Peer review |
Editing articles |
|
Current reviews |
|
Peer review process |
|
Other |
|
|
Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles. An article may be nominated by any user, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other users can comment on the review. Peer review may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade". Peer review is a useful place to centralise a review from other editors about an article, and may be associated with a WikiProject; and may also be a good place for new Wikipedians to receive feedback on how an article is looking.
Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. Compared to the real world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing, it can make technically-worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for such expert input should consider inviting editors from the subject-wise volunteers list or notifying at relevant WikiProjects.
To request a review, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles. Any user may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comments may be acted on.
A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewer's comments included, can be found here. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list can be found here.
Arts
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 10 May 2016, 11:30 UTC
- Last edit: 11 May 2016, 03:50 UTC
- Previous peer review
-
After four unsuccessful FA nominations, I've decided to list this article for peer review. Although I do think the article is in top shape, feedback was limited in said nominations, and thus I was left unsure of what to do to meet the FA criteria. I would like some feedback and to perhaps build a rapport so as to bring attention to a future FAC.
Thanks in advanced, DAP388 (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I want some thoughts on the general content of this article before sending it to GAN. I do feel that the potential is there.
Thanks, Kokoro20 (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a good article that I want to make a featured article. I think the Plot section needs some re-wording but otherwise I think the article is ready to be nominated as a featured article candidate. Thanks, New9374 (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because…it is required if Fabula Nova Crystallis is nominated for Good Topic status this unreleased online game from Square Enix needs a looking over.
Thanks, Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
One of the most iconic pieces of applied art ever designed in Britain. I've been working for the last couple of months to get it to Good Article status, which Sainsf awarded it just this morning, and I'm looking to move on to Featured Article status shortly (unlike Garamond, which I've put on hold for FA due to need to get some better images, I think the sourcing here is probably complete enough to move forward). Advice on content or formatting much welcomed. I'm going to ping @Cassianto:, @Tim riley:, @Brianboulton: and @Ealdgyth: as people recommended to me by Casliber to discuss on the Garamond peer review project. Also @Tphinney:, @Stewf: - any thoughts?
Thanks, Blythwood (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 1 May 2016, 09:43 UTC
- Last edit: 9 May 2016, 23:44 UTC
-
I've come to a bit of a block on this one, after tinkering with it for a longish period. I would like to get it up to GA and would appreciate all or any constructive comments on any aspects. Thanks, Smerus (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comments from JM
Happy to take a look through with the same caveat as last time- I'm shockingly ignorant of classical music!
- I'm not sold on the one-line opening paragraph.
- "an outstanding (if sometimes controversial) pianist" Is this a little hyperbolic for the lead?
- "late romantic style" Link?
- "North American indigenous tribal melodies" Again, perhaps a wikilink or two?
- "His compositions include works for piano, including a monumental Piano Concerto" Repetition of "include"; also, is "monumental" a little POV?
- "he would commission a fantasy" What does this mean?
- "amongst his compositions at this period" Is at the right word?
- "his Konzertstück (Concert Piece) for" How about "his Konzertstück ("Concert Piece") for"
- A comment on your footnote on antisemitism; do your sources specifically mention these pfacts about his life as evidence that he was/was not not anti-Semitic? If not, there would be a problem with OR.
- "The concerts also included premieres of some of Busoni's own works of the period, amongst them, in 1904, the Piano Concerto, in which he was the soloist and the conductor was Karl Muck, in 1905 his Turandot Suite, and in 1907 his Comedy Overture."
- "unexpected twist - for example" Is that the right kind of dash?
It reads very well so far; pausing for now. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
I expanded the article to GA-status during a contest organised by Dr. Blofeld. I now intend to take it to the FAC and given that this is the first biography of a Western actress that I have written (having predominantly contributed to the articles of Indian celebrities) I would appreciate any help to polish or make improvements to it.
Thanks, Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- If it were up to me? I would change Welsh actress to British actress. Note - I've been around these British identification disputes for years, so I realize in advance, there'll be a lot of resistance to that change. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not forgotten – be here shortly! – SchroCat (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have listed this article for peer review because I have recently nominated it for FAC and received feedback that it needs further revision. Any comments on writing styles / references / etc. are really appreciated.
Thank you in advance, Aoba47 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 26 April 2016, 01:24 UTC
- Last edit: 29 April 2016, 14:58 UTC
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to make the article get to FA status. I have removed unreliable sources and added information (see the article's edit history). Any comments on writing styles / references / etc. are really appreciated.
Thanks, Simon (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'd call it a good article at least. You did this article justice. :-) -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Brainulator9: Lol thanks, but my goal is to get this article to FA. Still not sure about the article's styles, grammar, language, etc. Simon (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: @HĐ: The article is a very informative read, but I have a couple quick questions/comments that may be helpful:
- In the lead, you convey a lot of information in a strong and concise manner, but some aspects should be fully developed. For instance, what part of the song's "styles" are the critics ambivalent towards? Why did Thai television stations ban this song? What do you mean by the phrase "her 'real' persona", is this "real" persona about sexuality? Obviously, convey the information in a concise manner as it is the lead, but there are some incomplete thoughts here.
- In a majority of the articles about songs that I read, the lead includes information about the song's lyrics and what they represent. This is not present in this article beyond a mention of the song as "an R&B and hip hop song" and a "down and dirty" song. I understand there is not one right way of doing an article so this is more food for thought than anything.
- Eliminate "however" in the lead. It is a weak transition and not necessary as the contrast is already apparent between the two ideas.
- The phrase "consolidate her popularity" sounds a little off to me. I understand what you are saying, but I think a different verb should be used here.
- I would suggest introducing Mya, Pink, and Lil Kim for an unfamiliar reader. Obviously, not too in-depth as they only are referenced in this sentence of the article.
- The transition between the sentence about the song being done in the vein of a Redman song to his appearance on a diss track to Aguilera sounds somewhat awkward. I get the connection, but I would advise tying these ideas together with a stronger transition.
- In the final sentence of the "Development" section, who is the person/source describing the title as a reflection of the music video? I would recommend being a little more clear here, especially since you are using a quote.
- Italicize Stylus Magazine
- I would recommend either 1) moving the information regarding the release into the "Background section" and renaming this section "Chart performance" or 2) clarifying "reception" as "commercial reception" as the current section is somewhat unclear.
- How did Shakira and Jessica Simpson disapprove of the video? This may not be necessary for the article, but it reads somewhat unclear. Also change "disapproved her image" to "disapprove of her image".
- Why is the Sarah Michelle Gellar parody listed twice (both in the "Reception and legacy" subsection of the "Music Video" section and in the "Live performances and media usage" section). Since it is a parody of the music video, I would recommend cutting the sentence from the media usage section as it is too repetitive.
- I would change the verbs in the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the "Live performances and media usage" section as the repetition of the word "included" is somewhat awkward.
- Was there any critical response to Ed Sheeran's cover of the song or Stephen Merchant's lip-sync of it?
- For the "Credits and personnel" section, I would recommend using the subsection headings "Recording locations" and "Personnel" to separate this section and make it easier to read. Something similar to what is done on the page for Rihanna's S&M.
- I hope my comments are helpful. Remember I am still very new to Wikipedia so take these comments with a grain of salt, but this is what I noticed when reading through the article and comparing it to FA music pages. This is what I gathered from a single reading so if you want more notes, feel free to ask. (I apologize for the length of this message ><) Aoba47 (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because there is not very many article on Russian media and society on wikipedia. I would like to get this article to featured article status then start building more Russian articles on Wikipedia, particularly about Channel One. Thank you so much for your time! Moscowamerican (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC eventually, but that is a long way form here. Looking to improve on the basic areas of prose and structure here. All the help is appreciated! NumerounovedantTalk 19:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
Hello, I've listed this article for peer review because I would like for it to become B-class in the future. Help would be much appreciated!
Regards, Bleff (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I worked on it a while ago and just completed the suggestions from the previous, incomplete peer review (other than the reference format, which I think is a matter of taste and I've become used to). I'd like to continue improving this article and prepare it for FA status in the near future.
Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise survived both a proposed deletion tag, and an articles for deletion discussion.
It was reviewed by Maile66 and successfully promoted to good article quality, and subsequently Twofingered Typist helpfully provided a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors.
I bring it here to help further along the quality improvement process.
Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Notifications given: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/American television task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy, Talk:The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise, User talk:Twofingered Typist, User talk:Maile66, User talk:Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm doing this right, but here's my input. I think it's great! It's well-written, and has a great ratio of plot to reliably-sourced third-party information. As a huge Trekkie, I enjoyed learning about this pop culture perception of the show. It has a wonderful diversity of references, something I'm always impressed with! It's an excellent article; I daresay one of our best.
I only have a question about the image of Mr. Belushi leading the article in the infobox: does it meet WP:NFCC#8? I didn't read anything in the article that needed that image to better understand it. The IDP cites The Current Cinema as saying that the portrayal is iconic, but that doesn't equal, to me, saying that Mr. Belushi's specific appearance was iconic. It's something I would consider if I were writing the article.
Oh, that and I don't think the 'upright' sizing specifications are necessary. Especially when the Belushi/Michaels images are being displayed at what appears to be a standard thumbnail size. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your comments, Fourthords, I'll have a look at tweaking the article with these in mind. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done. I've modified the images to remove the "upright" sizing, as recommended, above. As for the infobox image of Belushi parodying Shatner as Kirk -- the article presents sourced info saying Belushi modeled his very appearance after Kirk, for example the sideburns -- and this can be seen comparing the two images. Thank you for your participation in the peer review ! Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 9 April 2016, 20:04 UTC
- Last edit: 4 May 2016, 16:06 UTC
-
I had just got this article GA recently and I was wondering if this article has a shot of getting FA. I am open to any and all critiques of the article.
Thanks, Erick (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because…I have started rewriting this article in October 2015, working from French language sources (my mothertongue). I think that I have now brought it to a very decent, almost GA-like status ([1]). Since I am not a native speaker, I would like someone without any previous knowledge of the building to review my work before I may try and nominate it as a good article candidate.
Thanks, Edelseider (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
LynwoodF
I was asked by one of the principal authors, who is not a native English-speaker, to review the wording of the article, in order to ensure that the English is idiomatic. I have done this and made a number of minor changes. I am now going on to look at the article from the point of view of content. I am familiar with the building, having lived near it for a while, but had only a sketchy knowledge of its history. However, the contents of the article are consistent with what I already knew.
- The lead section is longer than some, but it summarizes the history of the building and the uses to which it has been put, without going into excessive detail.
- The main body of the article is divided into logical sections and a great deal more detail is included in these.
- The definite article is used in two of the section headings, and while this is generally frowned upon, its use seems natural in both contexts and I am not prepared to condemn it. I am reminded of an old adage: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise."
- There are a number of images and these are mostly grouped into small galleries in the relevant sections. Given the specialist nature of the images, this seems to me to be the sensible way to handle them.
- The sources seem appropriate, but are largely in French. However, I am not aware of any English-language source which has this amount of detail. The authors of the article have perhaps done the English-speaking community a service by extracting and translating the detailed information.
- All the links appear to be in working order at the date of this comment. LynwoodF (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this to Featured status prior to September in the hope that it could be featured on the front page on the 50th anniversary of the episode's first broadcast (and the first broadcast of Star Trek in general). Failing that, we already have a backup episode at FA already, but this would be the perfect choice. I've attempted to base it on "Space Seed" (the episode already at FA), but it could still do with some pointers to make the FA process smoother. Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- General
- All images should have alt text per WP:ALT.
-
- Added. BTW, thanks for reviewing, it's much appreciated. Miyagawa (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Writing
- "They gradually become so subtle that the crew have difficulty telling the difference between them and reality." - change have to had.
-
- "that death would be likely quickly afterwards". - afterward.
-
- "Roddenberry felt that Johnson's treatment was wrong, but did not want to lose him entirely As such, Rodenberry switched "The Man Trap" writing duties to him." You're missing a full stop between the words "entirely" & "As such"
-
- "the same plot device has already appeared in pilot episode "The Cage"." - "has" should be spelt "had"; the word "the" should be inserted between "in" & "pilot".
-
- Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Guest appearances
- "the actress had previous guest starred in Perry Mason" - typo (should be spelt "previously")
-
- Direction and filming
- Delink salt shakers since it is linked in the plot subsection.
-
- The creature
- Monster of the week is an soft redirect to the Wikitonary page Villain of the week.
-
- "The head of the costume were first sculpted in clay and then covered in a plaster cast." - was
-
- Overseas broadcasts and re-releases
- "with "The Man Trap" shown nearly three months afterwards on October 4 as the 13th episode." - afterward.
-
- Critical reception
- "as the crewmen who died in "The Man Trap" didn't wear red shirts," - did not.
-
- I thought I'd managed to get out of that habit. Fixed now. Miyagawa (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- References
- Can refs 14, 26, 29, 34, 37, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 & 55 be archived in case those links become dead?
-
- Thanks to David Fuchs, the rest of the citations are now archived. Miyagawa (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- You should say that ref 60 was found via HighBeam Research.
-
I probably have another look and will notify you if anything else stands out. Z105space (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking that this article is a likely FA candidate. I've tinkered with it since 2012, gradually expanding it to the point of reaching GA status. With the the plethora of scholarly literature that's come out since around 2010/2011 onward, I think that this article has become very comprehensive and is able to summarize a rather complicated musical genre. I'd like comments to see what issues would hinder this becoming an FA.
Thanks, 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- The TeamRock ref for Amon Amarth denying viking metal is giving me an internal server error.
- A couple of these links throw me redirects that Checklinks somehow fails to catch. For example, Eduardo Rivadavia's article on Bathory's Blood Fire Death ref from AllMusic is throwing me a redirect to the band's bio, and it doesn't keep any of the claims written in the article. Chad Bowar's 2014 article also throws me a redirect. Check for errors in the URL or add some archives.
- For the music samples, I would suggest putting "by (x)" after the song title, or "(x's)" "title" rather than simply the song's title.
- Speaking of those song samples, their sound quality is too good to fall under fair use. Try somewhere between 60-80 kbps rather than 100-130.
- dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 15:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Somewhere in an update way back, Audacity changed how it converted sound files. I'll have to continue tinkering to get the right quality. I'll work on the link issues.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- The Blood Fire Death link probably got misdirected when being converted to Sfn format or something.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- @DannyMusicEditor: I reduced the sound quality for the samples down to 48kbps through Audacity (for some reason, exporting to .ogg doesn't let you choose the bit-rate, so I exported to .mp3, than re-exported to .ogg). I also re-titled the examples to include the artist name.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 12 March 2016, 03:50 UTC
- Last edit: 12 April 2016, 08:52 UTC
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 13 February 2016, 22:33 UTC
- Last edit: 6 April 2016, 14:53 UTC
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 31 January 2016, 05:20 UTC
- Last edit: 10 April 2016, 23:00 UTC
Everyday life
-
As a break from the retro games, let's look at the crown of the Rare Replay project continues. It's the most thorough page on the compilation on the Internet and, I believe, complete by the FAC criteria, but I'd appreciate any preliminary comments before it goes up for nomination. Thanks, czar 18:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want feedback with suggestions of improvements that can be done to make it a possible FA status article in the future. I could need some comprehensive suggestions.
Thanks, BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Engineering and technology
-
I'm hoping to bring this article up to FA status in time for the upcoming 40th anniversary of the beginning of service (October 4). A recent GA promotion that might need some slimming down and possible splitting for the history section (which is very detailed) and written somewhat more organically that what would would fly at FAC. SounderBruce 03:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because Ethereum is a growing topic and I think we should check on the Wiki page and clear things up every once in a while. We're moving really quickly on the page, some edit wars are happening, and we really need a review to reset ourselves.
Thanks, Legionof7 (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The sourcing has improved tremendously in recent weeks. Well done! To reiterate what I've said on the talk page about the sourcing:
- - The section that consists entirely of primary sources needs either verifiable third-party RSes or to be deleted until it can be recreated with good sourcing.
- - Every marked primary source needs a verifiable third party RS.
- - The claims that are marked as failing verification need verifiable third party RSes.
- So basically you need more verifiable third-party RSes.
- - David Gerard (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
General
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it is something that I have been working on for months. It was recently promoted to a good article, and I would like to improve it so that I am confident when it goes into featured article candidacy. It is not too long of an article, but I believe that it is well-referenced and quite comprehensive. Additionally, the topic is a bit controversial, so I want to get rid of any kind of information that would seem biased. Let me know what you think.
Thank you. TempleM (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
-
This has been a Good article since 2012, so I'd like to see how viable it would be to submit this for featured status. The article is about a section of a Canadian theme park. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I'm listing this article for peer review as I'm hoping to bring it to Featured Article status in the coming weeks and months as part of a wider effort to improve F.C. United-related articles on Wikipedia. This article was last peer reviewed in March 2012, over four years ago, and has since been updated and improved quite significantly, including splitting a section of the article into List of F.C. United of Manchester seasons (a current featured list candidate).
I'm requesting that this article be peer reviewed as both myself and Delusion23, with whom I have been working on improving the article, have edited it too many a time to be able to look at it with a fresh eye. All suggestions and improvements are warmly welcomed, in particular regarding the flow of the text as well as grammar, as I realise there had been a few problems regarding this aspect in the past.
Thanks so much for your help, odder (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Lemonade51 – Think the prose could be tightened up, some suggestions:
- It's worth having a look at similar articles which are of the standard you wish to attain. Liverpool F.C. is quite a good example as it was promoted fairly recently, have a look at its nomination.
- The lead does a good job of summarising the club. I'd like to think given the manner in which the club was founded, maybe a sentence could be added about criticism?
- "The club was promoted to the National League North in 2015 ... The club also reached the second round of the FA Cup in the 2010–11 season and the fourth round of the FA Trophy in the 2014–15 season," repetition, state the club's name in the second sentence. What is the significance of reaching the second round of the FA Cup? And likewise fourth round of the FA Trophy? I'd imagine it was the furthest they've been in both competitions? If so, include that somewhere.
- "The club's own ground, Broadhurst Park in north-east Manchester, opened in May 2015 ready for the 2015–16 season." comma before 2015. Remove wikilink for Broadhurst Park, it's already been linked in the first paragraph.
- This is now Done. odder (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Under formation, "F.C. United" continues to be used as an abbreviated form of the club's name," source for this?
- I don't think it can be backed up by a reference, so I removed that sentence, and am marking this as Done odder (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Karl Marginson was appointed as the club's manager on 22 June 2005, and the club held trials for players on 26 June 2005", replace with four days later
- Done, too. odder (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- "During their formation, the owners of Leigh RMI asked F.C. United to take over their club, but United refused the takeover offer as they believed that taking over an existing club would be hypocritical, given that F.C. United was formed as a result of Manchester United's takeover," this whole sentence reads long-winded, and could easily be chopped down into two sentences. There are four instances of 'take over', change it up to avoid repetition.
- Thanks, Done, I reworded the sentence. odder (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Looking further down, the criticism section could certainly be beefed up. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is so weird as I've got this page on my watchlist and yet received no e-mail notification about your comments, @Lemonade51. Many thanks for looking over the article — I'll try to fix the issues you've mentioned, either tomorrow night or on Tuesday and will report back here. And thank you for providing a great example in Liverpool F.C., I'll have a look at it and will try to get this article to a similar level. odder (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Geography and places
-
Any constructive improvements/advice/questions about the capital city of Penang are greatly appreciated.
Thanks, - —User:Buonkee Buonkee (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I live near George Town (I'm actually on the other side of the Malaysian peninsular) and have been to Penang. I recently wrote the Seri Rambai article.
- 1. Start by looking at the article for Sarawak (which has also been put forward for peer review). By comparison, the George Town article is messy and poorly structured: there are lots of one sentence paragraphs (see the Health care section, for example), too many photographs and uncited claims. All paragraphs should end with a citation.
- 2. The introduction highlights some of the repetition in the article. For example, the first sentence tells me the city is "currently a UNESCO World Heritage Site"; the third explains that is has held this status since 2008. Content such as this needs to be combined and edited.
For the time being, I think you should concentrate of copyediting. Take a look at this this:
As the Dutch East India Company had dominated the Far East spice trade in the 18th. century, the British were determined to establish their presence in the region to control the trade route between China and British India through the Malay Archipelago, and to set up a base to repair Royal Navy ships.[6][18] Because of this, Captain Francis Light, a trader for the British East India Company (EIC) was instructed by his company, Jourdain Sullivan and de Souza in Madras, British India to establish trade relations in the Malay Peninsula.[19]
Light arrived on Penang Island on 17 July 1786.[18] As Penang Island was still under the control of the Sultan of Kedah, Light needed to negotiate with the Sultan Abdullah Mukarram Shah to grant the island to the EIC in exchange for protection of the Sultanate against Siamese and Burmese intrusions.[19][20] The early negotiations were problematic because the Sultan did not want to cede the island to the British, but the threat from Siam grew as Kedah was forced submit to Siam as a vassal state by offering bunga mas annually.[20] The Sultan was aware that he needed an agreement with the British for protection against the Siamese, although he did not realise Light had acted without the approval of his superiors.[18]
- a1. "As the Dutch East India Company had dominated the Far East spice trade in the 18th. century, the British were determined ..."
- a2. The wording here is wrong. The British were not determined to do ABC because the Dutch dominated XYZ. In a similar vein, the Dutch did not form regional alliances in the early 1600s simply because the Portuguese controlled Malacca. The British and Dutch were motivated by greed ONLY. Their determination to control regional trade was not inspired by rivalry.
- b1. "Light needed to negotiate with the Sultan Abdullah Mukarram Shah to grant the island to the EIC in exchange for protection of the Sultanate against Siamese and Burmese intrusions"
- b2. He did NOT need to do this. He made an offer. As you say, it was made without his superiors' approval.
- c1. "the threat from Siam grew as Kedah was forced submit to Siam as a vassal state by offering bunga mas annually"
- c2. This is incorrect. The threat from Siam lessened once Kedah accepted Siamese suzerainty. Kedah sent the bunga mas in recognition of Siam's status as the suzerain. The correct wording you need here is quite tricky!
I'll add more later. I think you should be able to get this article to GA/FA level. There are lots of sources out there, and the best will be easy to access. For example:
- 1. The Journal of the Siam Society
- 2. The Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society
- 3. GWHI
- 4. Penang Heritage Trust
- 5. The Straits Times
- @Singora: The user was recently blocked for block evasion. The master account known as Polopaladin who known for inserting non-neutral content with hidden political agenda, messed paragraph and inserting too many bare links. I have restore the article into the last stable version. Regards. Herman Jaka (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
OK -- but the previous version, though messy, was better than what you've got now. To be honest, this new version is dreadful.
- Previous peer review
-
Article is now reasonably stable, and without tags (I think). It seems like a good opportunity to try and push towards GA status.
Thanks, Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like it'll soon be ready for a GA nomination to me. There's a contraction ("weren't") and some dead links in the references (c.f. this page), but with those items fixed, in my view this would resemble other good articles. Nice work.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I can offer a few drive-by comments:
- I'm mainly looking at the Geography-related section here, but I think there is still a bit of work to do to reflect the natural environment of Cambridge. There is only a very brief mention of geology, but none at all on the key ecological/biodiversity features of the city. I suggest this is a significant omission, though even some WP:FA articles such as Bristol and Bath are let down on this front. It doesn't have to be a huge section, but to easily rectify this, try sources such as local conservation strategies/LBAPs, like this one, pp5-4; 25-26 which give an overview of key sites such as SSSIs, or even city local nature reserve lists, such as this. Quite often Local Plan documents give good ecological overviews which are sound third-party sources.
- Check for correct hyphenation and links in the article e.g. low-lying, non-league/ water-meadows etc., and beware use of the hyphen or dash in the climate section after '...highest national temperature in any given year' which could be taken as a minus sign.
- the presence of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge seems a significant organisation worthy of mention, and perhaps the Category 'Organisations based in Cambridge' should also be added.
- The sentence The River Cam flows through the city north from the village of Grantchester. is a little unclear unless one knows that Grantchester is on the southern side. Maybe The River Cam flows northwards through the city from the village of Grantchester., or something similar. For information on flood risk and reduction in the city see here.
- There could be a sub-section well worth adding in the 'culture' section on the very important museums within the city, such as the nationally and internationally important Sedgwick, Fitzwilliam and Whipple museums, plus 15 others. I'm not confident that the single mention of museums (a link to List of museums in Cambridge) does this aspect of culture in the city full justice, especially compared to the quite large emphasis on sport.
- The caption for the Ward map probably ought to give the date (2010)
- Despite the high use of cycling, I was surprised to find that much of the city centre seems to be designated an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), so this could well relevant to include. see here.
- Dead links - there are quite a few non-functioning links which need fixing. Try this tool to find and fix them. (Note that the Suds link is reported as functioning, but it doesn't actually retrieve the Landscape Vision document.)
- Finally, you could consider adding alt text to images, though this is not a requirement of Good Articles, though it is a useful step to sort out now, en route to WP:FA. See this link.
All-in-all, this looks to be a good, sound article, though I am quite new to this process myself, so could well be bringing a biased perspective! Parkywiki (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 18 April 2016, 13:15 UTC
- Last edit: 9 May 2016, 13:30 UTC
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 19 March 2016, 00:31 UTC
- Last edit: 11 May 2016, 00:48 UTC
History
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to nominate the article for FAC. Any comments gratefully received.
Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 27 April 2016, 20:54 UTC
- Last edit: 1 May 2016, 03:44 UTC
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to Featured Article status prior to the 100th anniversary next year. At this point I am specifically looking for feedback regarding how to ensure that this article meets the requirement that it should be a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (WP:FACR 1.c.)
Thank you, Oncenawhile (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: There are some sources in this bibliography which might be useful to include. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because…
The article clearly isn't a stub anymore and needs reassessment at the very least. It could probably use additional visibility and improvements from interested parties. It maybe close to GAN article status.
Thanks, Skybunny (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- In the lead, the article specifies that Los Angeles International Airport is in Los Angeles, and Mexico City International is in Mexico City. Is that really necessary? I could understand if the airport was one of the "London" Airports which aren't actually in London, but as it is it reads oddly.
- In the section on the accident, the article says that the plane was cleared for a '"Texpepan" approach', but never explains what this means; later we read about an "ILS approach" (which is at least wikilinked) and then a "visual sidestep approach" (redlinked). The article should probably explain this for the general reader; I have absolutely no idea what any of it means.
- The initial death-toll was 71; the final death-toll was 72. Was this because of an error in the initial accounting, or because one person later died of their injuries?
- The article contains many very short paragraphs; you might want to consolidate some of them into longer paragraphs.
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I did some work based on Caeciliusinhorto's suggestions.
- Looking at other similar articles, like Pan Am Flight 103, I moved the full expansion of airports and where they are, to the infobox. This should help readability.
- The remark about the specific approach was well taken; I generalized this to talk about instrument (and ILS) approaches, and added a sentence about what a visual sidestep approach is in the article, also linking to where it is discussed in Instrument approach. (One of the problems with discussion of this accident is that it does involve a somewhat technical maneuver going wrong.)
- I did a bit to consolidate paragraphs where I could see to do so.
I'm pretty sure that the reason for the death-toll being raised from 71 to 72 is that a person later died of their injuries, but this difficult to find and cite. There are reports of the accident on the day it happened, and then it basically disappears from the media. After that, what's available are the final reports of the accident, where by then the number of passengers on the aircraft who died is one higher.
- I was able to discover the reason for the fatality discrepancy through the Mexico City Spanish language newspaper El Informador. A passenger died of his injuries 18 days after the initial crash, which explains the 71 number in early news reports, and 72 listed in the ICAO and NTSB reports.
Skybunny (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC) edited 02:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to nominate this article for GA status.
Thanks, Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been awarded its GA status and I'd like to take it to FAC in the near future. This is a pretty important article for Wikipedia so it would be great if anyone with an interest could help out on this one.
Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
- "Lenin played a leading role in the October Revolution of 1917, overthrowing the Provisional Government and establishing a one-party state under the new Communist Party." This is unclear. Presumably it was the revolution that defeated the Provisional Government rather than Lenin personally, and what is meant by "new Communist Party"? Was a new party formed in 1917?
-
- The Bolsheviks renamed themselves as the "Communist Party" after seizing power, hence my decision to use the term "new" here. Otherwise I've edited the prose to say "Lenin played a leading role in the October Revolution of 1917 which overthrew the Provisional Government and established a one-party state under the new Communist Party". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I think you need to spell this out as it is unclear - "established a one-party state under the Bolsheviks, who renamed themselves as the Communist Party after seizing power" Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- "withdrew from the First World War by signing a punitive treaty" You do not make clear that the treaty was punitive to Russian.
-
- In that case I think it best to remove the word "punitive" from the lede. I really don't want the lede to get any larger than it already is, and so don't want to start adding extra wording to explain the nature of the treaty. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- "orchestrated by the Cheka". A few words explaining "Cheka" would be helpful.
-
- Again, I didn't want to spend a lot of time in the lede explaining things, so I've replaced the word "Cheka" with "state security services", which should be clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Lenin's father, Ilya Nikolayevich Ulyanov, was the grandson – and possibly also the son – of a serf". This could be clearer. I thought at first it meant that his father was the result of an incestuous relationship.
-
- I've changed this so that it now only states that Lenin's father was from a family of serfs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- "an apostate Russian Jewish physician" "apostate" is POV - maybe "secular".
-
- I appreciate that there are potentially loaded connotations to "apostate" but using that term allows us to link to Apostasy in Judaism. I don't think that "secular" is the right term because the individual in question had converted from Judaism to Christianity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I think it would be better to spell it out - "a Jewish physician who had converted to Christianity"
- "Two latter siblings died in infancy" later siblings?
-
- "both a zemlyachestvo, or a group of men from Samara-Simbirsk" I would leave out the word "or"
- I do not think you need to define Marxism.
- "Publicly championing Marxism among the socialist movement" I would say "within" rather than "among".
- "able to correspond with other subversives" Subversives is a bit loaded - revolutionaries?
- "the couple translated English socialist literature into Russian" No change needed but what literature and was it published?
- "condemned Lenin for supporting bank robberies" This needs clarification. I see that below you repeat the statement with details, but you need to explain it here.
- "state expropriation of land, all with for establishing proletariat government and pushing toward a socialist society" The grammar has gone wrong here.
- "Russian Communist Party, to as Lenin wanted to distance his group from the German Social Democratic Party" I would leave out the word "to".
- "This coalition only lasted four months, until March, when the Left Socialist Revolutionaries pulled out of the government over a disagreement about the Bolsheviks' approach to ending the First World War." This sounds strange - so they pulled out in March 1919 over a war which had ended in December 1918?
- More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
I have vastly updated the article over the last week, and would like a peer review to prepare it for a GA nomination. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: You have a couple of sources in your References list that aren't cited in the article - Barbier 2007b, Zabecki. These should be cited, moved to a Further reading section, or removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for that! I meant to add a note explaining what FUSAG once, and apprently forgot about it. The note has now been added, and the two rouge refs are no longer out in the cold.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments This article looks to be in very good shape. I have the following comments:
- What the Territorial Army was at the time should be explained (especially in the context of it over-recruiting)
- I have added a note on what the Territorial Army was, and additional information on how the units gained the new recruits.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Why was the divisional HQ selected for deployment to Norway (was it trained while the body of the division was still forming?)
- I was unable to find an exact reason why Carton De Wiart was chosen although in his own words it appears he decided to take his own staff to speed things up and was not allowed to take his division. Other sources note that the troops for the op had already been earmarked for a while.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- "rumors emerged of a German intention to invade Ireland" - only "rumors" or more solid "intelligence"? Presumably the later if it led to a division being moved well away from the potential main invasion zone in south-east England.
- Expanded upon.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- "the division was reorganized as a light division" - what did this involve?
- I have added some extra info on what a light division is, and some additional info specific to the division. It is about all I have been able to dig up.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- "The division was intended to be deployed to the Far East to support the fighting against Imperial Japan" - was the division intended to replace the large number of long-serving British personnel who were being discharged from the forces in India and Burma at this time under the "Python" scheme? (which, from memory, was expected to make a number of units unviable, possibly leading to their disbandment) Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keith checked out the OH for Asia, and found no mention of the division. I have done various searches and have found no link between the division and Python.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments Nick, I have addressed them or left comments. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I believe J.O. Carpenter is John Owen Carpenter and C.B. Wainwright is Charles Brian Wainwright. Source is this: [2], although I don't know how reliable that is. Also there is this source for Wainwright: [3] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- I believe the first source reflects what this article looked like a few weeks back, where those full names were used. At the time, I was unable to confirm their full names. Both are on http://www.generals.dk, so I have reinserted their full names.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to ensure that it provides a comprehensive and neutral presentation of the topic before its GAN.
Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would merely add that the religious situation is a little unclear, who is Latin Catholic, who is Eastern Catholic, who is Armenian and who is Greek Orthodox.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 12:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Yes, it is unclear. I assume it is because religious affiliation did not play a significant role in the war. Borsoka (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I have only just recently returned to editing Wikipedia. I would like to try to get this to GA status.
Thanks, Aeonx (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
G'day, good work with this so far. It's great to see someone working on this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- for GA, I would like to see all paragraphs referenced, so I think refs should be placed in the following places:
at the end of the paragraph about the corps' role ✔;
after the sentence: "The RACT Banner is currently housed in the Tobruk Barracks Officers' Mess at Puckapunyal." ✔
- all of the equipment items
the RACT abbrev should be introduced formally. I'd suggest just putting it in the lead as follows: "The Royal Australian Corps of Transport (RACT) is a corps within the Australian Army." ✔
link "corps" in the lead ✔;
- I would like to see a broader discussion of where RACT soldiers are employed. For instance, mentioning some of the major transport units (e.g. the FSBs, CSSBs, etc.), but also making it clear that RACT pers are employed broadly in other units, e.g. infantry battalions, engineer units, artillery units, other log (e.g. medical) units, etc.
- Is it possible to mention deployments...one imagines that RACT pers have been deployed on pretty much every major Australian deployment since the corps formed. Is this covered anywhere?
- Good luck with taking this article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- I did a little copyediting in the first part and skimmed the rest. I don't think you'll have a problem with prose at GAN. Good luck. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments
- Suggest expanding the lead considerably - it should summarize the entire article
- File:Wait_for_the_Wagon_March_tune.ogg: what is the licensing status of the performance? The copyright of the original music should also be reflected in the tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Natural sciences and mathematics
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it reach GA and eventually FA. I have been working to improve the article and would like to know what the community thinks need to be done before i nominate the article to GA.
Thanks, MartinZ02 (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Appreciate your interest in this. Even giving a decent PR is going to be tough.
- Structure: As mentioned before in the GA review, I too find the present structure confusing. Keep watching this point till I can think of a better way to organise it.
-
- I'm seeing a lot of small sections having the main article links. Per WP:DETAIL, that would imply that we have to expand those sections, making it likely be out of scope. See below. This is probably a controversial change and cannot be done in one go without first making sure the content flows smoothly. Also it would be nice if the other article contributors could pitch in here.
- Definitions
- Biology
- Alternative definitions
- (Viruses could just be another para here, instead of having its own section. DETAIL.)
- Biophysics
- Living system Theories: (what are Living system theories? This section goes straight to the examples without introducing the term.)
- (Each definition could well be in embedded list form like how it's for the main Biological definitions. The sections are too small to be there, again DETAIL.)
- History of study
- Materialism
- Hylomorphism
- Spontaneous generation
- Vitalism
- Origin
- Cells: (move this here for better context)
- Environmental conditions: (same here)
- Range of tolerance
- Extremophiles
- Chemical elements
- Classification
- Other: (perhaps an intro for this?)
- Extraterrestrial life
- Artificial life
- Death: (Again, I don't see why there should be sections for Fossils and Extinction, they are a bit out of scope). Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Since this isn't titled Life (biology), any reason why the non-scientific viewpoints aren't mentioned? Is it covered in Phenomenological life?
- Size: getting 37 kb, that's low enough, looks like there is lot of room for expansion, given that this topic mostly will be summarising other articles. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because this isn't my field of expertise, and thus far I've been the only contributor. Considering the somewhat esoteric nature of the subject, I am looking to have my additions checked over and possibly improved upon by editors more familiar with the field. Thanks! ~ Erick Shepherd • (Talk) • 11:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 26 December 2015, 14:34 UTC
- Last edit: 2 May 2016, 04:50 UTC
Language and literature
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to one day promote it to a good article. This page details "Erichtho", a legendary Thessalian witch who was made famous by her appearance in Lucan's epic poem Pharsalia. In this work, she performs a gruesome necromantic ritual that revivifies a corpse. I put a lot of time into this, but (as always) I'm worried I overlooked something, mis-read a source, or skipped over an obvious grammatical error. Any corrections or suggestions would be much appreciated!
Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would re-write the first line of the first section (In Literature/Lucan's Pharsalia). Perhaps "The character Erichtho seems to have been popularised by the Roman poet Lucan in his epic poem Pharsalia". Essentially I think the problem is that what is there currently could stand to be trimmed a little.
- Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- In the footnote nb1, what do you mean by the "release" of Pharsalia? Is that the same as "publication"? Or is "publication" not really a thing in Latin literature?
I'm not super sure on the details, but there weren't really publishing houses in Rome. These poems were just sort of thrust upon the world.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I should clarify this and say that there were not publishing houses like there are today. They still got published, so I changed it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- You source "impious" with a quote from the poem in translation. Personally, I think your interpretation is fine; with my wikipedian hat on, however, I suspect that it might fall foul of WP:NOR. It would be fantastic if you could find a secondary source for that just in case.
- Good point. I didn't think of that when I translated it. I'll find a source.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm also confused by the reference there (currently at #7) to "Lucan, Pharsalia, ll. 6.523–524". The quote in question is at book VI, lines 523-4, but I don't see what the "ll" is for... You do the same thing for your other quotations of Lucan, so presumably it means something, but I can't for the life of me see what.
- It's an abbreviation for 'lines'. Do you think it's redundant?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Of course it is. I think it's fine, it was just a brief moment of stupidity on my part. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "post-bellum battlefield"? Is "post-bellum" necessary?
- Good point.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- "as well as a rather ambiguous (at least, to Sextus Pompeius) prophecy": presumably the point here is that there is dramatic irony as the prophecy was not ambiguous to the reader in Lucan's day, who knew they outcome of the clusterfuck that was the late republic? You should probably come right out and explain this the the (probably highly theoretical) lay reader, though...
- I struggled with this section when writing it. I'll keep pondering it. For right now, I added a link to 'dramatic irony', but I'll try to find something better.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding to this! This has been very helpful.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded the content significantly and would like to hear the community's appraisal of my work.
Thanks, Eddie morra brian (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to take it to FAC eventually. I would appreciate feedback on any portion of it, but in particular I would like to hear about anything necessary that I have left out.
Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Philosophy and religion
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… midnightblueowl suggested to do so here for getting GA. Thanks, -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am trying to do that work as well as mentioned here in my reply to SpacemanSpiff. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Social sciences and society
- Previous peer review
-
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate the article for FA status. Any help would be greatly appreciated
Thanks, – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 23:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – A look through the references would be a good step to standardise on the formatting for the author/editor fields. Either use first/last or last/first consistently. Some of the references are also missing the accessdate information. Keith D (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch review
- This review is too large to display in full. Please go to the review directly if you want to contribute.
- Date added: 28 April 2016, 09:14 UTC
- Last edit: 9 May 2016, 00:35 UTC
-
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it for FAC in due course.
Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, here we go. Not the easiest reading for non-numismatists, I have to say, but I've done me best – sorry if at times the review is a mite superficial:
- Lead
- "government stocks of silver were being rapidly reduced, and might run out by 1968" – are you sure of tense consistency here? It seems slightly off to me.
-
- It looks OK to me. Possibly it is an ENGVAR thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Dimes and quarters": believe it or not, some (lots) of us don't know what they are. Appropriate pipe-links would assist us.
- The final sentence is enigmatic. It reads as though the Eisenhower dollar was silver – is that the case?
- Background
- I am struggling with the sentence: "The metal in a silver dollar was worth more as metal than as money above $1.292929 per troy ounce; the smaller coins would be attractive for the melting pot above $1.38 per ounce". Does it mean "more as metal than as money when the price rose above $1.292929 per troy ounce? And what is the reason for the differential between the dollar and the small coins?
- Coin shortage
- I'm not really clear as to why a coin shortage should have arisen in the late 50s and early 60s. If I read correctly, the Mints were working at full capacity but still couldn't meet demand. Was there some particular economic factor at work? I can understand that people wished to hang on to their half-dollars, but why the reluctance to part with the rest?
- "Clad coinage" worth a pipe
- Strictly speaking, "Great Britain" is a geographical entity rather than a nation (although the term is often misused as such). "United Kingdom" would be safer'
- Legislation
- "Were any to be struck, the silver dollar would be unaffected, but there were no further plans to issue any". The first five words could easily be taken as referring to the coins mentioned in the previous sentence, so I'd suggest a minor rephrasing to avoid any ambiguity.
- "depleted by 1968" – did he mean "exhausted"? The bullion was being depleted all the time.
- Minor, but two successive sentences begin "Johnson..."
- "with the opponents being..." – the word "with" is superfluous
- Provisions
- My mind tended to glaze over with the legal phraseology, so I skipped to Aftermath
- Aftermath
- A "holiday season" beginning in November is strange to Europeans. Perhaps specify Thanksgiving?
- "stated that that many quarters" a bit clumsy. Possibly "stated that this number of quarters..."
- I'm a bit confused by the last paragraph, which I can't reconcile with what I read in the lead, concerning the Eisenhower dollar.
On presentation, a few coin images will certainly brighten things up. I'd also suggest columnising the reflist. Otherwise neatly and professionally done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you. I think I've followed all of your suggestions. Sorry for my long neglect of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Lists
-
I've worked on this article to improve it's standard in the hope of taking it up to a featured list in future hopefully. This is the first time I've nominated an article for this so all suggestions are very welcome Thanks, Kosack (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject peer-reviews