Visited by more than 35 million people a year, Lenox Square is one of the most popular and profitable retail centers in the United States.[16] Together with Phipps Plaza, an estimated $1 billion was pumped into the local economy in 2007.[17]
- Current ref 16 makes no mention of Lenox Square and a map of malls served by this shopping mall add business does not show any locations in Georgia. So even though there is a ref, it does not back up the extraordinary statement made.
- I also do not see what makes this ref (assuming somehow mentions Lenox Square and I missed it) as reliable source.
- Current ref 17 is to a book (Frommer's Guide to Atlanta) but the page shown does not mention Phipps Plaza at all, and though it mentions Lenox Square, it is only to locate bookstores in relation to it.
- Current ref 16 makes no mention of Lenox Square and a map of malls served by this shopping mall add business does not show any locations in Georgia. So even though there is a ref, it does not back up the extraordinary statement made.
- Even where the ref does back up the material in the article, it is not necessarily accurate. For example the article says Several items were proposed on the site, including three statues, a pedestrian bridge linking Lenox Square with neighboring shopping center Phipps Plaza, and a discothèque.[1] These plans, however, would never materialize. The property was bought and acquired by Noble Properties in 1956.[2] This makes it sounds lkike these were plans for the land BEFORE Lenox Square was built and that the mall took the place of these plans. However, checking ref 1, the three statues were there for the opening of the mall, and one of them still exists. The other attractions seem to be things planned for the mall itself.
- There is no background on what was at the site before the mall, but ref 1 does list some of this information.
- There is no date for the first major exapansion / rewnovation (enclosing the mall).
- Language is pretty rough in spots and needs a copyedit, though fix the other problems first.
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 17:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 17 April 2011, 00:44 UTC)
1962 National League tie-breaker series
I've been writing these tie-breakers for a while and was particularly proud of this one here. Tried an FAC last year with no real success, would love any advice on fixing this up. Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 19:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Note: I am doing some copyediting on the article, and will list my review comments when this is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Brianboultonomments: I have looked at the previous FAC and read the concerns about the inaccessibilty of the language to all but baseball fans. My take on that is that, since this article is about a series of three specific matches, and not a club history or an article about the game generally, it is inevitable that the some of the language and terms will be unfamiliar to the general reader. However, some effort has to be made to accomodate this tiresome person, who insists on reading baseball articles. I have indicated occasions in which I think rephrasing or a little more explanation is required.
More generally, notwithstanding prolific use of specialist terms, the prose has to be of featured standard, and at present I think it falls some way short. I have done a certain amount of ce to pull it into shape, but more attention is necessary. Punctuation (or lack of it) is a problem, and there are far too many sentences with illogical "and" conjunctions. Someone with a good knowledge of baseball and a feel for good prose needs to go through this text, before you think of bringing this back to FAC. User:Wehwalt has chipped in to this review with some helpful comments and suggestions, which I have incorporated with my own.
- Specific concerns
- "tied records of 101–61" could be written, first time, as "tied records of 101 victories and 61 losses"
- "The Giants struck first, winning the first game..." This phrasing is more sports journalism than encyclopedia. I suggest you simplify to: "The Giants won the first game..."
- "breaking their 35-inning scoreless streak". This is difficult to understand without a context. Also, I don't like "their"; I suggest "breaking a 35-inning scoreless streak stretching back through the last x games of the regular season" - or some such explanatory phrasing
- At end of Backgound section: "and had chosen the same format." What is this referring to?
- First game: It's wrong to say "the Giants were the first to score", since the Dodgers didn't score at all. I'd say "In the game the Giants scored, by striking..." etc
- Second game:
- "Giants' starter Jack Sanford then reached based..." Is "based" a typo for "base"?
-
- "Ernie Bowman replaced Nieman at second base for the Giants in the bottom of the inning and no runs scored in the frame." The grammar seems wrong here, but I'm unsure how to put it right, as I have no idea what it means anyway. But maybe a comma after "inning", and "no runs were scored"? Perhaps: "Bowman replaced Nieman at second base for the Giants in the bottom of the inning, in which no runs were scored".
- "to tie the game at seven runs apiece". It would be better, for consistency, to rephrase this "to tie the game at 7–7", as that is how you have represented scores previously.
- " and then allowed a game-winning walk-off sacrifice fly to Fairly driving in Wills." Is "walk-off sacrifice fly" a single term? Should there be a comma after "Fairly"?
-
- My larger problem with this is that walk-off was a term not invented until I think the 1990s. ESPN, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW I always understood that Dennis Eckersley invented the term in describing the infamous HR he allowed to Kirk Gibson (so 1988). But Wiki articles often use contemporary terms to describe past acts. EG, World War II is described as that throughout despite it not always being known as that. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- My larger problem with this is that walk-off was a term not invented until I think the 1990s. ESPN, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Third game:
- Punctuation: Earlier in the article I have inserted a number of commas that were necessary for grammar and clarity. The tendency to comma-less sentences seems particularly acute in this third game description. Examples: "Manager Alvin Dark had chosen not to try and hold Wills to the first base bag as Dark did not believe his Giants' defense could stop Wills from stealing regardless of their positioning". Needs two commas, I'd say. And "Roebuck barely managed to knock the ball down to hold Mays to a single and Mays said he was "still mad" after the game because he had expected more off of the hit" needs a semicolon in place of the "and". There is much more of this that needs looking at.
- Last sentence: "Had the Dodgers not yielded the lead in the final inning they instead would have earned a postseason berth, their first since winning the pennant via a tie-breaker in 1959". You could replace the jargon term "postseason berth" with a clear explanation. Also, 1959 was only three seasons previously, not several decades, so "their first since..." seems a bit overstated.
(comment inserted by User:Wehwalt): I'm not even sure that it's a valid term, since postseason berth is a later term as applied to baseball, as in those days you made the World Series or you didn't. This playoff series was considered a continuation of the regular season and statistics counted towards regulat season, for example Wills' stolen base record got extended.
- Aftermath: This section needs to be rethought. At present, most of its material is irrelevant to the article, which is about a three-match tiebreaker series.
- First phrase: "The Giants' win earned the franchise its 17th playoff berth..." There is confusion here between the tiebreaker series, which you refer to in the first sentence of the article as "a three-game playoff series", and the terms "playoff berth" and "postseason birth", which I take it refer to the World Series. Can we please have clarity and uniformity of terms?
- I don't consider the Giants' appearances in World Series 10, 20 or 40 years after the 1962 series to be part of the aftermath"
-
-
- I realize WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but it's a pretty commonly included thing across the project. It shows the path that different franchises take and thus the importance (or lack thereof) of this tie-breaker on the franchise history. Here, for example, the Dodgers kept on winning and won a World Series just 2 years later while the Giants infamously took 50+ years to finally win a title in their new city. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't think phrasing such as "swept the Yankees" qualifies as acceptable technical phrasing, however often the term is used in sporting journalism.
-
-
- That is universally the terminology, though. I don't see how it's any different from using "homer" as an alternative version of "home run". The lingo is the lingo. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Attendance records for the season are not part of the aftermath of the tie-breaking series
- "Game 2 was the longest nine-inning game in MLB history with a time of 4:18" This information has already been given.
- The second paragraphs seems to be a miscellany of information about the teams' or individuals' performances in the 1962 season.
As I am not watching individual peer reviews, please contact me on my talkpage if you wish to raise issues from this review, or if you wish me to look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I notice Brian working on it and offered him some comments. I did not read the complete article, but enough of it to convince me there are problems with overuse of jargon and informality of tone. It is not unsolvable, but it needs very close attention. I'm not available to do the work, by the way! I'm pretty snowed with work, but I will be happy to give specific pieces of advice if you approach me on my talk. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- One thing more. I just ran a search for the date "1951" in the article. I was stunned that it was not found. Brian's British, so he won't necessarily get why this is important at first sight, but the 1951 series utterly hung over this series, especially Game 3, even though no game was played within 2,000 miles of Coogan's Bluff. There is no way you can get away with this at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would love any advice you have to give (I'll hit you up on your talk page). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- One thing more. I just ran a search for the date "1951" in the article. I was stunned that it was not found. Brian's British, so he won't necessarily get why this is important at first sight, but the 1951 series utterly hung over this series, especially Game 3, even though no game was played within 2,000 miles of Coogan's Bluff. There is no way you can get away with this at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The Writer 2.0 comments: To echo Brianboulton's comments, some of the terms that have been used may not necessarily be recognized by someone unfamiliar with the sport and this alone can hurt your chances at FAC, just look at my initial nomination of History of the New York Jets. Needless to say, you need to be careful and thorough, though I can sympathize with your frustration at the suggested removal of some terms, Wehwalt and I suffered similar issues but in the end, compromise does pay.
To me, the sentence structure, at times, feels a bit awkward but, all else aside, the article looks in pretty good shape in terms of content and references. You'll find other reviewers who will be more picky but from my point of view, the resolution of the aforementioned issues will certainly make life easier for you when you submit this to FAC.
I'd be more than happy to help spruce up the article and be an extra set of eyes if you wish. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- I would hugely appreciate that. This is the most difficult step for me, as at this point I've reread the text so many time it all looks right to me even where it isn't. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would hugely appreciate that. This is the most difficult step for me, as at this point I've reread the text so many time it all looks right to me even where it isn't. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 15 April 2011, 19:57 UTC)
Sonic Colors
I've listed this article for peer review because… Sonic Colors was a GAN, but it failed. However, I believe it has potential, and I'm now checking on the article and fixing any problems. Please take your time.
Thanks, Railer-man (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by Sjones23
- Link where appropriate, but do not overlink.
- Make sure that this article undergoes a thorough copyedit.
Other than the issues described above, this article looks good. Please take my comments into consideration. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: This is not a game I have ever played, so I am not sure if that makes me the best reviewer, but here are some suggestions for improvement. Thanks for your work on this article.
- Since this had a pretty thourough review when it was at WP:GAN, the first thing I would do is make sure that all of the points in that review have been addressed.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are over 100 FAs in Category:FA-Class video game articles which should include some sueful models.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the release dates are only in the lead and in the infobox. This might just be me, but I think I would say something like it was released worldwide over a one week period in November 2010 in the lead and then but the actual dates in the body of the article.
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see any mention of promotional items in the current lead - please see WP:LEAD
- Agree this could use a copyedit - not sure what "an inconsistent difficulty" really means in Criticism included unresponsive controls and poor level design that led to an inconsistent difficulty. as just one example.
- In Plot does the plot take place 2 years after the plot of the previous game, or is it just that this game was released in 2010 and the previous game was released in 2008?
- Speaking of Sonic Unleashed, a) watch WP:OVERLINKing (it is linked twice in two sections - rule of thumb is to link on first mention in the lead and perhaps in the body of the article) and b) is it italicized or not (assume it is, but in Plot it is not italicized)
- Some of the parts of Gameplay seem to need refs to me (may be a Video Game MOS thing)(I know plots are considered to derive from the work in question and so are usually unsourced).
- Per the MOS, use "double quotes" not 'single quotes' (unless it is for a quote inside a longer quote, then use single quotes there). This means to change several places like The DS version exclusive Wisps include the 'Red Burst', which allows Sonic to burst in midair ...
- In Gameplay development I owuld identify who Takashi Iizuka is, since this is the first time he is mentioned in the text of the article (is in the infobox)
- Avoid vague time terms like ...although the European region still has not received the album as of yet.[30] instead use something like ...as of April 2011 the album has not been released in Europe.
- Needs a ref Another action figure was released by Jazwares that includes a 5-inch Sonic with two Wisps.
- I do not undertand what the last part of this sentence means For IGN's "Best of E3 2010 awards", Sonic Colors was nominated for "Best Wii game", but lost to Epic Mickey, "Best DS game", and "Best Platformer".[49] Was it also nominated for Best DS Game and Best Platformer (assume so)? Did it win or lose in those categories?
- Toolbox in the upper right corner of this PR page finds one dab link that needs to be fixed.
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 04:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 9 April 2011, 20:33 UTC)
Black Thunder (chocolate bar)
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that the page has reached FA standards. It was recently promoted to Good Article status and I think it's ready for Featured Article status. It would be great for any editors to make any comments/concerns.
Thanks, Doh5678 Talk 22:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Niagara
- A cookie bar? I have never heard of that term before. Both chocolate bar and candy bar are used far more often in the artichle than cookie bar. I'd try to be consistant with those terms.
- Wording modified.
- Move the photo showing the unwrapped bars up to the "Product" section (might as well show the actual product as you describe it).
- Done.
- As it has a tendacy to become out of date fast, including a currency conversion for the price usually isn't advisable.
- Deleted.
- Also, the retail price is not mentioned anywhere else in the article (anything in lead should be mentioned elsewhere in the article as well)
- Fixed.
- Per WP:LEAD, the lead should also be a summary of the article (mention things like when the bar was first created or became popular)
- Lead expanded.
- "...though some of these may be seen in the Gallery section." — This seems like an unnecessary self-reference
-
- Is it self-reference if it refers the reader to the same article? Deleted Gallery reference.
- Actually, I'd remove the gallery altogether and replace it with a {{Commons category}} (I note there is no relevant category on Commons yet, but I could set one up if you'd like)
- Would that be helpful? That's an extra step for the reader. Perhaps I'm not so familiar with Gallery rules, but I don't understand the Wikipedia-related difference between a Gallery of relevant photos and a link to a Commons collection of relevant photos. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Galleries are fine in certain situations, but if they are not used only as an image repositary, Commons is preferred (see WP:IG) Niagara Don't give up the ship 16:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Would that be helpful? That's an extra step for the reader. Perhaps I'm not so familiar with Gallery rules, but I don't understand the Wikipedia-related difference between a Gallery of relevant photos and a link to a Commons collection of relevant photos. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- The source you provide for the silver medalist does not mention any corresponding rise in sales of Black Thunder bars
- Also, there is no source for the company sponsoring the gymnastics team.
- Additonal references and/or in-line citations provided for following assertions: the athlete and team were sponsored by Yuraku, the athlete stated to the press that he liked the Black Thunder bar, and sales doubled from 2008 to 2009.
- Also, there is no source for the company sponsoring the gymnastics team.
- I'd replace the whole "Nutritional information" section with {{Nutritional value}}
- Incompatible in this context. Template box states: "Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)". Although I have the information about kcal, fat, etc. per bar, I can't confirm that 1 bar = 100g.
- Actually, it appears that that can be overridden with
|serving_size=
1 bar
, but using the template is not a big deal. Also, I note there is no source for the nutritional values, either. Niagara Don't give up the ship 01:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)- How does one cite candy bar wrapper? I'll look on the website, I'm pretty sure I saw the nutrition info on there somewhere. Do you think I should include the ingredients? Boneyard90 (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure; has that ever been done before? I believe this is website you are looking for [1]. I'd avoid listing the minor ingredients such as preservatives and the like, but I believe already mentioned the most obvious ones (chocolate and crisped rice). Niagara Don't give up the ship 05:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- How does one cite candy bar wrapper? I'll look on the website, I'm pretty sure I saw the nutrition info on there somewhere. Do you think I should include the ingredients? Boneyard90 (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it appears that that can be overridden with
- Incompatible in this context. Template box states: "Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)". Although I have the information about kcal, fat, etc. per bar, I can't confirm that 1 bar = 100g.
- There is a photo of a "Tiny Thunder" bar, but no mention of it in the article.
- Added a more general paragraph on "Other products", mentioning "Tiny Thunder" and other related products, with reference. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- "The Golden Chop appears to be an imitation product, though apparently legal." — This reads like original research
- Deleted.
- "Since that time, other imitation products have appeared on the market." — A citation for this would be helpful as well.
- Deleted.
- Is the second external link necessary?
- Deleted
- Reverted. Yes, I felt it necessary. The clothing line is mentioned in the text under Related Products. The images are of course copyrighted, so I can't download and add them to the article, so instead I linked to an image of an example product, one that examplifies the wording, "[sporting] black or gold lightning designs."
- It seemed a little WP:SPAM-y to me. Some at FAC might object, but you could always use {{External media}} instead. Niagara Don't give up the ship 16:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Used External media template per suggestion at relevant point in text. Deleted External links section (the other link was noted up in the infobox anyway).
- It seemed a little WP:SPAM-y to me. Some at FAC might object, but you could always use {{External media}} instead. Niagara Don't give up the ship 16:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Reverted. Yes, I felt it necessary. The clothing line is mentioned in the text under Related Products. The images are of course copyrighted, so I can't download and add them to the article, so instead I linked to an image of an example product, one that examplifies the wording, "[sporting] black or gold lightning designs."
- Deleted
- More citations are needed, in general with "every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph".
This needs a little work before going to FAC, citations, some copyediting as well. I confess, after reading this, I went out and got a candy bar, not a Black Thunder bar, but still... Niagara Don't give up the ship 01:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Thank you, I'll get to work on your suggestions soon. A couple of points I'd like to address: (1) the candy bar Twix refers to itself as a cookie bar, which seemed an apt description, for it and for Black Thunder. The term "cookie bar" isn't mentioned in the Twix article, but notice the wrapper in the photos. (2) I had a photo of the "Tiny Thunder" bar, but I din't mention it in the text because I didn't have an outside reference; so I thought it "safe" to include in a Gallery, which I didn't think needed references. Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- What confused me with cookie bar is that its linked to candy bar, which doesn't mention it either, also Black Thunder is disambiged with chocolate bar in the title. It is not so much that you needed references to include a photo of the Tiny Thunder bar, but if it is not mentioned in the article, then one could not consider the article to be comprehensize (one of the criteria for FA). Niagara Don't give up the ship 16:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I see. I'll take steps to rectify those issues. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I see. I'll take steps to rectify those issues. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- What confused me with cookie bar is that its linked to candy bar, which doesn't mention it either, also Black Thunder is disambiged with chocolate bar in the title. It is not so much that you needed references to include a photo of the Tiny Thunder bar, but if it is not mentioned in the article, then one could not consider the article to be comprehensize (one of the criteria for FA). Niagara Don't give up the ship 16:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
-
(Peer review added on Friday 8 April 2011, 22:28 UTC)
Philosophy and religion
Averroes
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get this up to the status of a Good Article and I wanted to run it through peer review to see what I need to work on. Also so we can have a standard article for other wikipedia projects to translate from seeing how all of them are not up the standards that we have.
Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by Chipmunkdavis
Literature! Spell it with me!
- Okay, first of all, decide what he is called. The article is title Averroes, no doubt because in literature that is his common name, I suggest you stick with that primarily, and offer his name as Ibn Rushd as his Islamic or native name.
- The current lead is basically a list. While obviously there is going to have to be some lists in the lead, I suggest adding much more context, giving summaries of his views and thoughts. Per WP:LEAD you can have up to four paragraphs; I suggest you use them to the maximum effect.
- Also immediately notable is the TOC, which is not only long for any article, but long for this very short article. However, that's an easy fix that can be taken per section.
- In the name section, it would be useful to have an understanding of what the word Ibn Rushd has, if any. Also, explain why he has all these alternate names, don't just list them.
- Watch for overlinking. Almoravids is linked twice in two consecutive sections.
- "Averroes’s education followed a traditional path" Islamic tradition? Almoravid tradition?
- "It is generally believed that he was perhaps once" The amount of qualifiers that have been managed to put here is amazing. Just say some think he did etc. or something similar.
- "Throughout his life he wrote extensively on Philosophy and Religion, attributes of God, origin of the universe, Metaphysics and Psychology." This sounds like a sentence for the lead, not something that should come up near the beginning of what I assume should be a narrative section.
- Where was Averroes banished to? Source the entire last paragraph.
- As a whole, the biography section could probably be expanded, with a nice chronological description of his life events, and perhaps the different periods he worked on different subjects if applicable.
- The Works section needs some referencing. There's only one reference used throughout the entire thing, and used only a few times.
- Works has some duplication, Aristotle and Plato are discussed in the main body and in a subsection. Combine. Same with the Incoherence of the Philosophers information, and any other instances.
- Perhaps rename "System of philosophy" just "Philosophy". It needs to be sourced, and could use expansion with detail of his beliefs about different topics.
- Significance again needs to be sourced. There's one external link there, which I assume is meant to be a reference. Watch for overlinking, I don't think linking 1150 adds anything.
- The Jurisprudence and Law section seems to add nothing that couldn't be included in Biography, Works, or Beliefs. It;s unsourced anyway, so if it's not useful remove it.
- Cultural influences needs sourcing, and at any rate should be under the Significance section.
- Okay, the List of Works is currently just subsectioned out, which really bloats the TOC. I suggest just limiting the subsections to the current level two subsections, ie Logic, Philosophy of Nature, Psychology, Metaphysics, Practical Philosophy, and Mathematics. Replace the lower sections with bold text, placing a semicolon (;) before the title (as I did to head these comments). As Questions has subsections, perhaps make it a level two subsection as well.
- The Notes section should be called References.
Basically, while there is plenty of content here, it stands absolutely no chance of making it to a GA without some serious sourcing. Perhaps use the Further Reading's as sources if you have them on hand, and make sure that all the sources are formatted the same, no plain urls etc. Use WP:CT for templates if needed. Good luck, if you have questions I'm watching this page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 22 April 2011, 17:30 UTC)
Social sciences and society
Finnish parliamentary election, 2011
I've listed this article for peer review because its one of the most comprehensive election articles of any non-english speakiing country on wikipedia. its very extensive in its background, campagning issues (which usually lags, but not with this), and the post-election results, reaction, aftermath. i think this is as comprehensive an article were gonna get on the subject (in fact evern better than the finnish article)
Thanks, Lihaas (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 3 May 2011, 20:08 UTC)
Wedding dress of Kate Middleton
Now that this article has survived a deletion debate, and has been rigourously edited by a variety of contributors, I'd like to see what further input we can get from the peer review community, to polish this article further, get it up to at least GA status eventually. Many thanks, Zanimum (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 1 May 2011, 02:30 UTC)
Direct lobbying in the United States
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be ready for a good article nomination.
Thanks, Bejinhan talks 12:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Note I forgot to say that this article was created as part of a university course scope and the students will be making any article changes. I will just be guiding them in the editing process. Bejinhan talks 10:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, here are some suggestions for improvement.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are a number of WP:GAs at Category:GA-Class United States Public Policy articles that may be useful models for this article.
- Two dab links that need to be fixed are to be found here
- One dead external link found here
- It would be good to have a picture in the lead - how about one of the US Capitol with a caption something like "Washington DC is home to 535 members of Congress and about 13,000 lobbyists."
- The current lead is too short and does not summarize the article completely. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Please see WP:LEAD
- The current first sentence does not follow WP:BEGINNING which says in part The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. (Current first sentence does not even mention the US, which is in the title)
- 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 facts that more than 12,986 lobbyists are in DC and that in 2010, the total amount spent on lobbying in the United States was $3.49 billion seem to only be in the lead.
- For ideas on expanding the lead, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but several sections do not seem to be even mentioned in the lead, including Lobbying laws, Revolving door, and Corporate media lobby
- The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which break up the narrative flow and make it a choppy read. Wherever possible, these should be combioned with others or perhaps expanded.
- Make sure the references contain all pertinent infroamtion. For example the current first ref is just "'Direct' and 'Grass Roots' Lobbying Defined", IRS, accessed March 20, 2010." I would spell out IRS and probably link it in the ref, and I would also include the date the ref was last updated (July 16, 2010)
- Make sure that refs used meet WP:RS and are reliable sources - for example in current ref 2 (which is also missing the date given on the web page), what makes the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network a reliable source on lobbying? Are there no political science textbooks or jornal articles that could be cited here instead? Or even newspaper stories on lobbying?
- The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
- Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example why do Jeff Chester and Center for Digital Democracy need to be (red-)linked three times in one section?
- Examples are all focused on the FCC and the most recent one cited is almost 35 years old (since he left as chair).
- A GA criterion is broad coverage, but this does not even mention the 50 state governments that I saw
- Another criterion is good English, but this is pretty rough in spots and needs a copyedit. One example: A U.S. Congress member has a limited amount of serving time, and has the possibility of not being re-elected, or stepping down. [31]During the 2010 elections there was an increase in Congress members leaving Capitol Hill. [31] Out of the 120 previous members, 72 have found employment. 21.8% employed at lobbying firm, while 11.5% became a lobbying client. [31] First sentence is just clunky. There should be no space between the first sentence and its ref, and a space is needed after the ref. Second sentence needs some sort of comparison - is this relative to the previous election cycle or an average or what? "leaving Capitol Hill" is also not very encylcopedic in tone (sounds like they have gone home for the night). Third sentence needs a time qualification - 72 found jobs as of when? Fourth "sentence" is a fragment, and the last phrase does not make sense to me - what does "while 11.5% became a lobbying client" mean? Also since numbers were used in previous sentences, why not use them (and %) here too?
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 14:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 30 April 2011, 02:51 UTC)
Franklin half dollar
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd be grateful for comments on it. It's a short article, don't worry.
Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Chipmunkdavis
You said short article, so here I am.
- Lead
- The "("Mint")" and "("Commission")" should be removed. I can see what they're for, but I'm not sure they are helpful or clear.
- "pictures patriot Benjamin Franklin" I suggest changing "patriot" to something else. It seems overly emotive for an encyclopaedia and isn't descriptive at all. Maybe say he's a founding father or something.
- "(a small eagle was placed to the right of the bell to fulfill legal requirements)" This should be rewritten, taken out of brackets and added properly to the sentence or removed. Currently it feels like bad prose, and also leaves me wondering what the legal requirements are.
- "for a Franklin half." "Franklin half" sounds like a shortcut to me, but if it's not, ignore this comment.
- I've seen it suggested by others that the lead has information from every section. It would be well worth adding to the lead you have, there's a whole paragraph left to fill!
- Background and selection
- "Franklin had opposed putting portraits on coins; in a 1948 interview, Ross noted that Franklin only knew of royalty on coins, and presumably would have no great objection to the republic he helped found honoring him in this way." This prima facie seems contradictory. Did Franklin change his mind later in life? I assume the 1948 interview definitely wasn't with him.
- The third paragraph doesn't flow well to me, consider removing "Sinnock" once or twice or combining sentences.
- When did the eagle coinage laws come about?
- What is the Commission of Fine Arts and is it usually asked for coinage advice?
- Wililink to Roosevelt Dime when it appears here.
- I suggest moving the picture down a couple of paragraphs, where it is better related.
- Release and Production
- John W. Snyder is not mentioned before. When did it get his approval?
- "Franklin became the fifth person to be honored by the issuance of a regular-issue US coin, after Lincoln, Roosevelt, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and the first non-President." Perhaps move the fragment about first non president to the start of this sentence?
- Flesh out "small "o" in "of" was an error," not immediately clear it refers to the United States of America on the reverse.
- I'm not sure the Ross photo adds, especially as it looks like a coin itself.
- Collecting
- "No Franklin half dollar is rare today" - Clarify this is no date of Franklin half dollar, otherwise it implies (to me) multiple types of Franklin half dollars.
- "the key dates in this series are the 1948, 1949-S, 1953 and 1955" What makes these key dates?
- "during when sliver prices reached record levels in 1979–1980." Fix grammar.
- "Today, the 1962 half in MS-65 condition sells for about $145, second only to the 1953-S in price in that grade." Why are just these two mentioned? In addition, try to explain MS and grade, numismatic terminology may not be understood be many.
- Make the bibliography section a subsection of references, just for clarity.
I liked this article, and was surprised by the fact halfdollars were once in demand. Anyway, hope my comments helped, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 25 April 2011, 18:07 UTC)
1931 Constitution of Ethiopia
While this is admittedly an esoteric subject which is likely to scare off anyone without a serious interest in constitutional law &/or Ethiopian history (i.e., almost everyone), I'd like some feedback on this article as to coverage ("Does it answer every reasonable question a non-expert might have on the subject? Okay then, how about most of them?"), coherence, & if it at least meets the unspecified standard for a B-category article in the categories it might fall into. Simply stated, I've accumulated more information on this subject than I thought I ever could, & want to know if I have succeeded in presenting that material in a useful manner. If not, then tell me what needs fixing.
Thanks, llywrch (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments from Cryptic C62
Oh hey, fancy meeting you here! I usually focus on the details when I'm peer reviewing, but here I will make a rare exception and try to avoid nitpicking altogether until we've evaluated the article as a whole. My thoughts:
- "Regent Haile Selassie had wanted Empress Zawditu to proclaim such a document" Why? It would be beneficial to elaborate on Selassie's thoughts behind the constitution.
- "Unlike its Japanese model, the Ethiopian Constitution was a simple document of 55 articles arranged in seven chapters." In order for this comparison to be helpful, more needs to be said about the Japanese constitution. How many articles?
- Um, those are more or less Keller's words. Until a month ago, I didn't even have access to a copy of the 1931 constitution, & comparing it to the Meji Constitution I see a number of points where the Ethiopian constitution drew on it (e.g., both have a chapter on the "rights & duties of its subjects" -- an unusual concept in constitutional law). -- llywrch (talk)
- "Twelve articles setting forth the powers of the Emperor." Which are...?
- "Article 54 establishes Special Courts, required by the Klobukowski agreement of 1906, which had exempted foreigners from both Ethiopian law and her justice system." Who is she?
- Klobukowski was a he. A French diplomat, to be precise -- or do you mean the possessive adjective in the phrase "her justice system"? Isn't it accepted practice to refer to a country as a "she"? -- llywrch (talk)
- I had assumed that "she" referred to Klobukowski. I have never seen countries referred to as "she" in encyclopedic writing, but that may be for the simple reason that I don't work on country-related articles very often. Regardless of what the accepted practice is, I think in this case it would make sense to change "she" to "its". Better yet, we could change "both Ethiopian law and her justice system" to "the Ethiopian legal system". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Klobukowski was a he. A French diplomat, to be precise -- or do you mean the possessive adjective in the phrase "her justice system"? Isn't it accepted practice to refer to a country as a "she"? -- llywrch (talk)
- "Following the restoration of Haile Selassie in 1941, Emperor Haile Selassie re-established the 1931 constitution, convening the parliament 2 November 1942. This body included a chamber of deputies which was double its pre-war size..." There's some sort of conflict being hinted at here, but it's not clear what's going on.
- By conflict, do you mean the Second Italo-Abyssinian War? Or are you referring to the increased size of the Chamber of Deputies? -- llywrch (talk)
- I suppose I might be referring to the Second Italo-Abyssinian War, though I wouldn't really know. The phrases that stuck out to me as being mysterious were "restoration of Haile Selassie", whose link target is not at all clear from the anchor text, and "pre-war" because it hasn't been made clear what war is being referred to. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- By conflict, do you mean the Second Italo-Abyssinian War? Or are you referring to the increased size of the Chamber of Deputies? -- llywrch (talk)
- "The Constitution of 1931 was superseded at the time of Emperor Haile Selassie's silver jubilee, when a new constitution was promulgated." When was this and why was it superseded? And what the f*ck is a silver jubilee???
- Wouldn't that be better explained in the article on the 1955 constitution? Just asking. And would it help if Silver Jubilee were linked? -- llywrch (talk)
- Well, why was the 1955 constitution instated? The obvious generic answer is that the 1931 was not effective or not well-supported. That should be explained here. And yes, it would help if silver jubilee were linked. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be better explained in the article on the 1955 constitution? Just asking. And would it help if Silver Jubilee were linked? -- llywrch (talk)
--Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 23 April 2011, 06:00 UTC)
Movie production incentives in the United States
This article was created as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy. I've listed this article for peer review because we'd like to receive community feedback. As new creators, we'd like feedback on content, tone, style, and any other aspects deemed noteworthy by readers.
Thanks, Dglasser13 (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, which looks pretty good, especially for an initial effort; here are some suggestions for improvement.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several GAs at Category:GA-Class United States Public Policy articles which may be good models.
- There are two dead external links - see here. These appear to be newspapers, so the link can just be to the newspaper (does not have to be a working web link if it is in print too)
- The lead seems like it could be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but History and Types do not seem to be in the lead as it currently stands.
- I think that the History section could have a bit more about the esptablishment of the US film industry in Hollywood as background. I would then think about putting the section in more chronological order. It just seems odd to have the earliest incentives (LA in 1991) in the very last paragraph. See provide context to the reader
- The WP:MOS says to avoid bullet point lists wherever possible (convert them to straight prose instead). This does not mean to have no such lists in the article, but the only one I would think about keeping is the one in Types (and even then I am not sure)
- Make sure the use of bold type follows WP:ITALIC
- Make sure that section and sub-section headers follow WP:HEAD which says not to repeat the title of the article or section headers in a section or subsection. So "Arguments supporting incentives" and "Arguments against incentives" could just be "Pro" and "Con" (the article is about incentives, and the header is already "Arguments"
- Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they break up the flow of the narrative. WHerever possible combine these paragraphs with others or perhaps expand them.
- 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.)
- Could some examples of films made with such incentives be added? I know that The Road (film) was filmed at least partly in Pennsylvania, as one example.
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 ><>°° 03:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 17 April 2011, 01:22 UTC)
Landless Workers' Movement
I've listed this article for peer review because…
The article deals with multiple issues and has grown in a somewhat haphazardly fashion; it must be divided into sections that make reading easier and informations must be throughly redistributed into the relevant sections
Thanks, Cerme (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this. This has two cleanup tags, so it could be denied a peer review, but here are the obvious things to be cleaned up I noticed on a quick look at the article.
- The External Link checker finds 6 or 7 dead links that need to be fixed - see here
- The disambiguation link checker also finds some problems - see here
- The lead is not a summary of the whole article - it should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and 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 there are several sections that do not seem to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
- Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
- Article needs more references, for example there are whole sections without refs (like Organizational structure and 2005 March for Agrarian Reform)
- My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- There are quite a few direct external links right in the article - these should be converted to inline citations.
- Make sure the External links follow WP:EL
- Watch WP:OVERLINKing and WP:NPOV
- THis could also use a copy edit and the issues in the clean up tags at top need to be addressed and resolved.
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 03:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 16 April 2011, 20:13 UTC)
Macomb County Board of Commissioners
I've listed this article for peer review because… I think I am almost done for now. Any constructive suggestions are welcome.
Thanks, Macomb13 (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Niagara
- Does this satisfy WP:NOTABILITY?
- Topics that could be expanded or elaborated upon:
- History (Has the county always this form of government? When the county recieved its charter? Changes the board has gone through since being formed?)
- the powers of the board (what they can and cannot do; Any checks and balances with the county executive or county judicial system?)
- Sources needed:
- the Michigan law that gives the board of commissioners its power (most state governments have online copies, so you could cite the law directly)
- You also could cite the county's charter on matters relating to its structure and operation.
- You could add an {{Infobox legislature}}
- A photo of where they meet would be a good idea (either of the chamber or the building it's in)
Interesting article. Don't often see articles on county governments (usually cities). You just need to make it a bit more comprehensive (add background and explain things so that people unfamiliar with Michigan or Macomb County can understand it). Niagara Don't give up the ship 15:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: Notability may be an issue, though more trivial topics have been accepted. The main problem here is the article's lack of structure and content. The article needs to conform to the basic WP requiremets of a summary lead and conemt sections. In the references, authors and dates should be given for newspaper sources. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 15 April 2011, 14:01 UTC)
Shapley–Folkman lemma
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has an exceptional graphic (better than any publication, imho) and is well-documented (although the formatting could be improved for consistency). It describes applications with greater specificity and range than the 2nd edition of Starr's "New Palgrave" article ([4]).
It does not seem helpful to duplicate proofs from the literature, which tend to be short (for mathematicians) or long (for economists).
(This is the first article that I've nominated for peer-review.) Why two peer-reviews, mathematics PR and economics (social science) PR? The Shapley-Folkman lemma is a mathematical theorem that plays a central role in mathematical economics. Listing this article for two subjects is non-standard, and I apologize for not asking for guidance before hand. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Review by Paul M. Nguyen:
- Strengths
- The article structure overall is very strong.
- The lead section captures the topic well, though it could include a concise statement about Shapley and Folkman and at least the decade in which the lemma was developed. This addition would make the lead more comprehensive.
- The article is well-referenced.
- Appropriate images are not lacking.
- Connectedness: other than the numerous (and appropriate) 'see also's and wikilinks, the article could use some navboxes like {{Geometry-footer}}, {{Economics}}, {{Microeconomics}}. See Category:Mathematics templates and Category:Economics templates.
- Weaknesses
- Though the article is highly technical, more could be done to make the topic accessible to a non-technical audience without sacrificing the precision it presently contains. I recommend expanding the lead section to include a second paragraph that treats the applications in simpler terms, relating both the economics and mathematics to readers not experts in either field.
- Mechanics of the article:
- References should follow punctuation, not fall "inside", as is the case in numerous places.
- The SFS abbreviation is introduced in the section on "Probability and measure theory" but the expanded form is used prior to that and the abbreviation is not used anywhere else. The abbreviation may be omitted or introduced at the first occurrence and used exclusively thereafter.
- The statement of the lemma should be a blockquote rather than whitespace-delimited.
It was a pleasure looking at this one. I'd appreciate your input on GNOME's PR, if you're interested. Thanks! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
-
- Response by 16:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC): Thank you for the very helpful review.
- I immediately incorporated some of your suggested improvements: Adding geometry and microeconomics footers and block-quoting the theorem. I plan to follow your suggestion on SFS abbreviation, and probably also to follow your suggestion about another lead paragraph (non-technical).
- On the other hand, mid-sentence footnotes appear when each specifies a particular contribution, for example, in the sentence noting economic applications of the Shapley-Folkman theorem; combining such footnotes into the end section would impair their usefulness to the readers, imho. Nonetheless, I shall review the WP guidelines on footnotes, and seriously consider your suggestion for each footnote. No doubt, some of the in-sentence footnotes could be modified to follow punctuation.
- Thank you for your help. I shall try to look at the GNOME article soon. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Continuing to follow your suggestions, I expanded the introduction and expanded the SFS abbreviation. Thus, only the footnotes remain unimproved despite your suggestions! Best regars, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I incorporated background material on convex sets and convex hulls. It would be preferable to develop graphics that are closer to Eppstein's illustration for the Shapley Folkman lemma, of course. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I included an illustration of Minkowski addition from the Italian Wikipedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I incorporated background material on convex sets and convex hulls. It would be preferable to develop graphics that are closer to Eppstein's illustration for the Shapley Folkman lemma, of course. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Continuing to follow your suggestions, I expanded the introduction and expanded the SFS abbreviation. Thus, only the footnotes remain unimproved despite your suggestions! Best regars, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Followup Review by Paul M. Nguyen: You're quick! A couple notes based on the revisions made since my review:
- Great job addressing connectedness.
- I was not clear enough in my comment about references. What I meant was that a reference should not fall between a word and punctuation that follows it (I suppose a dash would be an exception). Wrong example: fact[12], next point.[13] Correct: fact,[12] next point.[13] I did not notice any periods being "orphaned" by a reference, but there are several orphaned commas as in my example.
- Excellent work expanding the article. I think the convex geometry material helps.
- The introductory sentence to the section, "Stating the Shapley–Folkman lemma requires some definitions and results." could be rephrased to be more active and declarative, like "The Shapley–Folkman lemma depends upon the following definitions and results from convex geometry."
- The section title "Results from convex geometry" seems awkward to me. I think the article structure would be strengthened if the statement of the lemma and the requisite convex geometry definitions were to fall in the same == section, with the concepts upon which the statement of the lemma depends listed first. A more obvious (and more generic) title would need to be chosen for the top-level section, like "Definition" or even promote "Statement of the lemma" to encompass this information. The final subsection could then be titled simply "The lemma", following upon the convex geometry. I would, however, recommend keeping the theorem and Starr's corollary in a separate section, as they are presently.
- Lead section: wow! I think too much was added to the lead, though. For the present second paragraph, I recommend the following, which retains the added application-oriented context but condenses the middle as would be appropriate in a lead section:
The mathematicians Shapley and Folkman derived the Shapley–Folkman lemma to help the young economist, Ross M. Starr (1969), who was investigating the existence of economic equilibria when some consumer preferences need not be convex. Starr proved that a mathematical transformation that causes all preferences to be convex yields an economy that has general equilibria that are closely approximated by "quasi-equilbria" of the original economy. In Starr's corollary to the Shapley–Folkman theorem, Starr bounded the Euclidean distance between a Minkowski sum of nonconvex sets and the sum's convex hull; Starr's corollary is sometimes called the Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem.
–Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thanks again, Paul. You were very helpful and gave miraculously quick feedback.
- Thanks especially for the clarification about footnotes. (I was needlessly afraid that I would have to change WP policy to keep in-sentence footnotes.) I shall fix the remaining footnotes tomorrow, following your examples.
- Your suggestion about the lead paragraph was very helpful, and I shall incorporate it (nearly verbatim, I now believe) tomorrow.
- Have a great day/night, and thanks for your help!
- Yours gratefully, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Paul, Thanks again for your help. I incorporated your paragraph (crediting you in the edit summary), but your contributions have been so substantial that I wish that you make some official edit, so that you are credited as a contributor to the article. I also changed the footnotes to conform with the WP suggestion that footnotes follow punctuation marks. Thus, I believe that I have followed all of your suggestions. (I also incorporated an illustration of convex hulls and combined the illustrations of convex versus nonconvex sets.) Thanks very much for your excellent suggestions, which far exceed what I'd expected from this processs. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Cool! I edited a couple things just now, but nothing crazy. Cheers! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I tweaked the section/subsection(s) for the lemma and the preliminaries, trying to follow your suggestions. Thanks again. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Cool! I edited a couple things just now, but nothing crazy. Cheers! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Paul, Thanks again for your help. I incorporated your paragraph (crediting you in the edit summary), but your contributions have been so substantial that I wish that you make some official edit, so that you are credited as a contributor to the article. I also changed the footnotes to conform with the WP suggestion that footnotes follow punctuation marks. Thus, I believe that I have followed all of your suggestions. (I also incorporated an illustration of convex hulls and combined the illustrations of convex versus nonconvex sets.) Thanks very much for your excellent suggestions, which far exceed what I'd expected from this processs. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
-
-
Comments from RJHall
Comment from RJHall The very first sentence of the article seems ambiguous, so I am not quite able to grasp what it is trying to say:
- ...the Minkowski sum of many non-convex subsets of a finite-dimensional vector space is nearly convex.
Are you saying this applies to the net sum of a sufficiently large number of non-convex subsets, or it applies to many individual instances of the sums of non-convex pairs? What is meant by "many"? It is also vague about what is meant by "nearly convex". Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Shapley–Folkman lemma applies to the sum of N sets when N > D, the dimension of the sets; thus it would apply also to the sums of subsets of M sets when D < M ≤ N.
- Providing a short informal summary of the theorem is difficult. I'll look at the Carathéodory's lemma on convex hulls for inspiration. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is what Starr's lead says in the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics:
-
"The Shapley–Folkman theorem places an upper bound on the size of the non-convexities (loosely speaking, openings or holes) in a sum of non-convex sets in Euclidean N-dimensional space, RN. The bound is based on the size of non-convexities in the sets summed and the dimension of the space. When the number of sets in the sum is large, the bound is independent of the number of sets summed, depending rather on N, the dimension of the space. Hence the size of the non-convexity in the sum becomes small as a proportion of the number of sets summed; the non-convexity per summand goes to zero as the number of summands becomes large."
- Starr's opening is more precise than ours. I'll paraphrase Starr's.Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I incorporated Starr's ideas in a revised first paragraph:
-
In geometry and in mathematical economics, the Shapley–Folkman lemma and the closely-related Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem suggest that the Minkowski sum of many non-convex subsets of a finite-dimensional vector space is nearly convex.[1] The results of Shapley, Folkman, and Starr give an upper bound on the degree of non-convexity of the Minkowski sum of N non-convex sets. This bound on non-convexity depends on the dimension D and on the non-convexities of the summand-sets; however, the bound does not depend on the number of summand–sets N, when D < N. Because the sumset's non–convexity is determined by the non-convexities of only D summand sets, the average non–convexity of the sumset decreases as the number of summands N increases; in fact, the average degree of non–convexity decreases to zero as N increases to infinity.[2]
-
- Thanks again, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC) 23:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Comments from Ruslik0
I want point your attention to some contradictions in the first paragraph:
- This bound on non-convexity is defined in terms of the Euclidean distance and it depends on the dimension D and on the non-convexities of the summand-sets. I would say that the (upper) bound 'depends on the dimension D and on the non-convexities of the D summand-sets'. The current phrasing means that the bound depends on non-convexities of all summand-sets.
- The next sentence read Because the sumset's non–convexity is determined by the non-convexities of only D summand sets. I think the non-convexity itself depends on non-convexities of all summand sets as opposed to the upper bound.
- I also noticed that you use either 'd' or 'D' for the vector space dimension. Ruslik_Zero 19:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your clear and focused comments, Ruslik0. It's late and I shall have to review the article & finish replying tomorrow.
- Suggested phrasing (in reply): "depends on the dimension D and on the non-convexities of the collection of the sums of D summand–sets". Argument: The selection(s) of D (or fewer) convexified summands depends on the point; even pointwise, a SF-bipartition lacks uniqueness. (I did not wrote "all" but the mis-imputation of "all" should be much harder now.)
- As noted previously, I updated the wording to emphasize "the collections of the sums of D summand sets".
- Regarding the dimension d or D: I capitalized all occurences of the dimension as D (having previously tweaked David Eppstein's original i to n and capitalizing the upper index N).
- Reviewing the article today, I added a reference to Puri & D. Ralescu's 1985 article, whose Shapley-Folman application empowers R. Cerf's article (already cited).
- Thanks again for your very helpful comments and suggestions. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- You have failed to address 1 and 2. Ruslik_Zero 16:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for drawing my attention to the unfinished business. I appreciate your effort, and thank you!
- I am sorry if I misunderstand your intention, or wrote poorly. I thought that I had addressed your comments. I am sorry if I seem irritated now when I write --- my time is very limited.
- Your suggested phrasing errs in using the definite article "the" in "the D sets". First, the SF lemma gives the existence of a pointwise representation in terms of D convexified summand sets and N-D original summand sets. There are many problems with points having multiple representations, so uniqueness fails even pointwise. When (on some problems) the point varies, then the representation must vary, and so one needs to consider the collection of the sums of D convex hulls of summands (and N-D original summand sets). (Continued) Again, the phrasing never inserted the universal quantifier "all", so your imputation of "all" is unwarranted; as I wrote before, I tweaked the sentence so that this mis-reading should be more difficult.
- The SF lemma and SF theorem and SFS theorem state bounds. Unless you can find a reference discussing "degree of nonconvexity" as you suggest, your suggestions seems to follow under original research.
- Reading my responses, I am very unsatisfied with my progress on clarifying things. I apologize for having left a brusk & probably unclear response, now. I shall try to review and edit my response tomorrow. Thanks again for your suggestions. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- You have failed to address 1 and 2. Ruslik_Zero 16:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 30 October 2010, 04:20 UTC)
History
Royal Air Force
This article can hopefully become a good article and then be featured one day. For now, I'd like some suggestions on where the make the necessary improvements to help things along.
Many thanks in advance, Harrison49 (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't given this a full review, but there are some things you could get on and sort out before that point.
- Single-sentence paragraphs are generally a no-no. They're prevalent throughout.
- Related to the above, the article feels a little... listy. There's very little in the way of flowing prose; some parts of the article may be better presented that way.
- It's quite under-referenced. Pretty much every assertion could do with a citation. There must be dozens of print sources dedicated to this topic; I'd try to get my hands on some if I were you.
There ya go. Seegoon (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 29 April 2011, 17:31 UTC)
List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been extensively revised by a team of editors, and I feel it is approaching the point where we can nominate it at FLC. Any advice on areas which need to be changed to meet the criteria or otherwise improve the article would be appreciated. Thanks, — Rod talk 20:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments by H1nkles
Lead
- "Deposits of iron ore were located in different places to the sources of tin and copper ore necessary to make bronze..." Consider rewording thus: "Deposits of iron ore were separated from the sources of tin and copper necessary to make bronze..." It's a little cleaner and makes more grammatical sense.
-
- Done
- "Consequently, power passed into the hands of a new group of people." Who? I don't see this spelled out in the article.
-
- I have removed this sentence
- I think a reference or two are needed for the last paragraph in the lead. The iron age tribes of Sommerset and also the determination that certain settlements were pre-Roman should be referenced.
-
- Ref added
- I can't seem to get the article to save to I'll tell you here there is a superfluous "on" in this sentence portion: "...'Lake Villages' at Meare and Glastonbury which were built on on a morass..."
-
- Done
- "Scheduled Monuments are defined in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, which defines a monument as..." Two uses of the word "define" perhaps the first one could be "listed"?
-
- Done
- "...and any works taking place within one require Scheduled Monument Consent from the Secretary of State." I think this portion of the sentence needs a little tweaking for readability: "...and any work taking place at one of these sites requires Scheduled Monument Consent from the Secretary of State." Just a suggestion.
-
- Done
List
- In the Bury Castle entry you indicate that it is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Why this detail? Aren't all the scheduled forts in this list Scheduled Ancient Monuments? I could be reading too much into this but I'm confused why this particular entry is designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Am I missing something?
-
- I've chjanged this one others may need checking
- Why is Cadbury Castle called South Cadbury Camp in the description?
-
- Changed
- You always link the name of the site in the title column and sometimes it is linked in the description column but not always. This should be consistent. See Cambria Farms as unlinked and Cannington Camp as linked for examples.
-
- Many changed but may need checking
- Can the first instances of univallate and multivallate be linked? Those are terms I'm not familiar with and they are used multiple times in the list.
-
- I can't find suitable articles to link to - I may add a sentence on this in the lead
- In Dolebury camp you have 22.3 acres (90,000 m2). Throughout it has been metric first, why the change here?
-
- Changed
- Ham Hill fort has an area of 200 acres with no metric conversion.
-
- Done
- Maesbury castle has imperical 1 foot (30 cm) first and then metric, this should be switched for consistency.
-
- Done
- Same with Maes Knoll. I won't bring this up any more but I do see inconsistency throughout with the order, metric first and then imperial or vice versa.
-
- Done - but any further checking appeciated
- No conversion for Mounsey Castle for the 1.75 ha measurement.
-
- Done
- In Ruborough Camp the HA for hectacre is linked. This should be done in the first instance of the word per WP:LINK.
-
- I've remove the link - in a suitable list defining 1st usage is difficult
- "An Iron Age hill fort or enclosure on the north-facing slope of Dunkery Hill." I know you're talking about Sweetworthy but it is a sentence fragment nonetheless.
-
- Done
- Look at spacing issues and metric conversion at Tedbury Camp.
-
- Done
- "Comprises the slight earthwork remains of a univallate Iron Age hill fort, now nearly ploughed down." This is a sentence frament, it needs a subject.
-
- Changed
- The images are small and at the bottom of the list. Can they be placed alongside the list near their descriptions?
- Is there a distinct difference between suspected and confirmed forts/settlements? Is there some missing piece of information that makes it suspected rather than confirmed? I'm just wondering why certain sites are suspected as being forts.
- Refs look good, links are good and credible.
- Overall it's a fine list, the above suggestions are nit picky to help polish it up for FLC. This concludes my review if you found it helpful please consider reviewing an article at WP:PR or at WP:GAC to help alleviate the ever-present backlog. If you have specific questions or comments please leave them on my talk page as I do not watch review pages. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your really helpful comments - I have dealt with many of them, but will take others (eg images & suspected v confirmed) to the articles talk page.— Rod talk 13:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by llywrch
I have two unfavorable initial impressions of this list, One is easily fixable, the other may not be.
- Most of the content, on a regular basis, appears to be in the "Description" column. Any chance you could make this column wider?
- I like that there is a box for plans of every hill fort. Unfortunately, the entries which lack plans are far more numerous; only 28 of the 60 entries have plans. I think this would pass FL -- & our readers agree it belonged to that level of quality -- if a clear majority of the entries had plans. I don't know how hard it is to create these plans, but if the list is going to offer this feature, it needs to be available for more hillforts.
Hope this helps. -- llywrch (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 April 2011, 20:14 UTC)
Rova of Antananarivo
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make it the first article related to the people of Madagascar (not the wildlife) to make it to FA. I've put a lot of work into making it complete but can't be entirely objective so welcome any and all comments to make the article stronger. Thank you! -- Lemurbaby (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- More specifically, I invite anyone to share their opinion on the use of italics to denote the names of buildings on the Rova compound. The advantage here is that it would help readers to distinguish between the names of people and buildings which may be otherwise difficult to tell apart. Drawbacks are the frequent use of italics could be an eyesore or distraction. Normally italics for foreign words would either be used on the first appearance only or for every use thereafter. I'm not following any particular standard yet but this article should conform to some consistent style standard before it makes it to FA. Comments? -- Lemurbaby (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 24 April 2011, 05:06 UTC)
Maud Gage Baum
Maud Gage Baum is the wife of L. Frank Baum, the author of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. A strong-willed woman, she once forced her husband to eat stale doughnuts because he did not consult with her before buying them.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive feedback on the article's prose, structure, and depth. I plan to take the article to WP:GAN. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by H1nkles
I don't have time for a full indepth review but I do see a few things in a flyover read that should be addressed prior to nomination at WP:GAC
- Do you have her maiden name? Usually this goes in the first line of the lead.
- Why are the first three sentences a separate paragraph from the next paragraph in the lead? Consider combining.
- Read the lead and look for information that is too detailed for a summary of the article. For example, the money she made from teaching allowed her to buy a new rug and furniture. Perhaps a bit too detailed for a summary?
- You have a lot of detail in the article. Make sure not to bog down in minutiae. For example the dormitory costs, annual costs and savings if two girls stayed together. I understand the point is that her attendance in college was very costly and put a strain on the family finances. But I think this can be communicated without having to give every single detail of every possible cost. Just my opinion of course.
- Check for formatting of the last picture - tombstone of Maud and Frank - in my browser it spills into the references section. Can it be moved up or perhaps the library image can be deleted or moved and replaced with the tombstone. You have a lot of great images here.
- Is there any other information about her life post her husband's death? You have amazing detail of her life up to her husband's death and then the last 34 years of her life are summed up in five sentences. Seems a bit unbalanced.
- Unfortunately I don't have more time to go through the article thoroughly. I hope this helps get the review started and another editor can come in and give a more indepth review. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 22 April 2011, 00:17 UTC)
William de Chesney
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like to possibly take it to FAC at some point, and would like advice on comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, and prose from folks not conversant with the subject matter.
Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: A warm welcome to another shadowy figure from the past, who but for Ealdgyth's delvings would probably be quite unremembered. A few issues (with assistance from my history books):-
- Avoid "...as well. As well..."
- "The elder Chesney probably originated near Quesney-Guesnon in the Calvados region of Normandy, and was a tenant of Robert d'Oilly at the time of the Domesday Survey". This is a little telescopic, and could perhaps be expanded. In my view, families rather than individuals "originate". Where was Roger a tenant of d'Oilly at the time of the Domesday survey? Do we know, even roughly, when Roger or his family came to England? Was it with the Conquest?
- "the others" rather than "the rest", I think (people, not objects)
- "King Henry's only legitimate son, William, had died in 1120." Henry of Huntingdon refers to "the king's two sons, William and Richard", in relation to the sinking of The White Ship. Was Richard not legit?
- The sentence beginning "Matilda, though..." is long and convoluted, and could do with a split somewhere. The "though" has the faintest tang of POV.
- "which he acquired at least by 1157" → "which he had acquired at least by 1157"
- "Some historians have seen this holding of the lands as Stephen actually giving Chesney the d'Oilly barony, but the evidence for this is the fact that Chesney eventually owned a manor that had previously been owned by d'Oilly, which does not necessarily mean that Chesney received the whole barony." I find this sentence a bit repetitive and with unnecessary verbiage, e.g. "actually", "the fact", etc. I would try something like "Some historians have seen this holding of the lands as Stephen giving Chesney the d'Oilly barony, but the evidence for this is merely that Chesney eventually owned a manor previously belonging to d'Oilly, rather than that he received the whole barony."
- "Far more likely is that..." → "It is far more likely that..."
- "are known to have been owned Chesney..." Presumably, "by Chesney"? And can we avoid the close repetition of "held" immediately thereafter?
- "Some historians hold that Chesney held the office of Sheriff of Oxfordshire,[4] but others do not."[14] Surely, if only "some" historians believe he held this office it is implicit that some believe otherwise? To avoid this kind of awkwardness, it may be wise to rephrase the whole thing: "Historians are divided in their views as to whether Chesney held the office of Sheriff of Oxfordshire", followed by both refs.
- "...and may have been a brother of William's." I'd say simply "brother of William" as the more usual form. Lose the comma afer "Robert de Chesney"
- "Part of the Treaty of Wallingford, the peace settlement between Stephen and Henry that gave Henry the English throne after Stephen's death, concerned who would control Oxford Castle, which by the terms of the treaty was entrusted to Roger de Bussy." A little too much information for a single sentence, and again, somewhat repetitious phrasing. I would suggest something along the lines: "The subsequent peace settlement, the Treaty of Wallingford, gave Henry the English throne after Stephen's death. A part of the treaty awarded control of Oxford Castle to Roger de Bussy".
- "He continued to receive favours from the king, such as the exemption he received for payment of danegeld..." Suggest: "such as exemption for payment..." etc
- Nothing about his death, although you give a date in the lead. You need a sentence, even if it only says something like: "Chesney is believed to have died in 1161, [cite source] though the circumstances are not known".
That's it. As I am unable to watch individual peer review pages, please ping my talkpage if you have problems arising from this review, or if you want me to look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 21 April 2011, 15:48 UTC)
Piers Gaveston, 1st Earl of Cornwall
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's close to FA status. I would particularly appreciate language ce, but any comments are welcome!
Thanks, Lampman (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Pretty good, but the lead is rather short and I think (having recently read Mortimer on Mortimer) that more, and earlier emphasis should be placed on his arrogance and rudeness. Whether or not he was gay, grasping or smothering other access, he evidently saw little need to cultivate good relations with anyone except the king & was just really rude to the magnates, who were easily offended. A bit might be added on the expectations of the magnates. Otherwise should be ok at FA on a broad view. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 21 April 2011, 00:08 UTC)
Lympne Airport
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to get this to FA status. The article has had a copyedit as part of the GA process, and it is now GA rated. The airfield had a strong involvement in the development of aviation navigation and aviation safety during the 1920s and 1930s. It was also involved in the development of package holidays as part of the tourism industry in the 1950s and 1960s. It served in both world wars, basic history in this article, details of units operating from RAF Lympne are in that article.
Thanks, Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. While a lot of work has clearly gone into this and it has a huge amount of information, I worry about its organization and that in some ways it would not meet the comprehensiveness criterion at FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.
Establishment
- I think in terms of comprehensiveness that some more material is needed here. Some of it is about the infrastructure of the airport itself - there is a lot of material on uses of the airport, but relatively little on the airport's physical plant - how big was it (area)? How long was the grass landing strip? What sort of hangars and other buildings were there? At least some of this is in one of the current External links (canvas hangers, huts for airmen, other structures added later).
- I also wonder if there couldn't be a bit more background on the site - why was there a large open area there suitable for an airfield? What is the etymology of Lympne? Even basic descriptions of its geography on the coast and the Channel, between France and London would help the reader understand why it got the traffic and attcks it did.
- I would also mention the First WOrld War explicitly here. It is in the lead, but needs to be in the body of the article too (and not just a reference to after the end of the war as it is now)
- Be consistent on little things - so is it "120 Squadron" or "120 squadron"? Both are used...
- The lead (and article) uses the word Lympne an awful lot - I know some of this is unavoidable, but can other terms be used - the airfield? the airport? the aerodrome? even the facility? You get the idea.
Civil operations 1919–29
- I understand that each paragraph in this section corresponds to a year, which is one way to organize the material. I have to confess though that it seems pretty choppy and disjointed to do it this way. It is your call, but I wonder if a thematic arrangement would work any better. So, for example, there could be a paragraph or two on customs and overseas commerical flights, while another paragraph could be on the various signals and aerial lighthouses used. Still another could be on its proximity to the Channel and France and all that involved. I am not sure if that would work or not, but it might bear consideration
- Even if it is not organized in this way, I think there could be more organziation to make things clearer to the reader. So the 191 paragraph could start with something like even though the RAF had left late in the previous year, the ban on civil flying was not lifted until May 1, and Lympne had its first plane fly in that day. Then perhaps talk about customs starting that month.
- I guess the thing that I am trying to get at here is that the story gets lost to some extent in a strictly year by year recitation of events. I think that the average reader will find a thematic approach, or even one that provides more context easier to follow, than having to remember that this also happened last year and some years before that.
1930-1939
- I would try to avoid needless repetition wherever possible. For example some variant of No. 601 Squadron RAF had there annual camp there appears 10 times. I do not think the name needs to spelled out each and every time, nor do we need their aircraft spelled out each time. So again if this were organized more thematically, there could be some overarching statement that the RAF began using the airfield for camps in YEAR. Then something like In late August and early September 1926, 601 (County of London) Squadron AuxAF [spell out?] held its inaugural camp at Lympne. The squadron was equipped with Avro 504 and de Havilland DH.9A aircraft.[53] 600 (City of London) Squadron, which flew the same aircraft, joined 601 Squadron for the camp in August in 1927 and 1928. Late in the 1928 camp, Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill and Under Secretary of State for Air Sir Philip Sassoon inspected both squadrons and were entertained at a dinner.[68] 601 Squadron returned to Lympne eash August in 1929, 1930, and 1931. In the August 1933 camp 601 Squadron, now equipped with Hawker Harts, were visited by the Marquess of Londonderry, the Secretary of State for Air.[86][87] etc etc I think this would trim the size a bit and make it flow better.
- In a similar vein, avoid WP:OVERLINKing. Royal Air Force is linked quite a few times, when the convention is to link once in the lead and perhaps once more in the bosy of the article.
General comments
- I also wonder if some of the separate sections after History might be better as subsections in History - so for example there is a section on the Cinque Ports Flying Club, but there is more material on the club in the paragraphs on 1928, 1938, during WWII, and also a mention that it was restarted in 1946, foleded in 1948 (these last two are duplicates) and then the history that it was restarted in 1964 and moved in 1984, which is not in the section on the club at all.
- Seems odd that there is more detail on things in the 1920s and 1930s than on WWII and especially the 1960s, 70s and 80s. How many passengers flew out of here when it was a commercial airport? The FLickr photo (below) gives a passenger number for the new terminal built there in the 1960s.
- I would consider spinning some of the material off into daughter articles - perhaps a list of accidents, and another on racing?
- A map showing some of the other airports and places mentioned prominently might help
- I like the one photo of an aircraft - could more be added?
- I also note the external link to the Kent County COuncil website has some photos of RAF buildings still standing - could modern photos of these be obtained?
- There is a great aerial photo of the airport in the 1930s here and here - perhaps fair use?
- As far as comprehensiveness goes, I expected more on the closure of the airport and on its modern use as an industrial park. The latter is only in the lead really
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 03:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 5 April 2011, 06:17 UTC)
Geography and places
List of World Heritage Sites in Madagascar
This list of the World Heritage Sites in Madagascar is admittedly short, but it's comprehensive. It could nonetheless benefit from a review by a second pair of fresh eyes. I used the List of World Heritage Sites in Spain as my model in the interest of hopefully seeing it reach Featured List status despite being brief... the little engine that could. :) -- Lemurbaby (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 2 May 2011, 23:58 UTC)
Steinbach, Manitoba
I've listed this article for peer review as I would like to know what grade it currently would receive, it is established as B-Class. Secondly and more importantly I would like to know what further additions or edits would be required to receive GA status.
Thanks, Krazytea(talk) 05:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by Chipmunkdavis
- In the infobox under the map, perhaps write "Location of Steinbach in Manitoba, Canada", for those who don't recognise the map.
- The History section is a very nice size. Make sure it's sourced, a couple of paragraphs have sentences at the end without a source.
- It may be unnecessary to say the Russian settlement was Milk Colony, it has nothing to do with Steinbach
- Join the paragraph above the windmill with the one after it to prevent short paragraphs from existing.
- Move the windmill up slightly maybe? It cuts into the next section on my screen.
- Perhaps information about liquor can go in another section, maybe health, as it doesn't seem quite pertinent to history.
- The Geography section needs to be sourced. There's only two currently, and one is for the weather box.
- The Geography section also seems small. Is there any other information that can be found, for example about Geology?
- The current Climate subsection, just a table, seems like bad formatting. In my opinion, a section needs substantial text to exist. This means it may be worth either removing that subsection and having it part of the main section, or adding a substantial couple of paragraphs of prose.
- The Economy section could use large expansion. Statistics on jobs in each sector, unemployment, etc. would be useful. An expansion on the activities of each sector also wouldn't go astray.
- Demographics could use some information about the age of the population.
- The Ethnic Origins box currently has "Canadian" as an ethnic origin. Does this mean indigenous people? If so, change the wikilink.
- The Government section needs information about what powers the local government has, vs the provincial government. The names of current politicians also would add to it.
- The Infrastructure section needs sources. In addition the "Access" subheading seems redundant to infrastructure, and would in my opinion include information about an airport as well (being access). If Health is kept, it needs to be expanded, large hospitals, ambulance fleet if possible.
- Education needs to be sourced. Figures on literacy etc. would also be helpful, although I assume its somewhere at 99-100%. What school system is taught? Is it a standardised Manitoban/Canadian system or dictated by school?
- Media needs sourcing, and information about other forms of media should be added. Is Television mostly cable? How many households have television/radio? What are the distribution numbers of the newspaper?
- Some paragraphs in Sports and Recreation need sources. Information about more recreational activities such as the larger parks in the city would be good.
- I'm not sure about "the club is now host to over 260 athletes ranging from 7 to 22 year olds", as it seems odd to lump people from ages 7 to 22 together like that.
- In the notable section, perhaps divide between natives and residents, with sources for each person of course.
These are just my opinions, you are free to agree or disagree, but either way I wish you luck. I have this page watchlisted, if anything I said was unclear. I'd rate this a C at the moment, due to the lack of information and sources in some sections, but it's very close to a B. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 April 2011, 05:38 UTC)
Walkden
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to see whether any improvements can be made. I'm eventually hoping that it would get to GA status, but I know it will need improvements before it gets to that status. Also please comment on what class you think it is.
Thanks, Doh5678 Talk 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by Chipmunkdavis
- First of all, the great needs to be greatly expanded.
- The History section is currently weird, with just the two sections, one called "Early History". Perhaps make "Toponymy" its own level 2 section, and just have a single level two history section.
- Done
- Couple of unsourced statements dotted around, but in general quite well sourced. Statements such as "The Duke of Bridgewater was the biggest landowner in 1786, owning over half the land." definitely need a source.
- Much of the history section seems to be a description of buildings in the town. Perhaps these should go in their own section, maybe merged with the geography section into "Buildings and landscape"? A geography section for a small town seems excessive, and the current one is obviously quite short, possibly reflecting this.
- Made "Buildings" section, thought I'd keep "Geography" and expand it.
- On the note of geography (or whatever that section is renamed), include any information about hills lakes and other features. I'd also suggest making the "Blackleach Country Park" section a subsection of this, rather than having it as a standalone level two section.
- Done.
- The education section needs more sourced. Be careful of descending into lists, expand more on each school and how education has developed over time.
- The transport section too needs more references. It would be useful to include figures for the number of cars or other vehicles in the town, if available.
- The religion section should be expanded, and should include numbers of people in each religion. Are there any religions besides Christianity in the town? Try to keep a similar level of detail for all the churches if possible.
- Information about population numbers and growth, age breakdown, etc. would be useful.
I'd put this as a C currently. For the information that is there, it is generally all sourced, however it is quite a small article at the moment. To get it to a GA, you should try to expand the sections. Aim for having each section slightly smaller than the current history section; if you don't make it after putting all the information you can then that's fine, but if you're aiming for that length you should hopefully be able to include much more. There are deadlinks and citations needed. It appears that all the references are different styles, so fix them up perhaps using the templates found at WP:CT. Good luck, I'm watching this page if you have questions. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 24 April 2011, 16:30 UTC)
Ickenham
I've added a lot to the article recently and hope to nominate it for Good Article status soon. However, I'm not sure about the use of references for schools in particular - should these become in-line external links like the sports clubs are listed?
Thanks, Harrison49 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: This is a decent effort to highlight what might be considered a rather anonymous area of outer London. However, I have had some difficulty in getting to grips with this article, which at present has quite a few problems, and I believe that the GA nomination is premature. I have only been able to look closely at the lead and first couple of sections - my comments are below. There does seem to be a general prose weakness; attention from a skilled copyeditor might be called for.
- Lead
- The lead needs to be redrafted to comply with the requirements of WP:LEAD, that it be a concise summary of the whole article, rather than a collection of individual details.
- Non-neutral statements such as "The area has a rich history..." should be avoided.
- "14th, 15th and 16th century..." That's "centuries"
- Prose needs considerale polishing; an example of an awkardly worded sentence: "The sale and development of much of the estate of Swakeleys in 1922 also brought with it many new homes, with the resulting expansion of Ickenham becoming part of what came to be termed 'Metro-land'".
- Toponomy
- Nice Domesday quote. Should be prefaced: "The second entry reads" not "read"
- It would help if the reader was informed, perhaps by paranthetical note, that "hide" and "virgate" are old land measurements - around 60 and 30 acres respectively I think.
- "1st and 2nd centuries" (plural)
- Early developments
- Punctuation problems in, for example, "The original lord of the manor of Ickenham was Geoffrey de Mandeville from whom it passed to William de Brock and then to John Charlton in 1334, whose son John owned Swakeleys from 1350." This needs punctuating and rephrasing along the lines: "The original lord of the manor of Ickenham was Geoffrey de Mandeville, from whom it passed to William de Brock and then, in 1334, to John Charlton whose son John owned Swakeleys from 1350." Check for similar instances.
- Who, or what, are "the Shorediches"?
- Dodgy grammar, e.g. "The Shorediche family built their manor house on a track off Long Lane, which they originally named Ickenham Hall but subsequently changed to Manor Farm." In this phrasing, "which" refers to Long Lane rather than the manor house.
- Who are "the Crosier family"?
- It would be useful to have more date indicators, covering the various transfers after Charlton's widow's life interest expired.
- There is some confusion in the second paragraph, which seems to be offering a different history of Swakeleys. The use of the house during the Second World War is out of place here, in a section headed "Early developments".
- Again in the next paragraph, you are mixing early with modern history, by introducing the 1980's covenant with the United Reform Church.
- What do you mean by "the focus of the area"? Propbably better to say "A significant landmark in the area..."
- Charlotte Gell donated the pump in 1866 – but she died in 1863. Reword this to avoid puzzlement on the part of readers.
- There are lots of repetitions in this paragraph's prose that need attention. "Pump" should not be capitalised after first mention. Again, I don't think that 19th century developments, which are relatively recent, properly belong in this section given its title.
- Generally
- I have not looked at the later sections in detail, but there seems to be a rather large number of very short sections. It would be better if some of these were either extended, or merged.
- I noted a few minor MOS infringements, e.g. use of hyphen rather than ndash, use of bullet-points rather than prose.
There are enough points here to enable you to make some significant progress with the article. As I am not able to watch individual PR pages at present, please contact my talkpage if you wish to raise points from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 11 April 2011, 18:58 UTC)
Engineering and technology
Frost Bank Tower
I've listed this article for peer review because although the page soon matched up to its Featured Article reviewer comments, it still eventually failed. As such, I'm looking for someone who can give suggestions and provide fixes.
Thanks, TheAustinMan (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: Not much work seems to have been done on the article since the FAC was archived in March. There are numerous prose matters requiring attention, and also some unresolved reference issues.
- Prose issues
- "...it is the third tallest building in Austin, behind the 360 Condominiums". Behind the Condominiums and...?
- "Cousins sold the building in 2006 to Equity Office Properties Trust for $188 million before they sold the building to Thomas Properties". Reword to remove ambiguity: "Cousins sold the building in 2006 for $188 million to Equity Office Properties Trust, who in turn sold the building to Thomas Properties". Do we have a year for this latter sale?
- "In 1998, T. Stacy & Associates consolidated tracts of land at the building site..." Some amplification is requires of what you mean by "the building site", e.g. its geographical location in the city. What was originally on the site? Was it a vacant lot, etc?
- Unnecessary sentence: "Cousins Properties soon developed the plans for the Frost Bank Tower." Delete and begin next: "Their original plans..." (plural)
- The word "tall" need not be used. Hence "a 352 ft (107 m) building" etc
- "As the building commenced on November 27, 2001, it became the tallest building in the United States of America to be constructed after the September 11 attacks." Surely, "As the building neared completion", not as building commenced.
- "It officially became the tallest building..." What does "officially" mean here?
- "137 million U.S. dollars" should be written as $137 million (as you do elsewhere)
- Technical expressions should be explained. For example, what is "blue low-e glass"?
- "The folded panes of the building step back to create a segmented pyramidal form." This is architect-speak, and needs a clearer explanation.
- What does "150 feet of lighting" mean? Height, length?
- "The tower used massive amounts of glass in its construction." The tower did not construct itself. Also, vague terms like "massive amounts" are non-encyclopedic. Suggest you delete this sentence.
- "45,000 ft (13,716 m) feet was used for the crown." Is this still referring to glass, and shouldn't these be square feet and square metres?
- I don't think the "Critics' responses" section should lead off with a facetious comment - put it in later.
- An explanation of "Keep Austin Wierd" should be given, rather than just a link.
- The very long, convoluted sentence that begins "The tower was awarded..." needs reconstruction
- "The Frost Bank Tower contains a wide variety of amenities, most of which are located in the tower." My emphasis: I imagine they all are. Can you explain what you mean?
- What is this "tin cross" tradition?
- References issues
- Whenever possible, with websites list the organisation responsible for the site as publisher rather than the web address. For example (ref 1) the publisher is Skyscraper Source Media
- Journal and nespaper names should be italicised
- Ref 9 is a dead link
- Ref 11: Highbeam is not the publisher. The report comes from Business Wire
- Ref 17: Who are "Elliptipar"?
On a more general point, the article does not compare well in terms of comprehensiveness and presentation with existing building FAs such as Chicago Board of Trade Building and Monadnock Building, and a lot more work will be necessary if it is to make the grade at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 16 April 2011, 18:25 UTC)
General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
I've listed this article for peer review because the article pretty much meets the "The perfect article" criteria. It has recently been promoted to GA status, and I'm wondering what areas the article need to be improved. I think that, with some effort and collaboration, it can achieve FA status quite easily.
Thanks, Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 06:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments This looks pretty good to me, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC. Thanks for your work on this.
- The External link checker in the toolbox on this page finds 9 or more ELs that are dead or problematic and will need to be fixed before FAC.
- The same toolbox has a disambiguation link finder which finds one dab link (may be the dab at the top of the article??)
- I did some minor copyedits as I read - please revert if I introduced errors or made things worse.
- Abbreviations like GD need to be spelled out on first use, so "General Dynamics (GD)"
- I think this needs a ref right after the period per WP:MOSQUOTE: ACF also raised the stakes for GD and Northrop because it brought in further competitors intent on securing the lucrative order that was touted at the time as “the arms deal of the century”.
- Why does the Overview section have no references? I think it needs them.
- Operational history, United States needs more refs too.
- I would combine the two short paragraphs for Pakistan in Operational history. Also not sure if it would be better to have a Pakistan and other nations section here.
- If Yonatan Begin did not survive the crash (seems like he did not), I would say so explicitly
- Does the Notable appearances in media really meet WP:Summary style? Why not just make it a See also link instead?
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 04:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 9 April 2011, 06:49 UTC)
Natural sciences and mathematics
Laevistrombus canarium
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare it for a future FA candidacy. A broader scrutiny is needed to determine what needs to be changed, improved or expanded; The article covers up most of the topics about this species, but I am sure there is much to improve. A MoS review would be very welcome as well.
Thanks, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 April 2011, 22:57 UTC)
Moonlighting protein
I've listed this article for peer review so eventually it will become a featured article.
Thanks, Swmmr1928 (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- There are two links that lead to disambiguation pages: moonlighting and cell structure. There does not appear to be an alternate page for either of these. The cell structure page does briefly define cell structure but the moonlighting page appears to be better defined on this page so would suggest removing that link or creating a stub page for it.
- "moonlighting proteins are of particular interest in protein engineering, the study of proteins," Surely the study of proteins is proteomics? I'm not entirely sure that protein engineering and the study of proteins are treated synonymously in this sentence, but if they are not supposed to be then this is unclear.
- "Some examples of functions of protein..." if this is about moonlighting proteins then that should be mentioned, and if it is about proteins in general then presumabely it is irrelevant.
- Should link to evolution
- Active site does not need to be linked to twice on the same line
- Junk DNA should probably not be mentioned in such a definitive way as it is a pretty outdated concept
- Of the well documented examples of moonlighting proteins causing disease, there is only one example provided and it is without citation
- Italienmoose (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I have implemented these very good suggestions. Sorry, I am new to this review process. What happens next? I want more suggestions to improve the article and try to go for a good article nomination :) Swmmr1928 talk 18:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll try to think of more suggestions when I have time. I haven't done much editing on here for a while so I'm a bit behind on protocol but presumabely just keep reviewing it and then try to get it nominated. This seems to be an interesting topic so I'll keep a watch on the article page for a while. Italienmoose (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Glad to see there are some comments here already. Thanks for your work on this and here are some more suggestions for improvement, with an eye to WP:FAC.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are 26 WP:FAs in Category:FA-Class MCB articles, some of which should be good models for this article.
- The article could use some images - I would look at the proteins listed. Aconitase has a decent image at File:7ACN.jpg, for example. It should at least have one image in the lead if at all possible.
-
- Per your suggestion, I have added the aconitase figure and I will try to locate an appropriate graphic to the lead.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
-
- The lead has been expanded to provide a more complete summary of the article. We need to add a section protein engineering however since it is mention in the lead but no where else.
- The current lead is only one paragraph and seems like it is not a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is no mention of techniques or mass spec. Please see WP:LEAD
- For the remaining disambiguation link, perhaps link to the wiktionary entry? So the code [[wikt:moonlight#verb|moonlighting]] looks like this in the article: moonlighting
- Article needs more references, for example the second and third paragraphs of Techniques used to determine function have no refs, and there are citation needed tags in the article too.
- My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- References that are there are oddly punctuated - shouldn't Jeffery CJ be Jeffery, C.J.?
- Or why do some journal abbreviations have periods and others do not?
-
Fixed
- Or why not punctuate Gancedo C, Flores CL as Gancedo, C.; Flores, C.L.?
-
- The format of the author names in the citations follows the commonly used Vancouver system.
- Spell out abbrviations on first use - so Iron-responsive element-binding protein (IREBP)
-
Fixed
- The two criteria for FAs that are most difficult for articles to meet in general are comprehnsiveness and prose. This is fairly short (there is no length requirement for FAs) but that makes me wonder if it is comprehensive. For example aconitase has three different functions in the table, but this is not discussed that I can see. See WP:WIAFA
- In general for FAs every i has to be dotted and every t crossed, so lots of attention to detail and a copyedit would help
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 15:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your very helpful comments. I have made an initial attempt at implementing some of your suggestions and will address the rest as I find time. Boghog (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 25 April 2011, 11:42 UTC)
Potcake dog
This is the only article I've written so far, so I'm looking for feedback. Please, rip it apart if you feel the need: I'm not particularly thin-skinned and am always looking for ways to improve.
I'm particularly concerned about the prose quality, although I believe I've improved it since putting the article up for GA. Flow is my bugbear.
Thanks in advance. – anna 06:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- The flow seems fine to me. A concern is the number of brief paragraphs, which are generally discouraged per WP:Paragraph. You might want to develop those a little more, or else merge them.—RJH (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've merged short paragraphs where possible. I left those in the lead and appearance section since I feel they look better and are helpful in terms of organization; if others disagree I'll condense them as well. I'd expand the sections if I could, but there's a dearth of reliable information on the type's traits. – anna 01:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by Chipmunkdavis
- No comment on the lead right now specifically, only noting you should try to expand it. It's been said elsewhere that information from each subheader should be included, and this is a good standard to follow.
- "Later, because of the role The Bahamas played in maritime commerce, terriers protected supplies from rats and mice on ships, arriving in Eleuthera, New Providence, and the Abaco Islands." The grammar here is off. Reword to note that the terriers arrived and interbred with the local population.
- Is North Carolina Dogs a breed, or just dogs from North Carolina?
- Give more context about the revolutionary war etc. It might be obvious what is being talked about to Americans, but may be less obvious for others.
- Similarly, give context to Nassua and similar places, just say what it is (a city for example).
- "it is accepted by the Bahamas Kennel Club as part of Group 9 – Non-Registered, along with other mixed-breed dogs" This be doggy terminology I don't fully understand, sorry. Can it be reworded so that dog-deficient people such as myself can understand the significance of this?
- The description problem still has an issue with paragraphing, especially with the one paragraph subsection. I personally don't like subsections with less than two paragraphs, so one line is really pushing it and it probably best removed. If there's not a lot of information in description, just keep it as one chunk of text.
- What are the misconceptions about spraying and neutering in the Bahamas?
- It states that people have been attacked by stray dogs. Perhaps information on this can be added to the description section.
- "adopt out" seems like jargon to me. More academic wording will go far towards a GA.
- Move the second picture left so even out the infobox.
Overall, it is a well sourced little article. As the reviewer above said, sometimes articles just remain short, but short articles can hit GA. I suggest squeezing every drop of information possible out of your references. Good luck, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'll work on these later today; it's almost through GA review but I'm looking to polish it as much as possible. Much appreciated. – anna 16:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 24 April 2011, 06:37 UTC)
Nucleic acid design
This is my first attempt at promoting an article to featured status, and I'm interested in any feedback that will help improve the article. Feedback I'm especially interested in includes: What improvements do the article need to fulfill the Good article/Featured article criteria? Which level do you think it is closer to? Also, is the article comprehensive enough, or does it need to be expanded further?
Of course, any feedback is welcome and appreciated. Thanks! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments
- My guess is that this one won't make it at FAC, not because there's anything wrong with the article, but because it's a bit short and a bit technical. Most of the frequent reviewers probably won't be attracted to it in its current form. Still, when you're finished with this review process, I'll be happy to copyedit it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. This article is more technical by its nature, and it would be hard to expand it without including even more technical detail. As it is, I've tried to keep it a succinct overview of the kinds of methods used by the field, but I'd be happy to get suggestions about any other aspects that it could be expanded to cover. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I do not think this owuld have an easy time at WP:FAC because of MOS and other issues. With FAC in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are two FAs that I found that may be useful model articles: DNA and DNA repair
- I would make it clear in the lead that the tertiary structure involves the three-dimensional structure of the nucleic acid. The lead is supposed to be an especially accessible overview of the whole article, less technical than the body, so anything like this to make the lead more understandable helps.
- I think the article needs more references to pass at FAC. For example, in Fundamental concepts the three types of structure and this statement need refs: These goals can be achieved through the use of a number of approaches, including heuristic, thermodynamic, and geometrical ones. Almost all nucleic acid design tasks are aided by computers, and a number of software packages are available for many of these tasks.
- The first paragraphs of Heuristic methods and Thermodynamic models also need refs.
- My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Do not have external links in the body of the article - such as Software for thermodynamic modeling of nucleic acids includes Nupack,[6][7] mfold,[8] and Vienna[9]. These should be converted into references.
- The mfold external link URL is incorrect, by the way.
- There is a toolbox in the upper right corner of this PR page. The disambiguation link finder finds one dab link that needs to be fixed.
- I would avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs wherever possible - they make the narrative flow choppy.
- One of the FA crteria is comprehensiveness - when I see four interesting sounding articles listed as Further reading, I worry that the article is not comprehensive. Can these be converted into references and material from them incoproated into the article?
- In a related vein, the Applications section seems very short. Seems like more could be said there for all the information on approaches given.
- I also note that there is no historical information given that I noticed. When did this field begin? How? Who? Who are some of the better know names in each of the approaches described?
- Refs seem to be formatted properly and appear to all be from reliable sources.
- Images seem to be OK in terms of licenses
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 04:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the extensive comments. The referencing and style issues can be dealt with fairly easily. Three of the four articles in Further Reading are already used as references, and the fourth isn't just because it is new and I haven't taken a closer look at it yet. I like to use the Further Reading section to highlight reviews and books that a reader would actually want to look at for a deeper understanding of the topic, even those that are already used as references. In other articles Further Reading is often used as a dump for random references that aren't integrated as inline citations, and I seek to avoid that here. I can also fill out the Applications section and add a History section, but that will take a bit more work. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 17 April 2011, 01:13 UTC)
Cirrus cloud
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in taking this article to FA. I've gotten it from a little poorly-sourced article to DYK and to GA, and now want to take it on. I'd appreciate any comments on anything that needs improvement. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments from RJHall:
- The paragraph that begins "Scientists discovered cirrus cloud characteristics from..." seems out of place for the Description section; almost like an interlude. I think you could move that to a section about Observation and expand it a little.
- "Cirrus cloud cover varies by time of day and by season. The researchers who studied this via satellite data only looked at the data for the United States. They found that in the summer, at noon, the cover is the lowest, with an average of 23% of the United States' land area covered by cirrus clouds." Mention of the researchers and their location in the US seems a little diverting here. You could say, for example, "Based upon satellite observations for the United States, cirrus cloud cover varies by time of day and by season. In the summer, at noon, the cover is the lowest, with an average of 23% of the United States' land area covered by cirrus clouds."
- There is information about cirrus cloud cover in the Formation section. This could be combined with the above.
- In the Formation section, cirrus cloud formation by aircraft is mentioned in two different paragraphs. These can be combined for flow.
- "In addition", "have also been", "can also be", "There are other" and "also occur" are additive terms. Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy.
- There are some inconsistencies with the bibliography citations. Author names should be presented the same way, but the article has "Minnis, Patrick", "Ryo Miyazaki", "Sheets, Robert C." and "Kenneth Sassen". Please pick one approach and stick with it.
I hope these observations helped a little. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 16 April 2011, 01:15 UTC)
Rhabdomyolysis
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is an important step in the process towards FA candidacy. I have been the article's principal editor for some time, and it achieved GA status on 24 February 2008. I have now included material from several more recent sources, and the article has become much more comprehensive. In the process of doing this I have attempted to make it as accessible as possible for the general reader. It is of significant worldwide relevance, as many people who survive earthquakes and bombings latter succumb to this complication unless adequate support is provided.
Thanks, JFW | T@lk 18:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Uploadvirus (talk · contribs) left an extensive list of comments on the talkpage in its own section.[2] I suspect that might count as peer review. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Two "muscles" in the first sentence. I'm racking my brains how we can remove one but it isn't easy.....
- Actually, what about "...is a condition in which damaged skeletal muscle (Ancient Greek: rhabdomyo-) tissue breaks down rapidly (Greek -lysis)"
- I recall it being a phenomenon talked about when ecstasy dance parties were first in vogue in hte late 80s/early 90s (overheating and dehydration etc. leading to it) - would be worth looking in to.
- Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Since 1999, relief efforts in areas struck by earthquakes have included medical teams with skills and equipment for treatment of survivors with rhabdomyolysis." Prior to 1999, relief efforts didn't include medical skills/equipment for the treatment of rhabdomyolysis?
- From "Signs and symptoms": "The urine may be dark, often described as "tea-colored"." I think that it's worth mentioning the specific component of the urine that causes this discoloration.
- From "Causes", I am a little surprised that the table shows "Medications" and "Genetic" types as separate from "Non-physical". Aren't they sub-types of "Non-physical"? I appreciate that it might be useful to classify them separately because of the frequency and variety of the sub-causes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- There were so many non-physical causes that I had to split two categories off: medication and muscle metabolism disorders. Suggestions for other names are welcome. JFW | T@lk 23:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Different sources have different groupings. CritCare2005 uses physical/non-physical, NEJM and Elsayed use a surgical sieve, Warren uses a hybrid of surgical sieve and pathophysiological mechanism. I understand your concern, and am open to suggestions on how to group the causes in a better way. JFW | T@lk 11:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- From "Causes", the table describes coturnism as rhabdomyolysis due to consumption of quails that have eaten hemlock. However hemlock (conium) itself contains coniine and I expect that it can cause rhabdomyolysis. How common is coturnism? It may be amusing trivia but it is receiving undue weight. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- People eat quail, they generally don't eat hemlock. Hard to say how common it is; this has been reported repeatedly in a number of papers, mostly from the Middle East. It needs addressing somewhere. JFW | T@lk 23:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Some of the sources only mention it in the historial section. Warren (which has the most comprehensive list) lists "hemlock (?quail eaters)" as well as Haff disease. There is a good secondary source for Haff disease, but I will slash the quail content to remain compliant with WP:WEIGHT. The main reason I expanded on it was because all the secondary sources attach a lot of importance to the historical aspects. JFW | T@lk 11:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
" The main reason I expanded on it was because all the secondary sources attach a lot of importance to the historical aspects. "—Jfdwolff
- Then put it in the "History" section. In my opinion, the table in the "Causes" section should follow one of the secondary sources. (I have looked in a few sources. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine does not have a single table about rhabdomyolysis. Neither does Kumar & Clark. However the Oxford Textbook of Medicine does have such a table.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- From "Pathophysiology", paragraph 1: "When damaged, muscle tissue rapidly fills with fluid from the bloodstream, as well as sodium and chloride." Doesn't the sodium and chloride come from the bloodstream? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- From the same sentence, "sodium" links to a description of the metal. The muscle tissue doesn't fill with the metal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can't really help the fact that we don't have a separate article on sodium ions or sodium in biology (we do have Calcium in biology for some reason). What alternative would you propose? JFW | T@lk 22:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can't really help the fact that we don't have a separate article on sodium ions or sodium in biology (we do have Calcium in biology for some reason). What alternative would you propose? JFW | T@lk 22:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 15 April 2011, 18:06 UTC)
Glia limitans
I've listed this article for peer review because … our initial work on this page was for a class project, however, we realize there is still a lot more work to do. We would greatly appreciate any suggestions or changes to continue this page's improvement. Any additional references, information or alterations of the current article are welcomed and encouraged.
Thanks, Oconnedp (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article; here are some suggestions for improvement.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Glia limitans working with the BBB is really in the article (the BBB is only mentioned once in the article)
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but FCMD and EAE are not in the lead that I can see. Please see WP:LEAD
- The lead is also supposed to be the most accessible part of the article to the non-expert, but this seems written at a pretty advanced level.
- There is one disambiguation link in the article that needs to be fixed, to Microvessel
- Article needs more references, for example the first paragraph of Location and structure has no refs, and there are several paragraphs with one or more sentences without a ref after the last ref.
- My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Avoid words like "Current" in Current research - the problem is that things can become out of date quickly. It is better to use date specific contstructions like "As of 2011...."
- The caption of [[:[edit]File:Cerebellar cortex - intermed mag.jpg]] needs to make it clearer how this image relates to the glia
- Not much else to say - pretty good for a first article - thanks again!
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 03:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 9 April 2011, 21:31 UTC)
Synaptic gating
I really liked the diseases section, theories of how synaptic gating can result in ADHD and schizophrenia. I can imagine that sources for such information are hard to find but as the site suggests, more citations and details are encouraged. You have to keep in mind that the general public may read this article as well. I think you can do a better job explaining terms and mechanisms. At least, you can create links for the terms so that people can have direct access when they need to refer to them. I am interested in biochemistry and would like to see specific examples regarding modulations. What is the gating signal and what molecule in the neuron allows it to play the gatekeeper role? Again, I can imagine that information is hard to find but I'm sure there are research on the topic (like the Gate theory of pain) that cover potential molecules that play important role. Maybe you can add a history section that briefly describe past research and what conclusions, if any, each research was able to reach. Also, I don't quite understand the biological AND gate and would like to see an explanation of it. Thanks, Young B. (talk)
Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article, but it may be a bit too technical currently for the average reader. Thanks for your work on it and here are some suggestions for improvement.
- The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD better and provide an accessible overview. As WP:LEAD says in part "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for the topic being noteworthy should be established early on in the lead. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. As it is though, the NMDA and AMPA glutamate receptors are only in the lead.
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Schizophrenia and ADHD are not in the lead (though they are two sections)
- I would avoid saying "see also" in the lead - try to work the link in more naturally. Links can also be piped so that a somewhat different version of the text still leads to the same link- if you are not sure how to do this, please ask on my talk page.
- The article needs more references. For example, the Modulation of interneurons section has no (zero) refs.
- My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- I would probably include some background information on neurons, how they function, and how they form circuits. This would help to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR
- The headers do not follow WP:HEAD - avoid repeating the name of the article in a header if at all possible. So "Syaptic gating and disease" could just be "Relation to disease" or "Role in disease" - the reader already know this is an article about synaptic gating
- The Current and future research secion is one sentence that basically says no one knows what causes this (or at least the bistability of neurons). I would combine this with another section - it adds little to the article to have it as its own section.
- Any chance for some free images - perhaps some of the neuron or neuron circuit images might work? Or even a logical gate diagram?
- Article is pretty short, so not much else to say - try to find other articles to link it to in order to get rid of the Orphan tag.
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 02:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 7 April 2011, 22:08 UTC)
Excitatory synapse
I think this article had all the necessary information in a nutshell. However, I think it would be better to have more details on all of subheadings. For instance, more of biochemistry and mechanisms involved in the chemical synaptic transmission would better elucidate the article overall. You can mention where electrical synapses are mainly found within our nervous system (to add to the chemical vs electrical synapses heading). You also mentioned that the first electrical synapse was discovered in crayfish and maybe you can add a research section describing the finding and discuss current ongoing related research. Also, I think you can add more links to your article to better accommodate the viewer. (e.g. NMDA receptor, AMPA receptor, G-protein coupled receptor, hypothalmus, etc.) Thanks, Young B. (talk).
Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article, but I wonder how this kind of synapse differs from a regular synapse. There used to be a separate article on inhibitory synapse, but that is now a redirect to Inhibitory postsynaptic potential. Since there is also an article on Excitatory postsynaptic potential, would it make sense for this to merged there too? Or to the regular synapse article? Thanks for your work on it and here are some suggestions for improvement.
- The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD better and provide an accessible 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. As it is though, the "influx of positively charged sodium (Na+) ions" is only ion the lead.
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but several sections and subsections are not in the lead that I can see - Diseases and most of the neurotransmitters are not explicitly in the lead.
- Wikilinks are generally at first occurence of a word in the lead - so move the neuron link earlier.
- Also make sure that abbreviations and names follow the name used in the main article(s) here on Wikipedia so they are consistent. So This phenomenon is known as an excitatory potential (EPSP). should be This phenomenon is known as an excitatory postsynaptic potential (EPSP).
- The tag at the top of article says the article needs more references. By the way, such a lack of references tag is enough to disqualify this from PR. There is one "citation needed" tag.
- My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Although this seems to have lots of refs, the one I checked does not back up most of the information in the sentences it is used for. The sentences are Like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s Disease lacks a cure. Therefore, in addition to lifestyle changes and surgery, the goal of pharmaceutical drugs used in the treatment of PD patients is to control symptoms and limit, when possible, the progression of the disease. Levodopa (L-DOPA), the most widely used treatment of PD, is converted to dopamine in the body and helps to relieve the effect of decreased dopaminergic neurons in the central nervous system. Other dopamine agonists have been administered to patients in an effort to mimic dopamine’s affect at excitatory synapses, binding its receptors and causing the desired postsynaptic response.[11] and current ref 11 is to a PubMed Health page on Parkinson's Disease. However this page does not even mention synapses or synaptic response or receptors or the word excitatory.
- The refs used in the article need more information - for example current ref 11 needs a publisher and access date. In general, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
- The toolbox in the upper right corner of this PR page shows two dead external links that need to be fixed.
- I would probably include some more background information on neurons, how they function, and how they form circuits. This would help to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR
- Article is pretty short, so not much else to say - try to find other articles to link it to in order to get rid of the Orphan tag.
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 21:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 7 April 2011, 21:10 UTC)
Dugong
I've listed this article for peer review because I've put a lot of work into it recently, roughly guided by other related FA's such as Killer Whale, and would like to know how it could be further improved (to both GA and maybe FA). Any comments welcome, be it on information you think should be in the article but is missing, or prose problems.
Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: Basically this is very interesting stuff, particularly as I know little or nothing of these creatures. However, prose and punctuation are erratic in places, which make the article quite difficult to understand at times. Sometimes an explanation in plain language is necessary, rather than a linked technical term. I have only been able to work through the lead and the first few sections; here are my initial comments, and I will try to provide more a little later.
- The lead section does not as written seem to comply with WP:LEAD, which requires that the lead be a broad summary of the whole article. At present it is more an assembly of introductory facts, not all of which are reflected in the body of the text.
- Is there a contradiction here: "four extant species of the Sirenia order" followed shortly by "The two extant families of Sirenians..."
- "after which the dugong's..." Isn't this a simple plural, therefore no apostrophe? Then there's a clash with "its closest relative".
- "the population of Southeast Asia are distinct from the others" → "the population of Southeast Asia is distinct from the others.
- "The word "dugong" derives from the Tagalog term dugong which was in turn adopted from the Malay duyung, both meaning "lady of the sea."[14] Other common local names include "sea cow," "sea pig" and "sea camel." This information should be referenced in the lead, and should appear earlier in the article.
- What does "fusiform" mean?
- "to a brownish to dark grey with age". Some hyphens would help to clarify: "to a brownish-to-dark grey with age."
- "A dugongs brain can reach only 300g..." I'd rephrase this: "A dugong's brain weighs a maximum of 300g..." (note apostrophe) You should also supply an imperial conversion. The word "entire" in the following phrase is unnecessary.
- Explain momomorphic.
- Another missing apostrophe: "A males testes..." There are more; this aspect of prose needs thorough attention.
- "a sharply downturned premaxilla, which are..." "a" cannot be followed by "are"
- "The dugong has two incisors (tusks) which grow posteriorly until puberty, after which they first erupt in males." What does this mean?
- The "dental formula" is expressed in terms which are incomprehensible to the general reader.
Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 7 April 2011, 17:28 UTC)
General
Carlisle United F.C.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently undertaken a major overhaul of the page. This included adding extra information such as club emblem and kit history, ownership history and fixing recentism in the main article. I have also included new photography and graphs I made myself as well as improved the general layout of the page. Sub pages such as the Brunton Park page have been improved also and other details which deserved their own page have received one.
Thanks, If5tatement (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 30 April 2011, 16:08 UTC)
Manchester City F.C. supporters
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking for more information to add to the page. Hopefully I can get it to GA status with some more references. Constructive feedback will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Stevo1000 (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by Oldelpaso
Simply by the nature of its subject, this will be a very difficult article to get to GA. Its scope is completely different to any of the existing football GAs. Essentially a lot of what we're dealing with is folklore, the kind of thing that gets discussed in pubs but rarely in what Wikipedia views as reliable sources. Breaking new ground by getting the first article of its type to a standard such as GA or FA is very tough but if achieved it is most rewarding, so I wish you luck.
- As the song City supporters are best known for, Blue Moon deserves more coverage.
- Worth explaining that Boys In Blue was recorded by the 1972 squad, written by members of 10cc etc.
- The thing to get hold of to give historical context to terrace songs would be the programme for the last match before the Kippax terracing was demolished, as it devoted several pages to this.
- I wouldn't say there's any rivalry with Spurs. A number of memorable matches down the years, but not a rivalry between supporters.
- Helen "The Bell" Turner needs mentioning.
- A lot of the famous supporters list looks dubious. Put it this way, I wouldn't expect to bump into Princess Beatrice at Mary D's any time soon. The likes of the Sun and Star should not be used for references. Rather than listing footballers who may or may not have a affinity for the club, why not write a bit about the club's Former Players Association?
- The Junior Blues, or live4city as they call it these days, definitely needs a couple of paragraphs - it was the first organisation of its type in the country.
- In my opinion, the City Humour section should go. All of them are trivial incidents, and none has been reported by organisations independent of the club. All of them also happened in the last year or two. In a few years it'll look like writing about a dog running on the pitch in the 70s.
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 28 April 2011, 23:42 UTC)
History of Tranmere Rovers F.C.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently undertaken a major rewrite of the page. This is my first step into the world of peer review, so any pointers will be gratefully received.
Thanks! U+003F? 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by Oldelpaso
- Looking at how the article was before you started your rewrite, it appears to have been a copy-paste of [3], and was thus a copyright violation at the time. While your rewrite has improved matters in this regard, there are still significant portions of the text which have not been rewritten sufficiently to stop them being violations of copyright and/or plagiarism. For example, the paragraph starting "Not satisfied with playing friendlies against local opposition" is virtually identical to that in the reference.
- There are many unsourced statements that require references. Any statement that a sceptical reader could question needs a reference. In practice this means more or less anything that would not be common knowledge to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. ✓ Done
- Unfortunately, for a club of Tranmere's size, using only web sources for references will only get you so far. To reach the standard I think you are aiming for, print sources will be needed, as those will be the best sources of information about Tranmere's history. Apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs here. ✗ Not done
- It is unusual to see a list of managers in a history subarticle. Usually these are either part of the main club article, or if they have outgrown it, in a separate article of the form List of X F.C. managers. Some of those have become featured lists, so looking there would give the best examples. ✓ Done
- Could do with a more explicit explanation that Tranmere's entry into the Football League was part of the creation of the new Third Division. ✓ Done
- The aggregate of 17 goals in one game remains a league record[6] (see English football records). Instead of the section in brackets, it is more readable to put a piped link at the end of the sentence; [[English football records|league record]]. ✓ Done
- Tranmere beat First Division superstars Arsenal 1–0 at Arsenal's former Highbury home. Be wary of peacock terms such as "superstars". The close repetition of "Arsenal" is a little jarring. ✓ Done
- I'm not quite sure where it would fit, but the article seems incomplete without some mention of how Tranmere have largely lived in the shadow of the more illustrious clubs the other side of the Mersey. In places it is assumed that the reader already knows about this. ✓ Done
- What makes tranmere-rovers.co.uk a reliable source? ✓ Done
- A couple of bits of pedantry: dashes in scorelines should be endashes (WP:DASH), articles in British English tend to use " First / Second World War" instead of "World War I / II". ✓ Done
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by ChrisTheDude
- Tranmere Rovers F.C. is an is an ✓ Done
- The currently play in League One. ✓ Done
- the team won its first recorded match [....] and lost just one of their - singular and plural referring to the same thing in the same sentence - pick one or other and be consistent ✓ Done
- a record unlikely ever to be broken - says who? it's probably true, but smacks of POV as an unsupported statement✓ Done
- an incredible 57 goals - avoid POV terms such as "incredible" ✓ Done
- and a place in the Division Two - we don't normally say "the Division Two"✓ Done
- The Club brought in - why the capital C? ✓ Done
- coming from a goal down to equalize - UK subject, so don't use US spellings ✓ Done
- 2003 saw the appointment - a year does not have eyes, therefore it cannot see ✓ Done
- and bizarrely replaced - who says it was bizarre? ✓ Done
- Are there no images available from the club's history other than drawings of kits........? ✗ Not done
Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Response by U+003F
Many thanks to Oldelpaso and ChrisTheDude for their massively in-depth comments. I've tried to address your concerns, though there remain a few things outstanding
- Copyright violoation of TheCowsheds
- I've rewritten bits of the article at random. Are there any tools to see if any similar chunks of text remain?
- Print sources will be needed
- I stumbled across the goldmine at RSSSF which has allowed me to reference almost all the result-related statements. Do you still feel that a print source is needed?
- Images available other than drawings of kits?
- No. At least I couldn't find anything old other than this grainy and probably copyrighted picture. Is one needed?
- Edit: found a newer image from the 2000 Football League Cup Final
Having now read other requests, I realise that you should specify at peer-review what standard you are aiming for; in this case, I'd like the article to get to a good standard. Is much more work needed? Thanks again! U+003F? 15:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 April 2011, 15:16 UTC)
Keoladeo National Park
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if it can make it to the list of featured article. I need your reviews, guidance and feedbacks in order to improve this article if need be, so that it may get the featured article badge.
Thanks, Nikhilchandra81 (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments by H1nkles
I'll take a look at the article with the idea that you would like to promote it to FAC. I see that you have not run it through the GA process. I recommend that you go there first. It is very valuable to have a GA reviewer stack the article up against the GA criteria. This is a lower bar than the FA criteria but it is a good place to start.
Lead
- You link "National Park" to National parks of India. This isn't helpful as you are specifically discussing the Keoladeo National Park. Also it is a bit misleading to say National Park as that implies the Keoladeo National Park, when in reality you are discussing all the national parks in India (at least that's what I infer when you link it to that article). In the second paragraph in the lead you link to the National parks of India again. This is a more appropriate spot for the link and I would remove the earlier link. Also you only need to link the article once in the lead and perhaps once in the body. See WP:LINK for more info.
- The green location dot is not on the India map, at least not in my Internet Explorer browser. This could just be an issue with my browser but I wanted to at least make you aware of it.
- When stating measurement it needs to be in both metric and imperical (Km and Miles). You can use a conversion template: {{convert}}. I added one to the lead as an example. See WP:UNIT for MOS guidelines on this and please fix throughout.
- Watch use of words like "highly" and "signficantly". This is an issue that crops up at FAC. Per the FA Criterion 1a the writing of the article should be at a brilliant and professional standard. Words like "highly" can be seen as peacock words and are not really necessary. I recommend you become familiar with User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. In this article user Tony1 makes the point that it is always best to say what needs to be said using the least amount of words possible. In otherwords don't say in 10 words what you can say in 5. Words like "highly", "very", "significantly" etc. are superfluous and will be identified as poor prose at FAC. This is not an issue you will run into at GAC but since you wish to push this article to FA standing I'm bringing it up here.
- I have finished reading the lead only and there are prose issues that need to be addressed if you want to satisfy criterion 1a in the FA guidelines. Here are some examples:
-
- "...sees (or saw) thousands of rare and highly endangered birds such as..." Does a refuge "see" birds? Perhaps "host". Also use of both present and past-tense is not adviseable. Keep it in the present tense.
- Remove "mostly" same reason as above.
- "...are known to have made..." Too wordy, replace with "make" and keep only in present tense. Tense agreement is very important. Give the current # of bird species only.
- "It is also a major tourist centre with scores of ornithologists arriving here in the hibernal season." Restate: "Scores of amateur and professional ornithologists visit the park each year." Is there one specific hibernal season or do the various species have their own hibernal season making it a year-round destination for ornithologists? Also I'm sure it's a destination not just for professional but also amateur bird lovers right?
- "It was declared a protected sanctuary in 1971. It is also a declared World Heritage Site." Don't use "declared" twice so close together. You probably want to combine these sentences thus, "It was declared and protected sanctuary in 1971 and made a World Heritage Site in (YEAR)."
- "Keoladeo Ghana National Park" Remove "Ghana" it's not in the title.
- "...earlier was primarily used as a waterfowl hunting ground." Remove "primarily" see above, and make its earlier use its own sentence.
- Per WP:LEAD the lead is a summary of the article. Therefore it isn't necessary to put the number of every species. Simply state "The diverse habitats are home to several hundred species of plant and animal life."
- "Every year thousands of migratory waterfowl visit the park for wintering breeding etc." Just say for wintering and breeding, leave the etc. out.
- You discussed the Siberian Crane in the first paragraph, remove it in the second.
- "It is known for nesting of its resident birds and visiting migratory birds including water birds. The rarest Siberian cranes arrive here to winter. According to Sir Peter Scott Keoladeo Sanctuary is the world’s best bird area." Already said, remove these sentences.
- Those are some of the prose issues I've found in the lead. To get it to FAC the article will need to be thoroughly scrubbed with a detailed prose review.
- The lead also needs to be a summary of all the major points with in the article. It should be a skeletal outline of the article. Please make sure every topic raised in the body is included in the lead. For example I don't see anything about the facilities or constraints or the 2007 crisis or any management issues. Those need to be summarized in the lead.
That's all the time I have right now to review. I'll jump into the body of the article as I have time, but I think I've given you some things to work on. Please apply what I said about the lead to the rest of the article, especially regarding the writing. I welcome comments though I won't watch this Peer Review page so if you have specific questions please leave them on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
History
- First off, the sourcing is deficient. Facts need to have in-line sources. I see two in-line sources in the first three sections. I add a [citation needed] template to the end of the first paragraph in the History section. The sections need to be adequately sourced for the article to pass GA and FA.
- See WP:NBSP and WP:DASH. When giving a number followed by a descriptor, like 250 years you need to put in a non-breaking space. This assures that the descriptor will stay with the number on the same line. Also when indicating a span of time like 1850 – 1900 the "dash" needs to be an "ndash". The whys and hows are in the Manual of Style links.
- You repeat in the second paragraph that the reserve was a private duck hunting park since 1850, not necessary.
- "13 March 19S6" - 19S6? What is this?
- I did some small grammatical clean up. A thorough grammatical edit is in order.
Getting there
- Per WP:TITLEFORMAT section titles should have the first word capitolized and all subsequent words (except for proper nouns) should be lower case. Please fix throughout. Also no need to use "kms", km is fine and the template will fix that.
- As above all distances should have the conversion to miles included.
- I changed "...are most often used" to "can be employed" as it is difficult to source that private taxis are most often used vs. bus or train. Is there a reference to that fact?
- Capitalization question. You refer to the Park and the Reserve using capitals. I think these should be lower case as these are not proper nouns. One could debate this so I'll simply say that whatever you decide to do make it consistent throughout the article.
Geography
- Keoladeo (Bharatpur) National Park - I thought it was Keoladeo "Ghana" National Park. Please clarify and be consistent.
- "...is a World Heritage Site situated..." - already stated that it's a world heritage site, watch duplication.
- Watch terms like "approx". Abbreviations like this are not encouraged. Write it out completely.
- "...Keoladeo National Park habitat is wetland systems with varying types of microhabitats having trees, mounds, dykes and open water with or without submerged or emergent plants." Too much information, end the sentence with microhabitats. I don't think the rest is necessary.
- Link scientific terms like Dicanthium annulatum.
- "Richness and diversity of plant life inside the Park is remarkable." I see a lot of sentence like this without appropriate articles. This sentence should start with "The".
- There's a lot of unnecessary (in my opinion) detail in this section. Especially the discussion about water levels. Try to condense into a sentence or two.
- "Arrangement to pump water from deep tube wells to fill small depressions to save seeds, spores and other aquatic life also exist." This could be said much more simply: "Water can be pumped from deep tube wells to fill small depressions in order to save seeds, spores and other aquatic life."
- "They are also helpful in extreme years of drought." - "...helpful in years of extreme drought."
That's all I can do today. I probably won't get more reviewed until Monday. Again if you have specific questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Climate
- Why do you specifically list the mean temperature for 1988? That doesn't make sense. It should be the average temperature for any given year. Why specify 1988? Same for rainfall. What's the significance of 1988? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Biology
- What are kalam or kadam, jamun and babul? It's a good idea to wikilink terms not familiar to readers unfamiliar with the subject.
- Fluid measurements such as liters need to be converted to imperials measurements as well.
- "Forestly, mostly in the north-east of the park, are dominated kalam or Mitragyna Parvifolia, Jamun Syzygium Cuminii and Babul Acacia Nilotica." Two issues, the first part of this sentence is a repeat of a previous sentence in this section. Second issue is that to my knowledge "Forestly" is not an English word.
- Again I see more biological terms like "Kandi Prospopis Spicigera and ber Zizyphus" with no links.
- I think the terms of species like "gadwall, shoveler, common teal, cotton teal...." should be capitalized.
- In the Waterfowl section is primarily a list of birds. Can this be expanded since the park seems to be very widely known for its birds. More to come. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're going to need to do something with the images. See WP:IMAGE and WP:ACCESS for thoughts on image placement. In my browser there is a large space between the title "Other species" and the text in this section. This is a formatting issue and has to do with the images and the text size of the surrounding sections. This will need to be addressed before the article reaches FAC.
- What is a jungle cat and a fishing cat in the Mammals section? Aren't there more formal names like Puma or Jaguar?
- Remove mention of bats from the mammals section as they aren't mammals. At least I don't think they are.
- There is significant repetition between the species listed in the Mammals section and those listed in the "Other species" section. This should be corrected.
- Watch use of bold text in the article. See MOS:BOLD for when to use boldface and when not to use boldface text.
Management
- I'm not sure "Issues" is the right title for the section. To me I'm looking for management problems when I read a section entitled Issues. Perhaps "Goals" could be a more appropriate title. I'd have to think about it more though.
- I thought the park was home to the Siberian Crane, but the Constraints section states that it is now gone. Am I confused? Perhaps this could be better worded.
- I added a [citation needed] template to the statement about tensions running high. This should be sourced.
- "Furthermore, recycled nutrients from the large quantity of dung deposited by livestock probably supported considerable numbers of insects." Don't use words like "probably". This indicates speculation, which should be totally absent from an encyclopedia.
Tourism and Visitor facilities
- I would remove "facilities" from the title of this section. It is not just about the facilities but about the tourist draw of the park. Make it less specific.
- Be sure to link the first use of the currency: Rs 200.
- "The cycle rickshaw wallah’s displaying yellow plate meaning authorized double up as guides also carry binoculars." I'm not sure what to do with this sentence. It needs to be rewritten.
- Change "wallah" to an English term.
- I would discuss the various facilities open to tourists early in this section. Now you mention them piecemeal, the canteen the Forest Lodge etc. Discuss them all up front and then refer to them as you continue through the section.
- "An array of 3 star hotels and resorts are also located in the vicinity of the park where visitors can stay cozily." Take out words like "cozily". Not professional and it makes the article sound like a travel guide.
- I removed references to "in India" as this is obvious and unnecessary.
Scientific Research and Facilities
- "including the ringing of birds for the last 40 years." Changing "ringing" to something like "tracking". It's unclear what ringing means.
- "Particular attention will be given to any in dramatic change in the vegetation following the ban on grazing." Why is this in the future tense?
Crisis of 2007
- Two issues here:
-
- It's too technical, for example readers don't need to know exactly how many cubic meters of water the Bund needs to supply the park, or what type of pumps and pipelines are used.
- The crisis was 4 years ago, what is the result of their work? There should be some results by now right?
References
- See WP:CITE for information on what how to format your references. You need to use a standard form for all of your references. I recommend {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}. These are good templates that will autoformat your citations. All website references need an accessdate, publisher, and name of the article or website. This is a minimum.
- Book references should be separate from website references. Also specific information pulled from the books should be cited in the article with the author's last name, year of publication and page number. See Olympic Games, which is an FA. It will give you a format for doing your references. There are a lot of different ways to do them, just make sure you pick one and be consistent.
- The references you use also need to be credible. See WP:VERIFIABILITY for a good discussion on what makes a reliable source. For example reference 10 is a website to a tourist train company. Which isn't compliant with FA criterion 1c.
External links
- The WCMC link is dead.
- No luxury train links necessary. Wikipedia isn't an advertising site.
Overall I'll discuss my overall impression of the article, suggestions for fixes, and what I think you should do to get this article to FA standing:
- The foundation of the article is set, a lot of the writing has already been done. In that sense you're well on your way. Much of the heavy lifting is finished.
- What has been written needs to be polished. There are a lot of missing article like "the", "a", "and", "or" etc. The article needs a thorough prose and grammar scrubbing. Perhaps someone at WP:INDIA would be willing to help with this. You can also post a request at WP:GOCE or WP:REWARD. People may be willing to help there.
- The sourcing is very sparse and needs a lot of attention. The rule of thumb is that if you make an assertion of fact it needs to have a source. As stated above the sources need to be formatted consistently.
- I see a lot of references to the 1980's. See Climate, Management Constraints, and Scientific research and facilities. All of these sections discuss information and events in the 1980's. This is very dated. What has happened recently? Why is the information so old?
- My recommendation is that you do the work outlined above, then post it at WP:GAC. There you will have an independent reviewer stack the article up against the GA Criteria. This will help you know how the article is fairing against the Manual of Style. After the article passes GA review I would list it here again for another thorough peer review. At that point a lot of the glaring issues will have been addressed and it will be easier for the reviewer to nit pick through the article to pull out things that will need to be fixed in order to get it to FA standards. As it stands now there are too many fundamental things that need to be fixed before the article can be gone through with a fine-tooth comb. It's this very thorough review that will get the article ready for the FAC review process. This concludes my review. I hope it has been helpful to you. If so please consider reviewing someone else's article to keep the backlog down either here or at GAC. Again if you have specific questions please contact me on my talk page as I do not routinely watch this page. Good luck! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Monday 11 April 2011, 12:14 UTC)
Lists
List of Skull and Bones members
I've completed the bulk of the work on a major cleanup of this list, substituting reliable sources for conspiracy webpages, adding names, taking out dubious ones. I'd like some suggestions as to what else I can do to further improve this list beyond this, and ideally bring this list closer to featured list status. More pictures? Text? Different organization of the names?
Thanks, Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 4 May 2011, 18:42 UTC)
83rd Academy Awards
I've listed this article for peer review because this list could be a FL and I and User: Tbhotch want to know what is wrong.
Thanks, Birdienest81 (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 28 April 2011, 19:03 UTC)
List of township-level divisions of Hebei
Would rather you disregard the fact that the vast majority of the links here have no articles, and instead consider this list and the others as a starting point to sow the seeds of better coverage on China-related topics. Also, the comments here will apply to List of township-level divisions of Liaoning and List of township-level divisions of Jilin, which are both complete and of comparable quality. Hopefully a review done here can be applied to those two lists.
Otherwise, the initial review of all three (or one) should be a quick task to execute.
Thanks much, –HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
These lists are crucial for building a better coverage of China on here. Townships and Towns are very notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 28 April 2011, 14:28 UTC)
List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game
This request is somewhat unorthodox -- this list is already featured. I've listed this article for peer review because it has gone through a very substantial amount of editing since it was promoted: the promoted version was 9140 bytes, and the current is at 17,015. The feedback I'm look is firstly in terms of the writing quality and the clarity of the prose. I've added a very substantial amount of prose and I want to be especially sure that it is (reasonably?) understable by someone without considerable prior knowledge of the subject, as well as it being well-written. Another issue on which feedback would be appreciated would be whether this can be called a list or whether it is more an article (in terms of FL vs FA distinction), because of the amount of prose as compared to the list itself.
Thanks, Maxim(talk) 21:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment
"The first goaltender to score a goal by intentionally shooting the puck into the opponent's net was the Philadelphia Flyers' Ron Hextall, who on December 8, 1987, scored in an empty net after Boston pulled their goaltender, Rejean Lemelin, for a sixth attacker late in the third period.[14] This was the case for the most recent instance of goaltender scoring, when Chris Mason was credited with a goal in 2006. The most recent goaltender to have scored a goal by deliberately shooting the puck into his opponents' net was Evgeni Nabokov, in 2002."
This paragraph doesn't make sense for me. Forgive me if I'm being stupid (which is possible): but from what I am reading, you say that Hextall intentionally shot the puck in the opponents net (with the goaltender pulled). You then say that this was the case for the most recent instance, in 2006. But you then say that the most recent goaltender to have scored by deliberately shooting the puck into the goal was in 2002. But following what is stated here, surely the 2006 goal was also intentional? Am I missing something? Harrias talk 21:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're not being stupid, and you're perfectly right about the paragraph not making sense. I think it was a result of moving blocks of text around when re-writing the prose part of article. Nabokov was a shot on goal, Mason was an own goal. I've fixed this in the article. Thanks for noticing it. Maxim(talk) 23:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 April 2011, 21:33 UTC)
Modern Family (season 1)
I've listed this article for peer review because I am seeing if it is ready to be a featured list
Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts
(Peer review added on Sunday 24 April 2011, 19:43 UTC)
List of scientists whose names are used as SI units
I've listed this article for peer review because, I'm thankful to those scientists who had contributed much to our lives. Since I am not in a position to judge who contributed more, I chose those scientists whose names are used in SI units to represent the whole scientific community.
Thanks, Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: What a great idea for a list - thanks for your work on it. With some work I think this could be WP:FL, so here are some suggestions for improvement.
- Biggest problem with the current list are the references. They do not include all the information needed, for example internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Many of the references appear to not be from the highest quality sources. At least one (to Citizendium) is not to a reliable source.
- I also note that the references do not confirm in many cases that the unit is named for the person in question. So for example, I checked the ref for the Kelvin - it is http://www.convertunits.com/info/degrees+kelvin but it seems to be a questionable source at best (where is there any indication of editorial oversight to make it a RS?) and it does not mention the connection to Lord Kelvin.
- I do not have a copy of the Asimov book but it seems like it would be an excellent general ref for the overall article, with perhaps some individuals (who are not in Asimov's book) requiring their own refs.
- A good general ref for the units themselves would be the NIST - see here
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, so this one is too short. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
- I would include the other base units in the note
- I think the use of just colors for base vs derived units does not seem to meet WP:ACCESS
- I am not sure the section headers follow WP:HEAD (try to avoid repeating all or part of the name of the article in headers if at all possible)
- Could the images be included in the table itself? For an example of a recent fully illustrated FL see List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem)
- 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.)
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 ><>°° 04:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 21 April 2011, 10:43 UTC)
Beyoncé Knowles discography
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at it got very negative comments FLC. I really do not understand what is wrong with it. I would really like someone who will help me write a better lead for the article. With very good prose.
Thanks, Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
First, I would like to establish that my comments were in no way meant to be offensive. I was trying to give constructive criticism. Anyways, the lead right now is look great. One-hundred times better than before. There is more detail, which is great. But I would like to see the overall sales in the last paragraph. I still have some issues with article though that should help you move along perfectly for FLC.
- No hard feeling against you. It's just that everyone has his own opinion. You told me to expand the lead while another editor told me it is huge. There are too many conflicts in opinions. If i listen to you, the other one will tell me i went against him/her. This is the thing i hate here. And yes, the lead has never been huge. It's just that it was divided in six paragraphs which was the main issue. However, while working on it, i had restricted myself to only three paragraphs. Then i was told to separate it. Listen, i swear i do not have anything against you, my problem is that you all have different ways of thinking. While some want me to do x and y, others want the total opposite. Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Lady Gaga's discography cites her sales in the first paragraph. And i think this is probably the best introduction of an artist. Imagine people knowing nothing about Beyonce reading the article for the first time. Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. It works too. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Lady Gaga's discography cites her sales in the first paragraph. And i think this is probably the best introduction of an artist. Imagine people knowing nothing about Beyonce reading the article for the first time. Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Lead
- ""Ring the Alarm" became Knowles biggest debut on the US Billboard Hot 100, opening at number twelve in 2006." Seems trivial compared to other things. Remove.
- You were the one to tell me to have a look at Taylor Swift discography. Her page mentions her biggest debut of her career. So why doesn't it have a place here? Please reply. Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Swift's debut was much higher, at number two and that ties for her best charting effort in the US. And Knowles has accomplished more on the Hot 100 than that. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- So can i replace it with ""Beautiful Liar" which jumped 91 positions to land at number three on the Hot 100 chart, setting a record for the largest upward movement in the history of the Hot 100 in early 2007, until it was surpassed by Britney Spears' 2008 single "Womanizer""? Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Swift's debut was much higher, at number two and that ties for her best charting effort in the US. And Knowles has accomplished more on the Hot 100 than that. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Video Phone is missing an end-quote.
Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- "It was confirmed that Knowles' fourth studio album would be released in June of the same year." Drop the same year. Just say 2011.
Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Overall the charts are still not the same. Pick the ten most important charts and stick to them; don't add more charts throughout.
More comments to be added soon. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean i should use the same ten charts everywhere? Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Are you trying to say in every section, whether it is albums, singles, promotional singles? And what if her live albums have not charted on the charts her live albums have charted? Or if they were not release there? Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Again see the discographies I used for examples. They only have ten selected charts. If in a table, none of the releases charted, then you should drop the chart from that specific table. Just pick the best ten and you should be good. Anyways, any other peaks are left to the releases' actual articles. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed this yesterday itself. Please have a look. Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is an improvement, but the "Live albums" section and "Remix albums" still add new charts. Also, for the notes in other releases, don't add every song there (add general info that can describe them). For example, in Irreemplazable you can put Spanish versions and remixes of tracks from B'Day. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Do you mean i should remove charts i have not used before? Like Portugal and Italy? Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Yes. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 17:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- For the notes, hmmmmmm i did not really understand. How can i replace them? Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Do you mean i should remove charts i have not used before? Like Portugal and Italy? Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- There is an improvement, but the "Live albums" section and "Remix albums" still add new charts. Also, for the notes in other releases, don't add every song there (add general info that can describe them). For example, in Irreemplazable you can put Spanish versions and remixes of tracks from B'Day. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed this yesterday itself. Please have a look. Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Again see the discographies I used for examples. They only have ten selected charts. If in a table, none of the releases charted, then you should drop the chart from that specific table. Just pick the best ten and you should be good. Anyways, any other peaks are left to the releases' actual articles. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Are you trying to say in every section, whether it is albums, singles, promotional singles? And what if her live albums have not charted on the charts her live albums have charted? Or if they were not release there? Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am impatiently waiting for more. I am so eager to fix the issues for which so many editors voted oppose. Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please remove music videos field in the infobox if that information is in her videography page. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments from The Rambling Man - a quick run through the obvious stuff I'd point out at FLC.
- "two live albums" - infobox says 3.
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- "As of September 2009," a shame this is 18 months out of date.
- Yes but can i do? Should I inflate the sales without exasperating or something like that? Please reply. Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- " Knowles had also received " odd tense change. do you "has"?
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- "debut solo album, Dangerously in Love, which debuted at" repetitive use of debut.
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- "spawned" never been keen on this, could we use "produced" perhaps?
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- "more than eleven million " you've already said "4.7 million" so no reason not to say "11 million" here.
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Destiny's Child disbanded in 2005. Knowles continued " - reference please, and merge these sentences nicely.
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Much of the themes and musical styles" -> "Many of..."
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- "became Knowles biggest" -> Knowles'
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- "opening at " -> "entering at"
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- "As of January 2009, B'Day has sold over 6,000,000 copies worlwide," - 2.4 years out of date, 6,000,000 should be 6 million or six million, and worldwide is the word you're after here.
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- "including 3.2 million copies sold in the United States alone" - no need for "alone" here.
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- "According to producer Shea Taylor, the first single will premiere at the end of April 2011.[27]" so in two weeks time the lead, infobox and singles table will need to be updated, ok?
- Four live albums listed in the table, three mentioned in the infobox, two in the lead...
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- No mention in the lead/infobox of the "remix" album.
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Where is the Heat EP referenced? It didn't chart anywhere so how do you prove its existence?
- "Limited edition 15 record box set of 2" remixes" -> 15-record box-set of 12" remixes (I'm guessing a 2" remix should be six times larger?)
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- "edition 8 record box set featuring karaoke versions of Beyoncé's" see above for hyphenation advice, and she should be called Knowles not Beyonce here.
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Where are "I Got That" and "Amor Gitano" referenced?
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- "The Blueprint²: The Gift & The Curse" our own article doesn't superscript the 2.
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Jay Z is actually Jay-Z.
"Can you please tell me where? Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- In the "As featured artist" section; under "Hollywood". Some browsers have a search tool. On Firefox push CTRL + F; at the bottom you will see this tool. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why is Soundtrack appearances table formatted so years are repeated every line, and movie is repeated every line, while the singles tables are formatted using all manner of row spans? If this is "discog style" then it needs addressing to be consistent within the article.
- Use en-dashes in the reference titles per WP:DASH.
Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Don't overcapitalise in the reference titles per WP:MOS.
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 16 April 2011, 18:00 UTC)
WikiProject peer-reviews
- WikiProject Military history: Colombian National Armada • 1st Airlanding Brigade (United Kingdom) • Michael Shishman of Bulgaria • James Dutton • Lympne Airport
Archives
- 2010:
- 2009:
- 2008:
- 2007:
- 2006:
- 2005:
- 2004 and older:
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}}
template or a <references />
tag; see the help page.