Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Business.
For Peer reviews sorted by date, see Wikipedia:Peer reviews by date.
For information on Wikipedia press releases, see Wikipedia:Press releases.
Caution The peer review list on this page is automatically generated. Please do not edit this page to add or remove peer reviews. Individual peer reviews can be edited by following the edit section links next to the article titles, which are now stored on /archiveN pages from the very start (the term "archive" for these pages is purely historical). Please see the instructions below and report any problems on the talk page.

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". Articles that need extensive basic editing should be directed to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.
Shortcuts:
WP:PR
WP:REVIEW

The path to a featured article

  1. Start a new article
  2. Develop the article
  3. Check against the featured article criteria
  4. Get creative feedback ←
  5. Apply for featured article status
  6. Featured articles

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 the previous peer review or unsuccessful FAC. For more information on these limits see here.

To add a nomination:

  1. Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.
  2. Within the notice, click where instructed to open a new peer review discussion page. If there is no such link in the notice, see this.
  3. Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing.
  4. Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be listed automatically on this page within an hour.
  5. Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.

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:

X = arts · langlit (language & literature) · philrelig (philosophy & religion) · everydaylife · socsci (social sciences & society) · geography · history · engtech (engineering & technology) · natsci (natural sciences & mathematics). If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with "General" topics.

How to remove a request

In accordance with the Peer review request removal policy, you may close any

  • listings older than one month with no activity in the last two days,
  • listings inactive for two weeks (semi-automated peer reviews do not count as activity),
  • inappropriate listings,
  • articles that have become featured article or featured list candidates, and
  • nominators of peer reviews can close discussions which they initiated if they feel their concerns have been addressed,

as follows:

  1. Edit the [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archiveN]] page where the peer review discussion is taking place, and replace {{Peer review page|topic=topic name}} by {{subst:PR/archive}}.
  2. Replace the {{peerreview}} tag on the article's talk page with {{oldpeerreview|archive=N}}, where N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. 1 for /archive1).

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

  • Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment in the article's section on this page.
  • If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not use level 1–3 section headings, and do not link your username, unless you preceed it with "Comments by" or a similar expression. Also please do not add horizontal rules to peer reviews.
  • The size of this page is limited. Please do not add images to peer reviews, such as the tick/cross images in {{done}}/{{notdone}} templates. Use the non-image templates, {{done-t}}/{{not done-t}}, instead.
  • Please list automated peer reviews at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/January 2009 and link them from the peer review page of the article: do not include them on the peer review page.
  • Feel free to improve the article yourself.

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 edit guidelines


Peer review requests that have received no feedback beyond a semi-automated peer review in two weeks are archived.
The following are peer review requests at least four days old that have received no feedback:


January 3 • Ravenloft (D&D module) • Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 • Bride of Frankenstein • B-52 Stratofortress • Ipecac Recordings discography • Post Oak Mall
January 2 • William McGregor • Ringo Starr • Andrea Guarneri
January 1 • Sideshow Bob
December 31 • Alicia Keys • List of Weeds episodes • Runaways (comics)
December 29 • Rosanna Wong Yick-ming • James Whale
December 28 • United States congressional delegations from Indiana • List of 500cc/MotoGP Motorcycle World Champions
If you review one of these articles, please add {{doing}} to the peer review before your edits, and remove it from this list when done. (update list)

Contents

[edit] Arts

[edit] Avatar: The Last Airbender

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because this article was formally featured and even on the main page once, but has since fallen from grace. I would like to fix that.

Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 6 January 2009, 04:21 UTC)

[edit] Gillender Building

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because… it should be an interesting reading (I hope) but it needs third opinion, copyedit, probably more modern sources. This is a weird and, in my opinion, already comprehensive story of New York's shortest-lived skyscraper (13 years from completion to demolition). Created a week ago, copyedited by User:LilHelpa but suffered another round of expansion afterwards.

Thanks, NVO (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 5 January 2009, 10:18 UTC)

[edit] Bride of Frankenstein

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take this to featured status and need some advice on how to get it there.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 January 2009, 04:25 UTC)

[edit] Andrea Guarneri

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because… This is my first proper article, and I just want to make sure I am doing everything right. I would like to write more biographies of violin makers in the future. I realize that some pictures would be nice, and I'm working on that.

Thanks, Chickpeana (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 2 January 2009, 17:33 UTC)

[edit] Ringo Starr

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to improve all articles on The Beatles' personnel to GA status. Therefore, I would like input on how I can get this to GA status.

Thanks, Dendodge TalkContribs 15:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 2 January 2009, 15:24 UTC)

[edit] Sideshow Bob

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I'm going to take this one to FAC, hopefully by the end of the month. All comments welcome. -- Scorpion0422 21:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. I made some tense and punctuation corrections, and the format and referencing look fine. My only major comment is that sometimes the charactor and reception info is repeating the appearances info, one example being the repetition of the HMS Pinafore stalling Bob to be arrested at the very end of the Analysis section, which is already in the appearances. Reywas92Talk 03:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 1 January 2009, 21:45 UTC)

[edit] Bohemian Rhapsody

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it an FA and I would like some feedback on it before nominating. Is there anything seriously wrong? Are thee enough refs? Thanks, TopGearFreak 14:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hang on a and ask someone to copyedit it before going to FA. As I wrote some of this, the prose will be far from perfect, and some people love displaying their perceived superiority by pointing that out in aggressive terms. The JPStalk to me 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 1 January 2009, 14:05 UTC)

[edit] Discography of Final Fantasy VII

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

I'm bringing this article for a second PR in order to prepare it for a second run at FAC. Any comments to improve the article would be helpful!

Thanks for helping! --PresN 22:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The reception section is too long and should be split into subsections. Fargo of Diarmuid (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the reception information for each album should appear in their respective sections, like in List of Final Fantasy compilation albums. The legacy information can stay in its own section entitled "Legacy". I think it will be easier to read the article this way. Also, shouldn't the article be named "Discography of Compilation of Final Fantasy VII" or something similar considering it covers all the titles in the compilation and not only FFVII? The Prince (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
FFVII is not part of the Compilation of FFVII, so the current name is okay (with FFVII taken as the series rather than only the first game). Fargo of Diarmuid (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it can be called Discography of Final Fantasy VII and Compilation of Final Fantasy VII instead, because the current title implies that it's the discography of the original game. PS: I added a free use image of Uematsu in the article; I wrote "fair use" in the edit summary by mistake. The Prince (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Ugh, I'm fine with either FF7 or CoFF7, but not both together. It's hard enough to keep the term 'Final Fantasy 7' out of the article- at one point the intro had about 8 'FF7's per paragraph, as SE shoves it into every album title. I'm also not sure about moving the reception into each album- it might work, but it also would make it even more listy, and I'm trying to keep this as an article, to match the other ones. --PresN 21:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand. If you were to change it, however, it would look something like this, which IMO is a lot easier to read. If you take the article to FAC, some reviewers may complain about some of the sources used, specifically RPGFan. It was just recently removed from WP:VG/S, although a discussion about its inclusion has been initiated here. Also, why aren't the full titles of the albums in the headers, and why aren't they in italics? The Prince (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The full titles got removed during the last FAC, one of the reviewers (SandyGeorgia) objected to the repetition of 'Final Fantasy 7' in the section headings, and I de-italicized them at the same time since they weren't the full album name but rather a descriptor. Hmm... I'm tempted by the layout you proposed- that is a lot less blocky. I think I'll go with it, and try to expand the legacy section out more to make up for the loss there, if I can. As far as RPGFan... there's nothing I can do. They're video game soundtrack albums. No one reviews them except for RPGFan, Square Enix Music Online, and Soundtrack Central- and they're all right on the line between legitimate review source and fansite, with SC being definitely over the line. Even the reviews of the games tend not to mention the music. If there were any other reviews I'd gleefully accept, as I'm not looking forward to another fight about it at FAC, but I work with what I've got. --PresN 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 31 December 2008, 22:40 UTC)

[edit] List of Weeds episodes

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I've made a ton of recent and major edits to it in the hope of getting it to FL status and would like the input of others to suggest additions in content (such as if the episode leaks discussed in the main article and the faux talk show Good Morning Agrestic should be included) or make note of errors (if the ratings section needs to be re-written, if the theme song/opening sequence sections need to be extended and if the episode summaries are appropriate).

Thanks, The no erz (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 31 December 2008, 15:32 UTC)

[edit] Alicia Keys

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to ultimately take this to featured article status, but before that, good article status. In the fear of this failing it's first GAN, I brought it here instead to get feedback and any further assistance.

Thanks, DiverseMentality 01:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello -- This looks quite good. One element I'd be interested in you expanding a little is this:"Keys recorded a theme song for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. She joined Joss Stone and Jay-Z on the effort, was approached by the presidential nominee according to The Times to record a track that will serve as a theme song for his campaign.[50]" What happened to the suggestion? Ibsensgirl (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 31 December 2008, 01:21 UTC)

[edit] James Whale

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to FA status and need some guidance about where best to focus my energy on improvements. I already know it needs more references and I'm continuing to work on adding those in.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 29 December 2008, 04:54 UTC)

[edit] Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent quite a bit of time cleaning up this article and I'd like to get it to featured article status. I would like a few more pairs of eyes to take a look and give me opinions in specific things such as the prose, are there any glaring omissions, check the copy etc.

Thanks,  LinguistAtLarge  23:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Note. I've gone over the previous peer review and implemented everything mentioned there. Thanks!  LinguistAtLarge  23:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 26 December 2008, 23:42 UTC)

[edit] House (TV series)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I renewed the page and I think it's close to FA quality, but has a few things left to be taken care of. The crew section needs expansion, the DVD table needs referencing and there are problably things I have missed. All help is appreciated.

Thanks very much, --Music26/11 22:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Hm. I can't see any huge changes that need to be made. The only thing I noticed is that Cuddy and Cameron don't seem to be covered that well in the casting section. Reyk YO! 10:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While this looks fairly good, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The language is generally good but there are some places that are a bit slangy andcould be more professional / clear. Just in the lead, for example The show's premise was created by Shore, who got the idea for the curmudgeonly title character from a doctor's visit. "from a doctor's visit" is unclear - I assume it from Shore's visit to a doctor, but it sounds as if he was visited by a curmodgeonly physician. Or House received heavy critical acclaim ... is just unclear - I think it means very favorable acclaim, but am not sure. Or House is currently in its fifth season of broadcasting. should be just "As of 2009, House is in its fifth season. or perhaps The 2008-2009 season is House's fifth. Avoid "currently" as things change and "of broadcasting" was unneeded. I would get someone to copyedit this before FAC.
  • Article needs more references, for example the first and third paragraphs in Series overview have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. The third paragraph has several direct quotes without refs.
  • Since one of the interesting things about the show are story arcs over a whole season or several episodes within a season, I would mention those in the Series overview section. For example, in the drug addiction section (which I would mention in the lead), why not mention the policeman who hounded House and his associates for most of a season? Or wny not mention the winnowing of 40 candidates to the new team here? Or the Selena Ward character romance?
  • The ref here does not seem to fit - This was referred to jokingly in the season four episode "Ugly", in which a documentary crew follows Dr. House and his team throughout the episode. At one point House starts walking with his team and the camera crew follows, shooting in the "walk and talk" style. As House and his team are walking away, Dr. Foreman asks where they are going. House responds: "Walks look good on camera. They give the illusion of the story moving forward."[63] The ref appears to only be for the episode where this heappens, but saying that this is referred to here without a ref appears to be original research.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so change things like Creator David Shore won a writing Emmy in 2005 for the first season episode "Three Stories".[125] Shore also received a Humanitas Prize for the episode[126]. Actually these two sentences could be combined to something like Creator David Shore won a writing Emmy in 2005 for the first season episode "Three Stories",[125] and also received a Humanitas Prize for the episode.[126]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 December 2008, 22:44 UTC)

[edit] Lisa the Vegetarian

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I recently got it to GA status, and now I'm aiming for FA.

Thanks, TheLeftorium 10:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a couple copyedits to the article. I'm no expert, but the article looks very good to me. It is sufficiently sourced and well-written. Good luck at FAC. Reywas92Talk 03:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice, thanks for the copyedit! :) TheLeftorium 10:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This is one of my favorite episodes, and this really is a good article. The only issue I had was the sentence "Giving up meat turns out to be a controversial decision, since everyone around her, especially Homer, seems to support the eating of flesh." is nearly word for word from the Simpsons.com episode guide. That may not technically be a copyright problem since it's short (but then again it may I don't know) but in an academic paper that may be considered plagiarism since it's not cited as a source for a quote. My biggest concern is that there are more like that in the article and that is the only one I happened to open and see. No you don't generally cite things in the lead, so it's better just to reword that probably. But make sure to check anywhere else in the article in case you or someone else used your sources wording accidentally without citing it directly. Even when cited you can't use their wording unless in a quote. Also it's a shame the humor of the episode can't be shown more clearly in the article, but I'm not sure how you'd do that and stay in NPOV. You really have to watch it or go to the Wikiquote entry to see the quotes online. I'm not sure how that page isn't a copyright problem either but I'm no attorney. - Taxman Talk 01:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I reworded that sentence a bit, and I think that's the only problem like that in the article. The humor is kind of described in the reception section (and yeah, the Wikiquote page has been flagged for a review of its copyright status). —TheLeftorium 12:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 23 December 2008, 10:17 UTC)

[edit] Remember Last Night?

This peer review discussion has been closed.


I've listed this article for peer review because I think if it's not at GA status it certainly has the potential and I would like another set of eyes on it before making the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts...

  1. Can there be a brief description of "Production Code" in the lead section so the reader does not have to follow it to fully know what it means? Perhaps a small addition like "censorship guidelines".
  2. Perhaps add the film years in parentheses after the title? For example, for Bride of Frankenstein (1935)... it's not imperative, but it helps give the reader an idea of what timeline exists.
  3. "Laemmle agreed..." to "Laemmle agreed to excluding the word..."
  4. For the dates, can you add non-breaking spaces between the month and the day?
  5. For "Cast" section, do you think you could provide a brief description of each character? Something like "His Wife" is a good start... I think it gives the reader a chance to get an idea of who the actors played without actually getting into the plot detail. Again, not imperative, though. :)
  6. The article says that the film got "mixed reviews". I assume this was an assessment based on the tone of the ensuing reviews? Is there any chance of finding retrospective coverage about the overall reception? MOS:FILM#Critical reception says, "Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' general consensus of the film. These will be more reliable in retrospect." If you can't find anything, it's fine, but I think it is more accurate than trying to eyeball the approximate tone from the reviews in the article.

Hope these help! Do you feel like the well is pretty dry in terms of additional sourcing? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 22 December 2008, 22:41 UTC)

[edit] Dynamic producer

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it was once deleted for being a PR. I want it to sound less of a PR and more of an encyclopedic entry.

Thanks, Talentshout (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed much of the self-serving prose, took out unnecessary <br /> tags, and made some of the lists into prose. I noticed some reference links, which is a good start, but there's still more work needed.
Consider finding some of the actual magazines they mention, or other third-party books and websites not affiliated with the group, to ensure that the article has reliable sources. Make sure that claims in the text are verifiable, and look for both positive and negative opinions of the group in those sources to keep a neutral point of view. As Gogo Dodo mentioned on your talk page, try reading other articles—featured or good ones, if possible—about similar groups, and model it after them. Thanks, --an odd name 01:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 21 December 2008, 18:44 UTC)

[edit] Dangerously in Love

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to pass it to FAC probably before the year ends. The article has been peer reviewed once, but generated only a little feedback, though it had helped a lot. More comments are appreciated.

Thanks, Efe (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty good to me. I havn't done much FA stuff, but I think it should pass. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments on the lead
    • "Other than Knowles' musical roots, the album explores hip hop and Arabic influences, courtesy of her record producers and featured guests." This is oddly worded. At this point, those unfamiliar with Knowles will not be helped by the phrase "Knowles' musical roots". Roots in what? "Courtesy of" is vague and not the best word choice here. Having an album "explore" is a bit odd too. Perhaps a better wording might be "The album blends Knowles' musical roots in ____ with hip hop and Arabic influences."
    • "the album polarized the reaction of critics" "polarized critics" reads more natural to me than "polarized the reaction of critics"
    • "Its lyrical contents dominantly portray love" What does "dominantly portray" mean?
    • "then-former group" Not sure what this means.
    • "the album has facilitated Knowles in becoming a viable solo star, as well as one of the most marketable singers, signing to" The scope of "the most" is unclear here. If of the band, then "its most" is clearer. Otherwise, "a viable and marketable solo star" is fine. "Signing to" is a misplaced modifier.
    • "accolades, as well as favorable criticism" Accolades == favorable criticism, no?
    • "worldwide, to date" No comma needed. "to date" will become dated. State a specific date (e.g. "As of December 2008, Dangerously in Love..."). BuddingJournalist 16:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 21 December 2008, 09:19 UTC)

[edit] House's Head

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try for FAc again in some time, however there are a few things that need to be done, what I'm looking for is the following:

  • Published reviews of the episode to expand the critical reaction section (perhaps someone with a Nexis account).
  • A copy-editor who is willing to take a look at the article.
  • Someone who can prove this source is reliable, or find a reliable source to replace it.
  • Perhaps, not manditory, someone who can take a screenshot of the final scene of the episode (the bus reenactment), to replace the current image.

Any additional comments are welcome and very much appreciated.

Thanks very much, --Music26/11 17:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Unfortunately I am unable to help with any of the specifics requested above, except to point out a few rough spots in the prose (in lieu of a copyedit). Could you ask for help from WikiProject Television on any of these? I think this is pretty well done. Very briefly, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

  • Be consistent about referring to characters. Why is it "Dr. Gregory House" and "Dr. James Wilson" on first mention, but "Dr. Chase" (why not "Dr. Robert Chase") and oddest of all just "Amber Volakis" (why not "Dr. Amber Volakis")?
  • I would say more about Fred Durst's casting as the bartender - provide context for the reader (not everyone knows who he is or it is surprising that he acted well). Any reason for this "stunt casting" (is he a big fan of the show? friend of the producers)?
  • This paragraph seems roughest During the preparations for the bus crash, the whole sequence was storyboarded.[12] Greg Yaitanes described stunt-coordinator Jim Vickers as "crucial" for the filming of this sequence.[5] The bus crash scene was filmed interior using a big spinning wheel (which Anne Dudek referred to as a "gadget").[12] This gadget was mainly the back of the bus, and could be turned 360 degrees to increase the authenticity of the scene.[5] For the rest of the bus, a greenscreen was used that surrounded the complete outside of the bus.[5] The shots involving Anne Dudek, were filmed at another time, using light effects and people acting like they are in a bus crash in the otherwise motionless gadget.[12]
    • I find it distracting to refer to it as the gagdget throughout - why not call it "a set" or "the bus set"?
    • I would link storyboard
    • I am really not sure what this means The bus crash scene was filmed interior using a big spinning wheel (which Anne Dudek referred to as a "gadget").[12] Perhaps it owuld read better as The interior of the bus during the crash scene was filmed using a bus set mounted in a large wheel which could spin as needed (which Anne Dudek referred to as a "gadget").[12]
    • The next sentence could then be something like This special set was essentially the back of the bus, and could be rotated 360 degrees to authentically mimic a rolling bus crash for the scene.[5]
    • The last sentence could then be something like The shots involving Anne Dudek were filmed at another time, using light effects and people acting as if they were in a bus crash in the otherwise motionless special set.[12]
  • The awards section is also unclear to me - I am not sure what it means that various people submitted the episode on their behalf for various Emmy nominations. Is this just those "For your consideration" ads that appear in trade papers? This needs to be made clearer. Again, WP:PCR

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 20 December 2008, 17:45 UTC)

[edit] White Lies (band)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.
    • All possible solutions to problems stated in automated peer review have been dealt with. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 02:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently passed as a Good Article and I feel it can do the same with Featured Article. One of the steps on the road to GA is a peer review, so I'd like someone to have a look and see if they can give me a second opinion.

Thanks, SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 19:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Sillyfolkboy
  • You should signify that "Young and Lost Club" is a label (I presume it is?). At the moment it isn't very clear.
  • Mention when they decided upon the name "Fear of Flying". It's strange that the first time you mention the name it is to say that they disbanded.
    • This one's a bit of a difficult one, I've scoured the internet and can't find any mention of why they were named this. Any ideas on what should be done? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This sentence is very brief and seems a little out of context:
    • "They cited Talking Heads as a major influence."
  • Is there anything else interesting you can add to this or can you link it up with one of the other sentences?
    • I've moved the sentence to "Musical style", do you think this is a better place for it? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed, without any connecting prose expanding upon the band's influence, it's best to place it with the other musical influences. Sillyfolkboy (talk)
  • "Playing under the new name": say "Playing under their new moniker" for a bit of language variation
  • Any idea when they began sessions for their new album?
  • Has the "To Lose My Life" video been shown elsewhere? e.g. MTV etc
    • Fixed - added note about MTV Two and NME. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Is there an NME television station or something? It's just that if you're taking it from the website you should know they import videos direct from Youtube sometimes so it may not be notable. I know from the strange experience of finding my own live performances there. Sillyfolkboy (talk)
      • NME does have its own television station yes, i wouldn't say they made direct imports from YouTube though; they often have NME exclusive videos played, implying that it is their own content. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 02:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • When did White Lies sign for their record label? Their record label should also be mentioned in the lead.
    • Fixed - Mentioned in lead, still looking for exact date of signing. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Referencing: Remember that you should add publication dates and authors to the references. For a quick example:
<ref name="Ealing Times">{{cite web|title=Ealing band are critics favourite with 2009 album|url=http://www.ealingtimes.co.uk/news/localnews/3984584.White_Lies_tipped_for_success_in_2009/|publisher=''[[Ealing Times]]''|accessdaymonth=17 December|accessyear=2008}}</ref>
  • Should actually be:
<ref name="Ealing Times">{{cite web|last=Hayes|first=Alex| title=Ealing band are critics favourite with 2009 album|url=http://www.ealingtimes.co.uk/news/localnews/3984584.White_Lies_tipped_for_success_in_2009/|publisher=''[[Ealing Times]]''|date=17 December 2008|accessdaymonth=22 December|accessyear=2008}}</ref>
  • Also, add the Young and Lost redlink into the citation it first appears in.
  • I would strongly recommend that you do not take this article to WP:Featured Article Candidates now. The reason I say this is that the band have done so little so far and in three/six months time this article will probably include twice as much information (album release/tour etc). I suggest that you hold off nominating this for FA until the first album is fully released and toured, at the very least. However, this is not a criticism of the article in anyway, merely that it will be so much more informative, in depth, and interesting when the band has done more. Even Nirvana would do little to excite a reader if the article covered just the career up to their first single. A thoroughly covered album release will help put the scope of the article in perspective. I hope you've found my comments helpful. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Wednesday 17 December 2008, 19:58 UTC)

[edit] Sindhu Bhairavi

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because… this article is awaiting a GA review for a long time. I have taken this article from a stub to B-class and want to see it as a GA. But the problem is the scope of improvement for this article. This article has all the information available on the net. But I am afraid of it being turned down as a GA as it lacks production and reception information. I need someone to help me pass this article as a GA

Thanks, Bharathprime (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments: The prose is a major problem in the article and it needs attention throughout. Here are some of many examples of poor writing:

  • How the situation gets relaxed and the singer comes around forms the climax of the film. Does this mean. "The solution to the singer's problems forms the climax of the film."
  • A Carnatic Music genius, JKB (Sivakumar) is married to Bhairavi (Sulakshana), a loyal and loving wife, but one who is not able to satisfy or challenge him intellectually and is grieved due to her inability to beget an offspring. - Try "JKB (Sivakumar) is a gifted carnatic musician but his wife Bhairavi (Sulakshana), despite her love and loyalty, fails to satisfy or challenge him. For JKB, this, and her inabilty to have children, is a problem."
  • a Tambura musician who is penchant of speaking lies. try "compulsive liar".
  • Tuned the music is not idiomatic. Graham Colm Talk 17:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 16 December 2008, 04:24 UTC)

[edit] Dubstep

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it had one a while back, but it has expanded a bit since. I'd just like to see what wikipedians in general think needs improvement, because it's not too far off FA, really. Sometimes enthusiasts are a bit too close to articles to spot things that are obvious to a more general audience.

Thanks, Kaini (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I qualify as an outsider and general reader who knows almost nothing of the subject. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The most difficult thing for a total outsider to comprehend might be the unfamiliar jargon. A lot of terms in the article are wikilinked, which is good. I think it would be possible for a newcomer to get a kind of quick musical education by carefully reading this article. Even so, it would be helpful to a newbie to see even more of the terms explained or spelled out on first use. "Scene" is an example of this kind of jargon. Scene (community) do it, but another option would be to include a brief explanation of the term in the main text. Other terms that not every reader will understand are "B-side", "jungle nights", "pirate station", 12"s, "underground hard graft", and "mix CD". As you look through this with the general reader in mind, you might think of an audience of grandmothers and grandfathers familiar with "bass" and "octave" but not "grime" or "jungle".
  • A copyedit by an outside editor would probably catch and fix small things such as the use of "drum 'n' bass" in one place and "drum and bass" in another, the use of the archaic "whilst" instead of the modern "while", and the incorrect placement of reference numbers before punctuation instead of after.
  • I'd think about expanding the lead to include at least a mention of some of the musicians and main venues. The existing lead is a bit thin.
  • This sentence in the lead is too complex: "Dubstep started to spread beyond small local scenes in late 2005 and early 2006, with many websites devoted to the genre appearing on the Internet and thus aiding the growth of the scene, such as dubstepforum, the download site Barefiles and blogs such as gutterbreakz." You might re-organize it something like this: "Dubstep started to spread beyond small local scenes in late 2005 and early 2006. Devoted to the genre, websites such as dubstepforum, the download site Barefiles, and blogs such as gutterbreakz aided the growth of the scene."
  • Abbreviations such as "bpm" should be spelled out on first use, like this: beats per minute (bpm). It can then be abbreviated on subsequent use without spelling it out. Another example: disk jockey (DJ). Another: Master of Ceremonies (MC). Another: microphone (mic).
  • Many of the citations are incomplete and should be fixed. A general rule of thumb is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date. It's not always possible to find an author name or a date of publication, but you should include as much of this data as you can.

I hope you find these brief comments to be helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 13 December 2008, 22:49 UTC)

[edit] Kirsten Dunst

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature article status. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • My Review

Upon review of your article and consultation of the criteria at WP:FA? IMO your article meets most of those. It was in my opinon at least as good as the published biographies which it's information was gleaned from, and far more complete. Therefore I have no reservations about upgrading this article to A level status. I will not nominate this for Featured Article status. I leave that up to you. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments

  • I agree this looks pretty good, but think it needs a copyedit for minor polish.
  • For example Dunst began her career as a child fashion model at the age of three in television commercials.[3][6] might read better as Dunst began her career at the age of three as a child fashion model in television commercials.[3][6]
    • Done.
  • Or there seems to be a missing word in The film received generally unfavorable reviews,[12] but every critic had praise Dunst's [for?] performance; ...
    • I think I got it.
  • Or here, surely by now we know not only the opening weekend box office, but also the total: The film earned $114,844,116 during its opening weekend.[20]?
    • Fixed.
  • My only oither comment would be to add some more on critical reviews of her work to the lead

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ink Runner comments

  • Like Ruhrfisch said, the article looks pretty good; there doesn't appear to be anything that would break it at FAC. That being said, there are some minor comments:
  • In the "Years Active" section of the infobox, you use a hyphen. I'm pretty sure it should be an en dash (–).
    • Has been added.
  • "The film received generally good reviews" (This is a very, very nitpicky comment, but) some might construe this to mean that the reviews were of good quality, not that the reviewers found the movie to be good. Change to "favorable reviews" perhaps?
    • Done.
  • In the section about Jumanji do "jungle" and "dice" have to be wikilinked? Arguably, they should be familiar to most readers of the article, and they're not directly relevant to an article about Kirsten Dunst, methinks.
    • Removed; I "copied" the info. from the movie's article, thus having the wikilinks.
  • "who plays a hotshot on his way back down, during the Wimbledon Championships." "Hotshot" is slang, so is there another way to describe Bettany's character?
    • I've had a hard time trying to write this out. Do you think you can help?
      • I'm not acquainted with the movie, so maybe "hotshot" is the best way to describe Bettany's character. The best solution I can think of is to put "hotshot" in quotation marks—but this would only work if a reliable source (like one of the reviews for the movie) used that word (since all quotes have to be sourced). If no reliable source uses that word, then you might have to find a non-slang replacement in a thesaurus or something.
        • How 'bout that he was once a great tennis player, but now is fading as an athlete. IDK, something like that. Because the premise of the movie is that she's a rising star and he's going down as one.
          • I think that would work well, too.
            • Alright, I'll try to write that out.
              • I added this ---> "In 2004, she appeared in the romantic comedy Wimbledon (2004), a film which stars Dunst as a rising tennis player opposite Paul Bettany, who plays as a fading tennis athlete, during the Wimbledon Championships", don't know if it helps.
                • That sounds good, but I have just a suggestion: "...Wimbledon (2004), a film in which she plays a rising tennis player in the Wimbledon Championships opposite Paul Bettany, who plays a fading former tennis star."
                  • Your suggestion is better than mine.
  • You write that Elizabethtown was "panned with mixed reviews". According to Dictionary.com, "panned" means "criticized severely", but doesn't "mixed reviews" mean that the movie earned favorable ones too? Perhaps change to "garnered mixed reviews"?
    • Done.
  • "Dunst's next film role was in the 2006 biographical film Marie Antoinette. The film is adapted from Antonia Fraser’s book Marie Antoinette: The Journey. In the film, her second with director Sofia Coppola, Dunst plays the title character." -> "Dunst's next film role was the title character in the 2006 biographical film Marie Antoinette. The film, adapted from Antonia Fraser's book Marie Antoinette: The Journey was Dunst's second with director Sofia Coppola". IMO, that just seems to flow better. But it's a matter of opinion, I guess.
    • Done.
  • "but every film critic complimented Dunst's performance" Without a reference, this might be challenged, especially since there aren't any qualifiers attached to it. Maybe use Rottentomatoes or some movie-review aggregate site as a ref?
    • Well, that movie wasn't one of her "biggest" films. So, would it be a good idea to remove the sentence?
      • I think it's all right to include the reviews, but just don't say that "every" film critic complimented the performance, because FAC reviewers might point out that the only way to verify that claim is to link to every single review of the film. So change it to "many critics" or "most critics complimented ..." Again, Rottentomatoes or some aggregate review site might serve as a ref here.
        • Rotten Tomatoes doesn't provide any critical review, just how critics rated the movie.
          • Rottentomatoes has links to the reviews though, right? I mean that would be easier than citing each review individually.
            • Actually, I have the Metacritic source for the reviews and stuff.
              • Okay then.
  • "the San Francisco Chronicle in review of the film, noted: "Dunst beautifully balances innocence and wantonness."" -> "San Francisco Chronicle critic Peter Stack noted in his review that Dunst "beautifully ..."
    • Done.
  • "On her father's side, Dunst is of German descent[4] and on her mother's side, is of Swedish descent.[5]" The MoS prefers that footnotes be put after punctuation, so move footnote [4] to the end of the sentence.
    • Done.

Brianboulton comments: There are numerous (mainly minor) prose, punctuation and structure issues to be resolved before the article goes to FAC. So far I have only got as far as the "Early work" subsection:

  • In the lead
    • Any reason why the pronunciation is in a footnote? This doesn't appear to be the normal practice; also, is this really necessary, given that the pronunciation seems quite straightforward?
      • When I started working on the article the pronunciation was there and I left it alone. But, since it has been brought up, I've removed it.
    • In the first paragraph you mention the 1994 role that "brought her widespread recognition". In the next paragraph you say she "became well-known" after being cast in the Spider-man films, which didn't happen until 2002. I'd say she was pretty well-known before 2002, and the later text of your article bears this out. It might be more appropriate to say that the Spider-man role "brought her international recognition" or something like that, rather than just making her well-known.
      • Done.
    • "She will next star in the 2009 films..." This time-specific sentence will soon be out of date. It should be possible to rephrase it so it won't have to be changed in the next few months, e.g.: "She has accepted leading roles in the 2009 films All Good Things and Sweet Relief.
      • Done.
    • Clumsy sentence: "In 2008, Dunst admitted that she was suffering from depression and checked herself into rehab, and discharged herself in March 2008." The punctuation and the repetition make awkward reading, and "rehab" is colloquial. Suggested rephrase: "Early in 2008 Dunst admitted that she was suffering from depression. She checked into a treatment centre, discharging herself in March and resuming her career."
      • Done.
  • Early life
    • Why discuss her parents in the past tense? Assuming both are living and haven't taken up new vocations, "was" can become "is" on each occasion.
      • Well, the fact that they are no longer working the jobs that are mentioned, thus "was" being mentioned.
    • Avoid the repetition of "descent" in the second sentence of the first paragraph. It could be rephrased: "Dunst is of German descent on her father's side, and Swedish on her mother's."
      • Done.
    • There are too many commas in the first sentence of the second paragraph. At least lose the one after "younger brother"
      • I think I got it.
    • "...to continue in her acting career" – "in" is redundant
      • Has been removed.
  • Early work
    • Lose comma after "age of eight"
      • Done.
    • "anthology film" – "film" is redundant
      • Removed.
    • A comma is required after (1990)
      • Has been added.
    • You need to have a clearer idea about what constitutes her "early work". From what you have said in the article, 1994 seems a reasonable cut-off point for the early part of her career, before her "widespread recognition". But in this Early work section you also mention her 1997 role in Kiki's Delivery Service, and some undated ER appearances which I guess were some time after 1994. I notice that the next section, "Critical success", begins with 1994; if you are extending her early work to, say, 1997, then some of this Critical success material belongs in Early work.
      • No, that was my bad, I totally forgot to fix that part; I added the films to the correct section.

I will try and continue this prose review, as time allows. Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have been a while, but I'm back now

  • Critical success
    • It's not a good idea to start a new section with "She..." I realise that both the previous sections have begun with "Dunst...", so we have to be a bit creative. How about: "The breakthrough role in Dunst's career came..."?
      • Done.
    • Sorry, but what does "Brad had cooties" mean? Is there a Brit-Eng equivalent that we poor islanders might understand?
      • See here; It means that back when she was 10 she was asked how if "felt" being kissed by Pitt and she telling the media that he had a "fictitious disease or condition", a term used by children.
        • I have wikilinked the term, for the benefit of non-North American readers
          • Alright, cool.
    • A comma is required after "Torrance Shipman", but not after "2000". Thus the sentence begins: "In 2008 she played Torrance Shipman, ..." etc
      • Done.
    • Delete the "while" at the beginning of the Jessica Winter section. It wrecks the grammar.
      • Removed.
  • Spider-Man and after
    • To avoid repetition, in the 4th paragraph I suggest that the second "reviews" is changed to "reception"
      • Done.
    • "...her highest grossing film to date" – it's that time-specific thing again; when is "to date"? It would be better to say something like "to the end of 2008"
      • Done.
    • Lose the comma after "she would do it"
      • Done.
    • "five-year struggle" needs a hyphen
      • Has been added.
    • "and later revealing" - no "and" necessary
      • Removed.
    • In the lead, you referred to All Good Things as a future project for 2009. Here, it seems she has already completed the film and is awaiting its release. The two accounts need to be consistent with each other.
      • Filming ended in July 2008 and its expected to be released in 2009. Also, I added this ---> "She has accepted a supporting role in All Good Things", don't know if it helps out or not.
        • It doesn't really - in fact, it contradicts the lead statement, which describes her role in All Good Things as "leading". My suggestion is to say "She played a leading role in All Good Things, to be released in 2009,..." etc
          • Done.
  • Personal life: two successive sentences in second paragraph start with "However". see if you can lose one of them.
    • I did; "They ended their relationship later that year".

My reading has been a bit hurried because of pressure of things, but this looks potentially a decent article. I'd quite like to read it again, in a few days time when you've made the necessary changes and when things have slowed down for me – assuming the PR is still open by then. Good luck anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 12 December 2008, 00:08 UTC)

[edit] Language and literature

[edit] Runaways (comics)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because with a lot of work, I feel it can be built into a good article. It will also be a first for Wiki- a main comic book article as a GA. However, since I have no examples to look at but GA comic book characters, I might need some help and other opinions.

Thanks in advance, -- A talk/contribs 18:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 31 December 2008, 18:54 UTC)

[edit] Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because at this point it has all the content it needs to cover the topic in summary style. It is also well cited. Please provide constructive feedback on style, grammar, prose and presentation to improve the article.

Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore/archive1.

(Peer review added on Monday 29 December 2008, 17:36 UTC)

[edit] Everyday life

[edit] List of Copa Libertadores winners

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on how to improve the list. Thanks in advance for your comments, NapHit (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 6 January 2009, 20:08 UTC)

[edit] Post Oak Mall

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get feedback on what else the article may need and how its progressed so far before attempting a GA or FA nomination. Its well-sourced, but is it well-structured? Well-written? Comprehensive? Etc.

Thanks, -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 January 2009, 23:14 UTC)

[edit] Ipecac Recordings discography

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I'm listing this article for peer review as I think it could go to WP:FLC. There's only one other record-label discography at featured-status, so it would be nice to set a precedent. Any and all advice, help, and criticism is greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 January 2009, 22:44 UTC)

[edit] Ravenloft (D&D module)

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it up to FA-Class and would like some more comments before nominating it. It does have a previous FAC archived here, and I think that I've resolved everything mentioned there.

Thanks, -Drilnoth (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 January 2009, 01:59 UTC)

[edit] William McGregor

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


When this article was passed at GAN, the passing editor said he hoped to see it soon as FAC, but I didn't do anything about that at the time. I'd now be interested to know if people feel there's enough meaty content to merit an FAC, and if so whether there's any further little tweaks need to be made......

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 2 January 2009, 10:50 UTC)

[edit] Yip Pin Xiu

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


This article is about a Singaporean swimmer with muscular dystrophy, who won two medals and set two world records at the 2008 Summer Paralympics. My goal is for this article to attain GA status. Please look through the article and point out any and all issues that would prevent the article from attaining GA status. I am particularly concerned about prose and BLP issues. Note that due to systemic bias, referenced information on Singapore-related topics is scarce.

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Great job! This is a very nice article and would definitely pass GA. My only comments are that for the external links only her bio on the Team Singapore is needed, not the link to its homepage, and that, only if possible, all the references to news articles be external linked to the article. This article is complete and well-reference, and I hope you continue to do the same to other Singapore-related articles! Reywas92Talk 03:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Major broadsheets in Singapore have a archive limit for up to 7 days by paid subscription and then completely removed. In this case, the articles are obtained using professional news retrieval services by query, which is session-based (making it impossible to link to). - Mailer Diablo 05:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
For the reasons outlined by Mailer diablo, links to references are not always available. The removal of the unnecessary external link has been done. I will certainly continue to counter systemic bias by improving Singapore-related articles and getting them to GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Model articles are useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several female athlete FAs that may be useful models includimg Susianna Kentikian and Nellie Kim
    Noted I will read those FAs for some pointers. Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The article should have an image in the upper right corner per the MOS
    Not done I could try uploading one, but it would quickly get deleted by the anti-fair use brigade. Thankfully the GA criteria do not require images. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    I would move the team image with her in it to the lead, but as you note it is not a GA requirement. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    To be honest, I think that image looks awful and the article would be better without an image, but Jacklee wants it to stay in the article, so... --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Articles are not required to have an infobox, but the model articles all do.
    Not done because the article is so short, but if she stays at the top for a few more years, an infobox probably will be added. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Numbers ten and under are generally spelled out (though not times) so spell "first" (not "1st"), etc.
    Done I believe the "1st" was part of the event name, but have decided to replace it with "2005". By the way, 11 and 12 (her ages when she lost her ability to walk and started competitive swimming respectively) are greater than ten, but would spelling them out be a good idea? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    Whatever you do, I would be consistent - I think if you spell out eleven and twelve throughout it would be fine. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    Done Spelled (or should that be spelt?) out the numbers. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Any chance for her actual birthday and not just the year?
    Not done There was a discussion about this, with a consensus that we should exclude her birthday due to BLP concerns, especially considering that she is a minor and not a public figure. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    OK, presumably when she turns 18 her birthday would be included in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    Maybe I could ask Jacklee (who is a lawyer) at what age Singaporeans are no longer considered minors (if I remember correctly, it is 21). If she stays at the top for several more years and other reliable sources publish her birthday, we can then consider including it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Some places do not give the year(s) at all and probably should, like For three consecutive years, she won the Sportsgirl of the Year Award by the Singapore Disability Sports Council.[2] and After successes in national championships, Yip participated in the 1st Asia Paralympics Swimming Championship, netting two gold medals.[2] Other places give the year information twice, only once is needed, such as The following year, she won three gold medals at the Japan Paralympic Swimming Championships 2007 and four gold medals at the World Wheelchair and Amputee Games 2007.[2] Why not just In 2007 she won three gold medals at the Japan Paralympic Swimming Championships and four gold medals at the World Wheelchair and Amputee Games.[2]?
    Done Great suggestions! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Article has a lot of red links - not required that they go away for GA, but it looks nicer ;-)
    Noted with suggestion I will keep the red links to Patricia Valle (she won a Paralympic gold medal) and the regional/international championships, which are probably notable (but without articles due to systemic bias). Do you think I should remove the red links to the national sports councils and Project 0812, which may not be notable? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    I think even a stub helps - I am not an expert on this, but if you are not sure they are notable, then I would not have red link on the topic. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    Done Some redlinks removed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I would provide context and briefly explain the S catcgories in S5 to the S3 category
    Noted with suggestion How about changing "S3 category for the physically disabled" in the lead to "S3 category (disability class)"? Alternatively, I could change "S3 category for the physically disabled" in the lead, and the instance of "S3 category" you mentioned, to "S3 disability class". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    I was unclear - I would explain here that S3 is more disabled than S5. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    Done Added brief explanation in brackets. Though not completely accurate (S11-S13 are for visually impaired athletes), I think it will suffice. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; it was very helpful! Do tell me what you think of my suggestions. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
You are very welcome, keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure! I'll keep writing GAs. When my next GA-to-be goes on PR in about three weeks, I will know who to ping. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 1 January 2009, 16:38 UTC)

[edit] List of 500cc/MotoGP Motorcycle World Champions

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because after working hard on the list over the pat few weeks I feel it is close to meeting all featured list criteria, hopefully any kinks can be ironed out here. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 28 December 2008, 16:04 UTC)

[edit] List of Puerto Rican boxing world champions

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


This list has been a pet project of mine for several months. After expanding, sourcing and requesting help from users that are more familiar with these champions, I'm bringing it before the community for consideration in order to prepare for a future FL nomination. Thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: A very good choice of list for the encyclopedia; I doubt an equivalent exists anywhere else. However:-

  • I am wondering what is the reason for the date format (e.g. 2000-05-06) that you have used in the main table? Why are these dates wikilnked? In the smaller "Current champions" list you use standard, unlinked date format.
  • Assuming that these main table dates are when these boxers won their titles (and the column heading in the table should make this clear), why are there different dates for Daniel Santos and for Ivan Calderon in the Current champions table?
  • Hector Comacho appears in the Current champions list but I can't find him in the main list.
  • I have glanced at the prose. I think this is going to need some considerable attention, as there are some strange phrases and grammatical constructions. And "reglamentation"? You need to persuade a sharp copyeditor to give all the prose a good going-over.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 28 December 2008, 03:54 UTC)

[edit] Real Madrid C.F.

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be a featured article as it deserves (in my opinion).

Thanks, Hadrianos1990 18:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)

Firstly I'd like to say this article is not up to FA standard, I think you should spend some time reading the criteria, and adjust the article accordingly, instead of prematurely nominating the article for featured status when it is miles off.

Lead
  • football should be changed to association football so non European based readers can differentiate between americn football and association football.
  • Why is Spain not linked in the lead?
  • change "most effective" to "most successful" also change "it holds the record as" to "They are the"
  • No need for references in the lead if they are referenced later on
  • The second paragraph doesn't fit together too well, probably because the sentences start with "In ..." try and make this part more interesting, there is also a lot of POV in there
  • Third and fourth paragraphs are a little bare, maybe add it more
History
  • "This club split in 1900 into two different clubs:" change to "It split into two clubs in 1900:
  • "Only three years after its foundation" - only is redundant
  • "Madrid FC won its first official title in the history of the club after defeating Athletic Bilbao..." change to "Madrid FC won its first title after defeating Athletic Bilbao..."
  • "The team won the first of four consecutive Copa del Rey titles (at that time the only statewide competition)." this seems to have just been added an does not fit in, try and work it in better
  • You use the same reference three or four times in this par, just leave the last instance and remove the first three
  • "After moving among some minor grounds, in 1912, the team settled at the ground that came to be called "Campo de O'Donnell". change to "After moving between grounds the team moved to the "Campo de O'Donnell" in 1912."
  • "Real Madrid had leading the first edition until the last match of the season, but a loss to Athletic Bilbao at San Mamés kept Madrid from winning the title. They had to settle for runner-up, just one point behind Barcelona." change to "Real Madrid lead the first edition until the last match, a loss to Athletic Bilbao meant they finished runners-up to Barcelona."

This is just the first two paragraphs and yet I have found numerous mistakes so I will refrain from reviewing the rest, one comment though is that you use to many first party refs, I would be tempted to use more refs from third parties and books

Crest
  • "The first crest of Real Madrid had a simple design. It consisted of a decorative interlacing of the three initials of the club, "MCF" for Madrid Club de Fútbol, in dark blue on a white shirt." merge into one sentence
  • I would merge the colours and crest into one paragraph and remove the able of sponsors it is not needed.

This is just a few pointers I might give the article a copyedit at some point, until then good luck. NapHit (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 27 December 2008, 18:53 UTC)

[edit] Oba Chandler

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article is on the verge of becoming a good article and a future Featured article it just needs that last push. I would like for it get an overall review in search of improvements and I would also like those who want to,to contribute with fixing the sources and perhaps find better sources for some parts of the article. So that we soon can get this article up for featured article nomination again. Thanks, --Judo112 (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

{ Comments from Brianboulton

This article needs very considerable attention. Sadly, it is not on the verge of becoming a good article, and has no chance of getting promoted unless some very basic things are done.

  • First, the article needs to be structured properly. At the moment there are far too many very short sections (some of just a single sentence). A rational restructuring would organise the main text after the lead into perhaps four sections, as follows:-
    • Background, comprising the sections presently entitled "Facts leading up to the crime", "Speculation about the crime itself" and "The discovery of the bodies".
    • Investigation, consisting of the sections presently called "Subsequent investigation", "Facts that lead (led?) to Chandler" and "Witnesses for the prosecution"
    • Trial, consisting of "Chandler's testimony" and "Verdict and sentencing"
    • Media coverage: this section will need attention, but for the moment can stand on its own.
  • The bullet-point list headed "Features and background" should disappear, with the facts it lists being absorbed into the appropriate main sections, mainly "Background" and "Investigation".
  • I have not looked at this stage at the quality of the sources, but every single in-line citation needs to be properly formatted. Go to WP:citation templates to learn the correct format; it is the "cite web" template you need. If you can't work out from that what you need to do, look at other articles and see how they do it.
  • You probably need to familiarise yourself more with the Manual of Style WP:MOS, to improve your grasp of general presentation issues.

Until the above matters are attended to, I don't see much point in commenting on the prose, but if you're prepared to tackle the above I'll be happy to look at the prose and perhaps suggests ways of improving it.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 26 December 2008, 15:34 UTC)

[edit] Glengoyne Distillery

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked on the article to bring it from this to the current revisions and would like help getting the article assessed.

Thanks, Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 02:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Casliber

  • Gawd, these never arrive at a good time! Article is pretty short.
  • References always come at the end of a sentence or after a comma.
  • No need to link really gnereric things like nineteenth century, keep it for rare/specific things.
  • It is reputed to be the most beautiful distillery in Scotland. - erm..by who? Bit peacocky. Needs to be neutral-sounding.
  • Need to talk about the products produced. Are they highly rated? Have they won awards? How does the taste compare with other whiskeys?
  • Once some more comprehensiveness issues are dealt with, the prose can be worked on. I noted some stuff but have to run now. More later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I just thought of what I wanted to say - the idea of writing to avoid peacocky terms is that a reader shouldn't be able to tell what the writer thinks of the whiskey. It should sound as if they are neutrally reporting other sources positive comments. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Problems fixed image:smile.svg Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 18:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Update - much much better. Make sure all the images have proper fair use templates. I am too tired to do much tonight but I know someone who will. I need to sleep! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 26 December 2008, 02:59 UTC)

[edit] Darren Matthews

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because i want to improve the article as much as possible so that for the time being it can be listed as a good article, with the ultimate target of FA standard. All comments made will be much appreciated.

Thanks, Eddie6705 (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean, refer to those articles on how the prose should look like for this article if you want to nominate it for GA. WP:PROSE explains what a prose is, which literally refers to the wording. OOU means "Out-Of-Universe," which is the view from which this article should be written. So use the above articles as suggestions on how to reword and write a quality article.--Truco 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Nikki
  • First, I'd take care of the cleanup tag at the top of the article by adding additional reliable sources. Books would be best.
  • There especially needs to be some non-WWE sources.
  • WP:JARGON: wrestling terms like "heel", "face", or "turn" need to be substituted for words a non-fan would understand like "hero" or "villain"
  • More personal information would be essential to achieve a FA.
  • There are too many headers.
  • WP:LEAD: the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not list every championship he has held.
  • I've added some fact tags where the information is a quote, stat, or possibly controversial.
  • There is a lot of week-by-week detail that needs to be removed, especially in the later years.

I crossed off a few that I fixed (at least to a degree) while I was copyediting just now. Nikki♥311 01:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 25 December 2008, 16:14 UTC)

[edit] List of number-one singles from the 1990s (UK)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because, having completely re-formatted it, added images and a proper lead, etc, I'd like to know if there's anything else I might need to do before I put it up for FLC.

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review by User:Darth Panda Following WP:WIAFL, as per your request.

  • Prose.
  • Check your comma usage.
  • "During the 1990s record companies began making singles available to radio stations much further in advance of their release dates and making greater use of direct marketing techniques, as a result of which the number of singles entering the charts at number 1 increased dramatically, and it became commonplace for singles to enter the charts at the top and then plummet down the listing soon afterwards." -> "During the 1990s, record companies began making singles available to radio stations much further in advance of their release dates and making greater use of direct marketing techniques. As a result, of which the number of singles entering the charts at number 1 increased dramatically, and it became commonplace for singles to enter the charts at the top and then plummet down the listing soon afterwards."
  • I didn't copyedit very thoroughly, but I doubt there are all that many more errors anyways.
  • Lead.
  • No issues.
  • Comprehensiveness.
  • Not that I would know, but it looks fine to me.
  • Structure.
  • You definitely want to enable table sort for your two right-most columns.
  • Though a table of contents is not automatically added, you might want to force it to appear.
  • Style.
  • Since you have only eight refs in your reflist, <references /> is preferred over {{reflist}}.
  • Visual Appeal.
  • Many of those images are unnecessary, but I don't really know what I'd replace it with...
  • Stability.
  • No issues.

Cheers, and best of luck! DARTH PANDAduel 22:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


Comment from Jameboy: I'd expect to see some kind of links to enable me to quickly jump to the equivalent lists for the 1980s and 2000s, but I can't see any. I don't know if there is a template like "this is the next/previous article in the sequence", if not then maybe link via a See also section? Jameboy (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just discovered the Next and Previous templates, but they seem a bit clunky and don't seem to be widely used. Not sure what else is available. --Jameboy (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Cheers for the comments, gents! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 22 December 2008, 13:07 UTC)

[edit] List of Spanish football champions

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like ideas on how to improve the list. The red links will disappear eventually when I get round to creating the articles. Thanks, NapHit (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review by User:Darth Panda Following WP:WIAFL, which is what I assume you are going for.

  • Prose.
  • The sentences in the lead are mostly run-ons and/or incomplete.
  • "The Spanish football champions are the winners of the highest league in Spanish football, namely La Liga, it is also referred to as the Primera División." -> "The Spanish football champions are the winners of La Liga, or the Primera División, the highest league in Spanish football."
  • "The league was cancelled from 1936–37 to 1938–39 due to the Spanish Civil War." -> "The league was canceled between 1936 and 1939 due to the Spanish Civil War."
  • "The league was first established in 1929, comprising of ten teams, at its peak the league contained 22 teams, this was during the 1995–96 season." -> "The league, first established in 1929, originally contained ten teams. At its peak during the 1995-96 season, it fielded twenty-two teams."
  • "Of the ten clubs that founded the league only Real Madrid, Barcelona and Athletic Bilbao have not been relegated, since its inception in 1929."
  • "No other club has won the title on more than nine occasions, with the most recent club outside of Real Madrid and Barcelona to win the league is Valencia in the 2003–04 season." -> Information seems extraneous.
  • "Athletic Bilbao have won the Spanish version of The Double the most, winning the league and cup five times in their history." -> "Athletic Bilbao has won the Spanish version of The Double the most, having won the league and cup five times in its history."
  • "No Spanish team has won The Treble, which includes winning the European Cup as well as the league and cup. although a number of clubs have come close." -> "No Spanish team has won The Treble, which includes the European Cup in addition to winning the league and the cup, although a number of clubs have come close."
  • Lead.
  • No issues.
  • Comprehensiveness.
  • Perhaps a note should be made about why there isn't any data for 1936-1939 in the graph itself (in addition to in the lead)?
  • Structure.
  • Placement of key is a bit odd.
  • For the "Total Titles Won" section, it might be good to give the place of each team (i.e. another column with 1st, 2nd, etc.)
  • Style.
  • No issues.
  • Visual Appeal.
  • For your references, instead of using {{es icon}}, you can set the language as part of the {{cite web}} template.
  • The image is just a bunch of trophies. I don't know if your average reader would be able to connect them with Spanish football, so I wonder if there exists a better picture of just one trophy so it shows the lettering?
  • Stability.
  • No issues.

Cheers, and best of luck! DARTH PANDAduel 01:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 13 December 2008, 21:13 UTC)

[edit] Ozzie Smith

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I feel this article needs one more full peer review before it is submitted to FAC again. I've nitpicked this article for the past year, and I'd like a fresh set of eyes to point out suggestions to style/formatting, neutral point of view compliance, and grammar/sentence structure.

Thanks, Monowi (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Just a couple more comments on things I noticed. It does look much better than the last time. Sorry if it seems a little more boring, but NPOV has to be a little more boring than sports copy I guess. One thing is can you add just a little more explaining the semi pro playing in the summer of 76? For one, how did that not affect his NCAA eligibility? Was that less strict back then? For another, can you check and clarify the timing of his college years? If he started in 74-75 then 75-76 would be his sophomore year, but it seems to imply he came back for his senior year after that summer. Second thing is can you add just a bit to the first paragraph in Post-playing career just to make the prose flow together better. Perhaps some more context on the show or how he did. Not much, just enough to help it read more smoothly. - Taxman Talk 08:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the time you took to look over the article; you've raised some interesting points and questions. I'll research his college years more over the coming the weeks to see if I can come up with some answers, and try to address other areas of the article as part of clean up edits I plan on making soon too. Thanks again, Monowi (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • A big thanks to User:PRRfan, who did a great copyedit/cleanup job while this peer review was still open! Monowi (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 12 December 2008, 06:30 UTC)

[edit] Philosophy and religion

[edit] Kayastha

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it has the potential to be a good article, but needs a lot of input before it can become a good article. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Thanks, NoVomit (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 4 January 2009, 11:10 UTC)

[edit] Robert Bruce (author)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone significant revisions of late and I would like feedback on how to improve it.

Thanks, NoVomit (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The most important thing you need to do to improve this article is to rewrite it in a neutral style. Part of this means ensuring that every significant claim or statement made in the article is cited to a reliable neutral source. To illustrate my meaning I have inserted citation tags at various points in the text where one would normally expect to see a citation. I also note that a "who" tag ("who claimed this?") from November has not been answered.

There are other areas requiring attention. Since the article is entitled "Robert Bruce (author)", one would expect to see minimal biographical information and some background context – how he became a New Age author, whether he ever did anything else, etc. Also, the article has very much the feel and appearance of an incomplete draft - the "Research and theories" section consists of a single short sentence. I wonder, too, the extent to which you have familarised yourself with the Wikipedia manual of style (WP:MOS).

I doubt you will get a detailed review unless the above points are addressed. The subject of this article is serious and interesting, and it will be a pity if it loses out because it is not prepared or presented in appropriate encyclopedic style.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 23 December 2008, 13:23 UTC)

[edit] Ra (channeled entity)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because the page has undergone extensive revisions and any comments would be helpful.

Thanks, NoVomit (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz comments':

  • Expand lead
  • "Ra is an alleged extraterrestrial group of entities" is a [[WP:POV|point of a view". Put it something like "According to ...... (fill in the blanks), Ra is an extraterrestrial group of entities"
  • Reference needed: "The questions asked were about very diverse subjects and events;"
  • I am sorry to say I agree with the confused tag on the article, I really could not understand what exactly Ra is/ are? I think all those notes should be put in the main text itself to clarify new concepts "octave of densities","seventh density" etc.
  • Expand the whole article itself to clarify what Ra exactly is. It's nature, appearance etc. Something more about the entity is needed to clarify

--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Logos5557 responds to comments':

  • Expand lead: can be done by adding some extra words/sentences, however there are plenty of articles which have very short leads like [1]
  • I believe the word "alleged" does provide NPOV. Putting "According to.." before would only make the sentence unnecessarily longer.
  • That sentence can be reformed in a way not to need references.
  • I really do not know what that user could not understand in the article and put the confused tag. Each user might have not understood different points. Therefore, the related wikipedia guideline reads that normally before putting that confused tag, the user should discuss the confusing point in the talk page. Putting all those notes into the main text would make reading difficult, therefore as per [2] explanatory notes are given separately below the main text.
  • Clarifying what Ra exactly is not an easy task as their nature can only be explained by the avaliable material from law of one books, which is not much in quantity. Logos5557 (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Emotional_quotient is NOT the best article to refer to for guidance. Read WP:LEAD. I should have given the link before. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 20 December 2008, 09:19 UTC)

[edit] This peer review discussion has been closed.

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is comprehensive, well-written and encyclopedic. It has also not been significantly edited over the past few years, leading me to believe that it is ready to be nominated for Featured Article status. I welcome any comments and suggestions. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  • The article has a few problems in its current form. For instance, it would be much better if footnotes were used rather than general article references. Tikkun HaKlali has inline citations. The external links are a linkfarm and need serious pruning. There are significant stylistic and content issues: for this uneducated yekke, the Shpoler Zeide (or Shpola Zeider?) needs an introduction. There are possibly some NPOV issues (e.g. apologetics vis a vis the secular sources). There is no consistency in names (Reb Nosson vs Reb Nusn). In other words, a significant task but with some TLC this could be a high-quality article. JFW | T@lk 21:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your suggestions. I have started to clean up the article along these lines. However, the subject of "apologetics" is a bit thorny, because the secular academic view really does not carry the same weight as the traditional Jewish point of view. Each point made in this article by the secular point of view can be easily refuted. I tried to re-arrange the information, but I'm not sure how to deal with this section. Yoninah (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yoninah,

  • One of the requirements of featured articles is that they use inline citations (see wp:cite)
  • There are contradictory lists of Rav Nachman works. IMHO all the books by reb Noson that have the word Moharan in the title should be listed under Rav Nachman.
  • Rav Nachman had a great influence on contemporary literature. Kafka took Metamorphis from the Maasiot. Sartre and most of the existentialists based their philosophy on the gesher tsar m'od. You can take this suggestion or leave it as you please.
  • go carefully through the suggestions on the talk page.
  • I agree completely with Jfdwolff's last line
  • Hatslacha Rabah and Chanuka Sameach (remember that simcha is one of the Rav's hallmarks.) Phil_burnstein (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


Thank you, everyone, for your comments and edits to the article. This was my first request for peer review, and it taught me a lot. Now I am closing the discussion and going back to clean up the article according to these suggestions. Yoninah (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 16 December 2008, 21:25 UTC)

[edit] Jane Roberts

This peer review discussion has been closed.


I've listed this article for peer review because the page has recently underwent an update and any feedback would be helpful.

Thanks, NoVomit (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I also reviewed Seth Material, so many of the criticisms there also apply here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but Skidmore is only in the lead, for example. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way and all the main ideas. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs an image
  • Article needs more references, for example the second paragraph of the Seth Material section has no refs and there are several citation needed tags. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE you should use {{blockquote}}, not {{cquote}}. Also block quotes should be about 4 lines of text and on my screen it is only 1.5 lines, so it may be too short for a block quote.
  • There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow of the article - in most cases these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • Having read both this and the Seth Material, there is not a lot in here that is not also in the other article. There is relatively little on her life - what did she die of? Did she have children? What did she like to do besides write and channel? What did her SF works do in terms of sales?
  • Language is a bit awkward in spots - Roberts also purportedly channeled several other personalities,[1] including the philosopher William James,[6] through a process she described as using a typewriter to write "automatically",[7][8][9] and the impressionist painter Paul Cézanne.[10][1] would read much more smoothly as Roberts also purportedly channeled several other personalities,[1] including the philosopher William James[6] and the impressionist painter Paul Cézanne,[1][10] through a process she described as using a typewriter to write "automatically".[7][8][9] Note I also put the refs in numerical order.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 8 December 2008, 12:15 UTC)

[edit] Social sciences and society

[edit] South African Scout Association

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed as a FAC, and I would like to find out what should be or could be improved in the article.

Thanks, -- YiS, Jediwannabe 13:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 6 January 2009, 13:31 UTC)

[edit] Blue discharge

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to GA and would like another set of eyes on it before making the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 5 January 2009, 11:40 UTC)

[edit] Chemetco

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because recently, the former Chief Executive of the corporation, Denis L. Feron, was placed on the federal US EPA's 'most wanted' list.

He features on this list because he was indicted for criminal environmental actions at Chemetco that he sanctioned between 1986 and 1996. These included Clean Water Act offences at the most extreme end of the scale: he ordered the construction of a secret pipe at Chemetco that was used to discharge sludge bearing heavy metals into a tributary of the Mississippi River. Denis L. Feron fled the country rather than face a jury trial. Because of the increased prominence now given to his and Chemetco's bevaviour, the Wikipedia Chemetco page is now therefore a likely 'landing' page for anyone following links from the Wikipedia Denis L. Feron entry.

Chemetco had a long history of environmental delinquency, spanning the entire thirty years of its existence before EPA inspectors discovered the crime that was to lead to its downfall. Many readers will be interested to hear that this privately-owned company was once also the highest producer of atmospheric lead in the entire United States.

Thanks, Astral highway (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. This needs a lot of work.

  • Major cleanup tag on possible conflict of interest at the top is a major concern. This also raises concerns that the article may not follow a neutral point of view. If they were as bad as the article makes them out to be, a dispassionate recitation of the facts will condemn them more effectively than a clearly skewed POV screed.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and no more than four paragraphs long. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.
  • Article needs more references, for example four of five paragraphs in Location have no refs. Or this direct quote does not have a ref: A trade magazine covering metals industry news has noted that "The closing of the Chemetco Inc. secondary smelter in Hartford, Ill., in 2001 marked the end of large-scale secondary copper smelting in the United States." My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, {{blockquote}} should be used for quotes of four lines of text or more, but in many places the quote is not even a full line on my monitor.
  • Article has very many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede the flow of the article. These should be combined with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • See also is generally for links that are not also in the article - most, if not all of the See also links are already linked in the article.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 31 December 2008, 14:45 UTC)

[edit] Rosanna Wong Yick-ming

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see if any improvement can be made and I believe this article meets the FA's requirements. This is my first time to nominate an article to the peer review. All comments and advices are welcomed!

Thanks a lot, Clithering (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 29 December 2008, 18:26 UTC)

[edit] United States congressional delegations from Indiana

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because… This list is not big on prose, and you can't source everything on it, but I believe that with some work I can bring this to FL status. All fifty states have a list like this one, but this is the first anyone's taken notice of (that I know). So far I've expanded the lead with more facts and a couple refs and I added some external links, but I'd like to know what else I should reference and add more prose to to possibly make this a featued list.

Thanks, Reywas92Talk 03:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 28 December 2008, 03:13 UTC)

[edit] Greeks

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review. It has allready been worked to GA status and I wish to bring it to FA at some point. I have allready gone through the suggestions of an informal peer review by an admin and wish some further input.

Thanks, Xenovatis (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Friday 26 December 2008, 14:45 UTC)

[edit] Margaret Thatcher

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because, recently passed as a GA, I'm looking to get it up to FA sometime in the near future. I would appreciate any constructive comments or criticism to improve the article! My best, Happyme22 (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The article is very much improved since having it's FA status withdrawn. Thatcher is still such a controversial person and there will some who will contests some facts, although, not me. My only concern at the moment is that all the references have actually been used, i.e. are cited in the body of the article. I couldn't find the Richards or Letwin citations. Please check that all references are shown to have been used as references. If not I would delete them, although this is no big deal. The article seems close to FA in my humble opinion, but the FAC will certainly be a long one. I hope the nominators have the stamina to see it through. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 19:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 December 2008, 19:30 UTC)

[edit] Cypriot British

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently significantly revised it, with a good range of sources and want advice on where to go from here. Is the tone/balance correct? What needs to be done to get it to good article status? Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I think the tone is fine. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead is too short even for a short article. A good rule of thumb for the lead is to include at least a mention of the main ideas in the text sections. I'd suggest expanding the lead to include a bit more about history and something about population and notable people.
  • UK and EOKA need to be spelled out on first use like this: United Kingdom (UK). After that it's fine to use the abbreviation by itself.
  • Some of the citation data is missing. If possible, the citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date. Citation 22 lacks a publisher, for example, and citation 19 lacks its access date. A different sort of problem occurs with citation 14, where the linked title leads to a Google search page rather than the article itself. If the full article or at least an abstract is unavailable online, it's probably better to leave the title unlinked. That way the reader can tell by glancing at the citation that the source is available only on paper.
  • The Manual of Style advises against repeating the words of the article title in the heads and subheads. I'd suggest changing "Notable British Cypriots" to something like "Notable individuals".
  • When multiple references appear together, it's customary to arrange them in ascending order. The 12-11 pair toward the end of the "History" section should be flipped to 11-12.
  • Words like "now" "today", and "currently" are often ambiguous. Here's an example: "One estimate states that there are 130,000 nationals of the breakaway Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus currently residing in the UK... " This can be remedied by using something like "As of 2008, an estimated 130,000 nationals... " You should use the date of the estimate, not necessarily 2008. Another example of this same sort of time problem occurs in the last sentence of the "History" section: "Turkish Cypriots continue to migrate to the UK... " It would be better to fill in a specific year; e.g., "As of 2008, Turkish Cypriots continued to migrate... " When the situation changes, the sentence will still be true although a bit outdated. Later edits, say in 2015, might bring the outdated bits up to date.
  • The first sentence of the "History" section stopped me because of a slightly different time confusion. "Prior to the First World War, very few Cypriots migrated to the UK and the Cypriot population at this time is given as around 150... " I think this would be more clear if changed to "... population at this time was around 150, according to... ".
  • It would be helpful to include just a bit more about the independence struggle. For example, it would be good to state directly that the struggle was for independence from Britain. It would also be helpful to say in that paragraph why people from Cyprus would flee to the UK at the same time they were in some sense at war with the UK. Possibility for expansion of the article might lie in briefly explaining some of the complex relationships that must have been operating.
  • If any material exists about British attitudes, pro or con, toward immigrants specifically from Cyprus, that's another possibility for expansion. General attitudes toward immigration might be relevant. Legal immigration controls, if any, might be worth mentioning. Does the UK limit the number of immigrants per year from Cyprus, for example?
  • The prose generally flows well in this article but could be improved in places. Specifically, I'd look for ways to replace "there is" and "there are" constructions with something more direct. An example would be "whereas the Museum of London reports that there are 100,000 Turkish Cypriots in Britain – 20,000 more than in Cyprus... ", which would be better as "whereas the Museum of London reports that 100,000 Turkish Cypriots live in Britain, 20,000 more than in Cyprus."

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll try to enact your suggested changes shortly. I just have a query about your point on reference 19 since it seems to have an access date to me... Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. I'm not sure why I thought it didn't, but it looks OK to me this morning. Finetooth (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 December 2008, 18:28 UTC)

[edit] Nelson Mandela

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is a good candidate for FA status, it has been copy-edited several times and there is adequate sources to the article.

Thanks, EclipseSSD (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Only two (very minor) things caught my attention:
    • Is it appropriate to have material on Mandela's ancestry in the "early life" section? Most of these events happened before he was born.
    • I did some copyediting on the reference tags. Many had spaces between punctuation and the tag, or between two tags, which is frowned upon in the style guidelines.
  • As I say, these are the minorest of quibbles. It's a very fine article. Reyk YO! 06:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Is this article now ready to FA status?--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 22 December 2008, 19:16 UTC)

[edit] Homosexual transsexual

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


There is an article cleanup tag on this page and I want to know if the quality of the article is such that it can be removed. This is a controversial article. There is currently a POV dispute. I am not looking for anything related to that dispute. Simply is the article good enough to not have a cleanup tag at the top. I am seeking at least two reviews before doing anything. Hfarmer (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment on the Automated peer review. The issues it brings up are not issues. A picture is a non-starter for an article like this. The placement of the citations has consensus. Each claim that has a citation right next to it within a sentence needs it because it is controversial. (Basically if we don't put it there then somone or the other will claim it is uncited. This is the simplest solution IMO). The Don't thing, length of lead etc. All arrived at slowly and painfully by consensus.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply Please read the intructions at the top of the WP:PR page, which says in part "Articles must be free of major cleanup banners ..." which includes the POV dispute as well as cleanup. A WP:RfC may be a better way to get consensus on this. As for the semi-automated peer review, the Manual of Style at Wikipedia:MOS#Images says "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image... ". The length of lead comes from right from WP:LEAD. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for any input into the POV dispute. I am asking if the article looks good enough to not have the actual cleanup tag on it? It is likely that as controversial as this topic is someone from one side or the other will put a pov tag there. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh and when I say a picture is a "non starter". I suppose that's an expression not everyone uses.  :-) What I mean is that's not going to happen. Because there is no picture that would ever get consensus of the interested editors here. That's all I mean. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources - I took a quick look at the sources to see how accurately they have been used. I choose those related to IQ,as this is likely to be challenged. I was shocked to find that the first two reliable sources do not make this claim. One simply says the Utrecht cohort had a lower IQ than the Canadian one, the next one does not seem to mention IQ and the essay, which I don't consider reliable only says that lower IQ might be a useful predictor in childhood. This is a serious error and if other sources are found not to support "facts" in the article this will be quickly spotted. Many readers do check sources and this is the most important aspect of an article to get right. Graham Colm Talk 11:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply Thankyou for pointing out that the IQ information is not provided plainly and freely in the doccuments that were linked directly to it. I think I was at my univ when I added that info and did not realize that I probaly got to see the article's body because I was using the UNIV's subscription. I have added a reference that was alreayd in the article which has the same information and affirms what is in the references that are alreayd there. The bonus is that this one is free to download. Transsexual subtypes: Clinical and theoretical significance Journal of Psychiatry research. 2005 page 7 colum 2 section 3.8 says."The homosexual group’s mean IQ score (111.2; SD = 16.9; n = 82) was lower ( P b 0.001) than that of the nonhomosexual group (mean = 122.3, S.D. = 17.3, n = 61). There were no differences in IQ scores between the sexes (81 MFs, 62 FMs). Mean scores for the different transsexual subgroups were 107.3 (S.D. = 14.3) for the MF homosexuals (n = 39), 121.7 (S.D. = 17.2) for the MF nonhomosexuals (n = 42), 114.8 (S.D. = 18.4) for the FM homosexuals (n = 43), and 123.7 (S.D. = 17.8) for the FM nonhomosexuals(n = 19)." Thakyou again.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I know the reference have to be right. The problem is that the information referenced is not always in the abstract. --Hfarmer (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 22 December 2008, 06:28 UTC)

[edit] Jon Burge

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it up the quality scale. I think I need some organizational advice.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LinguistAtLarge

I'm no expert, but here is my opinion:

  1. It is unclear to me why there are 3 infoboxes in the article with 3 different variations on the name Jon Burge
    1. Which box would you like to see in the lead (military or police). I could eliminate/merge the first one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
      1. At Template talk:Infobox Person we are working on a template change which should help to merge multiple templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. I would like to see the lead be shorter-- maybe 1/2 to 1/3 as long as it is now.
    1. I felt comfortable chopping about 15%.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. It would be nice if a GFDL-compatible photo could be procured to add to the article.
    1. There was nothing to be found from common sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. I'd like to see the Arrest section expanded with more details.
    1. It is fairly complete now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. The photos of the Governer and Mayor seem distracting to me, but that's a personal opinion, get more input on that before removing them.
    1. In the GA review these pictures were considered better than none at all.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. I would change the first sentence, since he is retired and so no longer a police commander:

Change this:

Chicago Police Commander Jon Graham Burge (born December 20, 1947) is a decorated United States Army veteran and a former Chicago Police Department detective ...

To this:

Jon Graham Burge (born December 20, 1947) is a decorated United States Army veteran and a former Chicago Police Department detective and commander ...
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

 LinguistAtLarge  23:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 22 December 2008, 03:00 UTC)

[edit] Odex's actions against file-sharing

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This article is intended to go through Featured Article Candidate, having failed twice previously. This third Peer Review intends to allow it to undergo a very throughout review and scrutiny, to eliminate the possible concerns raised in the previous FACs, before proceeding on.

There are three outstanding issues to be discussed, and I believe that some decisions by consensus has to be made on how they are approached before they become flashpoints on the FAC itself. Some of these "repairs" would not be possible without your collaboration and expertise if it were left everything to myself alone.

  1. Copyediting. The main reason and the single biggest reason why the last two FACs failed. Is the prose sufficiently polished up to be brilliant?
  2. The structure of the article. Should the sections be re-organised? Can the content be able to fit in properly? Does certain headings require renaming?
    Hence or otherwise for (2), the lead-in might be too long. How should it be shortened/revised?
  3. Any content in the article that might be disputed?

I am able to check against all the listed sources. Please copyedit the article if you are able to, and do not hesitate to raise any point that requires new sources or to check against the existing ones. Thank you for taking the time to review the article, Mailer Diablo 20:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Odex's actions against file-sharing/archive3.

(Peer review added on Thursday 18 December 2008, 20:56 UTC)

[edit] History

[edit] New Bedford Historic District

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I when I finished expanding it a few months ago, it was pretty much the article I had expected it to be. While as it is I don't see this as an FA, I definitely think it's got GA capabilities. I'd like to know what my fellow editors think.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 6 January 2009, 16:51 UTC)

[edit] Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Foofighter20x (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 January 2009, 03:56 UTC)

[edit] Edinburgh Castle

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've done a fair bit of work on this recently. The lead is still too short, and there are a couple of fact tags, but I'm looking for any other suggestions for improvement. Many thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Some comments on:

  • History
    • has long been problematic, and disastrous under siege conditions. This implies "always disastrous under siege conditions" - is that true?
    • Andrew of Wyntoun ref has some odd template in it. I don't know what "byggyd" means.
    • " potentially making Castle Rock the longest continually occupied site in Scotland" - that's a pretty big claim that needs more than just one ref. You might wish to refer to other candidates in a footnote e.g. Dumbarton Rock, Kilmartin Glen.
    • " However, the excavations suggested that there was probably an enclosed hill fort on the rock, although only the fringes of the site were excavated" A little unclear - you may mean something like "However, the more recent excavations of Castle Rock suggest…"
    • "Given that the southern part of the Upper Ward (where Crown Square is now sited) was not amenable to being built upon" - I am the last person you might expect to complain about anthropomorphic suggestions of this kind, but I think you may mean "not suitable" rather than "not amenable"
    • "curtain wall" might link to something.
    • "The first known purchae of a gun was in 1384, and the "great bombard" Mons Meg arrived in 1457." There is a typo and the sentence reads oddly. "followed" rather than "arrived"?
    • "Mary's mother, Mary of Guise, based herself at Edinburgh Castle, acting as regent from 1554 to 1560, when she died at the Castle". Sounds like she died over a six year period… "until 1560 when she died at the Castle"?
    • The following year, Mary, Queen of Scots, returned from France to begin her reign. Possibly better as " The following year her daughter Mary returned from France to begin her reign." Avoids repetition of "Mary QoS". This sentence might also be better as the beginning of the next para.
    • "quarrels between the powerful Scottish nobility" - "amongst' rather than "between"
    • " Following the murder of Darnley" seems a bit abrupt as we only just got to know him. Something like " Following the assassination of Darnley at Kirk o' Field in 1567"?
    • "On 19 March, Viscount Dundee climbed up the Castle Rock to confer with Gordon, prior to launching his own rebellion in favour of James." Seems a little out of context, (did Gordon do anything for him?) and/or that " Gordon refused to fire upon the town" as a result. Ben MacDui 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Description
    • Middle Ward runs out of citations and National War Museum of Scotland has none. Ditto Royal Palace, The Crown Room. Several sections have last sentences with no citation - some of which may be OK, but it looks odd.
    • "The north storehouse now houses" - too many houses.
    • "The origin of this name is unknown, although it may relate to the dense sea-fog, known as haar, which commonly affects Edinburgh" Citation or no this sounds like an absurd piece of speculation to me.
    • "when te present roof was built" typo
    • Mons Meg section suddenly starts using imperial / metric cf vice-versa
    • "was constructed as part of the reconstruction works" too many constructs
    • " The walls of these sections are pitted with holes, where chunks of stone removed to provide nesting places for pigeons, for consumption during the winter months." Missing word - "were"?
    • Hippolyte Blanc is linked twice
  • Present use
    • Arguably the first sentence in Tourist attraction is over-long. It lacks a comma after Government
    • "paid vistor attraction" - typo
    • "Historic Scotland maintain a number of attractions" two attractions in successive sentences
    • "There are also a number" - I suspect this should be "There is"
    • I think "pibroch" is Scottish English as well as Gaelic and doesn't need italics
    • "The gun could be easily heard" suggest "The gun could easily be heard", but not sure why.
    • 2 miles (3.2 km) - see above
    • " maps were produced" - but not any more? I'm curious to know when.
    • " exhibition about the Gun" not sure about the capital G.
    • I am currently philatelo-phobic as large numbers of edits about bogus stamps have recently appeared on some of my favourite islands. Can we say Royal Mail postage stamps? Well of course we can, but feel free to ignore.

I haven't checked the refs, notes or images. Feel free to badger me if need be on this front. Very thorough work btw, and it reads well. I probably won't watch the article for long, so give me a shout if you go for FA (and I think you should). Ben MacDui 20:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 2 January 2009, 20:25 UTC)

[edit] History of Mumbai

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


If you are willing to review this article and want a review of your article, then please inform me. I'll surely review it.

I've listed this article for peer review because this article has recently been listed as a GA. Efforts in improving prose and content will be appreciated. References are all reliable.

Thanks, KensplanetTC 09:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Em dashes (—) should not have spaces around them.
  • Proofreading the whole article again would be good, to avoid things like "Geologists believe that the coast of western India came into being". ("the" is missing). "on July 1669" (should be "in July 1669").
  • Consider making all thumbnails smaller, and making them the same size. Allow all horizontal thumbnails to be the default size (don't specify a width), and for all vertical thumbnails, add the "upright" parameter to the image tag, and they will be narrower than the horizontal ones. After doing that, I might see if the caption text can be shortened so as to not overwhelm the thumbnails.
  • The "21st Centurty" heading is offset by the presence of a left-aligned thumbnail directly above it. I would avoid that if possible.
    • The "21st Centurty" heading has been removed. KensplanetTC 06:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Since the title of the article "History of Mumbai" is descriptive and not a proper noun, I would change the first sentence of the article to remove boldface History of Mumbai in it. See MOS:BEGIN I'd start by defining Mumbai, just like the beginning of the Mumbai article. Some thing like: (For comparison, look up a bunch of other "History of ___" articles, such as History of the United States, History of New York, History of London, History of Berlin, History of education, History of tennis)

(Current version)
The History of Mumbai recounts the growth of Mumbai from a collection of seven islands on the western coast of India becoming the commercial capital of the nation and one of the most populous cities in the world. Although human habitation existed during...

(My version)
Mumbai is the financial capital of India and one of the most populous cities in the world, and consists of seven islands on the western coast of India. Although human habitation existed during...

  • Excellent suggestion. I have implemented it. KensplanetTC 06:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There is a mixture of date formats (19 June 1966 and February 17, 1803). Choose one or the other and stay consistent within the article.
    • We are following the dd mm yy format and not mm dd, yy. We'll fix it soon. KensplanetTC 06:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The last two sections of the article are "Post-independence and modern period (1948 - 2000)" and "21st century". I do not see the need to separate these into two sections, and I find the division at the year 2000 to be artificial. I would join these into one section called either "Modern period" or "Post-independence period".
    • Merged into a single section Modern period (1948+). Any suggestions on the Title. KensplanetTC 06:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You might alphabetize the see also section.

 LinguistAtLarge  22:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Just a quick point - seems to be overlinked at bit. I realise that in a history overview there will be quite a lot of wikilinks, but many of the place names (for instance) are repeatedly linked throughout the article (sometimes twice in the same paragraph). Cutting back links will improve readability and appearance. sassf (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for checking. We'll fix it. You are right that there are a lot of wikilinks. Want me to review anything. Tell me. KensplanetTC

I'm unwilling to get my hands dirty as the markup is intimidating with all the cite. I'll review section by section, first scanning for fallacies. I'll leave the lead for the last. This is my initial review.

  1. Bombay Castle and the fort walls are not the same. Bombay Castle was never expanded.
    Sorry, didn't get it.
  2. Mecca is not a port
    Changed Port to cities.
  3. Bombay Courier needs to be in italics
    Done
  4. Link Bhor Ghat, Mendham's Point, Town Hall (Asiatic Society)
    As far as red links are concerned, I have finished creating relevant articles till Portuguese Period section. British period and the rest will be done soon. Linked Town Hall with Asiatic Society of Bombay
  5. The Cotton Exchange was established in Cotton Green, --> the Cotton Green was at Colaba at that time. No need to link to the present location
    Done

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If Citations are creating a problem while editing, you can try User:Kensplanet/History of Mumbai which has only text. You can copy it in your sandbox. Make all the changes. Tell me when it's done. We'll make the changes in the main article then. KensplanetTC 16:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 2 January 2009, 09:31 UTC)

[edit] Old Montana Prison

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if this topic is viable and whether my writing style falls sufficiently under the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia.

Thanks, tanankyo (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by NVO

I am not a native speaker of English, so these comments on style should be taken with a grin. My basic concern is that an article is unnecessarily long; it can be safely halved in size without sacrificing relevant information.

  • The prose reads more appropriate for fiction rather than encyclopedia: too colourful, too many words that are not necessary. Often, these words mask a statement/opinion that needs citation. Quote: "Possibly the most important, or at least longest lasting, contribution Warden Conley made to the Montana State Prison are the plethora of buildings he left in his wake. He believed that idleness bred insurrection, so he set about using prison labor to build the prison." Too many words! Italicized statements/opinions, probably, need citations and beliefs of a deceased person are too ephemeral to be proven anyway. Take it all away and it's down to "Buildings erected by inmates remain Conley's main contribution to the prison".
  • The 1959 riot text, probably, should be taken to a separate article and replaces with a concise summary.
  • "over a half million tons of state coal for his private residence" - this had to be a damn good residence! Again, I would trim the list down to just one or two lines of plain text with most important claims. NVO (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 30 December 2008, 11:09 UTC)

[edit] Joseph Dennie

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I think it may be close to GA or even FA quality, but am unfamiliar with those processes, and don't know which I should aim for. I created this article from a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies (I wasn't familiar with the subject), and I'm pleasantly surprised with how it's turned out.

Thanks, faithless (speak) 07:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

This is in general a well-written article. I have a few prose and other comments which I will list at the end of the review. My chief impression, however, is that the article is too brief, that important and interesting information has been either omitted or passed over quickly. The following are examples of areas where I would expect to see more detail:-

  • Why was he suspended from Harvard?
  • The three years 1790 to 1793 are something of a lacuna; all we have is that he "had difficulty finding suitable work".
  • "...appointed a reader for the Episcopal church..." yet we hear nothing further about this aspect of his life.
  • "...he rarely appeared in open court". Was this because he had so few clients? If so, how was he making a living - was he doing other things?
  • "His writing being enthusiastically received..." This is the first we hear of his writing - when did he start, and what was he writing about? Who was receiving it enthusiatically?
  • "...was persuaded to start a literary journal". Who persuaded him?
  • It would be interesting, also, to have an explanation/comment on the somewhat incongruous title The Farmers Weekly Museum for a literary journal (it doesn't seem to make sense even for an agricutural journal!)
  • "Once in Philadelphia..." - need to establish why he was there.
  • Do we have dates for his trial and acquittal?
  • Surely, there must be some details of his trial available, e.g. the arguments and reasoning that led to his acquittal? This would make a most interesting section for the article.
  • Another lacuna: what was Dennie doing during the last years of his life? The libel charge was 1803, the trial presumably soon afterwards. He died in 1812; that's a few years to fill.

To summarise, the writing itself is generally above GA standard, and I have seen worse at FAC. But the article is in my view too thin at the moment and needs expanding along the lines indicated. I have, too, a few general comments on the prose:-

  • Early Life & career section:
    • Third sentence needs to begin "In 1767 Dennie was admitted..." (it's not clear who is meant by "he")
  • Publishing career
    • "...to begin work on what would become The Lay Preacher, the first of which appeared in The Farmer's Weekly Museum" The phrase "what would become" is a bit confusing and could I think be dropped. I also think it should continue "the first instalment of which..."
    • "In the second paragraph: "Under Dennie's leadership..." rather than "his leadership"
    • You should identify Timothy Pickering, rather than requiring raders to use the link to find out who he was.
    • The pseudonym Oliver Oldschool should not be bolded (see WP:BOLD for uses of bolded characters)
    • (final paragraph): "It must be noted..." is editorialising, and needs to be rephrased.

I hope you find these comments helpful and that they give you some indications as to the article's future development. Brianboulton (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and words of encouragement, Brian. I actually made one of the corrections you suggested (Third sentence needs to begin "In 1767 Dennie was admitted..." (it's not clear who is meant by "he")) before your review was posted. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of material available on Dennie, so some details are a bit hazy (like many Federalists, he was largely forgotten after the collapse of the Federalist party). While the article is pretty short, he died at an early age, so there's only so much to cover. I originally thought GA might be the highest the article could get, but when I saw Elizabeth Needham on the Main Page, I thought maybe this one had a shot. I share most of your concerns, and will address those which I'm able to. Here are my point-by-point responses:
  • His suspension from Harvard is one of those hazy details - I'll do a bit more research and see if I can pin down the reason, though it seems that it wasn't any single infraction, but rather a general disrespect shown to his professors. I'll see what I can do.
  • I'm not sure what could be done to expound upon his religious life. He briefly flirted with joining the clergy, but decided against it. While he often wrote on religion, his actual career in the church was very short-lived.
  • This could probably be expanded. It seems that he didn't make many appearances in court for two reasons: it wasn't his specialty as an attorney (he wasn't a litigator) and public speaking was not something at which he excelled.
  • This could be expanded.
  • This, too, could be expanded.
  • I agree with you about the paper's name; I have rough plans to write articles for at least The Farmer's Weekly Museum and Port Folio, which would address this concern.
  • I guess I made the assumption that readers would know that Philadelphia was the capital of the country at the time - this obviously needs to be corrected.
  • I could probably expound upon the trial a bit.
  • He was at Port Folio, I believe until 1808. After that there aren't many details about what he got up to. He continued contributing pieces to various papers, no doubt, but he doesn't seem to have held any positions. From what I gather, a combination of ill health and financial independence made holding a job unnecessary for him. I hate putting in any information without a specific source, so I'll do a bit more reading and see if I can come up with some specifics.
I'll make the corrections to the prose you suggest presently. Again, thanks for your review! faithless (speak) 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 28 December 2008, 07:13 UTC)

[edit] Yolanda Saldívar

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I think that the article is in need of suggestions of improvements and contributions with a Image and more information an updates of the text for the article of Yolanda Saldivar. I think their is a chance of getting this article to "Featured article" standard if we all help. Thanks, MarkusBJoke (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from DiverseMentality
  • The main problem I see here is that the article reads as the murder of Selena and Saldívar's trial and imprisonment. There isn't any background information about her; where she was born, wher she grew up, her personal life, her career before her work with Selena and her work with Selena. Simply put, it doesn't read like a biography, but more like the events during and after the murder.
  • Under 'After the conviction', the second paragraph is completely unsourced.
  • Under the same section, there are two paragraphs that are a sentence long. As for the film information, that can be expanded a little, I suppose. Pointing out that she isn't related to Efren Saldivar seems trivial; just because someone shares a last name doesn't necessarily mean they're related.
    All in all, this article needs a lot of work to each featured article status: a lot of expansion is needed, and there will be a lot of work ahead of you. Best of luck. DiverseMentality 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 26 December 2008, 15:42 UTC)

[edit] History of Hobart

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because… I have expanded it greatly recently. I think maybe it still has a bit of tidying to do, but having spent a lot of time writing, I think it would be useful to get someone else's opinion to get impartial advice as to what needs to be done to get the article to GA or Featured status. Thanks, Robert Fleming (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me start by saying, wow! You've done a massive amount of work on this article, and it already compares favorably to articles such as History of London and History of Paris. Because you've done so much work to it, I'll have to spend more time studying it, but there are a few things that jump out at me after a cursory glance: 1.) Though there are a good number of sources, given the length of the article there needs to be quite a bit more. The "Late 20th century" section, for instance, is almost completely unsourced. 2.) The lead is incredibly long; it definitely needs to be shortened. 3.) In fact, the article may necessitate the creation of subpages; again, I haven't given the article a thorough read, but it is over 100k. 4.) The sections themselves are very long, and subsections would increase organization and make the article much more readable. 5.) Some minor copy editing is needed (20th century -> twentieth century, unlink unnecessarily linked dates, that sort of thing). I'll do some minor work on the article myself over the next couple of days and report back here if I find anything major that needs to be addressed. Cheers, faithless (speak) 13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 December 2008, 18:52 UTC)

[edit] List of Governors of Bombay

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


If you are willing to review this List and want a review of your article, then please inform me. I'll surely review it.

I've listed this article for peer review because this may be the next FL

Thanks, KensplanetTalkContributions 07:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been reviewing the article. Regarding the map File:Map of India (1882).jpg, we'll have to find a better one, as it is not that accurate and the reader has to strain his/her eyes to locate the Bombay Presidency with respect to rest of India. The grammar and prose is good. If possible, please expand.SanfyTalk

Thankyou for your concerns. You have done a great Job creating many governor article as can be seen from Special:Contributions/Sanfy. File:Map of India (1882).jpg has been removed since the Presidency cannot be seen easily. KensplanetTalkContributions 11:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If you specify what needs to be expanded, then that may be done. The Lead, List or what. Thanks, KensplanetTC 11:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead of the section List_of_Governors_of_Bombay#Crown_Governors_.281862_-_1947.29, is a bit short if there is any more information on the section, you may add the needful. Even expand the list of section List_of_Governors_of_Bombay#British_Empire_.281662_-_1668.29. Revise the books, sources, etc one more to check if there's no mistake or if any govenor's name is missing. Thanks.SanfyTalk

  • Impossible to miss out anyone. The Dates are continuous right from 1662 to 1960. Infact, the article includes Officiating and Acting governors which some reliable sources tend to miss out. KensplanetTC 18:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I just tried Web sources. May be Books are required here. I'll expand if possible. Thanks, KensplanetTC 18:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the images File:India 1804 map.jpg & File:British dominion of India(1783).jpg, they are good but I think we'll need a self-made image like File:Mangalorean catholic migration.JPG to make the image more clear and visible, as the maps are still not accurate in showing the location of the Bombay Presidency. Thanks.SanfyTalk
Excellent suggestion. Really worth considering. Maybe some professional skills may be required there. KensplanetTC 18:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
A GIF needs to be created. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
File:BartleFrere.jpg had a copyright problem. I have changed the licence to {{PD-old}}, please check if this is correct.SanfyTalk
  • It is correct. Anyway the Image has to be in the Public domain since it was published in 1880. KensplanetTC 18:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz comments:

  • When i click on any name in the "Graphical" I reach this link: [3] Please correct it.
  • In my web browser, Modzilla, I can't see the names in "Graphical" properly, can the font be increased? Also the dates of the last entries are been cut. Can the representation be put in another better way.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Are U sure when you click the name in the "Graphical" you reach Secure Wikimedia link. The Governors have been wikilinked and in my and many browsers, it opens the EN-WIkipedia link. I checked it. It still opens the EN-wikipedia link. If you check Internet explorer, the links don't work at all. I myself am not aware how to correct such browser differences. KensplanetTC 06:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think all Governors should be visible now. The timeline has been expanded. I'll surely check whether tools are available for increasing fonts. I'm working with the Graphical chart for the first time. KensplanetTC 07:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Still, it doesn't look nice. I don't look how much visual appeal counts in an encyclopaedia? --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
This is out of my hands then. This is the only Graphical chart I know. Forgive me as I dunno anything about lists KensplanetTC 03:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That's the way the graphical chart is. Nothing much that can be done unless the code is modified. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Dineshkannambadi

Interesting short article.

It'not an article but a list. :) KensplanetTC 03:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The city was originally an archipelago of seven islands. Is it not an archipelago now? I could have corrected this myself, but I am not quite sure if any geological works, such as water dredging, has been done to connect a few islands.
I don't think it is now. In 1782, William Hornby assumed the office of Governor of Bombay, and initiated the Hornby Vellard engineering project of uniting the seven islands into a single landmass. All the seven islands were united and the city was then referred as Old Bombay. Do you think it is still an archipelago KensplanetTC 03:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Governors of Bombay were the most important officials after the Viceroy, and were appointed by the Crown. Were they more important than governors in say Madras presidency or other places in the Raj?
Actually the Reference says The Governors of Bombay and Madras are the most important officials after the Viceroy, and are appointed by the Crown (http://books.google.com/books?id=rxcJ1ACY_74C&printsec=frontcover#PPA61,M1) So we can say that the Governors of Bombay and Madras were more powerful than the Governors of any other place in the Raj since these presidencies were huge. KensplanetTC 04:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I see that numerous governors occupied their chair for several terms. Would it be possible, to add another table which gives important contributions or important achievements by some of these governors–constructions, bills, regulations etc.

More later. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

According to me, there was only 1 Governor who repeated his term. That was George Russell Clerk (1847-1848) who repeated again in 1860-1862. Please tell me if you could you find more. Yes, it's possible to have achievements but that may leave no space for Images. Without Images, the article may be a bit difficult for people to visualize about the Bombay Presidency.KensplanetTC 04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Should it be something like what I have done in British Empire (1662 - 1668) section? KensplanetTC 05:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
You could mention the geological works that united the islands just for clarification. Now it would be one island, unless it was joined with mainland India, in which case it becomes a sort of tiny peninsula. You could just say the governor of Bombay, along with that of Madras presidency was the most influential.... Yes, the table under British Empire is what I wanted. You dont have to do that for every governor, only the most important ones, in a different table so that your images are not compromised. BTW, "Achievements" may be changed to Achievements/Events because the very first one in the British Empire template is not exactly an achievement.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
OK...Will mention geological works. Added info about Madras in the Lead. The table was just for test purposes. I'll remove it. The first 4 Governors's contributions are not so significant so as to be mentioned in the List. If people are interested then they can check the individual articles. I'll again draw a test table. KensplanetTC 05:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
While your suggestions are excellent, but it may be a bit difficult to implement it. All the Governors had some significant contributions to the city. I dunno what to put and what to strike out. If you check the Governor FL's at Wikipedia:Featured lists#Politics and government, none of them have achievements or anything. If people want, they can check the individual governor articles. I'm a bit reluctant to put it. :) KensplanetTC 06:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem. The article (list) is well written anyway.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments
  • It needs to be directly specified in the first paragraph that we're talking about British Bombay and later independent India. This goes with clarifying "the Crown".
    • Done
  • "...as the dowry of Catherine de Braganza and Abraham Shipman was appointed the first governor..." A comma is needed between "Braganza" and "and". Same in the next sentence between 1668 and "and".
    • Done
  • "landing in Bombay by the Portuguese, and died..." No comma.
    • Done
  • In every table, "Term" should be changed to "Terms", and the definition of a term should be clarified (i.e. a term is one year long)
    • Done
  • "there was a demand from the Congress, that the city be constituted..." No comma before "that".
    • Done
  • The Primary sources and References sections should be merged into one, either References or Bibliography.
Removed Primary Sources. References stay since they are books and other pages which cannot be cited. KensplanetTC 14:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "with Bombay as its capital" needs a period.
  • Done
    • Overall this is an excellent list with the graphical lists and clean tables. This is a very informative list and I wish you good luck at FLC. As you said above, if you have time, I would appreciate it if you reviewed my governors list at WP:FLC#List of Governors of Indiana. Reywas92Talk 03:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Manual of style
  1. (1672 - 1675) --> Date ranges needs to be separated by an ndash (see WP:DASH) and without spacing
    Done
  2. Citations, Primary Sources, and References --> Why the distinction?
    Removed Primary Sources. References stay since they are books and other pages which cannot be cited. KensplanetTC 14:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. The Island...' --> island should be lower case
    Done. KensplanetTC 14:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. western coast -- remove link
    Done. KensplanetTC 14:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Prose
  1. It would seem to have fallen into disuse some time between 1720 and 1758 -- Peacock/Weasel term
    Changed to It fell into disuse between 1720 and 1758.
  2. held Bombay for the Crown --> odd grammar
    I don't think it's odd. Can you suggeest anything better
  3. the head of the rebellion --> odd wording
    Done
  4. Bombay (now Mumbai) --> reads odd. Change to Bombay, renamed as Mumbai in 1995...
    Done. KensplanetTC 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Rename the titles to: "Royal Governors", "Company Governors" and "Crown Governors"
    Renamed. KensplanetTC 15:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. ...were the most important officials... -- cite needed
  7. Remove salary part
    Removed. KensplanetTC 14:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. The link to Viceroy is not helpful; link to Governor-General of India
    Done. KensplanetTC 14:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  9. 'of uniting the -- odd word "uniting"; use "coalescing" instead?
    Done. KensplanetTC 15:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Context
  1. What's an officiating/acting governor?
    Mentioned as a Note
  2. I have a list of deputy governors till 1690, would you like to add that?
    Please add it. KensplanetTC 15:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Mention how the state was split during Partition, and later how the princely states were amalgamated into Bombay state
    Mentioned about 4 divisions and 26 districts.
  4. From 1960, the designation of the Governor of Bombay changed into Governor of Maharashtra. --> it wasn't a designation change: The old Bombay State was split into Gujarat and Maharashtra, and consequently, the title governor of Bombay ceased to exist. Maharashtra was not made up of only a Bombay State, but also part of Central Provinces. So change all mention of a direct inheritance.
    It was a designation change. Check http://rajbhavan.maharashtra.gov.in/previous/default.htm It mentions it was a designation change. Beter to go with the source. KensplanetTC 07:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. the Company was accused of mismanagement, and Bombay reverted to the British crown -- too little lead text. See British India#British India for a summary. Integrate relevant sentences into this article.
    Integrated Relevant sentences
  6. See if this picture can be added: File:Bombay-fort-1703.JPG
    Picture added. You may wish to modify it in the article. KensplanetTC 14:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. Anjediva - where? Mention the location
    Mentioned North Canara. KensplanetTC 14:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. You meed to mention why the Company moved HQ to Bombay (more secure, better harbour)
    Mentioned
  9. was prevented from landing in Bombay by the Portuguese -- why?
    Because of some alleged irregularity in the form of letters or patent of agreement of accession of Bombay and Salsette
  10. The list of governors are also mentioned in The Origins of Bombay by José Gerson da Cunha. (pg 323-324) You can also add the book in =Further Reading=
    Mentioned. There's only a limited mention till 1690. Still it's a good source. It's available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=miD5YO05jpUC&printsec=frontcover#PPA323,M1 KensplanetTC 14:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  11. Mention the HQ of the Governor: First at Bombay Castle, then Parel and finally Raj Bhavan. (See Bombay Castle article for reference and the link [4])

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. Mentioned Bombay Castle was the official residence of the Governor of Bombay till the 1770s. The residence was later moved to Parel in the 1770s and then to Malabar Hill in 1883

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 December 2008, 07:25 UTC)

[edit] Flag of Romania

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review again because I want to eliminate all possible mistakes in it, in order to apply for featured article status. The article seems to me to be well written and referenced (I wrote the Romanian version and Biruitorul translated it entirely in English). Also, I've taken into account the suggestions of the previous peer review. We could use again a fresh, neutral perspective.

I'm concerned about:

  • the hardest criteria to match (1-a) for FAs: "the article must be well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".
  • possible omissions of references where needed.
  • possible use of peacock terms.

Thanks, Alex:D (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments: The prose is poor and the article would quickly fail to achieve FA without a lot of further work. It's too big a job for me to take on but here are some pointers: check for "also", "only" and "as well as". Do not be tempted to over-dress the prose in an attempt to make the article sound encyclopedic (it has the opposite effect). Keep the sentences simple. Don't use "related" when you mean "similar". And, please do not quote the legislation (law numbers) in the body of the article; confine them to the footnotes. Some parts are poorly referenced, it's best to go a little over the top with referencing in my experience. Graham Colm Talk 10:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was afraid the prose wouldn't be briliant, because I am not a native English speaker. User:Biruitorul used "related to" not as "similar to" but as "influenced by". I'll move the law numbers inside the article to footnotes. For the last observation, some of the paragraphs are referenced by only one work, at their end. Should I repeat the reference where necessary? --Alex:D (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It is difficult to comment on your last point. Any facts in sentences that might be challenged should have a citation. If this means having to repeat the same reference, then do so. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 19:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 23 December 2008, 21:12 UTC)

[edit] William Barley

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


Article about a bookseller and publisher in Elizabethan England. My goal is to get this to WP:GA or WP:FA (although I wonder if it might be too short for the latter). Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, BuddingJournalist 19:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice article! I can think of a few things:
  • You might want to include a statement as to why someone could get arrested for not registering as a bookseller (I know when I write articles on Renaissance composers/musicians, I always have to go back and re-read for the possibility I'm making assumptions about my readers' background knowledge). So another paragraph about the situation in the publishing field, perhaps before the third paragraph under Draper's Company, might be helpful.
  • The lead could be crafted more into a statement of general significance and influence than it is; currently it launches straight off into biographical material.
  • For the case where he was found guilty (last paragraph under Draper's Company) was that in 1598? What happened (was he imprisoned, or merely fined?)
It's going to be good. You write well; the sources are high-quality; material is cited. Nice job! Glad to see someone else interested in this period. Antandrus (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, one of the things I struggled with was weaving succinct explanations of some of the idiosyncrasies of the time, such as the printing patents and the role of the Stationers' company. I think you're right about needing additional explanatory material before the Oxford arrest.
  • I'll work on making the lead sparkle more and discuss his overall importance. :) It is rather dull at the moment.
  • Yup, that was in 1598. What actually happened is unclear to me. Johnson quotes that they were committed "to the prison of the Fleete", so I guess I could say that they were sentenced to prison. However, Johnson never actually discusses whether they served any time or for how long. Presumably any prison time was short, since works bearing Barley's name appeared in 1598 and 1599.
  • Thanks for the comments! BuddingJournalist 20:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Can I just add what an exciting and well-written addition this article is to WP? Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Myke! BuddingJournalist 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

An interesting article and a welcome addition.

  • I thought it was a little unclear about monopolies and patents/copyrights. I get the impression that to be assigned was to have a patent for particular books, but I'm not sure. Clearly Barley did not have a patent for all music publishing. Also, it is not clear to me how Barley goes on publishing under the patent if it is the same as Morley's "defunct" monopoly (Two years later, Morley died, taking with him the music printing monopoly). Monopolies are for the whole trade, whereas patents are like copyrights, no? (Morley was also using East, so Barley was not his exclusive publisher.) It might be worth spelling out the previous history of the monopoly; I know that Tallis and Byrd were granted the monopoly for 21 years. When did this elapse, and what rights did Byrd have after Tallis died? Was Barley already publishing music before Morley took up the monopoly, as implied in the lead? (Were the composers angry because he was unassigned to do so?) What is the transition or relation between the patents of East and Barley? Did Barley print instrumental music because that had a separate monopoly to vocal music? I know that James I suspended monopolies in 1603. Did that affect individual patents?
Good point. I have added a paragraph that places Barley in the greater context of Elizabethan music publishing and that discusses Tallis, Byrd, and Morley. How does it look now? As far as monopolies vs. patents, in my research, the terms seemed to be used interchangeably (for example, I've seen the Tallis and Byrd monopoly also referred to as a patent). Is this not standard? BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Some publishers ignored his claim, however, and many music books printed during his later life gave him no recognition. What does recognition mean here? Did he require a fee (as with the East case)? If some publishers ignored his claim, what happened with those who did not ignore it? Barley himself published four books under his patent. From this I take it that the patent gave a right to recognition but not an exclusive right to publish, since he only published four books and others were publishing books. If he had the sole right to publishing, the courts would surely have banned or closed down other publishers. In short, what was "Barley's patent", exactly?
Unfortunately, scholars too are not sure as to what exactly "Barley's patent" entailed. It stemmed from the Morley patent, which meant that Barley and his assignees had exclusive rights to publish music (except metrical psalters), but it was clearly not very well enforced. Many of the music works published during this period do mention him on the imprint ("_publisher's name_, assigne of William Barley", which is what I meant by recognition), but many others do not. It could be that Barley was solely interested in collecting a fee and anyone who wished to print music needed to acknoledge him with "assigne of..." on the imprint. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of what happened to those who ignored his claim. Adams makes no acknowledgment of Barley, even after the court required him to. It's puzzling. BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Barley published Anthony Holborne's Pavans, Galliards, Almains (1599), the first work of music for instruments rather than voices to be printed in England." Is this certain? Does this mean the first with no vocal airs? Although the Byrd-Tallis monopoly for choral music would have crowded out non-vocal music, there had been a publishing spree before that time which I am sure included publications of transcriptions for instruments of airs and ballads, to be played without voices. I think it needs to be clearer what is meant here.
  • This is according to Grove. I assumed they meant the first work dedicated entirely to instrumental music. I'll do some more research though on this point. BuddingJournalist 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Barley's role in Elizabethan music publishing is a "contentious" one. It's not clear to me whether this means Barley was contentious or that his role has proved a contentious issue for historians.
  • The latter. Was it the wording that was unclear? BuddingJournalist 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I thought it might been that Barley was contentious, which it also seems that he was.qp10qp (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Reworded and added a sentence with some of the disparate opinions about him and his role. BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "partnering with". I've not heard this usage before, and suspect it might be AE.
  • Switched to "After becoming the assignee to". Should it be "assignee to" or "assignee for"? Yeah, the article was written in AE, as I wasn't confident enough in my British spellings; glad you've audited it for British English in your copyeditBuddingJournalist 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I would say "assignee of". It might be worth linking to Assignment (law) at first mention. qp10qp (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

*Two of the first works of music that he published were of dubious quality. According to scholars, contemporaries? At this stage in the article, an unexplained value judgement is a bit jarring.

  • Both. I recast the sentence to highlight the criticism by contemporaries.
This works.qp10qp (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "With Creede, Barley was involved in the publication of A Looking Glass for London and England (1594) and The True Tragedy of Richard III (1594)". This seems a little bald. What is the significance of these books?
  • Barley may have been the same William Barley who opened a branch office in Oxford. From what follows, it would seem certain that he was.
  • Do you mean that the evidence of what follows seems fairly certain, or that the way its written makes it seem so? If the former, I think I still want to keep the "may have been", as Johnson hedges as well on this point.
I don't think one can go from a "may" to a statement as if of fact, particularly with such circumstantial detail. What I do in these cases is disentangle the two views. I give the mainstream view as a fact. Then I say, either in the text or in a note, "Scholar x, however, expresses doubt that this was the same William Barley", or whatever. I think it helps the reader to put the doubt second, not first. qp10qp (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Unfortunately, Johnson is the only that discusses this, so I guess his is the mainstream view? :) He seems to think that it's quite probable that it was the same Barley, but he doesn't present it as fact. I've reworded the beginning of that paragraph so that it emphasizes that its probable rather than doubt. Is that OK? BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "In 1595, the Stationers' Company fined Barley 40 shillings for illicitly publishing a number of works" / "That same day, the Company's court settled a lawsuit Barley had brought against East concerning the copyrights on certain music books." Could the nature of this court be explained?
  • Did Barley author any of his publications, or were they all by others?
  • What instruments were his instrumental publications for? Lute, virginals?
  • Morley's pick of Barley as an assignee (rather than experienced printers such as Thomas East or Peter Short, both of whom had previously worked with Morley) is surprising. It could be that Morley was looking for a successful commercial outlet for his publications, and Barley's shop fit perfectly. Barley may have also had access to a music fount. This reads to me as if the other publishers didn't, but they must have done. If Barley had already published music before he worked with Morley, he must have had access to a fount, or to a printer who had one.
Barley used woodbocks for his previous works of music. However, as you point out, Johnson's reasoning here does seem a bit flimsy. I did some more reading, and Smith's argument makes more sense to me. I have rewritten that paragraph. BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • His widow, Harper. Why was she still called Harper if she was married to him? Her first name would be nice here, too, I think.
  • Oops. Error on my part. Harper switched to Mary. BuddingJournalist 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Could we have a little more about some of the books he published (something from an introduction or two, perhaps)? Otherwise the publishing story sounds a little perfunctory, as if these works were contentless. And if he was a pioneer, I think we should hear more about just how. One thing I do know is that there was an extraordinary flowering of music at this time, and it might be worth providing a touch of general musical context for the music section.

A very intriguing article and a pleasure to read. qp10qp (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks so much for the great copyedit and review. I'll look into your comments and queries over the next week or so. BuddingJournalist 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 20 December 2008, 19:30 UTC)

[edit] List of English monarchs

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try and get it elevated to FL status and want see what sort of things are needed to improve it. Cheers.

Thanks, Sotakeit (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Casliber

  • Would be great to get this Featured - some more on who decided the kings should start at Egbert (when did this become convention) and is there any dissent from this. also might be worth adding why the Saxon Edwards are not counted in the I-IIX numbering of Edwards..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Review

Overall the writing of the article is pretty good. The items in the tables of the list have citations and cosmetically everything is in order. However it is accepted practice on WP to make sure that every detail has a cited source to back it up. Not necessarily a citation on each sentence. However sources to back up what is in any given paragraph should be cited in that paragraph. For example I could write.

So and so such and such about X. X Bla blah blah.[2][3]

Just so long as the citations are nearby that's good enough for me.

There are some paragraphs in between the tables which write about each house of England which have no inline citations. Now from having read many of the articles I know that is in those paragraphs is true. All that needs to be done is the citations moved copied to the proper locations within the article. Once this is done I could rate this article as class A. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • There should be a single place with the start and end dates of a reign. For example under Henry VIII it says "21 April 1509–1547". I'd rather it say "21 April

1509–28 January 1547", which is more complete.

(Peer review added on Saturday 13 December 2008, 15:42 UTC)

[edit] Hubert Maga

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to bring it to featured status. Maga was a complex figure who successfully ruled over one of France's least valuable ex-colonies, Dahomey (now Benin). I'm sure he would love the constructive comments you will give me!

Thanks, ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 02:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Few Thoughts

Nice work! I left a few problems that need to be addressed, however. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 23:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Born a peasant in 1916, Maga served as a schoolmaster from 1936 to 1946, where he gained considerable influence among the uneducated. - 'Where' seems to be the wrong word, why not 1946, giving him considerable influence...
  • Capitalising on this, he was elected to Dahomey's territorial assembly in 1947 - 'Capitalising on this' also seems wrong, why not 'With this support,'?
  • served under various positions, including Premier from 1959-1960. - Served under -> Served in
  • His presidency oversaw a collapse of the national economy. - Oversaw makes it seem like the collapse was intentional.
  • There were little foreign investment in the country, and unemployment was on the rise. - were -> was, on the rise -> rising.
  • by way of forcing labor on the nation's youths. - Should be something like 'By forcing labour onto the nations youths'
  • unity crisis - What is a unity crisis? Wikilink if possible.
  • assassination attempt on him by the main opposition leader, Justin Ahomadegbé-Tomêtin, in May 1961. - Did Ahomadegbe-Tometin physically attempt to take Maga's life? Or was it co-ordinated by him?
  • By the time Maga set him free in November 1962 the president established a single-party state and many restrictions on the opposition press. - Doesn't mention Tometin being jailed before mentioning his release.
  • When riots over the release of a murderer broke out in the summer of 1963, they quickly refocused on Maga's handling of these problems. Again, this sentence doesn't give any context. How about, 'In 1963, NAME, a convicted murderer was released from prison, prompting riots around the country (?). Rioters blamed Maga for...'
    • Changed to "In 1963, Bokhiri, a convicted murderer was released from prison, prompting riots around the country. The focus of these riots soon shifted toward Maga's problems as president." ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 12:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • They became so intense that in October, Chief of Staff of the Dahomeyan Army Christophe Soglo took control of the country to prevent a civil war. - They -> The rioting. This seems to be chronologically after the start of the next paragraph.
  • After having Maga sign his resignation, Soglo gave Maga, Ahomadégbé-Tomêtin, and vice president Sourou Migan Apithy the title of Minister of State. -> Merge with last sentence of previous paragraph and reword remove passive voice. eg 'Maga was forced to resign by...'
  • Maga was incarcerated, though the former charge was dropped in 1964 and Maga took refuge in Paris. - How can he be incarcerated and then taking refuge in Paris? Did he escape? Or did he never go to jail?
  • The latter took over the chairmanship for a few months in 1972, until a new coup took place October 26 the same year, installing Major Mathieu Kérékou as the new President of the Republic. Flip the two clauses. eg 'On October 26 1972, Kerekou was installed by a coup, overthrowing the then chaiman Tometin.
  • Maga and the rest of the council were imprisoned and not released until 1981. - maybe Maga, along with the other members of the council were imprisoned until 1981.
  • Other than participated in the National Conference of 1990, which gave amnesty to all Beninese political refugees, Maga retired from public life. - Reword to maybe 'Maga retired from Public life in WHEN?, only making an appearance at the National conference of 1990. etc.

Those are just initial comments about the lead. There are some prose issues further on in the text, I haven't got enough time to list them. Maybe getting another member of the local WikiProject, or a WP:GoCE member to copyedit for you would be a good idea. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 23:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 10 December 2008, 02:07 UTC)

[edit] Geography and places

[edit] Hillsboro, Oregon

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review as it passed GA more than a year ago and has gone through additional improvements and refinements to prep for FA. Looking to see if there is anything more people think would be needed for a successful run at FA.

Thanks, Aboutmovies (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 7 January 2009, 08:09 UTC)

[edit] 1970 Tonghai earthquake

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it was pretty much a collaborative work between User:Editorofthewiki and I, he did the expansion, but I created it and copy edited it. I want to bring it to FA status.

Thanks, ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 14:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
  • The earthquake, on the other hand, had a magnitude of 7.7 and killed at least 15,000 people. - No need for "on the other hand".
  • done. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 15:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The earthquake, which occurred during the height of the Cultural Revolution, was not widely publicized by the Chinese government for several decades. - Is 18 years really several decades?
  • Yunnan Province has seen some of the most earthquakes of any province in China. - "Seen" → "experienced".
  • I was going to change this but couldn't find a synonym. Changed to endured. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 16:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The earliest earthquake recorded there was in the 9th century, and strong ones have been observed since the 15th century. - This would read better as "The earliest recorded earthquake there was in the 9th century; strong ones have been observed since the 15th century.".
  • Done, though I tweaked your sentence a little. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 16:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It was located in a tobacco growing region. - This sentence is a tad choppy. Is it possible to merge it into another sentence?
  • It caused 31 miles (50 km) of surface faulting on the Tonghai Fault. - A bit of jargon here; what's "surface faulting"?

Good work, overall. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  • some of the most earthquakes - if its the most then some of is redundant if not contradictory. ϢereSpielChequers 16:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yup, noticed that before too. Changed to many earthquakes, making it one the most seismically active... ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 16:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
population figures for Kunming especially differ from those in our articles on those cities. If thats because cities have grown or shrunk since then it is worth saying "which then had a population of". "Effects of the rupture were felt through seven counties and over 5,456 miles (8,781 km) away", I thought at first that maybe counties was a typo for countries, but there are more than 7 in that radius. Is it possible that damage/casualties were spread over 7 counties and the tremor was felt over 5,456 miles (8,781 km) away? ϢereSpielChequers 16:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess, I'll consult Ed. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 16:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Definitely at the time. Clarified. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 17:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
How many people lost their homes? Also after this length of time it would be nice to know how the reconstruction went - x thousand homes destroyed or rendered uninhabitable of which Y were reconstructed within z months (including w thousand on safer more stable sites). It should also be possible to put in some context such as the area's population has subsequently increased by xxx% The following major HydroElectric schemes have been built or are under consideration in the area, or close to the fault. ϢereSpielChequers 17:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The Chinese government didn't disclose much information, such as the amount of homes destroyed or how long the reconstruction lasted. I honestly don't see why we should talk about the area's population, because this article is about the quake itself. The only reason I mentioned the earthquake monitering system was because the 1970 Tonghai earthquake was cited as inspitation. Will clarify. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess that's the nub of natural disaster articles. Some of us are mainly interested in how they effected people, others in how they effected the planet. IMHO a comprehensive article on a natural disaster should cover both. ϢereSpielChequers 19:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
And that is what we have attempted to do. The article, however, should only cover things that happened in the area in the aftermath if they are related to the quake. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. It seems to me this needs a lot of work to get to FA, one of the WP:WIAFA criteria is comprehensiveness and this seems a bit sparse for an earthquake that killed over 15,000 people.

  • The lead should 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 (so not sure about the note in the lead). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • Since this is an article about China, which uses the metric system, metric units should come first per the MOS.
  • 1970 was in the 20th century, not the 19th. We are now in the 21st century.
  • done. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • A few ideas for expansion if possible: Where were most of the casualties? How many were injured? How many buildings destroyed and how many people made homeless?
  • The language is not up to the professional level required for FA. One example: Evidence was collected over a broad area of almost 1400 towns, respectively.[8] The respectively is not needed
  • This sentence is troublesome: Government officials from China released a different estimate in 2000, putting the death toll at around 15,000.[6] - a more specific number is given earlier, so why not here? Also, in what context did this new estimate occur? See WP:PCR

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 29 December 2008, 14:37 UTC)

[edit] List of counties in Indiana

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because…I know I've got a while to go with adding some references and expanding the lead, but I'd like some feedback on what I can do to make this a featured list.

Thanks, Reywas92Talk 21:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Firstly, well done. You have no idea how refreshing it is to see a list on Wikipedia that's well written, well presented, well sourced and about a worthy topic. I hate listcruft. Now the suggestions:
  • In the first map, what do the different colours mean?
  • The second paragraph is a bit awkward. It seems to contain a lot of trivia and the sentences are often clunky. That shouldn't take much to fix though.
  • The second paragraph has a lot of bluelinks, a fact the bot has already noticed. Since they're mainly place names that should be linked, there's not an awful lot you can do about it. Maybe try to separate them, or delink some of them if they appear somewhere else in the article.
  • Sometimes the word "county" has a capital C, other times not. You should pick one and stick with it. (I'm talking about "county" appearing on its own, not as part of a name of a county)
  • I was going to say something about the lead, but you seem to know all about it.

This is, in my opinion, not terribly far from featured list quality. Well done. I hope my suggestions help. Reyk YO! 07:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 28 December 2008, 21:32 UTC)

[edit] Columbia Slough

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare it for FAC. This is the fourth article in a series of six about small streams important to Portland, Oregon. Three of these articles are FA, and I've taken this one about as far as I can. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

(Peer review added on Sunday 28 December 2008, 00:33 UTC)

[edit] Roxy Ann Peak

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it just attained GA status in mid November, and I want to know what else it needs to have to hopefully become a Featured Article. The GA reviewer, Backslash Forwardslash, has already stated that it needs better prose, and a larger history section. I'm looking for more detailed information on how it could be improved.

Thanks, LittleMountain5 17:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


Brianboulton comments: These are my comments on the lead, the History and the Prescott Park sections

  • Lead: To meet FA criteria, the lead will have to be developed from this brief introduction into a full summary of the article in accordance with WP:LEAD. Also, re over-linking, "radio tower" and "summit" are everyday terms and don't require linking.
  • History
    • There needs to be some link between the ancient history and more modern times. For example, the fourth setence could be amended to: "In more recent times, residents of Rogue Valley have claimed that Roxy Anne Peak was once known as..." etc
      Done.
    • "They owned the land for nearly seventy years". Are we talking about two very long-lived couples here, or do you mean that their families owned the land for nearly 70 years?
      Done.
    • References in the section to "residents of Rogue Valley" and "residents of Medford" are a little confusing. When you expand the lead you should make a point of clarifying what Rogue Valley is. Having linked Rogue Valley in the lead, you don't need to link it again here.
      Unlinked, will clarify in lead later.
  • Prescott Park
    • For what purpose did the Lions donate the Land to Medford?
      I'm not sure, and will try to find the information somewhere...
    • Instad of "A year after that..." you could say: "In 1931..." etc**
      Done.
    • You need some more text after "...Federal Land for Parks Act", to explain that the donated land and the additional purchase were used to create a park. Say how much of the mountain is within the park, and also the range of uses the park caters for. This sort of detail will make the jump to the late 1990s litter problems, etc., seem a little less sudden.
    • "...which ceated even more of a strain..." Even more than what? - what is the comparator here?
      I think I fixed it, although the sentence still sounds a bit strange.
    • Since the summit of a mountain is a particular point, "covers much of the summit" doesn't really make sense. You should reword, and absorb into the more detailed description of the park suggested above.
      Reworded.

Perhaps you would respond to these points. I'll continue with the review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review! All of those suggestions sound good, I'll do it. Again, thanks for your time :) LittleMountain5 01:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, I just noticed something that maybe you can answer. All of the refs have the parameters accessmonthday and accessyear, but about 8 in the reflist at the bottom don't show 'Retrieved on' etc. I can't figure out why some work, and some don't. LittleMountain5 01:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed your retrieval dates. All I did was to change Ref 2 from "cite web" to "cite news". I'm not sure why this worked, but it seems to have done. You might want to try a bit of experimentation to see why some "retrieveds" are lower case and some upper. Strange is the world of citation templates! Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I think Katr67 and I fixed them. LittleMountain5 22:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Continuing the review:-

  • Geology
    • It is not clear why the peak's appearance is described as "unique"
      Done.
    • What does "the difference in elevation" mean? Does it simply mean "height"?
      Done.
    • "...has plagued construction workers since the 1970s". Did it not plague them before? Or did construction on the slopes only begin in the 1970s? Needs clarification.
      Done.
    • I don't think the final three sentences of the section have much to do with geology.
      Split to new section.

Reading on. Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Geography: the section is hardly about geography; it is rather a miscellany of facts. I have hived off the property development stuff into a second paragraph. Perhaps the section needs a different title.
    Any suggestions for a name? I've split the section.

Overall, I think the all parts of the article could do with some expansion. At 800+ words the text is rather slight to describe a landmark geographical feature. Perhaps more could be said about the nature of Prescott Park, its facilities etc; about the population demographics of the area; about any local industries beyond the winery you have mentioned. Does the peak attract visitors? Are there nature trails, etc? These are only suggestions for enlargement; there may be better ideas. The images are good, and there is no particular problem with the prose, but I would like to learn a little more. Brianboulton (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your the comments, I'll try to carry them out. LittleMountain5 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 23 December 2008, 17:11 UTC)

[edit] Dysart, Fife

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because i have done some work on the article since the last time it was nominated. I wonder if my work has been enough to achieve B status? I don't think i'm there yet.

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Jolly Janner

Lead
  • The first sentence refers to it as a district, but the second sentence jumps in with "The town...". It would be better to call it a "district and town" in the first sentence.
  • "to the east of Kirkcaldy" how far east (in miles and kilometres)?
  • I often see articles about settlements refering to the geography in the first paragrph of the lead. I think a mention that it is on the coast wouldn't go a miss.
  • "Following the death of the town's harbour" do harbours die? I think words like "closure" or "decline" are more appropriate.
  • "saw large parts of the antique town" I think "historical" would be a better word than "antique" and again in the next sentence, unless that's what it's called localy.
  • "Nowadays, the town retains an individual character" I think "today" would be a better word than "nowadays", but how does it retain an individual character?

I'll try and do the rest later. Jolly Ω Janner 01:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

  • In landmarks, what is a "stone ogile roof"? Specifically the word ogile.

(Peer review added on Sunday 21 December 2008, 20:26 UTC)

[edit] Port of Albany-Rensselaer

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like comments on improving towards GA status and help on any grammar or style or content issues. I think the article is good enough for GA status but I believe I'm biased as I've been working on it so long. Thanks, Camelbinky (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments per talk page request: First, editing disclaimer #852: Review points listed are in no particular order and may range from major flaw to incredibly nit-picky. I may or may not add more points later that I deliberately or inadvertently skipped over. I promise my feelings won't be hurt if the author(s) disagree with and decline to address a review point, provided that the author(s) in turn promise not to have their feelings hurt from me posting the point in the first place.

  • The TOCnestright formatting has got to go. The TOC stacks next to the infobox and leaves just a short column of content for the length of the TOC, here even if I use a maximized window on a wide-screen monitor. If I reduce the browser window to a smaller but still-reasonable size, all text content squirts below the TOC, leaving an ugly blank area on the left.
DoneCamelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Under the Climate subsection, there is only the sentence "The Port of Albany has year-round operations." That is not a description of a climate; that is a schedule of operations. The schedule may be a consequence of the climate, but more needs to go here, or else the section header needs to change.
Removed Climate subsectionCamelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • GA/FA reviewers will likely complain about one-sentence sections. One-sentence paragraphs are also a common complaint. Although occasionally acceptable (you may have a problem convincing reviewers of that fact), here the many one- or two-sentence sections make the article content look sparse and in need of expansion.
Expanded or combined one-sentence sections and paragraphs. Camelbinky (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pre-1932 and Post-1932 history sections. Strictly speaking, that means that 1932 isn't listed, only the years before 1932 and after 1932. Regardless of that nit, the current titles do not make clear to readers why the year 1932 divides the sections. You may want to make the two section headers more descriptive to act as a better overview. For example, change them to something like "Albany Basin" and "Westerlo Island", or "Original port" and "Modern port", as a general idea, though preferably with better titles than my own not particularly inspired ones.
Removed subsection titles altogether, combining into one history section.Camelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The end sentence of the Pre-1932 section "The grain elevator at the port... was the largest in the world and as of 2008 was still considered by its current owner Cargill to be the largest in the United States east of the Mississippi River". This sounds vaguely sinister. Is there a controversy, such that other entities disagree with this "largest" assertion in 2008?
reworded to make less sinister and wishywashyCamelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The Post-1932 section begins with a discussion of an event in 2002. That is quite a leap in time. Did nothing noteworthy happen for 70 years, then three noteworthy things happened in six years?
  • Cite the 2008 theft.
Done Camelbinky (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Done Camelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In the Facilities section, the list entry "Wharf length on the Albany side of the river is 4,200 feet with four berths and on the Rensselaer side the length is 1,100 feet with one berth" is problematic. The port doesn't include "Wharf length... is 4,200 feet...". The entry needs to be reworded such that it makes grammatical sense tied with the leading "The Port of Albany includes:".
Done Camelbinky (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Under the Cargo section listing commodities, is "Heavy lift" a commodity, or are heavy lift items a commodity? I don't know. Also, consider making "Commodities included-" end with a colon rather than a dash. Further, do the "grain" and "petroleum distillates" only include what is listed in parentheses, or are those items just a subset? If a subset, you should add "including" or "for example" so that items in parentheses do not read as a comprehensive list.
Heavy lift problem fixed, colon added, subset problem fixed.Camelbinky (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Re: "The USS Slater (DE-766) is the only destroyer escort still afloat in the United States, it is a museum open from April to November to the public at the Snow Dock." This is a comma splice. At a minimum you should use a semi-colon rather than a comma, although reworking the wording to avoid the need might be a better solution.
Done Camelbinky (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Re: "The Snow Dock at the Port of Albany is also home to Dutch Apple Cruises, a private company, which gives day cruises on the Hudson River and Erie Canal." Drop the "also". It's too far for the "also" to reach back across other subsections to the initial mention of "Snow Dock".
Done Camelbinky (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The article has references listed both before and after punctuation. Be consistent. The Manual of Style states a preference of placing references after punctuation, so unless you have a burning need to put references before punction and are willing to debate the point with reviewers, place them after commas, periods, colons, and all other punctuation.
DoneCamelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "port" is wikilinked in the lead sentence. Do not place a link to "port" in the "See also" section, unless you have a good reason to do so, per WP:SEEALSO. I don't see a good reason to do so here.
Removed link in "See also"Camelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There are one or two extra whitespace lines that don't appear to be needed.
RemovedCamelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I see a few other other minor wording and grammar issues. Additional low-level copyediting would be a good idea, if you can wrangle a decent copyeditor. They seem scarce nowadays; perhaps they are hiding until the new year, then will pop out en masse and surprise us all. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 18 December 2008, 23:24 UTC)

[edit] Woodland, California

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because…

...I think that a peer review would be very beneficial to this article. I'd like to get input and perspectives from others on how to better this article. In the near future I would like this article to make GA status, and hopefully one day FA status. I have just changed all the references to cite template references and I've made changes according to a feeback post from WP:FEED. Most of the major work on the article I completed this past summer.

Thanks in advance, Killiondude (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Your idea of using FA city articles as models is a good one, and I see that you've been looking at the WP:CITY page for ideas, and that is also good. I see at least one big problem with the article as it stands, and I have some suggestions for improvement.

  • The big problem is that the entire "Indigenous culture" subsection of the "History" section is copied word-for-word from the source. Even if the source material were licensed for unlimited reproduction, which it does not seem to be, copying is bad. It's much harder to read source material, to abstract from it, and to re-state the main points in new language, but that's what has to be done. The task is easier if you can find multiple sources for each of the content sections. My first suggestion, then, is to do more research on the indigenous culture(s) of Woodland and to re-write this section. The next thing to do would be to check the other sections of the article to make sure the copying problem has not occurred there as well.
Y Done -Killiondude (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Many parts of the article lack sources. Personal research, which often amounts to "I saw it with my own eyes", can't substitute for a verifiable source. Please see WP:V. My rule of thumb is to include a source for every paragraph, every unusual claim, every direct quote, and every statistic or quantitative claim. Groups of statistics may need only one source for the whole group. The whole "Economy" section of the article is unsourced. Much of the history is unsourced. The claim about the size of the plot of land the Yolo Museum sits on needs a source.
  • Generally, short paragraphs of only one or two sentences should either be expanded or merged with other paragraphs. Ditto for short sections.
In progress. I began to do this yesterday with a few sections, and will continue. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest adding a "Geography" section that would include information about where Woodland is in relation to surrounding towns and cities, what highways pass through or near it, what rivers or streams pass through or near it, and so on. Something about the geology of the Woodland area would be good to include in this section as well. Soils, rock types, and unusual formations, if any, could be mentioned here.
Y Done-ish. See comment below. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • A "Climate" section would also be a good idea. This could include information about temperatures, precipitation, growing seasons, winds, storms, or anything else related to climate.
Y Done. See comment below. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead of a Wikipedia article should be a summary or abstract of the ideas developed in the main text sections and should not introduce material that is undeveloped in the main text sections. I'd suggest adding "Geography" and "Climate" first and then re-writing the lead to include at least a mention of those two and all of the other sections that are not mentioned in the existing lead. Please see WP:LEAD.

I hope these brief comments prove helpful. I would suggest tackling the copying/copyvio problem first. Finetooth (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

They were useful. It took me a few hours tonight, but I finished rewording and marking where facts were taking from, all throughout the history section. I also cleaned things up and (hopefully) made it more clear in the indigenous people section. I'll work more on the article tomorrow in regards to your other suggestions. Killiondude (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday (or perhaps a couple days ago) I began to merge several short paragraphs into larger paragraphs. I'll continue this, and try to fix short, choppy sentences. I just added a geography section (with a "climate" subsection). I have no references for the geography section other than "I saw it with my own eyes", which I know is looked down upon, but Woodland doesn't really have a whole lot of coverage. The climate section's table info I got from the Weather Channel, but again, coverage on Woodland's climate is not extensive. I will continue to add info to both the Climate and Geography section (finding sources if at all possible), but I feel that right now all I have to work with (for these two topics) are stuff that I know from living there. Any suggestions for this dilemma would be greatly appreciated. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 16 December 2008, 07:53 UTC)

[edit] Larbert

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I'd be grateful for any feedback on this article. It isn't the most rivetting of subjects. I expanded the article about a year ago and would be delighted for any advice Wikipedians might want to give on how to improve it.

Thanks, Globaltraveller (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I liked this article a lot. I thought it needed a copyedit to fix small things mostly related to the Manual of Style or to improve the prose flow here and there. Thus, I did a copyedit as well as this peer review. I think you could try for GA soon, and you might think in terms of what you would need to do to try for FA. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.

  • The Manual of Style generally deprecates orphan paragraphs consisting of only one or two sentences. The existing article has several, such as the first two paragraphs of the History section and the waste-management paragraph of the "Public amenities" section. You can solve the problem either by expanding the orphans or merging them with other paragraphs.
  • I noticed that the article's talk page says that "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain." However, I don't see any mention of that encyclopedia in the article or its citations. Maybe I'm just missing it, but if not, shouldn't it be there? I would not have guessed from reading the article that any of it came from Encyclopedia Britannica.
  • Possibilities for expansion occurred to me as I read. I wondered about precipitation amounts and whether it fell only as rain. Likewise, I wondered about temperatures. It might be possible to create a Larbert climate chart such as the one used in the "Climate" section of Edinburgh. In the "Public amenities" section, you might include information about other utilities such as water, phone, electricity, cable television, and Internet service. Mention of public parks, if any, might go here too. The "Demography" section might include statistics about gender, race, and religion if the data is available.
  • I didn't know what the term "purpose built" meant in the phrase "a new purpose built 434-pupil primary school". One solution would be to delete "purpose built", but it might mean something specific that I'm unfamiliar with.
  • A reference to (Hall and Hunter 2001) appears at the end of the fourth paragraph of the "History" section. This should probably be turned into an in-line citation with title, publisher, etc.
  • The lead should be a summary or abstract of the whole article. The existing lead is good but could be improved by adding at least a mention of government, transportation, and perhaps a famous Larbert person.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful to you. If you can find the time, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Alan.ca Comments

  • Try not to write article text into a thumbnail of a photograph. Keep article text in the paragraph and your image captions short.
  • Try to use citation templates when citing your sources. See WP:CITE for more information.
  • As referenced by the previous review, try to follow the guidelines for the lead as described in WP:LEAD.
  • Try to avoid stray sentences by working towards cohesive and complete paragraphs.
  • Get out and take some photos under good light! The photos in the article are a good start, but the desperately need upgrading in most cases.

I was impressed by the effort put into citing the sources of the material. Content with cited sources is a critical step towards creating a Feature Article. I will rate it a C class article for WP:City. Alan.ca (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 13 December 2008, 18:58 UTC)

[edit] Engineering and technology

[edit] B-52 Stratofortress

Previous peer review
Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it is a pretty good article which is looking like it could go through FAC soon. This is mainly a request for any last minutes polishing to it.

Thanks, Xclamation point 21:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 January 2009, 21:53 UTC)

[edit] Hellingly Hospital Railway

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because despite being short, I think this article meets the primary criterion all Wikipedia articles should aim for, of saying everything about the topic that a general reader would want to know, whilst not going into unnecessary detail that would only be of interest to a true specialist (it does contain appropriate links for anyone who does want to know more!). I'm aware that it has some stylistic issues – IMO the short sections are due to the fact that there's not much to be said on some of the sections, but the separate sections exist because there's no obvious way to merge them (in particular, I'm aware that the lead is quite short – however, I don't see an obvious reason to expand it). The article's been through the GA process already, as well as a stint as featured article at Portal:Trains (not the same thing as FA), and been extensively cleaned up and slimmed down along the way; I'd be interested to see what suggestions uninvolved editors would have for it.

Thanks,  – iridescent 20:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Realist2

BTW, I add points in stages. So I might add more in time.

  • Reference formatting issue in relation to publishing dates and retrieved dates. Some read "Retrieved on 29 May 2008" and others read "Retrieved on 2008-06-06". Pick one format and run with it. ;) — Realist2 21:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • That's an artifact of {{cite journal}} and I'm not aware of any way to disable its "automatic translation" of dates (someone else may be able to). I thought date delinking was supposed to put a stop to this kind of thing, but obviously not. – iridescent 21:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I did something similar myself today, I'll have a fiddle with the article if you like, see if it can be done, if not, no worry. — Realist2 21:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Ideally, I'd like a way to fix this one ref that's causing the problem, instead of changing every other ref to match. Leave it as it is for the moment – it's not doing any active harm, and someone might know a quick-fix solution. – iridescent 21:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Looks good. — Realist2 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Lamberhurst

I thought I would comment as I personally know this line and have walked some of its course. As you mention above, the article has (imho) too many subsections with little content; in particular, the "history", "steam operation" and "electrification" seem to cover the same area, although don't follow a chronological order. It needs tightening up and a better organisation of the different areas: (1) Inception and construction, (2) Opening and operations (goods and passengers), (3) Decline and closure, (4) Motive power and (5) Route. Better images (and recent images) would also be useful: Geograph may be able to help out with a photograph of the hospital, and there is a PD image of Hellingly station with its wooden platform. Instead of the small route map, would a standard route diagram template not be clearer? In terms of beefing up the content, have you looked at A.C. Elliott's book on the Cuckoo Line, I believe it might have something. Finally, you may wish to wikify your references to the Cuckoo Trail and Hailsham. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the route map, I did consider a standard route diagram, but for a route like this it would basically just be a letter T and effectively useless; the "MS Paint doodle" map may be totally non-standard, but shows the way the track curved and looped so sharply on its approach to the hospital, and also makes it easier for anyone trying to trace the route on a current map or aerial photo. The drawings of the platform layout I think is useful as it illustrates a rather complicated explanation of how trains needed to reverse in and out of the mainline station due to the eccentric way the track branches north, south of the station.
If you can find undisputed PD photos of the railway in operation, or of the wooden platform, please do point me towards them or add them! I found lots of "probably PD" photos, but they all seem to be undated, and given how early the line opened and that it used the same engine throughout, it's hard to be date photos just by looking at them. (The one I used appeared in a 1906 magazine, so can be dated.) Likewise, if you can find any photos of the hospital – particularly showing the doors to the rail station – please let me know! I couldn't find any, haven't had the chance to go myself, but because the building is still standing couldn't really justify fair-use.
Many thanks for commenting. I agree about merging into a single "operations" section, unless someone else is able to expand the history – although I think I've pretty much covered all that needs to be covered in that particular area. I've wikilinked Cuckoo Trail and the first appearance of Hailsham in the lead and body text respectively; I think any more would be overlinking given how short the article is. – iridescent 23:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The image I was thinking of is featured in the Vobes documentary. I'll see if I can find a date for it. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Postally used in 1915. Now uploaded to the Commons. [5] Lamberhurst (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! I'm not ignoring you – I haven't had time to do anything with this – but I think all your suggestions are good ones and will rework the article as you suggest when I get the chance. – iridescent 16:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

All ✓ Done. I've used a slightly different section order to that you've suggested, as I think it makes for a clearer opening → operating → closing narrative structure. I'm still having trouble finding definitely PD images of the line itself in operation (there are lots of images about, but very few are dated, and because the rolling stock didn't change it's vary hard to date them from context). However, since the same locomotive was used throughout, a single photo should suffice. – iridescent 18:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Mjroots

No mention is made in the article of the voltage that the line was electrified at. I've mentioned this on the article talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Ansbaradigeidfran

Having encountered the article through a peer review link from WP:UKT, I knew nothing about the location of this railway when I read the article. I'd have found a location map to be very helpful, perhaps something like this (if I may be so bold as to give some of my own work as an example). Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I might do if I can think of a workable way to do it. The problem is that because it's such a short line any map would need to be at a small scale; however, because it ran from the edge of Hellingly through open countryside, any map would basically be a wiggly line against a featureless green background (basically the existing route map – see right – with a grey blob immediately to the west of the mainline station for the village). See this Google Earth image showing the former Hellingly station; the curving line of trees branching north from the mainline trackbed immediately south of the station and heading northeast alongside "Park Road" and "The Drive" more or less follows the course of the trackbed from the village to the hospital. Zoom out, and you'll see there really isn't much surrounding geography to give any kind of broader context, and at a scale showing Eastbourne and Hailsham – the only significant nearby towns – the line would be lost completely. – iridescent 16:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 29 December 2008, 20:43 UTC)

[edit] Puerto Rican scientists and inventors

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I have requested a peer review of this list in order to establish what should be expected in a future nomination. The piece, written and created by Tony the Marine, one of this project's veteran writers and a cornerstone of WP:PUR, covers the biographical aspects of research done in Puerto Rico (or by Puerto Ricans elsewhere). I take responsibility of this review, particularly based on the significant amount of research that has been invested upon it. Thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  • You need to do extensive copyediting. I've done a fair bit just now, but I reckon there's heaps that I've missed. And you can never do enough copyediting.
  • Consider renaming this List of Puerto Rican scientists and inventors, since this article appears to be more a list of individual Puerto Rican scientists than an article covering them as a whole.
  • There are a lot of portraits that haven't got borders or captions. This doesn't look good- the reader is forever looking backwards and forwards, matching the faces on the right with the names on the left.
  • The whole thing looks messy somehow. Particularly the Aerospace section, which is very long and doesn't seem very organized. Consider organizing all the people into tables. An excellent example of a list containing tables of people along with portraits and short descriptions of them can be found here.
  • For each subject area you've got a short paragraph explaining what it is. I don't think that's necessary; we have articles on all those things. But if you want to keep them in, you've missed the one for Agriculture.

I hope you don't think I'm being harsh with my criticism, but I think this article is still a way off meeting GA or WP:FA status. Best of luck, and feel free to drop me a message at my talk page any time. Regards, Reyk YO! 04:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 28 December 2008, 03:46 UTC)

[edit] 2008 in spaceflight

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some suggestions on how to improve it, and others like it. I would be particularly interested in:

  • Ideas for what to put in the lead of the article
  • Comments on the general appearance, layout and content of the article
  • Suggestions for content that could be added to the article
  • Any way that images could be added to the article

Thanks --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 in spaceflight/archive1.

(Peer review added on Friday 26 December 2008, 10:36 UTC)

[edit] Norton Internet Security

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I did some extensive cleanup, clarification, and added content. I am interested in how it reads.

Thanks, TechOutsider (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)TechOutsider

Comments by Uncia (talk · contribs)

What's the purpose of the article, and who is the intended reader? This is not very clear as it stands, as the article is something of a hodge-podge. It consists of a brief history, some techie stuff about how it works, a lot of brief excerpts from lab tests, and finally some screenshots shown with no explanation of their significance.

I suggest that the focus of the article should be changed so it would be useful to someone who has heard about viruses and other dangers of the Internet, wonders what it is all about, and wants to know how NIS fits into the picture. It should not be a product review; that's a job for the computer magazines, and Wikipedia cannot do product reviews because that would be WP:OR. Take a look at some of the Good Articles and Featured Articles in computing and see how that are pitched; for example Mozilla Firefox which is a much more comprehensive article but has a good organization and flow.

Some specific comments:

  • The article has a lot of jargon terms that will be unfamiliar to many readers, and these need to be wikilinked (or explained if there's no article); for example: malware, zero-day software, SHA256, firewall, phishing, parental controls, privacy controls, pop-up blocking, ad blocking, "allow/deny" pop-ups, NTFS file system, database, LiveUpdate, honeypot, IP addresses
  • It would be useful to mention the other major players in this field, maybe with some comments about market share, or at least wikilinks to their articles if they have one. Since there are free products available, what is Symantec's secret to get people to pay for NIS?
  • The "Independent assessments" section is too long - select 3 or 4 of the most useful of these and highlight them in a Critical reception section. You need to give a specific citation for each one you reference.
  • The screen shots are not low-resolution as claimed; because they are copyrighted and used under fair-use, they need to be shrunk to just the size needed for the article.
  • For references 1 & 2, and the hyperlinks in "Version 2006 and previous", "Version 2008 (15.0)", "Criticisms" please use a full template such as Template:Cite news or Template:Cite web and not just the URL; this is important so that in case the URL changes there will be title and description info to help us find it again.

(Peer review added on Tuesday 23 December 2008, 04:47 UTC)

[edit] California State Route 78

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review


This is a GA that I would like to take to FAC. Its ACR is currently dormant, and I would like to get some feedback before I take it to FAC. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article reads very well. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • In the infobox, the level of precision for the total length of the highway invites doubt. The source document lists segments to the third place to the right of the decimal, but it's hard to imagine that realignment or something has never thrown this off a little here or there. If the total is accurate to within five feet (about 0.001 mile), no problem.
  • Some of the routes such as State Route 78 (SR 78) are given with their full names and abbreviations on first reference, while others such as Route 86 are not. It would be good to be consistent throughout. You might look at other highway articles at WP:FA#Transport to see how other editors have handled this.
  • U.S. 99 is linked three times in the short "Early history" section. Once would be enough.
  • Time-related terms like "today" and "recent" are ambiguous. The money conversions such as "(about $27 million today" would be more clear if "today" were changed to "as of 2008". The subhead "Recent events" might become "1999–" or "Since 1999" or something similar.
  • The last sentence of the "Construction" section is an orphan that could be merged with the paragraph above it. It's not clear why Jacob Dekema, whoever he might be, is mentioned. Perhaps the paragraph could be recast as follows: "In 1969, plans to extend the freeway portion of SR 78 east from the Broadway interchange through Escondido were abandoned for lack of funding." This sentence could then fit chronologically into the paragraph above it.
  • In the "Construction" section, it would be good to explain or link "grade-separated" and "at grade".
  • It would liven up the prose a bit to replace some of the "there is" and "there are" constructions with something more forceful. For example, "As late as 1919, there was no road connecting Brawley with Glamis along the route of SR 78; one had to travel north through Calipatria to reach Blythe" could become "As late as 1919, no road connected Brawley... ".
  • "One" in the sentence above is a Manual of Style no-no. Perhaps this would do: "As late as 1919, no road connected Brawley with Glamis along the route of SR 78. Before that it was necessary to travel...".
  • Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, Citation 36 is missing its publication date even though the date, April 2005, appears on the first page of the source document. It would be good to add isbns for the maps if you have them or can find them. Just add |isbn = to the template, filling in the isbn after the equals sign.
  • Perhaps the explanatory note for the "Major intersections" table could say what the prefix letters R, T, and N stand for.
    • Already explained in the Postmile article; there's a table that defines the prefixes. --Mgillfr (talk) 01